What was the worst MVP pick since WWII?

dallasactuary

We had a good debate here about the AL MVP last season, and I for one think the voters made a very poor choice. But even I don’t think that last year’s vote was really terrible by the shameful standards established by past votes.

So what was the worst choice for MVP ever? Because the MVP was not given every year, and because there were rules against winning it twice in a row at one point, I’m not even going to consider the MVPs from long ago. Just considering the awards since WWII, here is my list of the worst picks:

1947 AL: Joe DiMaggio over Ted Williams
1950 NL: Jim Konstanty over Stan Musial
1952 NL: Hank Sauer over Stan Musial
1955 AL: Yogi Berra over Mickey Mantle
1958 AL: Jackie Jensen over Mickey Mantle
1958 NL: Ernie Banks over Willie Mays
1960 NL: Dick Groat over Willie Mays
1961 AL: Roger Maris over Mickey Mantle
1962 NL: Maury Wills over Frank Robinson
1963 NL: Sandy Koufax over Hank Aaron
1964 NL: Ken Boyer over Richie Allen
1974 NL: Steve Garvey over Mike Schmidt
1979 NL: Willie Stargell (tie) over Mike Schmidt
1981 AL: Rollie Fingers over Rickey Henderson
1984 AL: Willie Hernandez over Cal Ripken
1987 AL: George Bell over Alan Trammell
1987 NL: Andre Dawson over Tim Raines
1991 NL: Terry Pendleton over Ryne Sandberg
1992 AL: Dennis Eckersley over Roberto Alomar
1996 AL: Juan Gonzalez over Alex Rodriguez
1998 AL: Juan Gonzalez over Albert Belle
1999 AL: Ivan Rodriguez over Derek Jeter

Now, the MVP voters got it wrong a lot more often than this; but these are the ones where they got it really wrong. Also, you may reasonably disagree with the person that I have picked as the one who should have won the award (if you think Manny Ramirez deserved it more than Jeter in 1999, that’s fine), but if you think the person who actually won the award was the most valuable player in the league that year then you are as wrong as the voters were.

Why did the voters pick so poorly these years? A few themes stand out. First, notice that a few names appear in the losers spot more than once. By my count, Mantle deserved 10 MVPs – seven more than he actually won. Musial could have had 7, Mays could have had 6, Schmidt could have had 8. The best players - the very, very best players - are the best players in the league often for many years in a row; the HOF voters don’t like giving the MVP to the same guy every year.

Other reasons that HOF voters do so poorly include a complete lack of understanding of how ballparks affect runs scored, a fetish with high save totals, and an almost unstoppable impulse to give the award to a member of the best team.

So how to pick the very worst MVP choice ever? I’m going to start by paring the list down by eliminating the MVPs that went to catchers (since statistically it is almost unheard of for a catcher to be the best player in the league and they carry a lot of intangible value with them), and by eliminating the years where the best player was on a bad team and, giving the voters the benefit of the doubt, maybe hard to spot. That leaves:

1947 AL: Joe DiMaggio over Ted Williams
1950 NL: Jim Konstanty over Stan Musial
1952 NL: Hank Sauer over Stan Musial
1958 AL: Jackie Jensen over Mickey Mantle
1958 NL: Ernie Banks over Willie Mays
1960 NL: Dick Groat over Willie Mays
1961 AL: Roger Maris over Mickey Mantle
1962 NL: Maury Wills over Frank Robinson
1963 NL: Sandy Koufax over Hank Aaron
1964 NL: Ken Boyer over Richie Allen
1979 NL: Willie Stargell (tie) over Mike Schmidt
1981 AL: Rollie Fingers over Rickey Henderson
1984 AL: Willie Hernandez over Cal Ripken
1987 AL: George Bell over Alan Trammell
1987 NL: Andre Dawson over Tim Raines
1992 AL: Dennis Eckersley over Roberto Alomar
1996 AL: Juan Gonzalez over Alex Rodriguez

That’s still an awful lot of horrible choices, so I’m going to also eliminate the ones where the winner came from a league or division winning team AND was the best player on that team. I don’t agree with awarding the MVP on that basis, but I understand it and don’t think such a pick should be the worst ever. That leaves:

1950 NL: Jim Konstanty over Stan Musial
1952 NL: Hank Sauer over Stan Musial
1958 AL: Jackie Jensen over Mickey Mantle
1958 NL: Ernie Banks over Willie Mays
1961 AL: Roger Maris over Mickey Mantle
1962 NL: Maury Wills over Frank Robinson
1979 NL: Willie Stargell (tie) over Mike Schmidt
1981 AL: Rollie Fingers over Rickey Henderson
1984 AL: Willie Hernandez over Cal Ripken
1987 AL: George Bell over Alan Trammell
1987 NL: Andre Dawson over Tim Raines
1992 AL: Dennis Eckersley over Roberto Alomar
1996 AL: Juan Gonzalez over Alex Rodriguez

