MVP
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,337 ✭✭✭✭✭
Another way too long post that I hope will be interesting to at least some of you.
There have been a great many threads over the years about who deserved the MVP in this or that season, so I decided I'd look back at every season (back to 1931, anyway) to see who I would have voted for each year in each league. A few disclosures:
In most years, there is more than one reasonable choice for MVP. In those years I show who I would have voted for, but also list any others that I think would also be good choices. In some years I only list one name - that means I think my choice is the only reasonable choice.
I don't think that pitchers are MVPs very often, and I only picked them when they were head and shoulders more valuable than any other non-pitcher.
I have a bias against giving the MVP to a player who just won one if it's a close call. You'll see that I gave the MVP to the same player many times, and in consecutive years many times, but that means I didn't think it was a particularly close call in those years.
I made no allowance for cheaters. I didn't know who was cheating at the time they were cheating, and this is who I would have voted for at the time. Punkinhead Bonds won 7 MVPs in the real world, and he won 6 on my list.
I took absolutely no notice of won-loss records or of whether a player's team made the playoffs.
First, the AL. After the year are the actual winner, my winner and good alternatives (if any)
Year Winner
1931 Grove Ruth Gehrig Cronin Simmons
1932 Foxx Foxx Gehrig Ruth
1933 Foxx Foxx Gehrig
1934 Cochrane Gehrig Gehringer Foxx
1935 Greenberg Greenberg Gehrig Myer Foxx
1936 Gehrig Gehrig Gehringer
1937 Gehringer Dimaggio Gehrig Dickey Greenberg
1938 Foxx Greenberg Foxx DiMaggio
1939 DiMaggio Dimaggio Williams Foxx
1940 Greenberg Boudreau DiMaggio Greenberg Williams
1941 DiMaggio Williams DiMaggio
1942 Gordon Williams
1943 Chandler Appling Keller
1944 Newhouser Trout
1945 Newhouser Stirnweiss Cullenbine
1946 Williams Williams
1947 DiMaggio Williams
1948 Boudreau Williams DiMaggio Boudreau
1949 Williams Williams
1950 Rizzuto Rizzuto Berra Doby
1951 Berra Berra Williams Doby
1952 Shantz Doby Mantle Rosen Berra
1953 Rosen Rosen
1954 Berra Avila Mantle Berra Doby
1955 Berra Mantle
1956 Mantle Mantle
1957 Mantle Mantle
1958 Jensen Mantle
1959 Fox Fox Francona Colavito Minoso
1960 Maris Mantle Maris
1961 Maris Mantle Cash
1962 Mantle Mantle
1963 E. Howard E. Howard Tresh Yaz Allison
1964 B. Robby B. Robinson Mantle F. Robinson Hansen
1965 Versalles Versalles Oliva Buford Killebrew
1966 F. Robby F. Robinson
1967 Yaz Yaz
1968 McLain Freehan Yaz F. Howard
1969 Killebrew Reggie Petrocelli Bando
1970 Powell Fregosi Yaz White
1971 Blue Murcer
1972 Allen Allen Murcer
1973 Jackson Bando Jackson Mayberry Otis
1974 Burroughs Grich Burroughs Carew Jackson
1975 Lynn Tenace Singleton Harrah Lynn
1976 Munson Brett Carew Grich
1977 Carew Carew Singleton
1978 Rice Rice
1979 Baylor Lynn Brett Lezcano Porter
1980 Brett Brett Henderson Bumbry
1981 Fingers Dw. Evans Henderson
1982 Yount Yount
1983 Ripken Ripken Boggs Yount Murray
1984 Hernandez Murray Ripken
1985 Mattingly Henderson Brett Murray
1986 Clemens Boggs Mattingly
1987 Bell Trammell Boggs
1988 Canseco Canseco
1989 Yount Yount Henderson McGriff
1990 Henderson Henderson
1991 Ripken Ripken Thomas Griffey Canseco
1992 Eckersley Alomar Thomas Puckett Ventura
1993 Thomas Olerud Thomas
1994 Thomas Belle Thomas O.Neill McGriff
1995 Vaughn Salmon Martinez Belle Thomas
1996 Gonzalez ARod Knoblauch Belle Alomar
1997 Griffey Thomas Griffey
1998 Gonzalez Belle Olerud
1999 Pudge Jeter Ramirez Alomar
2000 Giambi Delgado Giambi Arod
2001 Ichiro Giambi Arod Alomar
2002 Tejada Thome Giambi Arod
2003 Arod ARod Delgado Thome
2004 Guerrero Santana
2005 Arod ARod
2006 Morneau Jeter Ortiz Sizemore
2007 Arod ARod Ordonez Granderson
2008 Pedroia Pedroia Mauer
2009 Mauer Mauer Braun Braun
2010 Hamilton Cabrera Hamilton
2011 Verlander Bautista
2012 Cabrera Trout
2013 Cabrera Cano Davis Cabrerra
2014 Trout Trout
2015 Donaldson Donaldson Trout
2016 ??? Trout
I found lots of this very interesting, but all I'll point out for now was that the 1970's were unbelievably competitive. Jim Rice, despite sucking, clearly deserved the MVP in 1978 and Bobby Murcer just as clearly deserved it in 1971 (but didn't win it because MVP voters can be incredibly dense). In every other year, there was a neck-and-neck battle for it often involving as many as 8 players (I never list more than three). And a question for anyone to answer: why in the hell did Albert Belle never win an MVP? I've got him winning 2 and a legitimate contender for 2 more.
