1970 MVP Boog Powell v. Frank Howard
coinkat
Posts: 23,111 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am posting this in part because of the Lynn Swann NFL HOF discussion that emerged in another thread in conjunction with the NFL HOF. And I really do not want to see this rehash that discussion... but instead look at the teams. In this instance Orioles v Senators... the great v. the not so great. So with Swann, the argument was he played for a great team. I suspect that there would even be a better argument that Powell benefitted having the support of an incredible team... as much if not even more so that Swann.
So in contrast, we have Frank Howard... the gentle giant, the capitol punisher, the Washington Monument or whatever other nickname one chooses to select. Both Howard and Powell produce impressive numbers. Powell was selected MVP and Howard finished 5th... behind Yaz, Killebrew and Olivia.
So if is going complain about Swann being in the NFL HOF just because of the greatness of his team, then how does one not see the hypocrisy in Howard finishing 5th in the MVP voting in 1970? And to take it a step further, not having any success... as in close zero chance... of ever making into Cooperstown?
I am not intentionally calling you out on this but perhaps the stats tell something that I am missing. And I will write that I witnessed the 1970 season and have a fairly good recollection. Both Powell and Howard had terrific seasons and my view is the player from team that wins the pennant has the inside track. A player... regardless of stats... that plays for a team that has the perception of "wallowing in the stench of mediocrity" has little... if any chance. And I think this comparison illustrates my point.
I doubt this question will generate the interest it deserves and that in part is due to the fact that this transpired 52 years ago
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Comments
The three best players in the AL in 1970, in some order, were Frank Howard, Roy White, and Carl Yastrzemski. Powell was a small step behind that group, as were Jim Fregosi, Tommy Harper, Harmon Killebrew and Tony Oliva. There have been so many ridiculously terrible MVP selections over the years that if any of the names above had won, I'm not going to get worked up over it. Powell is in that group, so I don't lose any sleep over it. Had I had a vote, I'd have voted for Roy White, because that's the way I am. But bottom line, there wasn't enough difference between any of these players to state as fact which one was the best. Some years there is a clear MVP; 1970 was not one of those years.
All that said, yes, I think being on a bad team probably cost Howard the MVP. At that time, and for a long time before and after that time, the league leader in RBI was very often - far too often - the MVP. Frank Howard had a great season and he led the league in RBI. Had he been on a good team the chance he wins the MVP is somewhere between 99% and 100%. That's the same range of Lynn Swann's chances of NOT being in the HOF had he played for a bad team.
Also, had Howard played for a good team, the chance he'd already be in the HOF are between 70% and 80%. He was so much better than Jim Rice that I beg - I literally beg - that nobody here try to say otherwise. I will, for all eternity, think you are a moron and it will be a strain to try to hide that. In a world where HOF voters understand how baseball works, does Frank Howard belong in the HOF? I think he does, but he belongs near the bottom.
Should have been Yazstremski.
Powell got it because he was second the year before and he played on a good team. I'm so old I actually remember hearing about this. Killebrew had won it the previous year and some people were saying Powell was equally deserving. I think the voters remembered that, and gave it to Powell when he followed up with another strong year. Howard was about the same as Powell in 1970, neither is clearly better to me. Yaz had a 9.5 WAR, led in runs scored, OBP, SLG and OPS and was tied for the batting championship. I would have given it to Carl.
I have always felt that the MVP award should be called the MVPGT.
I noticed Howard had an OPS+ of 170 or above for three straight years. Checked on some of the top players of the time; Killebrew, Yazstremski, Powell, F. Robinson, Reggie. None of them had a streak that matched that.
Howards lifetime OPS+ is very good, somewhat short career hurts him. MUCH better than Jim Rice.
Lots of worse players in HOF imo.