That leaves us with 2 main groups,

Relief pitchers:
1950 NL: Jim Konstanty over Stan Musial
1981 AL: Rollie Fingers over Rickey Henderson
1984 AL: Willie Hernandez over Cal Ripken
1992 AL: Dennis Eckersley over Roberto Alomar

RBI leaders:
1952 NL: Hank Sauer over Stan Musial
1958 AL: Jackie Jensen over Mickey Mantle
1958 NL: Ernie Banks over Willie Mays
1961 AL: Roger Maris over Mickey Mantle
1987 AL: George Bell over Alan Trammell
1987 NL: Andre Dawson over Tim Raines

two second-best players off winning teams,
1962 NL: Maury Wills over Frank Robinson
1996 AL: Juan Gonzalez over Alex Rodriguez

and a 100% pure-sentiment choice:
1979 NL: Willie Stargell (tie) over Mike Schmidt


Why some of these players won is fairly obvious, and even if the voters have a messed-up idea of what “valuable” means, I get why they voted the way they did and I won’t call those picks the worst ever. So I’ll knock Konstanty, Maris, Wills and Stargell out.

In picking the worst choice of the final eight, let’s consider how many players were better and how well his team did:

1952 NL: Hank Sauer over Stan Musial : third or fourth best player and his team was .500. Horribleness score: 5

1958 AL: Jackie Jensen over Mickey Mantle: third or fourth best player and his team was over .500. Horribleness score: 4

1958 NL: Ernie Banks over Willie Mays: second or third best player and his team was below .500. Horribleness score: 4

1981 AL: Rollie Fingers over Rickey Henderson: ninth or tenth best player and his team was well over .500. Horribleness score: 7

1984 AL: Willie Hernandez over Cal Ripken: seventh or eighth best player and his team won the division. Horribleness score: 5

1987 AL: George Bell over Alan Trammell: seventh or eighth best player and his team almost won the division. Horribleness score: 7

And now, since the voting gets worse as time goes on, the last three candidates are also the three worst votes ever:

1992 AL: Dennis Eckersley over Roberto Alomar: not among the twenty best players but his team did win. Horribleness score: 9

1996 AL: Juan Gonzalez over Alex Rodriguez: not among the twenty best players but his team did win. Horribleness score: 9

And the winner is….

1987 NL: Andre Dawson over Tim Raines: not among the twenty best players and his team came in LAST! Horribleness score: 10


The verdict is in, and the RBI and the save are the two most insanely over-valued statisitcs in baseball.

perkdog

This is a lot to take in. Im going to have to think about it for awhile.

Jersey

That IS a lot to take in. One quick reaction I have though is 1963 - Koufax was awesome.

calaban7

Jeff Burroughs 1974---- I always liked him, but never understood how he won. Rangers went from total crap the year before, then imported Billy Martin and Fergie Jenkins. Throw in Lenny Randle and Steve Foucault, all who had their finest season that year=== lots more wins than the year before. Big Jeff drove in alot of runs. Goldfish Hunter, Gaylord Perry, even Bobby Grich had a better season.


Still I liked Mr Burroughs, but again never understood.

Volver

I am going with one you have not even mentioned - 1995 Mo Vaughn over Albert Belle

The 1991 Terry Pendelton pick in 1991 stands out on your list, but again my vote is for 1995 AL

jaxxr

Interesting thoughts and opinions.
The MVP is an award based on some non quantifiable events and circumstances.Seems to me no player on a last-place team should ever be most valuable, without him the team could not finish any worse ! How saves from a part time player, can be compared to game winning hits from a regular player, or complete games from a starting pitcher is beyond me. The award is of course, somewhat subjective, and often leads to contrversey. This is part of what makes baseball so interesting and fun to discuss.

I'll go with 1952 NL , 1987 NL, and 1984 AL from the aforelisted MVPs, as the poorest 3 choices.

Will disagree with 1961, Maris did lead in runs batted in and tied for the lead inruns scored. Roger also led in total bases, and did merely happen to break the most famous and popular record in all of sports history, Babe's 60. That alone should be more than enough to deserve the award.

In 1957 voters seemed to forget Ted Williams hit a league leading remarkable .388, he also led in HR %, OB%, SLG%, anf OPS, he also hit more HRs than Mickey that season. However voters gave Mantle the MVP for 1957, things even out sometimes.

