Stan Musial and the NL MVP award.
JoeBanzai
Posts: 12,734 ✭✭✭✭✭
We all know the MVP award can be, and often is a complete joke.
I'm going to make a case for Stan Musial winning up to an additional EIGHT MVP's. I'll be ignoring the subjective "Valuable" part of the award, where the players team finished in the standings and the "catcher factor" (sorry Mr. Campanella), focusing on hitting statistics alone. Of course, with the goal of giving Stan as many as I can;
1943 Stan Wins his first MVP. Clear winner. The three he eventually wins, there's _no doubt _ he deserves.
1944_ You have to be kidding me!_ Stan is #1 in WAR, Hits, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, extra base hits and times on base. #2 in BA. #1 in range factor and #2 in fielding % in RF, Marty Marion? REALLY?
1945 In the Military. Unusual that he misses 1945, WWII about over. I am just going to assume he wins it if he plays.
1946 Stan wins MVP #2. Complete offensive domination!
1947 BOB ELLIOT WINS? Who here ever even heard of Bob Elliot? Ralph Kiner or Johnny MIze were the best 2 players in the NL that year. Stan has an unusual off year.....for him. .300 BA, .400 OBP and .500 SLG are still HOF numbers. Stan suffered from both tonsilitis and appendicitis that year.
1948 Stan wins MVP #3. Nobody comes close!
This marks the end of Stan's complete domination of the National league.
1949 Jackie Robinson wins, can't complain too hard, this is a close one. I'm giving it to Stan. Much higher OPS, Stan leads the league in hits, total bases, doubles, triples and is 2nd in HR. Kiner was great that year too!
1950 Jim Konstanty? Is there an adjective I can even use here? Stan totally dominates offensively again. Oh yeah, Eddie Stankey walked a lot, but he had a measly .412 SLG. Another bonehead decision by the voters. "Let's not give it to the same guy too often, even if he deserves it".
1951 Campanella wins his first MVP. Should have been either Kiner or Musial, Jackie has a great year too. I'm going with "The Man", who was #1 in BA, #2 in WAR, SLG and OPS. Kiner was a great hitter!
1952 HANK SAUR! WTF? Then three pitchers and finally, the the real MVP, Stan Musial. Stan leads the league in runs, hits, doubles, BA, SLG, OPS, OPS+, and Total Bases. Jackie has another great year. Voters unfortunately did NOT!
1953 Campanella wins his second MVP. He's one of the top 4. Snider has a strong case, Mathews as well. Stan deserves it as much as anyone, so you guessed it. Musial.
1954-55-56 Should have been Mays, (they got it right in 54), Mays again and then Snider, who was a lot better than anyone seems to give him credit for. I know, I know, only lefty in the lineup, blah, blah, blah. The guy could RAKE!
1957 With a final big year, Stan finishes second with the highest BA and OPS. Mays is better than Aaron, who wins, Mays is probably better than Stan at this point. Since Stan finished above Willie in the voting, Yep, I'm going Stan.
That makes 11 times Stan COULD have won it! 12 if you count the year he missed in the military!
At he VERY LEAST Stan should have won in 1944, 1950 1952, 1949 was a toss up, 1951 could have gone to Kiner, but he finished 10th, 1953 might have to go to Snider, 1957 probably Mays deserved it.
MINIMUM of 6 MVP's for Mr. Musial. Had he not gone into the Military, he might have won 6 IN A ROW!
He truly was "The Man"!
One of my regrets is selling a ball he signed for me at the National 35(?) years ago. :'(
Comments
Can’t argue with the stats. But I’m not familiar with how the players that won affected their teams. MVP doesn’t necessarily mean best stats.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
The contortions MVP voters go through to avoid giving the MVP to the same player are sometimes indecipherable. Musial, Williams, Mays, Mantle, Morgan, Schmidt, and others each won at least an MVP or two, but all of them deserved several more.
You are giving Stan several more MVPs than I would, but 1950 and 1952 (Konstanty and Sauer) are among the most absurd MVPs ever awarded, and Musial clearly deserved both of them.
You are correct. One of my objections regarding the "valuable" part is it often went to guys on pennant winning teams. In my mind a guy on a bad team that has a great year is more valuable than a guy on a team with many good players.
That's why I just said, forget the opinions, just look at the numbers.
I also don't think a pitcher should win, although when Steve Carlton won, it was hard to argue about. It's hard for me to think a guy who plays in 25% of the teams games can be "Most Valuable"
Kirby Puckett never won an MVP and if you look at how his numbers, along with his leadership and charisma, it was as big a factor in the Twins success as any other player in the late 1980's early 1990's.
My point was, that in looking at how dominant Musial was, he should be regarded up there with Mays, Mantle. Williams, etc and it seems he isn't by too many.
I love it!!! this is an exercise I have done for lots of players, but never Stan the Man. I agree, Stan deserved quite a few more. Ted Williams also should have won more. I think that Seaver should have won more Cy Youngs than he ended up with. should have been the first 4 time winner. I also think Seaver should have won the 1969 MVP award over McCovey. Seaver was the heart of that Miracle Mets team. 2 voters that year left him off from their ballots because they didnt think a pitcher should win MVP.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As my avatar exhibits, Stan was my favorite player. And I like the above explanation/points supporting his career. He may of not been flashy, but he delivered the goods. Shame he is not as highly regarded as MM etc. NY bias at play.
Glad you liked it!
I would pick Seaver as the best of all the "modern" era pitchers. I don't think it's too close, except maybe Bob Gibson.