I agree that Yaz probably deserved it the most. I'd have voted for White because he was only a little bit worse and I wish players like White who play on bad teams in pitchers parks would get some recognition every once in a while. Howard did lead the league in Win Probability Added, so if he had won it would have been fine, too (Yaz and White were 2 and 3). Powell, Fregosi, Harper, Killer, and Oliva were a step behind, but it really was a very small step. The seven players I've named were all in the top 8 in offensive WAR (Bando, too). Lots of great seasons that year, with nobody really running away from the others.
Thanks for the thoughts and commentary... Just a few quick thoughts:
-Howard lead the AL in HRs in'70 as well was RBIs.
-Powell had a higher batting average than Howard.
-Killebrew deserved to be MVP in 1969... I do not see any reason second guess the choice.
-I have no problem writing that even though Powell had a great season in 1969, I would suggest Howard had a better year than Powell and would have been deserving.
I see Howard as a player deserving to be in Cooperstown. The chances are very remote... but at least Gil Hodges finally made it even if it was 40 years too late.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
They had very similar years of offensive production. Howard also played in more games and Powell played first base, between the two, it was close, but I would have voted for Howard.
>
>
Agree completely! Baltimore did beat the Twins in the ALCS and the East coast writers whined about Powell being "slighted". They were wrong.
>
>
>
>
Big Frank is deserving, the short(ish) career hurts him. He was a big part of a Dodgers Championship team in 1963, but then he was traded to the expansion Senators.
Howard hit a lot of Home runs in a big park in LA, but they didn't seem to want him.
The Dodgers went in a different direction relying on Tommy Davis, Willie Davis, the speed of Maury Wills, the power of Ron Fairly and their pitching staff. Howard was really not part of their plans which... in my view... was a huge mistake, but hind sight is 20/20.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Correct, Howard was not going to play every day for the Dodgers.
Eh, I think it was more than a "little bit" worse. 18 fewer homers, .033 lower average, .065 lower OBP, .119 lower SLG, 35 points lower OPS+, 2.7 lower WAR (9.5 vs 6.8). And it wasn't all because of their ballparks. Yaz's road stats were better than White's home or road.
White had a terrific season but definitely wasn't deserving of the MVP.
Having conceded that Yaz was better than White, I can't really argue too strenuously. But I will say that WAR is unadulterated crap and I ignore it. In the stats I do consider:
Win Shares: Yaz was first with 36, White was second with 34.
Win Probability Added: Howard was first with 7.5, Yaz was second with 6.3, White was third with 6.1.
Yaz mostly played first base that year, with the rest in LF. He didn't play either one well at all (that year).
White played every game in LF, and played very well. He led the league in games played in LF, range factor in LF, and fielding % in LF. Yes, it's only LF, and it doesn't mean much. But when the gap in WPA is 0.2, it doesn't have to mean much.
I stand by what I said; Yaz was only a little bit better than White in 1970.
By JAWS, Rice is the 27th best LF. Howard is the 50th best RF. I'll be the first to say that WAR isn't the be all and end all stat, but it is also not entirely worthless and, I maintain, the best single stat to compare players at different positions and from different eras.
With a gap that wide, it is nowhere near enough to simply assert that he was "much better". Instead you've got to give reasons, at least to convince me. Personally I think there are dozens of players on the outside who belong in before Rice and well over a hundred before Howard, but I'm willing to be convinced.
I would rather have Howard than Rice... not persuaded by JAWS
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I don't know if I can convince myself much less you, but let's look at a few things Howard did better than Rice;
He hit the same amount of HR in 1737 less at bats. Rice hit a HR every 21.5 AB, Howard every 17 AB.
Grounded into fewer DP's, once every 29.5 AB to Rice's 26.
They had the same OBP, but Howard beats the rest of the league by 33 points while Rice was 16 points better than average.
Their SLG was almost the same, but during Howard's time the league slugged 29 points lower.
Howard did this in pitcher friendly parks, Rice played in Boston, one of the easiest parks to hit in.
Howard ends up with an OPS+ of 142 to Rice's 128, a pretty significant difference.