WinPitcher

So, by your above list the year Phil Rizzuto won the MVP he deserved it?


interesting.


Steve

KalineFan

It doesn't take me long (KalineFan)

1 9 6 3 . . . . . . . . Elston Howard over.....yep......Al Kaline!

Tony

stevek

<<< 1979 NL: Willie Stargell (tie) over Mike Schmidt >>>


Agreed - Stargell should definitely not have been up there with Schmidt for MVP.

Wabittwax

In the words of Bill Lumberg:

Ummm, yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Dawson and Bell had big years in 1987. I'm sure there are worse picks than those.

I think I would go with Rollie Fingers over Rickey Henderson. Although, I'm not too familiar with older statistics so there might be a bigger discrepancy that I'm not aware of. I haven't studied it too much.

Cubfan

How about the 1965 AL MVP---Zoilo Versalles over ANYONE!!!!!!!

Dallas - You note that Stargell over Schmidt was the worst. But Stargell tied with Keith Hernandez that year. How does Hernandez fit into the picture with your comparison? Should Schmidt have beat him as well but not as much as Stargell? Or was Hernandez valid in your opinion?

Morgoth

I think 1960 Dick Groat was a slight because Clemente had a much better season, was more important as Groat was hurt and a month of the season.

aro13

I would agree that many voters are likely to just pick the player who drove in the most runs on the best team. It seems over the years the voters have decided:
1) a player with a breakout season is more valuable than a consistent player ( eg. Ripken over Murray)
2) RBI's rule the day

However, the MVP cannot simply be the best player statistically.

Also, the voters at the time know many more things that we do not know today. For example, Willie Hernandez does look like a terrible choice now. But in Spring Training in 1984 Sparky Anderson said many times if the Tigers can come up with a stopper in the bullpen it will straighten out his whole pitching rotation and they will win the division. Willie Hernandez emerged to save 32 games and pitch 140 innings for easily the best team in the league. He was the most important addition and hence, the MVP. Was he the best player that year - no. But the reasoning behind the selection can be justified.

Bell over Trammell was not a horrible selection. It can be justified, if you were a voter in 1987. Maybe, not today but certainly after that season. Bell's slugging percentage on the road in 1987 was .666. But because Exhibition Stadium was considered a hitter's park (but left-handed hitters had a bigger benefit than righties) it lowers Bell's value when in reality it did not help him at all. So you are looking at Bell's numbers and punishing him for hitting in Exhibition Stadium when in reality he hit far better on the road.

dallasactuary

I'm glad I started this thread - some interesting responses for sure.

Since you all already know why I picked the way I picked, I won't defend it any further or debate anyone else's choices. But to clarify my thoughts that, from some of the replies, may not have been clear:

1. Koufax WAS awesome in 1963, but Aaron was phenomenal. I'm not saying that the winners had bad seasons, just that someone else had a much better season.

2. I agree that Mo Vaughn was a horrible choice for MVP in 1995; if my list was one longer he would have been on it.

3. Just because I didn't list a year/league doesn't mean I agree with the pick; these are just the very, very worst picks IMO. That said, yes, I think Phil Rizzutto deserved the MVP in 1950. Granted, that was a weak year in the AL and I wouldn't consider Berra, Doby or DiMaggio to have been bad picks, but Rizzutto had as much claim on the MVP that year as anyone. If they had picked the RBI leader, Vern Stephens, THAT would have been a horrible pick.

4. There were probably 10 people who could have won the AL MVP in 1963 and Kaline was certainly one of them, but on a sub-.500 team it would have been unusual.

5. It may have been one of the biggest flukes in history, but I think Zoilo Versalles was an excellent choice for MVP in 1965; Oliva is the only other possibility that year.

6. In 1979, I think Schmidt was the best player but Hernandez wasn't that far behind; his getting the MVP isn't worst-ever-list-worthy but Stargell getting it was just plain silly.

7. I knocked Groat's MVP out of contention for worst because, injury or not, he was still the best player on the Pirates that season. Clemente missed a bunch of games himself that year and was well below his normal level when he was playing.

8. I'm not punishing Bell for playing in Exhibition but I am giving Trammell a little boost for playing in Tiger Stadium and a much larger boost for playing shortstop very well as opposed to playing left field very, very poorly. The MVP is for the most valuable PLAYER, not hitter; as hitters, they were fairly close.

metalmike

The big Red machine- we came we saw we kicked ass

dallasactuary

<< <i>Interesting thread. This is not out of bias that I say this but I would add

Clemens over Mattingly 1986
Morneau over Jeter 2006 >>



Clemens is another who almost made my list; as it is I think maybe it was too long and I had to shut it down somewhere. Mattingly and Boggs should have been the obvious contenders that year.