And the NL:
1931 Frisch Grove
1932 Klein Ott Klein O'Doul Hurst
1933 Hubbell Berger Vaughan Ott
1934 Dean Ott Berger Terry Dean
1935 Hartnett Vaughan Ott Medwick
1936 Hubbell Vaughan Ott Medwick Hubbell
1937 Medwick Medwick
1938 Lombardi Goodman Ott Vaughan Hack
1939 Walters Walters
1940 McCormick Mize Vaughan McCormick
1941 Camilli Reiser Camilli
1942 Cooper Camilli Slaughter W. Cooper Mize
1943 Musial Musial
1944 Marion Galan D. Walker Musial
1945 Cavarretta Stirnweiss Kurowski Hack Cavaretta
1946 Musial Musial
1947 Elliott Mize Kiner Elliott
1948 Musial Musial
1949 J. Robinson Kiner Musial Robinson
1950 Konstanty Musial
1951 Campanella Robinson Musial Kiner
1952 Sauer Musial Robinson
1953 Campanella Campanella Mathews Snider
1954 Mays Snider Mays Kluszewski
1955 Campanella Mays Snider
1956 Newcombe P. Jones Snider Aaron
1957 Aaron Aaron Mays Mathews
1958 Banks Mays
1959 Banks Aaron Mathews Banks
1960 Groat Mathews Mays
1961 F. Robby F. Robinson Aaron Mays
1962 Wills Mays F. Robinson
1963 Koufax Aaron Mays
1964 Boyer Allen Mays Santo
1965 Mays Mays
1966 Clemente Mays Allen McCovey
1967 Cepeda Santo Clemente Aaron Cepeda
1968 Gibson Gibson
1969 McCovey McCovey Aaron Wynn Rose
1970 Bench Bench McCovey Perez Bonds
1971 Torre Torre
1972 Bench Morgan Bench
1973 Rose Morgan Stargell
1974 Garvey Schmidt Morgan Bench Wynn
1975 Morgan Morgan
1976 Morgan Morgan Schmidt
1977 Foster Foster Schmidt Parker Morgan
1978 Parker Parker
1979 Hernandez/Stargell Winfield Schmidt Parker Hernandez
1980 Schmidt Schmidt
1981 Schmidt Schmidt
1982 Murphy Schmidt
1983 Murphy Murphy Schmidt Guerrero
1984 Sandberg Sandberg Gwynn
1985 McGee Guerrero Murphy McGee Raines
1986 Schmidt Raines Schmidt
1987 Dawson O. Smith Strawberry Raines J. Clark
1988 Gibson W. Clark
1989 Mitchell W. Clark
1990 Bonds Bonds Dykstra Sandberg
1991 Pendleton Sandberg Bonds W. Clark
1992 Bonds Bonds
1993 Bonds Bonds
1994 Bagwell Bagwell
1995 Larkin Larkin Bonds
1996 Caminiti Bagwell Bonds
1997 Walker Piazza Gwynn Biggio
1998 Sosa McGwire
1999 Jones C. Jones Bagwell Biggio
2000 Kent Kent Delgado
2001 Bonds Bonds
2002 Bonds Bonds
2003 Bonds Pujols Bonds
2004 Bonds Bonds
2005 Pujols Lee Pujols Delgado
2006 Howard Pujols
2007 Rollins C. Jones Pujols Rollins Utley
2008 Pujols Pujols Berkman Utley
2009 Pujols Pujols Fielder
2010 Votto Votto Pujols
2011 Braun Kemp Braun Fielder
2012 Posey Posey McCutcheon Braun
2013 McCutchen Goldschmidt McCutcheon
2014 Kershaw McCutcheon Posey
2015 Harper Harper Rizzo Goldschmidt
2016 ??? Bryant Goldschmidt Votto Freeman
What stuck out to me most about the NL was Mays and Aaron; they won a combined 3 MVPs but I've got them winning 8, and perfectly reasonable choices for 6 more. Oh, and "P. Jones" in 1956 is Puddin' Head Jones, the 3B for the Phillies. If you look up his stats, you'll probably wonder why I think he should have won, when in fact he got no MVP votes at all in the real world. And it may well be that Aaron or Snider would have been better picks. But, if you look past his relatively modest offensive stats (OPS+ of 121) you'll see that he was a great third baseman (1st or 2nd in fielding%, range factor, putouts, and double plays, while not making the top 10 in errors). And if you look a little deeper than that, you'll see that the modest hitting Jones actually led the league that year in Win Probability Added. His OPS was .810, but in situations where it mattered, his OPS was .949, and when it didn't matter his OPS was .628. When a game was within 1 run - OPS of .991; more than 4 runs apart - OPS of .640. Puddin' Head wasn't a HOF player, and I'm pretty sure very few of you had ever heard of him, but he had one truly remarkable (and HOF-level) season, and I would have honored it with an MVP. On a similar note, "Goodman" in 1938 is Ival Goodman. I'd never heard of him before, and he came in 17th in the actual voting that year. If you hadn't either, look him up - a HOF season in a short, forgotten career.
Comments
Always intriguing commentary by you, Dallas, whether you agree or disagree. Will have to take a closer look at this one when I have some time.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Very interesting. I can't even imagine the time and effort it took to do this.
Based on MVPs alone, here are the most over and under rated players:
Underrated
Mantle and Williams: won 3 and 2 MVPs, deserved 7 and 6. Under by 4
Mays: 2 and 5. Under by 3
Musial: 3 and 5. Under by 2
Morgan: 2 and 4. Under by 2
Aaron: 1 and 3. Under by 2
Allen, Belle, W. Clark, Jeter, Mize, Ott: 0 and 2. Under by 2
Overrated
Berra, Campanella: 3 and 1. Over by 2
Banks, Gonzalez, Hubbell, Maris, Newhouser: 2 and 0. Over by 2.
I said at the outset that I had a bias against giving the MVP to the same player too often, but the bias on the part of the voters greatly exceeds my own. The all-time great group of Mantle, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Musial, Morgan and Schmidt won 16 MVPs, should have won 34, and could have won as many as 49. That bias seems to have gone away, or at least been reduced, over time.
