Tigers fans: please remain consistent in your MVP voting outrage

54 Comments

Last year there was a lot of indignation on the part of Tigers fans when an MVP voter —  Jim Ingrahm of the News-Herald — left Justin Verlander off of his MVP ballot, arguing that he didn’t think pitchers should be eligible for the award.

The source of the indignation: pitchers ARE eligible! It says so right on the MVP ballot itself!  While it may have been defensible to not have voted Verlander number one on his ballot, Hughes’ political statement — that he thinks pitchers shouldn’t be eligible so he didn’t include Verlander at all — was wholly illegitimate. There’s no reasonable argument that Verlander wasn’t a top-10 player in 2011.

Fair enough.  But I have this feeling Tigers fans won’t feel the same way about voters reading extra criteria into the MVP award this year.

I say this because I have been besieged by people — mostly Tigers fans — making some variation of this argument:

You can’t? Really?  Why not?  Show me where on the MVP ballot it says that you should take a team’s playoff status into account? If anything, the ballot instructions tell voters to ignore such things:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1.  Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2.  Number of games played.

3.  General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4.  Former winners are eligible.

5.  Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

Granted, there is no penalty to voters who do, in fact, consider the playoff status of a candidate’s team. It happens all the time, just like people leaving pitchers off the ballot and the BBWAA has decided, wisely I think, that it’s not going to get into the business of policing such things.

But make no mistake:  a voter giving Miguel Cabrera a bump over Mike Trout if the Tigers make the playoffs and the Angels don’t is doing the same thing that the guy who left Justin Verlander off his ballot last year did.  He’s reading in his own criteria. He’s ignoring the guidelines that the very organization which sanctions the award has established.

If that pissed you off when the guy left Justin Verlander off the MVP ballot last year, you have no standing whatsoever to demand that voters take the Angels and Tigers playoff position into account this year in the event that such a thing favors Miguel Cabrera.

Meanwhile, on the cold, cold Hot Stove . . .

Getty Images
12 Comments

It’s Hot Stove Season baby! You know what that means! Yep: time to watch some teams sign a few relievers to minor league deals and then wait everyone out until February while talking about the need to maintain financial flexibility! FEEL THE BURN.

In more specific news:

We’ve talked a lot about Betts this winter already, and that seems like madness. Bryant’s career with the Cubs began with business-side acrimony, it’s still simmering, and there is no sense that either side is amenable to a long-term deal before he hits free agency. The Indians have been signaling for some time that they have no interest in keeping Lindor long term.

It’s quite the thing when three teams who are supposed to be contending are, instead, looking to deal recent MVP award winners and candidates who are 27 and 26 years old, but these are the times in which we are living.

  • Joe Sheehan wrote an excellent column for Baseball America last week analyzing the attendance drop MLB experienced in 2019. Which is just the latest in a series of attendance drops. As Joe notes there is a very, very strong connection between teams (a) signaling to fans during the offseason that they are not interested in signing or retaining players or otherwise being competitive; and (b) teams suffering attendance losses.

As I wrote last offseason, there is an increasing disconnect between attendance and other proxies of broad fan interest and revenue. Which is to say that, as long as teams continue to get fat on long-term TV deals, side businesses like real estate development, and soaking a smaller and wealthier segment of the fan base with higher and higher prices, they really have no reason to care if several thousand common or casual fans become alienated by their teams’ lack of desire to compete.

Sullivan doesn’t offer ideas about how that can happen, but over the past couple of seasons we’ve seen a number of proposals, some broad, some specific, about how MLB can turn its free agency/trading period into frantic, 1-3 day scrambles-to-sign like we see in both the NBA and NFL. I’m sympathetic to that desire — it’s exciting! — but any attempt to do that in Major League Baseball, at least as things are currently set up, would be a disaster for the players.

In the NBA and NFL you have salary caps and floors and, in the NBA, you have max contracts. As a result, teams both have a set amount of money to spend and an incentive to spend that money. We can quibble with whether those incentives are the best ones or if they benefit the players as much as other systems might, but there’s at least something inherent in their systems which inspires teams to sign free agents.

In Major League Baseball, there is no such incentive. May teams want to keep payrolls as low as possible under the guise of rebuilding or tanking and there is no effective mechanism to keep them from doing so. Even nominal contenders — see the Cubs, Indians and Red sox in item 1 above — spend more time thinking about how to cut payroll rather than add talent. This is bolstered by the stuff in item 2 above in which attendance and even winning has less of an impact on the bottom line than it ever has.

So, why scramble to sign players by a set deadline? Under most of the scenarios I see floated — like the laughably horrible one MLB reportedly suggested to the MLBPA — teams would just wait out free agents until deadline day, give them crappy take-it-or-leave-it offers and then leave them all scrambling to sign one-year deals or to sit the season out.

For such a thing to happen — or for teams to want to keep their bright young stars or for the league to want to maintain fan interest and keep attendance from continuing to slide — there must be incentives put in place to make them want to sign and retain players. To make them want to win. To make them want to excite the fan base.

At present, such incentives are not there. And, as such, we are faced with yet another winter with a cold, cold stove.