Morneau was also a really bad pick, but not horrendous by the pitiful standards of the past. Jeter was robbed - again.

It's interesting to think about how the "who belongs in the HOF" and "who is overrated" arguments would go today if the MVP voters knew what they were doing. Ron Santo should have an MVP; Yaz should have three or four; Fred Lynn should have another; Tim Raines should have two or three; Will Clark should have two; Ernie Banks should have none; Roger Maris should have none - so many people base their opinions of players on MVP awards and such and that's a mighty shaky foundation.

CDsNuts

It's funny, I agree with all of your choices EXCEPT the one you picked as the winner. Dawson hit 49 HR in an era where 50 was a huge number- remember how "amazing" it was when Fielder belted 50? Not to mention, Dawson was the guy on the Cubs that was pitched around the most (not Sandberg). The fact that they were last place is the only knock on the pick, but the stats he put up that year (.287 and 49 HR) were on par with many other MVP's in the mid 80s so you can't say it was completely bogus. Besides, there really weren't any other truly stellar players that year that set themselves apart from everybody else in more than one category. A few players dominated one stat (Gwynn .370, Coleman 109 SBs), but looking back, it was an era where the best NL players were on the worst teams- Schmidt, Gwynn, Murphy, Dawson, Ryan......

I would go with two that were not on your list: Willie McGee over Pedro Guerrero or Dwight Gooden in 1985, or Rickey Henderson over Cecil Fielder in 1990. I remember how ridiculous I thought it was back then when those awards were announced, and have never had a high opinion of the voters. I also thought Pendleton was a bad choice, but he kind of won it by default that year.

Good thread topic- brings back a lot of memories.

Lee

aro13

dallasactuary - I appreciate your post. I think there is a lot of good information. I do think though, that you have selected the best player but not necessarily the most valuable. I also feel that by only looking at generic numbers for home ballparks you are missing out on some key areas.

I am guessing you are selecting Santo as the MVP in 1969. On the road in 1969 Santo had an OBP of .348 and a SLG of .396. Some MVP. In September when the Cubs blew the lead Santo had an overall SLG of .293 including .230 on the road. Bu using a generic home number you are giving Santo too much credit. If you are using another year for Santo I still do not see it.

Lynn was not the MVP in 79. Away from Fenway Park he was .371 OBP and .461 SLG. The fact he hit like Babe Ruth in Fenway, which he did for his whole career should not make him the MVP but it will if you use a generic number for Fenway Park.

Having chronicled the 1986 Red Sox season on a daily basis I would have picked Clemens over Boggs as being more VALUABLE to the Sox that year. Boggs did had a great year, and actually put up MVP numbers on the road as well, but as for value it was Clemens in my mind.

BobaFett72

what year did Rizzuto win the MVP ? that was garbage.

dallasactuary

CDsNuts - sorry, but if ANYONE had beaten out Henderson in 1990 it would have been a truly horrible pick; had Fielder gotten the MVP I would have picked it as the worst ever, ahead of the Dawson pick. Now, I have no problem with McGee winning in 1985, but I wouldn't have any problem with Guerrero (or Gooden, or Raines, or Carter) winning it either. 1985 is surely a year where there was no obvious choice. Neither was 1987; Raines, J. Clark, Ozzie, Gwynn, Strawberry, E. Davis - any of those were legitimate contenders and far, far more valuable players than Dawson.

Aro13 - actually, it's 1967 where I think Santo should have had the MVP; I agree that he wasn't close in 1969. And, again, if you're not looking at fielding, too, then we're going to disagree an awful lot. As for Lynn, I think he deserved the MVP in 1979, but I would have had no objection if Singleton or Brett had won it; but Don Baylor was just another "let's give it to the RBI guy" bad pick.

BobaFett72 - Rizzutto won in 1950, and by a huge margin. Who is it that you think should have won that year? To the voters credit, and to my true surprise, they were actually smart enough that year to almost shut out the RBI leader entirely - just 6 points to Rizzutto's 284. I'm not sure at what point the voter's mindless fascination with RBI took hold, but it hadn't by 1950, anyway.

CDsNuts

I chose Fielder not necessarily on the merits of his value to the team, but his value to the sport. It was one of those things where everybody- even casual fans and non-baseball fans, looked in the box score every day to see whether Fielder hit any homers. He was on pace, or close to it, to challenging Maris and tailed off towards the end of the year, and the whole thing with him going to Japan and coming back really made him a guy that everybody was rooting for. It was one of those seasons that really transcended what was happening on the field, which is why I would have given him MVP that year. Henderson deserved the award for what he meant to the A's, but FIelder meant a lot more to baseball. I guess Fielder is a philosophical choice.