Dallas, to your question: "Why in the hell did Albert Belle never win an MVP award". That's easy. He put off too many writers with his surly attitude toward them. He had an uneasy rapport with them. For obvious reasons, glad to see you bumped up "Stan the Man" to 5 MVP's.
Why Tenace over Lynn in 1975? Lynn was better offensively and defensively.
Dave Parker should've won the MVP in 1985. He led the league in RBI, extra base hits, and 2nd in home runs.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I'm not surprised that the first question was about the 1975 AL MVP. I spent more time looking at that one than any other and it came down to essentially a 6-way tie: the four I listed - Tenace, Lynn, Singleton and Harrah - plus Carew and Mayberry. Of those the best hitter was either Lynn or Carew, but the distance from top to bottom was tiny as compared to most any other year. Carew led the AL in Win Probability added with 5.1 - the lowest league leading figure of the decade (in either league). And when you look at pretty much any top-10 in a meaningful hitting category (OPS+, WPA, offensive WAR, etc.) you find all or nearly all of those 6 on every list. Big messy jumble of practically equal players - how to pick a winner?
Part 1 of my answer will surprise you, but please bear with me. I agree that Lynn was better than Tenace in 1975.
Part 2 of my answer begins with a little digression. Consider the BCS in college football and 6 teams all end the season with an 11-1 record, and every loss came while playing one of the other teams: Team A beat Team B, B beat C, C beat A, D beat E, E beat F, and F beat D. Which team was better? No matter which team you decide is best, there will be a team with an equally good record who beat that team, and three other teams where direct comparisons are difficult (sort of like catchers and outfielders).
Now, back to Tenace and Lynn, Lynn is Team A and Tenace is Team E. If those were the only 2 players involved then Lynn would have been my MVP. But with team Carew and the others in the mix it isn't that simple. I think Lynn beats Tenace and some others, but I think Tenace beats others himself, some of whom beat Lynn. If "better than" in baseball came down to a single number after applying a formula this wouldn't happen, but that's not how it works. Each of these six has advantages over the others, and each of the six has disadvantages compared to the others. I looked at more combinations and more stats than I care to admit here, and Tenace nosed his way to the top.
But, to repeat one of my initial statements, if I listed more than one name for a year then I absolutely agree that someone else, doing their own analysis and applying their own weights to what is most important and what is less important, could decide that one of the other names listed was the MVP and I would not disagree. Fred Lynn was an excellent choice for MVP in 1975, he's just not the player that I would have picked.
And for anyone who is thinking "Tenace won because dallasactuary likes Tenace", that's really not what happened. I actually "wanted" Ken Singleton to win at the outset - he's also one of my favorite players, and he was so good in so many years that I wanted him to get an MVP in one of them (1975 was the only year where Tenace was in the mix). I put every name in the winner slot at some point and constructed the case for why that was the correct outcome. While every one of those six had a reasonable case, the case that was most convincing to me was Tenace's.
A final note: if I had spent as much time on every selection as I did on the 1975 AL, you would be reading this in 2018. It was, easily, the most competitive MVP race in history.
I'm still in the 50's drinking in your list. It might be 2018 by the time I get to 1975. Impressive work
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
He did, but those stats aren't everything, and they don't take into account any context. Some stats that do:
Win Shares: Guerrero 3rd, Parker 8th
Win Probability Added: Guerrero 2nd, Parker 6th
Situational Wins Added: Guerrero 1st, Parker 10th
Adjusted Batting Runs: Guerrero 1st, Parker 4th
Adjuted OPS+: Guerrero 1st, Parker 4th
GIDP: Parker 1st (with 26), Guerrero not in top 10 (with 13)
Parker played in Cincinnati, Guerrero played in LA; the relative difference favors Parker by about 7%
1985 NL was highly competitive; I listed Murphy McGee and Raines as alternatives to Guerrero, and if I hadn't restricted myself to three I would also have listed Tom Herr. I could make a legitimate case for any of those five to be MVP that year. Parker was the best of the rest, but no legitimate case exists for him to be MVP; no matter how you approach it, and no matter how you weight what is most important, someone always beats him. You can say that RBI are all that matters - which would seem to be the only way to get Parker to the top - but the best RBI man in 1985 was Dale Murphy. Parker drove in 14 more than Murphy, but he had 39 more people in scoring position and 45 more men on first than Murphy did to potentially drive in. Put the same number of men on base for Murphy, and he beats Parker easily. Parker beat Guerrero by a whopping 38 RBI, but he had 60 more men in scoring position and 82 more men on first. Give Guerrero 142 more RBI opportunities and he'd have made up most, if not all, of that gap.
Lol I think you are full of crap. So total bases don't mean anything? Everyone knows Parker was the true MVP. The only reason why he got snubbed was because of his cocaine scandal. The reason why Guerrero finished behind Parker and McGee was because most of his stats were TOO low. Also Parker won a silver sluggers award and Pedro did not.
Hits - Parker 198. Guerrero 156
Doubles - Parker 42 Guerrero 22
RBI - Parker 125 Guerrero 87
Total bases - Parker 350 Guerrero 281
And if you really want to get nitty gritty about stats, look up Parker's September numbers, the month when it really gets down to the pennant chases. He was a beast.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I don't buy the argument that such and such player would have had the same amount of numbers or better if they would have had more opportunities. The fact is they didn't. So we will Never know if they would've been more productive or not. Guerrero in 1985 was a part time player. All the more reason why Parker is more deserving. The player that is there for his team on a everyday day basis putting up great numbers, is more deserving than the guy sitting on the bench.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Ridiculous amount of work here and I commend you on it. I am a Royals fan so my focus is on George Brett. 85 may have been his second best year. Led league in slugging and OPS and batted .335. Mattingly had a fine year but I always felt Brett was robbed, particularly in a year the Royals did so well (winning the WS). I realize post-season does not matter for MVP but the team had a great regular season and Brett was front and center.
