Home Sports Talk
Options

Did Jack Clark get robbed of the MVP in 1987?

coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

Led the league in OBP, slugging%, and OPS.

Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

Ignore list -Basebal21

Comments

  • Options
    LandrysFedoraLandrysFedora Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 9, 2024 1:26PM

    I think a strong case for 2nd could be made here for Jack. Maybe the 200 less ab's hurt his case? But I suppose that total was lower due to all the walks.

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭✭

    @LandrysFedora said:

    I think a strong case for 2nd could be made here for Jack. Maybe the 200 less ab's hurt his case? But I suppose that total was lower due to all the walks.

    Jack only played 131 games and having a teammate at the top of the voting always steals votes as well. I generally think Ozzie is overrated in some of these votings because his bat wasnt that good, but in 1987 that was Ozzies best offensive year and he was on base for a lot of Jacks RBis which also just so happened to be Jacks best year. Dawson was the right pick

  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah I didn't realize it was actually Ozzie who hurt Jack's chances. But how in the World can someone vote for a guy who hit zero home runs is beyond me lol? I have no problem with Dawson getting the nod as he played in 22 more games. But looking at the stat on how many times Jack was walked tells me who the best player was that year.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There were three strong candidates for MVP in 1987: Jack Clark, Ozzie Smith, and Tim Raines. One of them deserved it, and you could flip a coin to decide which one. Andre Dawson was not among the 20 best National Leaguers that year and was the absolutely worst MVP choice in the history of Major League Baseball (other than the times they gave it to a relief pitcher).

    Side note: I have no idea why Tony Gwynn led the NL in WAR in 1987. Reason 1,543 why I never look at WAR.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭✭

    @coolstanley said:
    Yeah I didn't realize it was actually Ozzie who hurt Jack's chances. But how in the World can someone vote for a guy who hit zero home runs is beyond me lol? I have no problem with Dawson getting the nod as he played in 22 more games. But looking at the stat on how many times Jack was walked tells me who the best player was that year.

    I wouldnt have voted for Ozzie as number one but that was by far his best offensive season which also was Jack Clarks best offensive season which were linked together. Dawson driving in as many runs as he did on that team where they even had Palmerio as a part time role and the amount of players driving in 30 or more runs on a team that really didnt have any speed is quite impressive. Vince Colman had as many stolen bases that year for the Cardinals as that entire Cubs team did and he did so at a better rate

  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:
    There were three strong candidates for MVP in 1987: Jack Clark, Ozzie Smith, and Tim Raines. One of them deserved it, and you could flip a coin to decide which one. Andre Dawson was not among the 20 best National Leaguers that year and was the absolutely worst MVP choice in the history of Major League Baseball (other than the times they gave it to a relief pitcher).

    Explain how Dawson was the worst choice? Hit almost 50 homers and a high amount of RBI.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Dave Kingman, in 1979 and also playing for the Cubs, had a significantly better season than Dawson had in 1987. Kingman came in 11th in the MVP voting, which was about right.

    I've said it before and I'll just keep saying it: if you want to really understand how to tell how good a player was cover up the RBI column. Just don't look at it. It provides no meaningful information not already available in the other columns, and its power to mislead is very strong. Of the 10 worst MVP picks in history I'd guess 8 of them led the league in RBI.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭✭

    Keith Hernandez winning the 1979 MVP is the actual bad choice

  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Willie was the true MVP that year.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 10, 2024 6:53PM

    Should have been Winfield but Willie would have been a better pick over Hernandez, Winfield got punished in the voting because it was just a bad Padres team which shouldnt matter in MVP voting. Same thing happened to Adrian Gonzalez. Happened too for Clemens and deGrom for Cy Youngs because of lack of wins.

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hernandez co-winning in 1979 wasn't historically terrible like the Dawson pick, but I agree Winfield (or Schmidt) were better choices. Stargell, OTOH, was laugh out loud funny; "terrible" doesn't begin to do justice to just how absurd his co-MVP was. Since he didn't win it outright I don't count it, but if his pick counts then Dawson's MVP isn't the worst in history, Stargell's is. Every mistake people make in evaluating a player came crashing together in the Stargell pick. If you'd like some examples then post your argument that he deserved it; most if not all of those mistakes will be in there.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 10, 2024 10:03PM

    If Willie didn't deserve the MVP, then how in the World did he win Sporting News Major League Player of the Year in 79?
    He proved he was the right choice when he crushed both the Reds and the Orioles. And yes I know the award is given to the best regular season winner. There was no way Schmidt was going to win it with a 253 Batting average. He didn't even finish in the top 12. Not to mention, the Phillies finished 4th place in the same division as the Pirates. As for Winfield, as mentioned earlier, he had no chance as he played on a VERY bad team, only winning 68 games.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Willie had 10 first place votes, while Hernandez and Winfield only had 4.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Was I right or what? Two posts full of nothing but mistakes people make in determining a player's value.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:
    There were three strong candidates for MVP in 1987: Jack Clark, Ozzie Smith, and Tim Raines. One of them deserved it, and you could flip a coin to decide which one. Andre Dawson was not among the 20 best National Leaguers that year and was the absolutely worst MVP choice in the history of Major League Baseball (other than the times they gave it to a relief pitcher).

