Seriously, is this a parody article? Is it an attempt to write the most unoriginal version in that most annoying of baseball genres: the "you kids can keep your crazy newfangled acronyms while I ramble aimlessly about semantics" sloppy kiss to ignorance?
Griffin: AL’s most valuable has to be Verlander
Now, as regular readers know, I am a baseball traditionalist from way back, while Cathal is more of a VORP, WAR, WHIP, OPS guy. Thus it was no surprise to hear him preach confidently about how the MVP this year should be a mortal lock for Jays outfielder Jose Bautista. It got me thinking.
First step, as always. Identify your creds. You aren't an incompetent, small-minded hack...you are a traditionalist. You order your ballpark frank with mustard only. All of your columns for the Star website are banged out on a Remington typewriter. You have an avid interest in phrenology. All of the usual stuff.
In all of team professional sports, there are no three letters in combination that form an image in one’s mind’s eye of a fabulous, unmatched year of excellence more than the letters M-V-P. There is also no single word that promotes debate more heated than the inclusion of the letter V for Valuable.
A little Baseball Is Magic! wankery and it's time to remind people of the words represented by them there letters. Perfect start.
What does it mean? What is true value in team sport? Should it just be the best numbers? Like beauty, value is in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, there is no right or wrong, just a winner. Of course, that leaves a bunch of losers — and therein lies the debate that promises to rage in the AL in 2011.
Value is in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. That's what so beautiful about it; ten people could have ten different opinions, no more accurate than the last.
And that's why I've written a **** column titled "AL's most valuable has to be Verlander". Has to be*.
But the official award, the iconic one that has forever been recognized by players, fans and by the industry, the one that is controversially included in contracts and tied to bonuses, is the one voted on by the Baseball Writers Association of America, the only one that includes the word Valuable, the one with the greatest human element — the MVP award.
One, there is nothing controversial about the MVP being tied to bonuses, nor is there anything unique. There are a **** of awards that are written into player contracts; according to Cot's Contracts, in addition to bonuses for MVP finish (regular or post-season), Alex Rodriguez receives $100,000 for any of the following: making All Star team, receiving most All Star votes, Silver Slugger, making post-season AP, Baseball America or Sporting News All Star team, being named player of the year by AP, Baseball America or Sporting News.
It's actually somewhat surprising that he doesn't have a stipulation in there about winning the Cy Young. Y'know, just in case.
And yes, the V does stand for Valuable. You might have mentioned that before.
He then moves on to the substance of his argument in favour of Verlander, and honestly...that part, though thin on details, isn't nearly as bad. Verlander has been so good that it's virtually impossible to find a way to write a column supporting his MVP bid that fudges the facts so much that it's indefensible on those merits.
Oh wait, he did just that:
1. Verlander started the year 2-3 in his first seven starts. The team was 2-5 in those starts. At that point, Detroit was three games under .500 and seven games out of first place. On May 7, Verlander no-hit the Jays. Since that win, Verlander has been 20-2, while the Tigers have been 68-44, taking a stranglehold on the AL Central. Verlander has provided the impetus.
2. The Tigers, since his no-hitter, have been 21-3 in Verlander starts but only 47-41 when someone else toes the rubber. When the Tigers score three or more runs in a game, Verlander is 21-0. When they score two or fewer runs, he is 1-5.
Using the division that Griffin provides, you'll work out that the Tigers are 23-8 in Verlander's starts. Their record entering tonight was 85-62. Remove Verlander's starts, you thus get 62-54; over the course of 147 games (as they have played overall), that pace would equate to a record of 79-68.
Here's the thing, though...the Tigers are in a division where the other four teams are entirely hapless. That 79-68 record would leave Detroit 5.5 games up on Cleveland and Chicago in the AL Central; not totally safe with 19 games remaining, but pretty damned safe.
It's something that I've mentioned before...because Griffin has to frame this in the context of the Tigers' pursuit of the playoffs rather than the fact that Verlander is really **** good, his accomplishments lose all meaning; he has taken a team that almost certainly makes the playoffs and turned them into a team that certainly makes the playoffs. If the playoffs are a binary system in baseball, and the MVP derives from that quest, it stands to reason that the only value (the V in MVP, more or less) of an individual player is in converting a 0 to a 1...getting a team to the playoffs that probably doesn't make it without your help.
Thus, Verlander cannot be the MVP; the MVP must by necessity come from whichever team wins a close race for the Wild Card or a divisional title, where the winning player pushed them over the edge. However, being a traditionalist, Griffin surely doesn't recognize the Wild Card, so we have to look at divisional races only.
This means that the MVP has to come from either the Angels or the Rangers, whichever team wins the AL West; it's the only race close enough for one player to truly matter. And obviously, the games between the two teams are the most important..but only the numbers posted in wins, and only by whichever team is currently leading the race. This is how we shall find our Most Valuable Player.
Though there are still three games between them (the final three of the season, actually), in looking through the box scores of the head-to-head meetings, I reached an inescapable conclusion: the Most Valuable Player in the American League is Elvis Andrus, with Alexei Ogando a close second.
On Ogando: the fact that he led the Rangers in wins against the Angels made him a very strong candidate, but one of those starts was actually pretty bad. Andrus, on the other hand, had a sparkling batting average of .389 with 6 RBI in Rangers' wins against LA, and he was especially productive in the games decided by the smallest margins. In the games that mattered the most in the only race that counts for much this year, Andrus was hands-down the best player...and as such he's hands-down the MVP as well.
* I realize that columnists don't actually write the titles. However, he says the same thing in the body of the article, as well.
