Is it fair that pitchers qualify for the MVP award as well as the Cy Young award?

There are pros and cons to this question. I'm caught somewhere in the middle. I've always believed that a position player will ultimately have a much great impact on his team during the course of a 162 game schedule.

Since a pitcher does not regularly receive both awards I suppose I'm okay with it. It is fair? Ask Bud Selig!

It's definitely fair. Pitchers never get votes for the MVP anyway because of the Cy Young so it's not like the same guys are winning both the Cy Young and MVP every year. There are also awards for hitters such as the Hank Aaron award that a pitcher could never win.

Just because an award exists to recognize the most outstanding pitcher does not mean that the pitcher who wins it couldn't have been the most valuable player overall.

I kinda agree.

I think the Cy Young award should be given to the best pitcher.

I think the MVP should be literally given to the "Most Valuable Player".

I think a new award should be created for the best hitter, where only hitters can win.

Basically, it is a little (just a little) unfair to have pitchers up for two awards and hitters for one. But the MVP award is given the the "Most Valuable Player" and a pitcher could very well be very valuable too.

Unfair. The Cy Young award is definitely the MVP for pitchers. I realized it's very rare that a pitcher wins both but as long as it is a possibility it's unfair to the every day player. I base my answer on the fact that an every day player has a much greater impact on his teams overall success.

Not fair. The pitchers should only be able to win the CY Young Award.

I think it is plenty fair. The Cy Young is given to the best pitcher and if that pitcher also plays the best season why should he be denied the MVP especially if he is an NL pitcher and has a great hitting season (which does not happen often) but if it were to I think it would be fair to disallow people to vote for that player because he is a pitcher.

Yes, it is. Not only has it been true all along (valuable meaning what it means) but it would be even fairer if we had a Player of the Year (non-pitchers only) award that would give the guy with Hollywood numbers his due, instead of stealing from the real MVP.

that's basic. seem, MVP could desire to be all of us. Cy youthful can in uncomplicated terms be a tumbler. rather of proscribing the pitchers from the MVP, there could be a participant of the 300 and sixty 5 days Award. this could triangulate awards so as that there could continually be a participant and a tumbler in contact. because it is now, there is the possibility that one participant could desire to win ROY, Cy youthful, and MVP. If he qualifies, why no longer. additionally, a flashy guy could be POY yet an MVP could desire to be somebody who fairly enables his team yet who would not have great numbers -- or a tumbler.

Why not? if they are the best person in there league and put up the best numbers why not. Should they give it to a lesser person just because there a pitcher and they don't want them to win two awards? No it should always go to the best person. And if it happens to be the pitcher so be it.

Completely fair. MVP means most valuable player. Last time I checked, a pitcher was a player.