Lee

grote15

Also with regard to Henderson winning the MVP over Fielder, the A's won their division that year, whereas the Tigers finished below .500. I'd have a hard time voting for a guy for MVP if he played on a losing ballclub unless he was far and away the best candidate, and Fielder doesn't fit that bill in 1990.

aro13

dallasactuary - In general I agree with you and definately feel that RBI's are given far too much weight in MVP voting. Also, your point about defense is valid, and perhaps I am not putting enough emphasis on that area and too much on intangibles.

In regard to Santo winning the 67 MVP over Cepeda, I would say no. Santo played in a hitter's park that he benefitted from in his career more so than the park average. Cepeda played in a pitcher's park. In road games in 1967 Cepeda posted a .393 OBP and a .564 SLG which is slightly better than he performed at home. Santo posted a .380 OBP and a .456 SLG. I will grant you that Santo is a gold glover, but Cepeda's team did win the pennant and I would guess had more intangibles. A 100 point advantage on SLG would require a huge difference in defensive ability especially when the intangibles are not in your favour.

You do have the reasoning behind the Rizzuto selection for MVP wrong. Rizzuto was the proper selection for MVP in 1950. However, the writers did not see the voting the way you are looking at it now. In 1949 Vern Stephens had perhaps the best year any shortstop ever had - 101 walks total and 18 homers and 63 runs batted in ON THE ROAD. The Yankees beat the Red Sox by one game for the pennant. Williams won the MVP. Vern Stephens finished seventh. The writers reasoned that the Red Sox stats, particularly Stephens were inflated, and it meant nothing because they LOST. Rizzuto, on the other hand, represented a WINNER because he did all the little things and the Yankees won. He had all the intangibles. His leadership qualities and ability to move runners as well as his defense is the reason the Yankees won. They voted Rizzuto second for MVP. In 1949 Rizzuto had a .352 OBP and a .358 SLG. He, did however, lead the league with 25 sacrifice bunts. Amazingly, especially if he led off as I think he did, he grounded into 18 double plays. Selecting him second in the MVP voting and Stephens seventh represents the exact opposite of what you are now referring to in regard to RBI''s.

In 1950 the Yankees won the pennant, Ted Williams was hurt so Rizzuto had little competition and was the MVP winner. His numbers justified the selection but had he posted a .352 OBP and a .358 SLG he would have still won the award. Rizzuto, according to the press, was Joe Dimaggio without the gaudy statistics.

BigRedMachine

Okay, I can concede that RBI's are overrated. It's nearly entirely a result of the guys around you and opportunities to hit with guys on base. I understand that.

I think this is a great thread to read, and the arguments are good.

But I've never cared much for the MVP voting anyway. It's to New York biased, and the award has no merit in my mind.

Case in point: Ted Williams won the triple crown twice. You don't like RBI's?? Fine. But the triple crown is quite an accomplishment, and I don't think anyone would argue.

In any case, both times he won the triple crown, he DID NOT win the MVP.

I assume he lost to a Yankee, but not for sure off the top of my head.

shawn

Volver

Can someone please tell me how an RBI is overrated. Sure the guys in front of you have to get on base, but you also have to put the ball in play to drive them in - that is both showcasing the individual and team aspect of baseball.

The job of the batter is to generate runs no matter how that happens. RBI is hardly an overreated stat.

coinkat

I am not saying this is the worst pick since WWII, I just think Frank Howard deserved MVP over Boog Powell in 1970... YAZ would have been a better choice than Powell. I like Powell... entertaining to watch, I just do not think he should have been MVP.

edited to add- Harmon Killebrew over Powell as well

aro13

Shawn - Williams won the Triple Crown in 42 but lost out to Joe Gordon for MVP. Williams also won the triple crown in 47 but lost out to Dimaggio.

coinkat

Since Williams came up... Williams hit .406 in 1941 and lost MVP honors to Joe... and in all fairness, that was the year of his 56 game hitting streak

BigRedMachine

Well, I'll admit I had to google search Joe Gordon........

but not to my surprise, he was a Yankee.

Shocker.

Volver

Williams and Dimaggio's 1941 season stats are very similar except for batting average in which Williams batted .406 to JoeD's .357.

The Yankees did win the World Series that year - not sure when voting was held back then.

jaxxr

Baseball game results are determined by runs.
The wiinner has the most runs, ........the stolen bases, walks, double plays, strikeouts, various percentages, intangibles, Etc., may all contribute or take away from a team's chances of winning, but as in 1901 and still today, runs are what actually count.