    Side note: I have no idea why Tony Gwynn led the NL in WAR in 1987. Reason 1,543 why I never look at WAR.

    I would add Eric Davis, and Strawberry too.

    League Leaders:

    Run Expectancy
    1. Strawberry 71
    2. J. Clark 62
    3. E. Davis 56.3
    19. Dawson 29

    Win Probability
    1. Strawberry 5.9
    2. Jack Clark 5.8
    3. Raines 5.4
    4. E. Davis 5.3
    19. Dawson 2.9

    Davis did that in 129 games.

    He played Centerfield while doing it.

    Old School:
    Runs Created(Runs Scored+RBI-HR):
    Davis 183
    Dawson 178

    Dawson made 113 more outs than Davis to 'create' 5 LESS RUNS!! Plus hit into another ten more outs via double plays.

    PLUS
    Dawson came up to bat with 45 more runners on first base than Davis had, and still created 5 less runs
    Dawson came up to bat with 31 more runners on second base than Davis had, and still created 5 less runs
    Dawson came up to bat with 17 more runners on third base than Davis had, and still created 5 less.

    If one digests all that "old school" information and uses a little critical thinking(and adds the baserunning), then one can see why Davis was so much higher in the accurate Run Expectancy measurement than Dawson was; and why that is far more telling than looking at Dawson having 137 RBI and Davis only 100, and having a knee jerk(and faulty) reaction in thinking Dawson was a better hitter simply because of the RBI.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭

    Old School Runs created (Runs+RBI-HR)

    Dawson 183
    Clark 166

    However, Dawson made a whopping 154 more outs to create those 17 more runs. That is about 1/3 of a season worth of outs made for typical batter and that is why Clark was so much better.

    @Basebal21 is correct though that Clark benefited from having a lot of guys in scoring position for him(and guys that could run like the wind). Despite having less total plate appearances than Dawson, they had about equal men on base opportunities. They both hit well in those spots.

    Those 154 outs are a stark difference and the home park did benefit Dawson and that is reflected in the advanced measurements....as are the extra 154 outs made that are neglected typically by everyone.

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,539 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Can you imagine what Eric Davis may have done had he not missed 33 games that year. 50-50 was not totally out of the question.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,539 ✭✭✭✭✭

    the reason people poo-poo Dawson in 87 is because they think he did not BB enough.

    In an era like the 70's-80's when 50 home runs was only accomplished once, when a guy hit 49 he was winning the MVP. period.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    the reason people poo-poo Dawson in 87 is because they think he did not BB enough.

    In an era like the 70's-80's when 50 home runs was only accomplished once, when a guy hit 49 he was winning the MVP. period.

    Yeah, that pretty much was the reasoning. RBI carried the weight for several MVP's even in the next 15 years. They just got it wrong all those times, as with just a bit of some common sense(as shown above) it wasn't hard to see why they got it wrong.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    the reason people poo-poo Dawson in 87 is because they think he did not BB enough.

    In an era like the 70's-80's when 50 home runs was only accomplished once, when a guy hit 49 he was winning the MVP. period.

    He didn't efficiently create enough runs as the others is why it is poo-pooed.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 although in 1990 when Cecil became the first guy to hit 50 home runs since 1977, the writers did get it right in giving it to Henderson over him. The RBI plague didn't affect them that year. Fielder in 1990 had a much better year than Dawson in 1987 too.

    Dale Murphy was better than Dawson in 1987 too, and by a good margin.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 it was the RBI for Dawson. Bell got it in the AL for the same reason. Home Runs were plenty in 1987 too. McGwire hit 49 in the AL and Murphy hit 44 in less at bats than Dawson.

    There were some great years in 1987 by position players and the writers simply picked the RBI leaders.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭

    The talk about other players on this board is that they didn't win and many discounted their stats(the better stats) as a result and claimed they weren't as good as their stats because they didn't win.

    Now we hear Dawson was the right choice in 1987 but the Cubs came in last place in their division.....despite all those beloved RBI :wink:

    Ironic.

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,539 ✭✭✭✭✭

    yes, 87 was the "rabbit ball" year. Boggs hit 24 that season!

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 14, 2024 8:19AM

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:
    @craig44 although in 1990 when Cecil became the first guy to hit 50 home runs since 1977, the writers did get it right in giving it to Henderson over him. The RBI plague didn't affect them that year. Fielder in 1990 had a much better year than Dawson in 1987 too.

    Dale Murphy was better than Dawson in 1987 too, and by a good margin.

    I would have picked Murphy as well. Gwynn would have been a better choice as well.

    The AL was just as bad. Boggs or Trammell were the top 2 players.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    The AL was just as bad. Boggs or Trammell were the top 2 players.