There are more than a few things Rice did better than Howard, but Frank was definitely the better slugger!
Fielding stats in a given individual year are often pure luck on the number of balls hit your way. Fenway and Yankee stadium for Left Fielders represent the complete opposite environments for a left fielder. One park limits fly ball outs while the other invites more fly ball outs due to their physical configurations.
For their careers, here are their putout splits for each player:
Yaz Putouts in LF:
Home 8,745 Innings and 1,690 Putouts
Away 7,730 Innings and 1,831 Putouts
In 1,000 less innings on the road, Yaz had over 1,000 more putouts than at home. That is an obscene difference, almost more so than the offensive difference. The Green Monster giveth on offense and taketh on LF putouts on defense.
Roy White Putouts in LF:
Home 6,654 innings and 1,657 Putouts
Away 6,654 innings and 1,501 Putouts
Yankee stadium taketh away offense in LF, and giveth on defense to the Left Fielder. Not quite as much as Fenway affect, but certainly is evident.
Jim Rice Putouts in LF:
Home 6,589 Innings and 1,351 Putouts
Away 6,569 Innings and 1,676 Putouts
That is an absolutely obscene difference. 300 more putouts on the road in the same amount of innings.
I've already heard the "defensive metrics account for opportunities." NO , they DO NOT. No matter how you slice it, the more balls hit your way the more you will pad your defensive metrics as long as you are not committing obscene amount sof errors, and it is a FACT is that 85%-90% of fly balls are of the routine variety so they will not be committing extra errors when obtaining putouts.
Rice and Yaz were deprived of accumulating better defensive numbers due to playing LF in Fenway for almost their whole career.
Defensive metrics DO NOT correctly account for certain position ballpark effects just like the hitting does not.
I'm not sure what all that about Yaz's and White's careers was intended to demonstrate. But in 1970, and 1970 alone, Roy White had greater defensive value than Carl Yastrzemski. That was my only point, and since it's obviously true, I wasn't expecting a rebuttal. But to rebut the fact I stated, you'll need to confine your argument to 1970.
As for Rice/Howard, in addition to the career OPS+ gap, we have:
Batter Runs: Howard 355, Rice 299
Win Probability Added: Howard 41.7, Rice 25.8 (65th all time - 181st all time)
Peak (High 3) OPS+: Howard 173, Rice 153
Peak Batter Runs: Howard 170, Rice 136
Peak WPA: Howard 17.6, Rice 13.3
Win Shares: Howard 297, Rice 282
Peak Win Shares: Howard 102, Rice 90,
Rbat (the only component of WAR untainted by it's horrible defensive metrics): Howard 347, Rice 292
The only place to look to see Rice better than Howard is WAR, and specifically WAR's positional adjustments and defensive metrics. And those are crap. They are as valuable in comparing baseball players as a random number generator.
Frank Howard was much better than Jim Rice.
Well, no, crude defensive metrics (like those that involve errors) don't correctly account for ballpark effects. One hopes that the pitch-by-pitch data we have now will allow us to compensate for park effects. Over the course of a season, patterns emerge. The biggest problems occur when you try to evaluate someone like Duke Snider because his contemporaries in centerfield were 2/7 among the all-time greats (Mays and Ashburn). We can tell Snider (in any era) was below average, but it is hard to tell how much.
Howard and Rice both played 16 seasons. Rice compiled higher stat totals because he was more reliable. Played in more games than Howard. So I have no problem with Rice in the Hall. Howard comes up just a bit short.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Suggesting that Rice was "more reliable" than Howard simply fails to pass the straight face test.
So let me be blunt and write it like it would have been... if Howard had played in the AL his entire career and as a Red Sox player, he would he lit up Fenway like a pin ball machine. We would not even be having this discussion because he likely would have over 500 career HRS and would have been inducted into the HOF decades ago.
Howard's prime years in terms of age were with the Dodgers. During that time (1958-1964) he never recorded over 500 AB. The most AB was in the 1962 season at 493 and he produced 31 HRs.