While baseball is a team sport indeed, a good player can drive in a run without teamate aid, a homerun does just that. He might also be able to get on base, make it to 3rd and steal home, scoring a run with little or no help from others.

The all-time list of those fascinating RBIs, shows the top five retired players are, Aaron, Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, and Cobb. Perhpas a result of luck by having good teamates, always on base for them ? They also must have been lucky enough to get a hit when needed.

RUNS driven in, RUNS created, RUNS produced, RUNS scored, ....do the MVP voters take them into consideration ? I dont claim to know how the voters think, but would hope they might feel runs and/or the production of them. do have value.

dallasactuary

<< <i>RUNS driven in, RUNS created, RUNS produced, RUNS scored, ....do the MVP voters take them into consideration ? >>


The evidence shows pretty conclusively that they value the runs driven in part much more highly than all the rest combined. In fact, "runs created" is a concept that I don't think most of them even grasp at all.

Your point about the all-time RBI leaders is certainly valid; great players will end their careers with more of just about everything than less great players. But on a year-by-year basis the player who comes in #1 in any given catgegory is part skill and part luck. All of the guys you listed should have won several more MVPs than they did but were frequently beaten out because another random player happened to have a handful more RBIs that year.

dallasactuary

aro13 - I appreciate your arguments regarding the 1967 NL MVP, but I'm sticking with Santo as my pick. Certainly, Cepeda winning it didn't make my list and wasn't close to making my list - he was a reasonable choice. I think I have to be giving Santo much more credit for his fielding than you are, and you may be right that I'm giving him too much but as Official Defender of Ron Santo I really have no choice.

BigRedMachine - actually, if you look year-by-year at the winners and should-have-been-winners, there is no NY bias. That surprised me when I first looked at it because I had always heard that said. I do think there probably was some bias in the period you mention - when Williams was playing - but that can just as reasonably be explained as anti-Williams bias as pro-NY bias. The list of MVPs that should have gone to Yankees (and a few on other NY teams) is pretty long, with Mantle on there several times and Jeter on there twice (and Bobby Murcer once - discuss). Overall, NY players have stolen MVPs and had MVPs stolen from them in roughly equal proportion.

Remember, the Yankees were the best team in the AL for about half the years in a 50 year period - with Brooklyn and the NYG having their own successful runs, too - NY players have earned more MVPs than any other city, and by a considerable margin. There is certainly a "bias", if you call it that, towards players on winning teams; but that holds true whether the winning team is from NY or anywhere else.

Stingray

If you are going to talk about just stats, Kirk Gibson's stats for 1988 were pretty bad for an MVP.

gosteelers

<< <i>Okay, I can concede that RBI's are overrated. It's nearly entirely a result of the guys around you and opportunities to hit with guys on base. I understand that.

I think this is a great thread to read, and the arguments are good.

But I've never cared much for the MVP voting anyway. It's to New York biased, and the award has no merit in my mind.

Case in point: Ted Williams won the triple crown twice. You don't like RBI's?? Fine. But the triple crown is quite an accomplishment, and I don't think anyone would argue.

In any case, both times he won the triple crown, he DID NOT win the MVP.

I assume he lost to a Yankee, but not for sure off the top of my head.

shawn >>



What are you talking about? The Yankees have had TWO MVP awards in the last 30 years! Mattingly in '85 and Rodriguez in '05. Jeter was robbed twice, Mattingly was robbed in '86. Even when you talk about ROY, Matsui was robbed when they gave it to Angel Berroa, of all people. Don't say there's a NY bias when the facts aren't there to back it up...

Skinpinch

Writers associate clutch hitting with total RBI, and that is partly the reason why they vote for the RBI leaders. All the OPS+, SLG%, and OB% stats do not incorporate how well a man hit with men on base. Obviously the better a man hit with men on, the more runs for the team and RBI for him.

The problem is that writers automatically assume that lots of RBI automatically meant it was because he was a good hitter and/or good with men on base. A guy can simply accumulate a lot of RBI because he has many more baserunners, or because he is an out machine...neither of which are as good for a team as his total RBI will indicate. If there was a poster boy for this player, it was probably Joe Carter.

On the flip side, a guy can get a lot of RBI because he is a heckuva slugger and/or was exceptional with men on base. If there was a poster boy for this it would probably be Eddie Murray.

In 1985 Eddie Murray had an OPS+ of 149.
In 1985 Mike Schmidt had an OPS+ of 149.

Murray had 124 RBI, Schmidt had 93.

In this case, the RBI are very telling because Murray was a 1.085 OPS with men on base...he had 266 at bats with men on.
...................................................................Schmidt was a .806 OPS with men on base...he had 254 at bats with men on.

