Will there ever be another pitcher who wins the MVP?

Question

I think Roger Clemens was the last to do it in '84. I know that the current wisdom is that only an everyday player should win the award, but It seems to me that some have come to think that this is actually a RULE. Its not. I just wonder if a pitcher who is truly outstanding enough to win the award will be denied it because of this prejudice against a pitcher winning it.

Enforcer, Chip, thanks for bringing me up to speed. I usually research these things better!

Answer 1

Clemens was the last starter to win. Eck won the AL MVP in 1992.

As to your question -- God I hope so. I am so damn sick of this idiotic "no pitcher can possibly be as valuable as a "Real"(TM) Everyday Player" meme. Whoever thought this one up, and propagated it, deserves to be (a) elected to the Deceitful Marketing Hall Of Fame and (b) tarred, feathered, and put to death, followed by a fair and impartial trial.

But to the point -- if Pedro Martinez in 1999 or (even moreso) 2000 could not win MVP, no pitcher can (he finished second and fifth, respectively). The writers simply will not do it, will not vote for a starting pitcher EVEN WHEN HE IS UTTERLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY DESERVING.

The writers have totally abdicated the rather simplistic intellectual responsibilities of their privileged positions. Next time you see a voting sportwriter, kick him or her in the shin and tell 'em it's from me.

Answer 2

Some folks like to claim that words make little difference, but the MVP award is small proof of the power of words.

By calling it the "Most Valuable Player" award we've been blessed with 75 years of what that actually means. There has been a fair share of controversy over the years specifically because people interpret how the award should be..well...awarded. If it had been called "Player of the Year" or "Batter of the Year" or something more specific then baseball fans would not be embroiled in this controversy on an almost annual basis.

I've rambled long enough. To answer your question: yes, I do believe another pitcher will someday win it simply because they're eligible.

Answer 3

to respond to your question and a few incorrect information in what has been responded already. definite many pitchers have gained the mvp interior the previous, in spite of the undeniable fact that using fact the Cy youthful award substitute into further in 1956 in user-friendly terms 9 pitchers have gained, maximum interior the 1st couple of years. in user-friendly terms 4 pitchers have gained when you consider that seventy two and none when you consider that 87 and 3 of them have been relief pitchers. Verlnader is on %. to bypass Pedro's runner up numbers. He could hit 26 wins this 365 days. His era is nice with Pedro and his whip is decrease. He possibly won't attain the strike out point although. His dominance this 365 days is unquestionably surprising. in accordance to examine completed at hardball situations as of two starts in the past he had the 5th maximum dominant season going and alter into on %. to take over the suitable spot (at present Nolan Ryan) Now he would possibly no longer win the MVP yet he's a sturdy candidate. He leads in 5 of 6 significant categories and is 2nd interior the only one he would not lead. in user-friendly terms Jose Bautista can declare something on the component of that as he leads in 3 of 6 and maintains to be interior the suitable 10 in the different 3.

Answer 4

I don't think so, a pitcher would have to dominate soooo much to earn that kind of recognition especially because there is already a separate award given to the best pitcher. You look at some of Johan Santana's seasons and he clearly dominated in every pitching category, but it just doesn't get noticed enough, not to mention that pitchers see at max like 40 starts, and even that's pushing it. I just don't think 40 games out of 162 will earn you the title of Most Valuable Player.

Answer 5

I hope not. Pitchers have Cy Young, hitters should have MVP. I know it's not in the rules, but that's my opinion. The voters for these awards are pompous retards anyway. They've stressed all the wrong stats and brainwashed casual fans into appreciating misleading stats like RBIs, BA, SB, W/L (for pitchers), and ...saves (don't even get me started on that **** heap of a stat.) That was more of a rant than an answer, sorry.

Answer 6

There ought to be. Sometimes a pitcher, even a closer, dominates in such a way that he ought to be eligible. The problem is, of course, that baseball is missing an award. Player of the year would clear things up nicely. Sometimes a guy puts up such huge numbers that he should get the Player of the Year but since it doesn't exist he gets MVP. But then sometimes his team is in last place. So it's a muddy puzzle without the Player of the Year. Most valuable should be most valuable -- when it's a pitcher it's a pitcher.

Answer 7

Yeah it's a different game today. Teams protect their pitchers these days. So it's hard for a pitcher to put up gaudy numbers. And also hitters are putting up some fat stats. I don't think it's prejudice i think it's more so the game is played a little different today. 20 game winners e.r.a. under 2, and 200 strikeout seasons are rare.

Answer 8

Look at last year. I think Mariano Rivera was up for it and the argument was that pitchers has the Cy Young and they don't play everyday. Then David Ortiz lost the year before because of the playing the field thing.

Answer 9

Clemens did it in 1986. Since there is no clear cut hitter for this year I won't be surprised if Jake Peavy wins the CY Young and NL MVP.

Look at how he has carried San Diego this year.

Answer 10

I doubt it, unless someone has just a crazy season and wins like 30 games or something.

I know it's not a rule, but I think the MVP should go to a hitter, someone who is out there everyday.