Should a Pitcher Be Eligible to Win MVP?

It is a debate that has been gathering some serious momentum as the 2011 MLB Season moves on; should a pitcher, most notably Justin Verlander, be eligible to win the MVP award? At this point in the season you can make a strong argument that the Cy Young Award is a lock for him, so should he be in the discussion as the league's MVP as well?

It has not happened in 19 years. Dennis Eckersley won the award in 1992 for the Oakland A's and was certainly deserving that season. He had a 7-1 record with 51 saves to boot. That means he helped the A's win more than 1/3 of their games, a pretty significant statistic. Prior to that, Roger Clemens won it in 1986, with a 24-4 record and an ERA of 2.48. He also stuck out 20 batters that season, as we all remember here in Boston. Clemens was a beast that season, as Eckersley was in 1992.

In 1999 Pedro Martinez went 23-4 with a 2.09 ERA winning the Cy Young and many people thought he deserved to win the MVP, losing out to Ivan Rodriguez of the Rangers. Pedro might have been the most dominant pitcher EVER in that one season, yet he did not take the MVP home with him.

Justin Verlander is 21-5 with a 2.34 ERA so far this season. His numbers are very similar to that of Roger Clemens in 1986 and he is easily the reason why the Tigers are going to make the playoffs. If Verlander had only been "very good" to this point in the season, having won, say 15 games, the Indians may very well be in first place, or in a tight battle for first with the Tigers. However, Verlander is almost assuredly a win every time he touches the ball this season.

The question then becomes, how much value do you place on the assurance of a victory every time a certain player is in the game? I understand the opposing argument that he only plays every fifth game. Many people believe that pitchers receive the Cy Young and therefore shouldn't be eligible for the MVP. I however, do not believe that.

I know that in my previous post I omitted Verlander from my final three, and my reasoning was based on an argument of run production, and not run prevention and wins. Do I think that Justin Verlander should be in the conversation for MVP? Absolutely. He is the most valuable player on the Tigers and has been a delight to watch pitch this season. (I am a huge proponent of pitchers duels, I love the chess match.)

I am curious of the general consensus out there though. Should a pitcher only be able to win the Cy Young? If so, what about the 19 other pitchers that have won the MVP award since its inception in 1931?