If these two players were up for an MVP, then the RBI were very telling, and the OPS+ wasn't telling the whole truth to who impacted their team more.

If Bill Buckner were in that same race with his 110 RBI, it would look good until you noticed he had a whopping 367 at bats with men on, much more than both of them, and that is the biggest reason why he managed 110 RBI with a .850 OPS with men on base.


Writers from way yesteryear didn't have privy to this information, and you can give them somewhat of a pass on their view on RBI...writers from the last 20 years have no excuse.

So in conclusion, RBI do tell very much, but ONLY when you equalize the number of runners they had the privlege of, and exactly how they hit with said runners. The downturn to that is that there is still bias as to the SPEED of hte runners, and the PARK. In Murray's case, memorial stadium was hard to drive in runners from first base. So there are more smaller things that affect it as well.

Volver

<< <i>So in conclusion, RBI do tell very much, but ONLY when you equalize the number of runners they had the privlege of, and exactly how they hit with said runners. The downturn to that is that there is still bias as to the SPEED of hte runners, and the PARK. In Murray's case, memorial stadium was hard to drive in runners from first base. So there are more smaller things that affect it as well. >>




Is that not like saying if Mark Price played with Michael Jordan he would have averaged 20 assists a game. I do not buy the fact that one stadium was easier to hit in than another. You're a ballplayer and you are to hit no matter the pitcher, weather, ballpark or lineup you are associated with.

There are a myriad of things you can drill down and pick apart, but the bottom line is this.

The great ones rise above and produce - period.

Skinpinch

Volver, you pick the most insignificant part of the post I made, and then translate it into something totally overblown etc..


Feel free to buy whatever you wish.

I'm not going to try and change your misconceptions or half truths, it is a pointelss exercise for me. You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you wish.

CDsNuts

Skin just reminded me of something- in 1983 pretty much 100% of Orioles fans felt Eddie Murray was the team's MVP. Since he was gruff with the media and they absolutely had to give it to an Oriole, they gave it to Ripken. Murray was better in every statistical category, and in clutch situations. He was also a better fielder that year, and one of the better fielding 1B's in the league. Granted it's not as important as a skilled SS, but you certainly can't take away from his credentials if he plays his position well. That was the worst MVP pick of all time, and a truely clear cut situation where you can directly compare two players because they were on the same team, played in the same park, and were back-to-back in the batting order.

'83 Stats:
Murray- Hitting .306, 33 HR, 111 RBI, 115 R, 5 SB, 86 BB, 90 SO. Several game winning hits/HRs. Fielding- Gold Glove, 10 E, .994 FP
Ripken- Hitting .318, 27 HR, 102 RBI, 121 R, 0 SB, 58 BB, 97 SO. Fielding- 25 E, .970 FP, no Gold Glove

You could argue that Murray got a lot of those RBIs because Ripken got on base so much, but you could also say Ripken had more runs because Murray drove him in so much. Like I said, ask anybody who followed this tam in 1983 and Murray was clearly the team's MVP.

Lee

Skinpinch

CdsNuts("we're gonna need body bags...yeaaaah"),

I actually broke down that Murray-Ripken MVP race a while back here, going through all the men on hitting...and didn't even do any of the late inning stuff, and Murray really could have been that MVP.

dallasactuary

<< <i>I do not buy the fact that one stadium was easier to hit in than another. >>


Yeah, and what's with this "sun rises in the East" crap? That's what I'm not buying.

CDsNuts

Skin, you'll have to forgive me. Sensei had us working overtime for this week's big karate tourney and I glazed over your post on the Murray vs. Ripken thing. But you gotta believe me- everybody in Baltimore knew who the Orioles' best player was that year, and who we wanted at the plate down by a run with a man on and 2 outs in the 9th.

Lee

jaxxr

I am sure someone is using a poor reference book to say that in 1983 Murray was better in EVERY statistical category.

Cal had a higher batting average, and more hits than Murray. He a higher number in runs produced.and more doubles than Eddie. He got more Total bases and more RC ( runs created ) than Murray, He also scored more runs in 1983 than Eddie did.
So Cal did in fact score more runs, produce more, and create more runs, Murray drove in more. Ironman Cal also did contribute more value to the Orioles for 6 games in which Eddie did not even play.

I am not sure what or how the writers think when they choose a MVP, I have talked with two different ones who were at one time or another, offical members and did cast MVP votes. They made no mention of any one stat or circumstance which would always be a primary factor, It was inferred there is no formula, method, or stat measure which is used in all cases.