Brett won one MVP but could easily have been 4 -- 76, 79, 80 and 85. And of course, he led the AL in batting and doubles (45) when he was 37 years old. Okay, I will stop now...
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
The MVP award has turned into the Most Outstanding Player. I believe there is a difference. To me a player who turns it up in September and without him his team is sitting home in October is more valuable than one who starts like gangbusters and has slightly better numbers for the year but has not picked it up when it counts the most.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Imagine two players on two different teams. Player A bats leadoff for the worst team in the league, Player B bats cleanup for the best team. Now imagine that each player gets 600 plate appearances and each one does exactly the same thing in each one: in their first plate appearance of the season they each strike out, in their second they each hit a single, then they each ground out, then they hit a double, then they walk, and so on and so on throughout the entire season. At the end of the season, Player A has 40 RBI and Player B has 140. Player A has a BA of .300 and player B has an average of .320 (because more of his fly outs were sacrifice flies because he had more runners on third). Your position is that Player B is better than Player A, when the entire premise is that they are absolutely identical.
Now imagine that Player A and Player B get traded for each other, and in the next season they each do exactly the same thing again. Now it's Player A with 140 RBI and the .320 average, and Player B with 40 RBI and the .300 average. Two identically equal players have two identically equal seasons and in one year you say that B was much better than A, and in the next season you say that A is much better than B.
Whether you "buy" the argument or not is irrelevant; comparing RBI without considering RBI opportunities is simply wrong.
As for the argument that games won in September are worth more than games won in any other month, that is also wrong. They all count as a win, and the team with the most of them wins the division. I could walk through any number of Player A/Player B examples to demonstrate this, but I hardly think it's necessary. If you have a player who will win you 10 games, all of them in September, and I have a player who will win my team 15 games spread evenly throughout the year, my team will beat your team, all else equal. I know everyone understands that; the impulse to believe that September wins "matter" more than June wins is purely emotional.
Finally, for breakdown, Brett is yet another example of what I've mentioned already - the better the player, the more likely that he has fewer MVPs than he deserves.
Excellent, detailed analysis. It is easy to be seduced by obvious stats~after all, most of us grew up taking the numbers on back of baseball cards as gospel, but the truth is what circumstances and opportunities help facilitate those numbers.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I am truly impressed by the work you do to come up with your analysis. I don't believe I would have the time nor the mental ability to do such analysis. I do disagree with your premise #5. The best player is not always the most valuable. As an example Ernie Banks won in 58 & 59 but his team finished well below .500. I am fairly confident that if they would have not had Ernie in the lineup they still could have finished well below .500.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Good point. Under the Dallas analysis, players who perform better under pressure mean nothing which I also disagree.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
If a player cannot perform under pressure, he wouldn't be a major leaguer in the first place.
The notion of "clutch" or players "pitching to the score" or "rising to the occasion" is by and large a fan created myth.
Take postseason performance~the greatest measure of "clutch" play. If you give a player a large enough sample size, they will invariably revert to their mean. We've seen this time and time again, both with postseason studs who suddenly start struggling and players who have struggled in the postseason suddenly start performing.
Yes, there have been great performances in clutch situations, but if the sample size is large enough, you almost certainly will see players revert to who we'd expect them to be.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Where we differ, or rather the point that you are missing, is that most of the players in the league don't have the opportunity to perform "under pressure" if you define that term as narrowly as it has been defined here. To define as "valuable" only those players with good teammates - which is precisely how it is being defined here - makes the MVP a team award, not an individual award.
But if I'm missing something it will be cleared up by the responses to my questions about the 1959 season. Either you or Brick will, I'm sure, step forward to answer those any time now and we can move on from there. I'll save you some trouble and tell you that Norm Larker played the best "under pressure", hitting .368 in September, and Roger Craig was 4-0 with a 1.01 ERA down the stretch. So those are your two MVP candidates: which one would you have given the MVP to?
Alot to think about... I would have included Frank Howard in the MVP finalest for 1969 and 1970 over others you included. Reasonable minds can differ.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I would have included Billy WIlliams in the list for 1970 -again I suppose reasonable minds can differ
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I'm a big fan of Frank Howard and he had great seasons in both 1969 and 1970. But, 100% of Howard's contributions were at the plate, and in 1969 he didn't hit as well as Reggie, and in 1970 he didn't hit as well as Yaz; nobody hit as well as Reggie and Yaz in those years. So any other player who contends for MVP in those years has to bring something else to the table; Petrocelli and Bando were infielders, and very good ones, in 1969, and Fregosi was an excellent infielder in 1970 while White was a very good fielder, base runner and clutch hitter.
The same basic argument applies to Williams in 1970 - after his hitting there just isn't much else, and nobody hit as well as McCovey that year. In that year, while I thought McCovey was the best hitter, it was also the case that Williams and Perez were close. My final candidates were the ones that I could make the strongest cases for: for hitting McCovey, for hitting by a skill position player plus fielding Bench, and for being really, really good at everything Bonds. Even if I could be convinced that Williams was a better hitter than McCovey that year, though, Bench would still have been my MVP.
The one that bothered me the most was Trammel not winning in 1987. Head scratcher
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Spoken like a true Tigers fan.
Though your point is certainly a good one..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
1987 was the year the MVP voters lost their minds. I would have voted for Trammell, but Boggs would have been a reasonable pick, too. But beyond that, McGwire, Puckett and Molitor were also better picks than Bell. Maybe even Mattingly and Yount.
In the NL, there were a multitude of good picks: Smith, Strawberry, Raines, Clark are the ones I see as reasonable, but Davis, Gwynn, Murphy Guerrero, Wallach, Schmidt and W. Clark also had excellent years. Now throw in Van Slyke, Doran, HoJo and a few others and you could find 15-20 players, probably 20+ if you throw pitchers into the mix, who had more valuable seasons than Andre Dawson.
The MVP voters never came close to doing as poorly as they did in 1987.