    By my reckoning, the 1987 AL MVP was the second worst pick in history. I don't know what got into the sportswriters in 1987, but they should have been ashamed of themselves.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 15, 2024 4:54AM

    According to a couple people on here, hitting a lot of home runs and RBI mean nothing. And they have no clue about ''war'' :D

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coolstanley said:
    According to a couple people on here, hitting a lot of home runs and RBI mean nothing. And they have no clue about ''war'' :D

    I would be so ashamed if I had posted that I'd never come back. But you are impenetrable to shame, much to the amusement of the rest of us.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    People like Dallas don't realize the media members who have votes are following the whole season of these players. For example, in 79 when Willie won the award, the people who voted for him knew that he was the leader of his team. And that he had numerous games during the regular season where the Pirates came back to win games down the stretch because of Willie's bat.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭

    @coolstanley said:
    People like Dallas don't realize the media members who have votes are following the whole season of these players. For example, in 79 when Willie won the award, the people who voted for him knew that he was the leader of his team. And that he had numerous games during the regular season where the Pirates came back to win games down the stretch because of Willie's bat.

    You lost the moment you put any credence into the "media".

    BTW Home Runs are the best event in baseball. Nobody arguing against Dawson ever said anything different. You should re-read those threads and examine the importance of making outs, or actually NOT making outs. If that aspect is completely overlooked(as it usually is) then that is where many go awry.

  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    @coolstanley said:
    People like Dallas don't realize the media members who have votes are following the whole season of these players. For example, in 79 when Willie won the award, the people who voted for him knew that he was the leader of his team. And that he had numerous games during the regular season where the Pirates came back to win games down the stretch because of Willie's bat.

    You lost the moment you put any credence into the "media".

    So you know more than the voters. Gotcha.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Lord knows how many MVP debates I've been a part of here, but this is the first in which someone has invoked the infallibility of sportswriters. Shame is obviously not the only thing to which you are impenetrable.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here that folks. Dallas is a know it all. His opinions are better than sportswriters. Next thing he is going to spew is that his opinions are better than Heisman trophy voters. :D

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    countdouglascountdouglas Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coolstanley said:
    Here that folks. Dallas is a know it all. His opinions are better than sportswriters. Next thing he is going to spew is that his opinions are better than Heisman trophy voters. :D

    Just accept that within this triangle is "The Cradle of Life" for douche-baggery. They ALL think that they know it all. Many people attribute it to the Wheldon Springs site and the Nuclear Waste Adventure Trail, while I believe too much exposure to Jack Buck and Tim McCarver and Bob Costas while their brains were still developing as a youth is also a big factor.
    .

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 17, 2024 6:26AM

    @coolstanley said:

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    @coolstanley said:
    People like Dallas don't realize the media members who have votes are following the whole season of these players. For example, in 79 when Willie won the award, the people who voted for him knew that he was the leader of his team. And that he had numerous games during the regular season where the Pirates came back to win games down the stretch because of Willie's bat.

    You lost the moment you put any credence into the "media".


    So you know more than the voters. Gotcha.

    Yes

    I'm not trying to sell stories or create narratives to cloud my judgement.

    I will go toe to toe with any of them on these baseball topics.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 17, 2024 7:21AM

    What is it with our citizens who allow media to dictate to them what to think? Just like that guy who invoked CBS and NBC in the Clark/Maravich discussion and believing since they said it then it is reality..

    Really, the news? Old sportswriters? If those outlets started promoting Terry Forster as having a higher career batting average than Ted Williams, Babe, Ruth, and Ty Cobb in a way that 'makes' Forster look on par or superior, then some people would get all giddy and go out and buy Forester rookie cards. They might even add "He can pitch too like Ohtani."

    Then when other people cited the difference in at bats and added the other pertinent facts that were either conveniently ignored(or not known of their importance due to pure ignorance), they would say "it is still a fact that he has a higher batting average than those guys," and buy into the narrative the news is trying to create.

    In this case, as pointed out above in several posts, when you add the other very key facts(such as outs made, or the importance of getting on base) to the analysis you get a more clear picture, instead of just looking at an RBI total that a media member might go around touting as if that is all that matters.

    How can anyone look at that Eric Davis / Andre Dawson comparison I laid out above and walk away thinking that Dawson was better?? Whether through old school analysis or new school...all it takes is a little common sense and looking at EVERYTHING that matters, instead of relying on incomplete information or some media member who is getting paid to tug on the heart strings of the people reading their story...and that my friend is what the media is good at, tugging at those heart strings. Well that, and creating narratives by telling some truths and then completely ignoring the truths that don't fit with the ones they are trying to promote. Don't fall for it.

    I will say that currently on MLB network that most of what I am saying doesn't apply to them as they are outstanding on there and a well rounded group.

  • Options
    estangestang Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭

    I lived through it and I recall that Clark missed a few games in the 2nd half and/or slumped & basically handed the MVP away...

    I think this sums up what happened:

    Enjoy your collection!
    Erik
  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Because as we all know, wins in the second half of the season count more than wins in the first half of the season.

    Not saying you're wrong, just saying any sportswriter who let that breakdown affect his vote shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Sign In or Register to comment.