Speaking of baseball writers,
Writers do sometimes get a bad rap, they do see many many more full baseball games than the average fan. They may be able to judge situational performance much better than any stats could show. They may observe many circumstances which do not lend themselves to statistical analysis. For instance they can see a run driven in off Pedro M. in the late innings of a tie game is far more "valuable" than one off Jeff Suppan in the 3rd inning of a 7-1 game. Of course they do make mistakes, however their opinions based on so much first-hand knowledge should not be taken lightly.

Volver

<< <i>

<< <i>I do not buy the fact that one stadium was easier to hit in than another. >>


Yeah, and what's with this "sun rises in the East" crap? That's what I'm not buying. >>



Maybe so, but my thoughts stand that if you are a good enough hitter your surroundings and conditions will not affect you. It's a mental perception and easy excuse for media pundits.

Would Reggie Roby have had a better punting average if he played for the Broncos? Would Peyton Manning have a lower completion percentage if he played in New England? Would Roger Clemens have more strikeouts if he played for Seattle?

CDsNuts

I really meant to say Murray was better in pretty much every statistical category, but it came out as every category. Bad wording on my part.

Cal producing more runs is more of a result of Murray batting after him. Switch spots in the order and Murray has more runs and Ripken has more RBIs. But you're right, there is no, and shouldn't be a formula for choosing an MVP- it's simply deciding who was most valuable to their team. This is why I say Ripken over Murray is the worst choice- ask people who followed the '83 season as an O's fan who the team's most valuable player was and I'd be surprised if less than 90% choose Murray. His relationship with the media is clearly why it was given to Ripken.

Lee

CDsNuts

Volver-
In terms of home stadium being a factor, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of what you guys are saying. I don't believe it has as great an impact as Dallasactuary feels it does, but you certainly can't eliminate the fact that some parks are easier to hit in than others. Any right handed fly-ball hitter will hit more HRs in Fenway than anywhere else. Any batter in Colorado will hit more HR's than anywhere else. Similarly, any pitcher in those parks will give up more HRs than anywhere else. Another example would be Jason Elam's success in Denver- would he hit as many 50+ yarders anywhere else? Probably not. Do RBs tend to put up better stats in snowy cities? Bears, Steelers, Broncos, and Packers RBs have always had inflated numbers because their teams tend to run more than they normally would due to weather conditions. Clearly there is some type of factor at play in terms of where the guy gets to play the majority of his years. What effect it has should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Lee

dallasactuary

Jack, you don't come right out and state your pick but it sounds like you agree with Ripken as the best choice for MVP in 1983. If so, I just wanted to mark the occasion: I agree with you! (How long has it been since that happened?)

GlynRParson

STARGELL ABSOLUTELY DESERVED THE 1979 MVP it is about more then numbers. The Pirates do not win the world series without him.

dallasactuary

<< <i>STARGELL ABSOLUTELY DESERVED THE 1979 MVP it is about more then numbers. The Pirates do not win the world series without him. >>


1. The MVP vote happens long before the WS winner is known.
2. The Pirates don't win their division without Parker, they don't win their division without Blyleven, they don't win their division without Candelaria, they don't win their division without Garner, and they don't win their division without Stargell. To single out the guy who missed the most games as the MVP was silly. Even if you insist on awarding the MVP to a player on a winning team as opposed to the most valuable player, then Parker was a far more deserving choice.

GlynRParson

in 1976,1977,1978 or 1980 Parker was the team MVP in 1979 it was Pops. PS why no mention of Hernandez Willie didnt win it alone. Since you were naming the teams stars the Phillies had Rose, Carlton, Bowa, Luzinski, McBride they when less games without any of them. PS Iwould take maddog over Garner as well if you are listing the most important Pirates. BTW no $hit they vote before the World Series they still do not win it without Pops, he was the straw that stirred the FAMILY.

jradke4

Yeah the Packers do sure run a lot. Poor Favre if they would have only thrown more he might have beaten all of the QB records in only 12 years instead of 17 years. So I dont agree with your football logic.



<< <i>Volver-
In terms of home stadium being a factor, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of what you guys are saying. I don't believe it has as great an impact as Dallasactuary feels it does, but you certainly can't eliminate the fact that some parks are easier to hit in than others. Any right handed fly-ball hitter will hit more HRs in Fenway than anywhere else. Any batter in Colorado will hit more HR's than anywhere else. Similarly, any pitcher in those parks will give up more HRs than anywhere else. Another example would be Jason Elam's success in Denver- would he hit as many 50+ yarders anywhere else? Probably not. Do RBs tend to put up better stats in snowy cities? Bears, Steelers, Broncos, and Packers RBs have always had inflated numbers because their teams tend to run more than they normally would due to weather conditions. Clearly there is some type of factor at play in terms of where the guy gets to play the majority of his years. What effect it has should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Lee >>