Red Sox and Tigers fan ; )
The 1987 MVP voting as Dallas Just commented on has always stood out as was anyone with a ballot actually paying attention?
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
How does Henderson beat out Mattingly in 1985?
I don't buy into how Guerrero would beat Parker in 85 with such paltry total production
The analysis seems to be more about fantasy opppsed to reality; putting a whole lineup of the same player against another - strat-o-matic type stuff...
Erik
Offensive WAR: Henderson 8.6 (1st), Mattingly 6.5 (4th)
Total WAR: Henderson 9.9 (1st), Mattingly 6.4 (5th)
OPS+ : Henderson 157 (2nd), Mattingly 156 (3rd)
Runs Created: Henderson 138 (3rd), Mattingly 136 (4th)
Win Shares: Henderson 38 (1st), Mattingly 32 (3rd)
Win Probability Added: Henderson 5.0 (3rd), Mattingly 4.7 (4th)
Total Zone Runs: Henderson 15 (1st, CF), Mattingly 0 (unranked)
That's one answer, and it incorporates pretty much everything. Another answer is that if you look only at the triple crown stats - which I think you must be doing to see Mattingly as better than Henderson that year - you miss that Henderson stole 80 bases and got caught only 10 times, that he played CF very well while Mattingly played 1B adequately, that Henderson ground into 8 DPs to Mattingly's 15, and more. Truth is, Henderson didn't beat out Mattingly in 1985, he beat out Murray and Brett; Mattingly shouldn't even have been a contender.
I already addressed Parker/Guerrero and since you didn't say what it was about my answer you disagreed with, I'll just have to let my prior answer stand. 1985 was a close race, but Parker wasn't part of it.
I note that both players you picked for MVP in 1985 led their leagues in RBI. I've said it many times before, but it can't be said often enough: you will make better player evaluations if you don't look at RBI. It never adds anything, and it very often misleads.
If Driving in runs mean nothing, then why is it included in the Triple crown?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I always thought that the 2006 AL MVP should have went to Jeter.
I see you did too.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
I didn't say that it meant nothing, I said that it didn't add anything. If you've looked at OBP and slugging, if you've looked at how players hit with men on and with RISP, if you've looked at their SB/CS and DP, and if you've looked at how many times they came to the plate, then looking at RBI won't tell you anything about a player that you don't already know.
With Parker and Guerrero, for example, if you look at all of those things then you should already know that Parker had a great many more men on base to drive in than Guerrero did. I looked up the actual numbers when I replied to a question, but I didn't look it up when I was going through my original analysis because I already knew that Parker MUST have had a lot more runners to drive in since he drove in more runs than Guerrero despite hitting worse than Guerrero.
RBI leaders come from three unrelated things: great hitters, having lots of teammates on base ahead of you, and playing in parks that make it easy to get hits. Of those, only the first shows how valuable a hitter is, and so it is the only one to consider when deciding who was the most valuable.
Since the value of a hitter can be determined without looking at RBI, it adds nothing to look at it. Too often, it subtracts from what the other stats have already told you.
Great post.
I really felt Brett should have won it in 79, when he had over 20 doubles, triples, and home runs,
a feat that has only been done 4 or 5 times, including by the great Willie Mays.
And you're also right about 85, in the final weeks of the regular season, Brett put the Royals on his
back and carried them to the division title over the Angels, who were ahead of them.
when a player carries a team on his back into the playoffs I too tend to put extra weight on the player for MVP providing he has all the other stats necessary. 85 I would have leaned towards Brett as well
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The problem with the "carries a team on his back into the playoffs" standard is that it awards points to players that simply weren't available to other players. Players on bad teams can't get credit for that, and players on really good teams can't get that credit either.
What Mickey Mantle did in September was usually irrelevant, because what Mickey Mantle did in April through August had already carried his team to the World Series. By what logic is carrying a team for one month more valuable than carrying a team for five months? The most valuable player will "carry" his team for the most wins, and that's true no matter when he does the carrying, how many wins his teammates are also carrying the team to, or whether the team wins enough games to make the playoffs.
And recall what happened in 2008, when Ryan Howard was so unbelievably awful in April through August that he single-handedly had a very good Phillies team out of playoff contention. Then, he had a terrific September and the Phillies did make the playoffs. Overall, Howard was probably the 100th most valuable player in the NL that year, but he came in second in the voting and quite a few folks here thought he should have won. If you go back through the season, it couldn't be more obvious that Chase Utley carried the Phillies to the playoffs, and he had to carry them for five long months with the weight of Ryan Howard included. Carrying a team out of a hole that you have dug yourself is not an MVP-worthy accomplishment.
Neither of these really applies to Brett in 1985, but they are examples that demonstrate that every game from April through October is worth exactly the same.
And finally, just out of curiosity, why is Brett being given credit for carrying the Royals at the end of the year in 1985? Sept./Oct. was actually his worst month of the year at the plate. If he hit well enough in the last two weeks to get credit for carrying them, then he must have been absolutely putrid at the plate in the first few weeks.
Dallas, check the stats for about the last week of the 85 season, and check how far behind the
Angels they were. I used to have a couple newspaper articles that I had saved from 85 but
I think I threw them out when I moved. I do remember an inside the park homer and quite
a few RBI's that last week when they overtook the Angels.
I'll trust you on that, and the upshot is that you're saying that Brett carried the Royals not for a month but for a week, and I'm even less impressed. Again, Brett did his worst hitting of the year in Sep/Oct, so if he had a momentous final week then his September must have been really awful (for him). Which is to say, one of the reasons that the Royals were behind the Angels going into the final week was that Brett's hitting had dropped off so much leading up to the final week. He then dug the Royals out of a hole of his own making.
I don't mean to pick on Brett, a great player who had a great year and a legitimate MVP candidate that year. What I do mean to do is to try to convince you that it just doesn't matter when a player has his best month or worst month; all that matters is the total. Win a few more games in September, and the Royals are already ahead of the Angels when the final week comes. Win a few more games in April, and the Royals are already ahead of the Angels when the final week comes.
