I'm in Hell

Specifically, I am watching the Yankees-Red Sox, an entertaining enough game, but Joe Morgan and Jon Miller began the tiresome should-a-pitcher-be-considered-for-the-MVP award four innings ago and they won't shut up about it.

Joe Morgan spent a half-inning slowly, painstakingly going over the MVP voting criteria, complete with an onscreen graphic--all of which led to his point, which I saw coming a half-hour before he made it: specifically, that since "number of games played" should be considered, pitchers should be disqualified. It's been about two weeks since someone reached for that chestnut--but no, Morgan gloated over it at length as if he'd just solved the Da Vinci Code.

You really needed to witness this. Anytime Miller broke away from their conversation to describe something actually taking place on the field, Morgan seemed irked that the game was interrupting his brilliance. Then we were treated to a graphic featuring the pitchers who won the MVP (we know, we know: Clemens, Eck, Willie Hernandez, Rollie Fingers, we know). Said list was divided between starters and relievers, which inevitably led to Morgan asking, "Well then, why hasn't Rivera won it?," which Morgan seemed to think helped prove his point, when in fact the opposite was true.

Then we heard about the playoffs--which, as any 10-year-old knows, have nothing to do with the regular-season MVP--and Morgan's ramble about how, say, Albert Pujols can affect all five games of a five-game series, whereas a number one starter like Chris Carpenter can only play in one game. He was kidding, right? There is not a baseball fan in this universe who doesn't know that, in a standard five-game series, a number-one starter is always available for games one and five. This is one of the reasons a team with a hot starter has such a huge advantage in a short series.

Jon Miller is better than this. Whether he is too intimidated by Morgan's stature in the game or too concerned about being a good guy is a mystery to me.

Leaving aside that the should-a-pitcher-win argument is one of the most excruciatingly dull topics in all of sports (right up there with why the foul pole should be called the "fair pole," which at least has the virtue of brevity), Miller and Morgan neglect saying straight-out what seems to be the only germane point: namely, that there is no pitcher--none--in serious contention for the MVP. Anyone who thinks Johann Santana will finish in the top five is dreaming.

Update: Now I'm starting to wonder about Miller. He mentions that Jeter's best offensive year was 1999, and that, "I don't know that Jeter was even in the discussion for the MVP that year." Well, he finished sixth. Miller says, "And you know who won it that year? Alex--er, Pudge--Rodriguez." An understandable slip, everyone does it, but then Miller doesn't make the point that might have made the last two hours of my life worthwhile in retrospect: namely, that second-place in the MVP race that year went to pitcher Pedro Martinez, whose margin of defeat to Pudge was supplied by two sportswriters who loudly proclaimed that no way would they ever vote for a pitcher.

I mean, I know this for free. These guys are paid to know it, in theory at least.

(Note: this post is dedicated to SunDevil Joe, who feels more strongly than me along these lines.)