What will be more interesting is how Verlander fares in the MVP voting next week. No starting pitcher has won the award since Roger Clemens did in 1986, and there seems to be a reluctance by some writers to bestow the award on a pitcher, since they have their own award with the Cy Young. It's kind of like not voting for an animated film for the Best Picture Oscar for the same reason.
But pitcher are eligible for the award, so a knee-jerk response is unprofessional. I don't say that Verlander is a slam dunk for it, but he's certainly a worthy candidate. Many say that a starting pitcher shouldn't get it because they play only every fifth day--a regular will play in excess of 150 games, while a starting pitcher, less than 40. Fine. But I heard a different attitude about this. A regular, say an outfielder like Curtis Granderson, who figures to be one of Verlander's top competitors, may play every day, but he gets maybe five at bats a game, and fields maybe ten to fifteen balls all game. A starting pitcher, on the hand, is heavily involved in every pitch while he is on the field. Something to think about.
I think Verlander has a good chance to win. Granderson is a possibility, but a trio of Red Sox probably lose out after their collapse--Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia, and Adrian Gonzalez all suffer the prejudice against nonplayoff teams.
The last Tiger pitcher to win the Cy Young was Willie Hernandez, in 1984. He also won the MVP. Before that, it was Denny McLain, in 1968. He also won the MVP, after winning 31 games (the last to win over 30 games in a season). He was, in fact, the first American League pitcher to win both awards in the same season. The only starting pitcher to win back-to-back A.L. MVP awards? Hal Newhouser, of the Tigers, in 1944-45.
No comments:
Post a Comment