BTW, the Royals were only one game back of the Angels heading into the final week, and the Royals had been three games up on the Angers two weeks before that. Which adds some credibility, I think, to the notion that had Brett played better in September, his heroics in October wouldn't have been necessary. From September 15 through September 22, the Royals went from three games up to one game back; from there, they went from one game back to one game up. I do not accept that the two-game swing at the end was of more importance than the four game swing immediately before that. Do you?
Dallas, that should be made into a tattoo. Excellent explanation.
Dave Parker thinks you need a larger "provision for adverse deviation" in your MVP modeling!
Erik
I seriously want that picture if its from an original negative...that is way too cool
Jim rice is in the hall and the cobra is not. Pathetic!
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The 1975 race ...Teance no way over Lynn. Dallas, to be fair, your reasoning left a lot to be desired here. All you have to do is what you did with Henderson and Matitngly in the 1985 race and Lynn beats Tenace easily.
Lynn beats him easily:
Win Probability Added
Lynn 3.9
Tenace 2.2
OPS+
Lynn 162
Tenace 145
Run Expectancy
Lynn 57.7
Tenace 30.5
Adjusted Batter Runs
Lynn 45
Tenace 35
WAR
Lynn 7.4
Tenace 5.2
I didn't actually describe my reasoning - just a very, very broad overview of my process - so I agree that it left a lot to be desired. I also said that if you compare only Lynn and Tenace that Lynn wins, so I don't disagree with any of your numbers or your conclusion.
While I will not attempt to recreate every detail of my analysis that led to Tenace coming out on top, I will list a few things that played a significant part:
By far the most important - Tenace was a catcher. I don't believe that in the history of baseball a catcher has ever earned an MVP based on their offense alone. If you're OK with that, more power to you. I'm not; catcher is a vital position, it is not physically possible to play the position every game, nor is it physically possible to hit as well in the games that are played as it would be playing a less physically demanding position.
I am positive that catchers have defensive value that is not captured in any personal stat except to the degree that it gets caught up in the value of the pitchers. That is, a pitcher throwing to a backstop would not be as effective as he is throwing to a catcher. A part of the catcher's job is to know his pitchers and to call the game accordingly. When he does a good job, the pitcher's stats improve, not his own.
With the exception of Vida Blue, the A's pitching staff that year was a collection of journeymen barely hanging on or having what would be the last good year of their careers (plus a couple of kids who weren't really ready for the bigs yet). Collectively, they outperformed what I think should have been expected.
Tenace played 158 games in 1975 - 13 more than Lynn played exclusively in the OF. Tenace didn't catch all of those games, but he caught in 125 of them, and then played 1B on what would, about half the time, have been days off to rest for a typical catcher.
I placed very little weight on defensive WAR, and none at all when comparing players at different positions. I see that WAR has Lynn ahead of Tenace overall by a fair margin; Win Shares has Lynn at 33, Tenace at 32. Since all methods agree that Lynn was more valuable offensively, this means that Tenace was more valuable defensively, and that the net result was very close.
This is still an oversimplification because I am omitting how Singleton, etc. factored into this, but starting from Win Shares showing Lynn only a bit ahead of Tenace, I essentially reweighted the defensive aspect of their value, gave Tenace more credit than Win Shares gives him based on the factors above, and concluded that Tenace was more valuable overall.
Does that convince you that Tenace deserved the MVP over Lynn? Probably not, and since I listed Lynn as a perfectly fine choice for MVP in 1975 I won't try any harder to convince you. I concede completely that you are at least as correct as I am. But, I would have voted for Tenace.
Dallas, in regard to your points above.
1) Your assertion of "nor is it physically possible to hit as well in the games that are played(at catcher) as it would be playing a less physically demanding position" isn't accurate.
I actually did one such study about 15 years ago to that exact question, and looked at every player that both caught and played other positions within the same season during the 70/80/s time frame. The conclusion was that as a group, the players actually had slightly better hitting numbers while catching, as opposed to the other positions they may have played. The numbers compared them to ONLY within the same season where they both caught and played other positions, so it took age and decline out of the question.
Tenace himself had a lifetime OPS of .833 while catching, and .810 while at other positions. In 1973 and '74 he hit better when catching, and in 1975 and 1976 he hit better while playing 1B...just to get a look at that time frame specifically.
I can safely say that point you made there is moot.
2)You state the value of a catcher isn't measured fully because how well he works and knows his pitchers, etc...
That is a theory, and actually, if a pitcher was indeed throwing to a painted box on the wall where a target was lit up electronically for the spot to hit, I actually don't think it would make much a difference to the pitcher. As kids we pitched like that all the time playing 'fast pitch' or 'swift 'against the painted boxes on the school's brick walls.
In reality, the catcher may call the game, but the pitcher ultimately makes the decision on the pitch. I pitched, so maybe I'm bias, lol.
But if you are going to stick to this point of the catchers un-measurble value, then you have to give credence to theories like lineup protection that elite hitters provide to batters around them. Eddie Murray would then be the SLAM DUNK 1983 MVP, and you would have to revamp your entire list based on that, because while players swear that catchers have this value, they also swear that elite hitters provide protection for them as hitters. You can't tout one and dismiss the other.
As for Tenace himself he was below average throwing runners out in 1975, and his catcher ERA was 3.38, while Fosse's was 2.96, and Haney's 3.39. Sorry, but there is nothing to support your theory.
Also, Lynn played a savage centerfield. He was the leader defensively. He was the guy that ran through walls and set the tone. So everything you are saying in regard to Tenace providing un-measurable leadership or value, I think you are actually placing those tangibles on the wrong player in this case. Lynn was actually that man.