Howard was not just above average talent. Unfortunately, he had live with playing for the Dodgers for 7 seasons (during his prime years age wise) which basically did not help the long term career stats to reflect his capabilities. The Dodgers made decisions that limited Howard's career stats. I seriously doubt that point can even be argued.
Readers Digest condensed version... that is how it was and could have been.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I'm not sure what all of that has to do with my post. My point is Howard could've compiled higher stats if he played as many games as Rice. They both played 16 seasons and Howard played almost 200 fewer games than Rice..therefore Rice was more reliable for his team. You cant help your team, if you sit on the bench.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I like Jim Rice... I just see Frank Howard as the better player. And that case has been made by two other participants as to who was the better player.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I didn't see Howard much until he came to the AL. By then he might have been less athletic?
I might lean towards Rice as a better all around player because of defense, but Howard was the MUCH better slugger.
Rice played in about 2000 more games. They had the same length of careers age wise, from 21-36. Neither had a bunch of "old man years".
Rice was on the field almost all the time from the age of 22-35 except for one year. His production really dropped off in his last three years, while Howard slugged .463 in his final year with Detroit.
Howard played a lot from the age of 25-34. His first two years he really didn't play at all, when he got his chance, he was rookie of the year.
One could certainly assume that given the opportunity to play, especially in 1958 and 1959, Howard's totals would look a LOT better. Of course if you bring in the parks where they played being a factor, it gets silly to even compare them as hitters.
So, does that mean Ted Williams is not one of the greatest hitters because he played in one of the friendliest hitting parks?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Of course you're right. But the number of people who stubbornly refuse to take parks into account is enormous, and why we still see so many silly comparisons being made.
And sure, Rice was better defensively than Howard, but the difference between an average LF (Rice) and a bad one (Howard) just isn't that big, equivalent to maybe one HR per year. When you're comparing LFers, fielding value is a tie-breaker, and often not even that.
Generally, I don't put as much importance on ballparks, but this is an extreme difference.
Howard deserves more credit than he gets... his bat helped with the Dodgers 1963 World Series sweep and I seriously doubt that is even in dispute... His monumental HR off Whitey Ford at Yankee Stadium was a great World Series moment. In many ways I suspect his power is often overlooked because it is difficult to measure and quantify. Over time conditioning and strength was set to a higher standard than what existed in the 1960's.
@JoeBanzai - I apologize in that I did not mean to misrepresent your view on this by reading too much into the stats cited.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
>
No offense taken. I don't dislike Jim Rice. He had an easy park to hit in and he took full advantage of it. Good for him.
Lots of right handed hitters have played for the Sox and none had more hits, home runs or RBI. He's Fourth overall in runs scored.
There were a few better RH hitters that played there, but not for long enough to put up big totals.
Howard got "kind of" screwed being stuck in a big park and on a team that didn't really want him. By the time I got to see him, he could still hit, but he looked pretty slow and not very athletic.
Not sure if you knew this, (I have posted it before) Harmon Killebrew was originally visited by a scout for the Red Sox and even called them to give them the opportunity to sign him before accepting the Senator's offer.
Killebrew would have prolly hit 1,000 Home runs in Boston and became the original Jim Rice. ;-)
I don't recall reading that or even hearing about it... and it does beg the question... what if?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
When Senators farm director Ossie Bluege visited the Killebrew home to discuss a contract, he saw several Ted Williams model bats. The Red Sox had contacted Killebrew, but Harmon, who was a High School All American football player, was planning on going to college on a football scholarship. The Sox didn't offer enough to change that plan, but Killebrew said he would give them a call and allow them to make him a better offer before he signed with anyone else.
Washington offered Killebrew a huge contract and he then called Boston and gave them a second opportunity to sign him.
They refused.
1,000 home runs might be on the low side. Killebrew's high drives would have been perfect for Fenway.