Did you study how Tenace would have hit in 1975 had he not played catcher in any games? That was really my point, not how he he may have hit from one day to the next. Obviously, you didn't study it because there is no way to do so, and obviously I didn't study it either, for the same reason. My belief is that the effect exists.
No, I don't. All the two have in common is that they are theories; I ascribe to one and not the other. I believe that what appears on paper to be a pretty bad Oakland pitching staff in 1975 performing as well as they did is evidence that the effect for that team in that year was not insignificant.
My theory made no mention of Tenace being a better catcher than Ray Fosse (likewise, their catcher ERAs don't tell us much either). I give all catchers, Fosse included, extra credit; how one catcher compares to another catcher doesn't enter into it.
Lynn was indeed the man. But Win Shares says Tenace was significantly more valuable defensively than Lynn was, and I think the gap was even a bit greater than Win Shares says it was. And don't go dragging "leadership" or "setting the tone" into it; I never mentioned those nor gave them any value. What I said was that I believe that players who spend the bulk of a season at catcher are more valuable than the available statistics say they are. It's an argument that, by definition, can't be refuted with available statistics, and can't be proven either. I'm very comfortable with it, though, and would have voted for Tenace for MVP in 1975 based, in part, on this unmeasured value.
I think you're giving Tenace too much credit for his defense. He was a negative dWAR at catcher whereas Lynn was a positive. Lynn was significantly better at the plate and a plus defensively at a premium position in a difficult park. He was the right choice for MVP.
Dallas, you basically took all your studies back thirty years with your reasoning.
Dallas if catching caused offense to suffer, then players wouldn't actually have better hitting stats while catching, as opposed to when playing other positions where you say they get to 'rest'.
Actually, catchers get an advantage over other hitters, because they get to see 130 pitches a game, and sometimes will also face pitchers that they once caught.
And the reason why catchers have shorter careers is because some are poor hitters, and when their hitting get so poor, it is impossible to sustain them as a catcher, so they get fired. Others simply lose their throwing ability, so then they lose their job for that reason. Players that can sustain their hitting and throwing ability have no problem having lengthy careers at that position.
How Teance would have hit in 1975 had he never had caught would be the same if he did catch because the supposed physical demands at catcher have no correlation to hitting.
For all the years you lambasted fans for believing in lineup protection theory, you are a hypocrtie because you dont' know how Cal Ripken would have hit if he didn't have Murray behind him. Other year comparisons don't matter, because those are different seasons and players never have the same exact hitting season anyway, so that doesn't help. Using only an in-season comparison isnt' good either due to sample size. So what you are saying to the catcher theory is the same as the lineup theory. And actually, the lineup theory has more meat than the catcher one because they catcher study showed catchers offense doesn't hurt when catching. WE do know that lineup protection theory that Cal Ripken from 1983-1985 had zero intentional base on balls when Murray was behind him, so we know for certain that he was pitched differntly. We know that with runners on second and third and runners on second that he received a lower percentaage of walks than even a league average hitter because Murray was behind him. How much that correaltes to production? NOt certain, but is more certain than your catcher theory which already shows you have nothing to back up your statements.
PS: WInshares aren't law. And if Tenace was such a positive influence on his pitchers, then the other catchers would be worse with the catcher ERA. THe actual answer is his influence made little difference, and maybe even worse than league average becasue he didn't throw well, and even a wooden backstop would produce the same pitching results(minus the thrwoing to bases part).
Oh, one more thing, since Tenace had a harder time hitting Right handed pitchers, and since he was a catcher, his offense was actually saved because he would get his days off against the tough right handed pitchers. So those missing eight games in 1975 are actually helping his offensive percentages. Also, for his career it helps him a lot as well with his offensive percentages.
Your contention here is that the physical demands of catching hundreds of games are immediately erased by playing first base for one game. That's an interesting theory, but I certainly don't believe it and I'm positive that you have no evidence to support it. In 1975, Gene Tenace was a catcher; he was 4th in the AL in games played at catcher, in fact. He spent virtually all of the remainder of the season playing first base, with a grand total of 4 games of rest. In short, Tenace didn't get to rest during the 1975 season. The wear and tear on his knees, on his arms, on his back, etc. did not, contrary to your theory, get washed away when he took off the tools of ignorance and played first base for one game. I doubt that all of it got washed away between October and April, in fact.
Here's another novel theory that I'd never heard before. If you've got some research that supports it, I'm open to reading it. Until then, I don't believe it.
I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here. The average and maximum careers at catcher are so very much shorter than at any other position, and that is so easily proven, that I don't know what you mean when you say that they "have no problem having lengthy careers at that position". You also appear to be begging the question. My point is that it is very much more difficult to maintain throwing and hitting ability for a catcher than for any other position. Yes, the tiny group who can have had careers as long as 2,000 games. But other than those five - all of whom played years after Tenace with much improved and lighter equipment - catching takes a huge number of games off every career.
But in any case, since length of career didn't enter into my evaluation of 1975, I guess it doesn't matter.
You keep stating this, but without any evidence to support it. That's not your fault, since no evidence can exist. We can't know how any catcher would have hit in their career if they didn't have to catch most of the time.
You really rambled here so it's hard to address your points in order. First, I never lambasted anyone for believing in lineup protection theory, that was you. What your example of Ripken, and thousands of other examples, demonstrates is that it can make a difference who hits behind you. Now, the magnitude of that effect has been studied and it doesn't appear to be significant overall, but I'm in no position to say that it hasn't been significant for some hitters in some years (nor is anyone else in that position).
But where we're still on completely different pages is that you keep comparing my "theory" (I would call it a "belief") to other theories and somehow saying if I believe one theory I must believe every theory. Please let that go, it doesn't get us anywhere. And it's actually important that you not refer to my belief as a "theory", because theories can be tested. My belief with regard to catchers can't be tested, at least until we can travel through time. My belief is that Tenace, and all catchers, would be more valuable on offense if they played their entire careers at a different position. While it is obviously the case that players who are predominantly catchers would play more games if they weren't catchers, there is not, and can not be, any other evidence to support my belief.
Now you know better than to say this. Unless you have controlled for the pitchers who threw to each catcher, for how long, etc., you have no idea whether the difference in catcher ERA tells us anything at all. Maybe Fosse predominantly caught VIda Blue; maybe Fosse was predominantly a late inning replacement and disproportionately caught Linblad and Fingers. If you do all the checking necessary to determine whether the catcher ERAs are meaningful for this team in this year I will be very impressed, but not even I, the king of spending way too much time on stuff like this, and going to do that.
On this point, you may or may not be correct; defensive value is a tough thing to measure. As I've said, I disagree with you on this point, and independently, Bill James disagrees with you on this point. That doesn't make you wrong, but neither does it make you right. We just disagree. To a large degree, though, whether Tenace was at, above or below league average doesn't matter. He has defensive value in any case, and I don't see any way to look at it that doesn't show his defensive value at catcher exceeding Lynn's defensive value as an outfielder. If you're disagreeing with that then you're disagreeing with everyone, not just me. If you agree with that, then we're just disagreeing on how big the difference is, and we're just in a circle since we've already established that you and I disagree about how to assign value to a catcher.
Dallas, you believe that catching makes offense go down due to the physical demands of the job. You have nothing to back that up. People also believe in the Easter Bunny, and those people have more evidence than you because at least the bunny hides eggs.
Do you have evidence that squatting as a catcher makes hitting more difficult? Do you even have support that squatting is even bad for you or hard to the point where it affects daily life? Guys squat heavy weights all the time for years and have no knee problems, and maintain superior strength throughout. Knee problems usually come from elsewhere, and not from squatting.
If squatting was a fatigue inducing event that affected hitting, then when not squatting, the body would not be taxed like you are saying it is, thus making the body stronger and easier to do other things(like hitting). The fact that players don't see an offensive decline when playing catcher as opposed to an 'easier' position, starts to show that your theory has some pretty big holes. There is no need for a time machine we know it already.
Furthermore, if catching was a fatigue inducing event, then as the year wore on, the catcher should be seeing rapid decline in their offense. If your theory was right, then the fresh April/May body should be less susceptible to any fatigue from the position, as opposed to the August/September body which has been stressed far more(If it is even being stressed to the point that it affects hitting to begin with). We know Tenace had a lifetime OPS+ of .829 in the second half, and .805 inthe first half.
Furthermore, if catching were as fatiguing as you claim, then their throwing and defensive abilities should also decline as the year has worn on.
The reality is, the human body is EASILY trained to adapt to physical things to the point that it becomes routine and easy. That is why a Kenyan can run a million miles in his bare feet, a karate guy can break bricks with his hands, and a man can squat 600 pounds....then on the easy side of that scale, a man could player catcher in a baseball season.
Squatting on a regular basis actually makes your body stronger, not weaker. It makes doing other things actually EASIER instead of harder like you claim.
So your point is invalid like I said initially.
skin, I really don't know why you're letting this get to you the way it is, so I'll let it go after this post. At the end of the day, no, as I've said a few times now, I don't have much evidence to support my belief. What is obviously true is that the careers of catchers are much, much shorter, on average, than the careers of players at other positions. That may be changing in the modern era, but that's not relevant; it was true for the first 100+ years of baseball, including the years in which Tenace played. Also, on average, catchers play many, many fewer games per season than do players at other positions. If you're right that catching makes it easier to play every day, then every manager in the history of baseball was wrong to rest their catchers. Or you're wrong.
As for Tenace specifically, I don't know if you did this intentionally or not (I hope not) but obviously his career first half/second half OPS+ isn't really the issue. What's relevant to his value in 1975, a year in which his manager didn't give him the rest that he got in other years and which other catchers get virtually every year, his OPS dropped 92 points from the first half to the second half. His homers actually improved, but everything that required him to run got worse. In short, whether you choose to call it evidence or not, there's an abundance of material available with which to build a case that the wear and tear of catching, without rest, wore Tenace down over the course of the season.
Also, just so it's absolutely clear, I'm not giving Tenace (or any catcher) very much "extra" credit at all in 1975 (or in any year). If I gave him credit equal to assuming that he would have hit in the second half as well as he hit in the first half he would have run away with the MVP and I wouldn't have even listed Lynn as a reasonable alternative. But I didn't. I see Lynn with a very small lead over Tenace to begin with, and the extra credit I gave Tenace gave him the slightest of leads over Lynn. A lead so slight that I don't disagree at all that Lynn was an equally good choice; he's just not the one I would have voted for.
Finally, I found this interesting. Tenace was fourth in games played at catcher in 1975. The Top 5:
Sundberg played a ridiculous 155 games, exclusively at catcher. Total days of rest: 7. He hit terribly in the first half (.617 OPS) but he hit worse than a pitcher in the second half (.434 OPS). No manager ever had him play that many games at catcher again.
Downing played 137 games, also exclusively at catcher. Total days of rest: 25. His OPS held up better than Sundberg's, but it still dropped 48 points.
Munson played 130 days at catcher. He only got 5 days off, but in the 27 days when he played but didn't catch he was the DH on 22 of those days - which is essentially resting. His OPS only dropped by a single point.
Tenace we've talked about already. 4 days not playing, and a single game as DH.
Borgmann caught the same 125 games as Tenace, but started only 112, and didn't play at all in the other 37 games. Even so, his OPS dropped 52 points from the first to the second half. But note that he caught virtually every day in the first half and only half the games in the second half. Looks like the rest came too late and he was essentially done for the season by the time the second half came.
It's one season, and it's only five catchers, so I'm not going to give it any more credit than it deserves. I just found it interesting. I suspect that one could perform a similar exercise for most seasons and get similar results, but like I said, I'm going to drop this topic so I'll leave that to someone else.