I'm not sure about Clemens cheating, it was never proven to my satisfaction, but I have doubts.
Seaver was good every single year and he never got hurt.
I don't like giving pitchers the MVP, but if he would have won it in 69, it wouldn't bother me.
Stan was like Harmon Killebrew...........BORING.
Stan was the far superior hitter, but Killebrew was the Major Leagues best HR hitter from 1959-1971.
I have never heard a bad word spoken about either of these guys. True gentlemen!
People like "flash" and drama. Of course Mantle was in the World Series every year, that helped.
I would put Stan above Mantle and Williams, and even Aaron. Can't put him above Mays though.
"THE MAN"
The big question is, what player contributed the most to get his team to where it finished? In 1950, that was relief pitcher Jim Konstanty who made the difference to give the Phillies the pennant. The St. Louis Cardinals finished 5th and were 12.5 games out of first place. Yes Stan had a great year, but the Cardinals went nowhere.
I’ve had people argue with me here that a pitcher should never get the MVP. Yet in 1978, when the Red Sox collapsed and the Yankees won the pennant, who kept the Yankees close enough to catch them? Pitcher Ron Guidry who won 24 games.
I completely understand your thinking, and don't disagree to strongly, but why does where the team finish in the standings matter?
Also regarding 1950, Konstanty saved 22 of their 91 victories that year. That's a lot for the time! Do you think he was any more valuable than Del Ennis, who played in 153 games, scored 92 runs and drove in 126 while hitting 31 home runs?
Eight other players on that team received MVP votes, so it would seem they were being individually honored for a great team effort. They had 40 comeback wins that year! You have to score runs late to do that. Yes, you need to keep the other team from scoring at the same time.
Where would St Louis have finished without Musial? Not one player other than Stan batted over .290, had over 11 HR and above an .867 OPS. Musial carried the team!
Musial seems to be MORE valuable to his team, but the team sucked so he gets "overlooked"
Maybe the award should only go to players on 1st place teams?
At least Konstanty was the best "closer" that year.
In 1978 Jim Rice had a monster season! I like the fact that he won MVP. 406 Total Bases, over 100 more than the #2 guy!
Only 10 players (and a couple of juicers) ever had more than 406 Total bases in a season!
Guidry was phenomenal that year too! Got every first place Cy Young vote! I wouldnt bee too upset if he had won MVP.
@JoeBanzai, a lot of MVPs go to teams that win the pennant or were in the hunt. You can be a great player on a lousy team and not be valuable because the team didn’t go anywhere. The MVP is also for ONE SEASON. The fact that you were great for 15 years does not entitle you to the MVP.
Another consideration is the position a player plays. A shortstop can get away with being a somewhat light hitter if he is a great fielder. If he contributes significantly to the offense, and team is a winner or contender, that greatly increases his MVP status. That applies to catchers and, to a lesser extent, center fielders.
Home runs, RBIs and a decent batting average all count, but what player does in the field is under appreciated by the fans, who are hung up on offense, and ignore defense unless it’s played badly.
Looking at the 1944 season, St. Louis won the pennant with Marian and Musial on the same team. Musial averaged .347 but he only hit 12 home runs and he had 94 RBIs which is good, but not outstanding. Musial did not have any offense statistic “black numbers” (lead the league). Marian batted .267 with just 6 homers, but we will never know about his contributions in the field. His fielding average was .967. It’s a tough call. Marian is a Hall of Fame shortstop.
unfortunately i was too young to have ever seen Stan play baseball, but my favorite Stan the Man memory was watching him play "take me out to the ball game" on his harmonica during hall of fame weekend at Cooperstown. that is a cool memory
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
>
I don't not understand what you are trying to say here. So, a player is only "valuable" if he's on a good team?
Secondly, of course the award is for one season, nobody is "entitled" to it. It sure seems the voters go back and forth. Sometimes if a guy breaks a record, he gets the award. Sometimes, if he has won it a lot, they seem to give it to someone LESS "deserving". At one time, you could only win it once.
In my scenario, I simply said the hitter with the best numbers should win it, and if the voters felt the same way (they don't) guys like Mantle, Williams and Musial would win it a LOT more often.
>
>
>
>
Yes, guys get a positional "bonus" if they played a "tough" position, especially catcher. Campanella won 3 and wasn't the best hitter in any one of those years. Was he a great defensive catcher? I don't know.
>
>
>
>
>
I agree. It's hard to measure defense. Much easier to look at hitting numbers to see who had the better year.
>
>
>
>
>
Now, you have really got me confused.
That year Musial led the league in WAR, hits, doubles. OBP, SLG, OPS
and OPS+. He played Center and Right field. Two pretty valuable defensive positions. Of course, WAR and OPS+ were not in use at the time.
I would say they gave it to Marion because Stan won it the year before.
A .686 OPS is awfully low.
Like I pointed out in my original post, I ignored the positional "bonus" and where the team finished simply to award the "best" hitter. IF that would be the case, Musial would have won a MINIMUM of 6 MVP's, and as many as 11.
The point I was trying to make was that Musial had a streak of 15 years where he was arguably the best hitter in the Nationa League, except when he was in the Navy or suffering from two illnesses.
No, there's no way he was going to win 10 or 11. He surely "deserved" at least 6.
Just having a little fun!
I did the same thing a while back on Ted Williams who really got screwed a few times because the writers seemed to like Joe DiMaggio better.
I mean, 2 triple crowns and hits .400 and doesn't win in any of those years!
It's not required that an MVP winner shoud be on a good team, but it sure helps. If a guy is a spark plug who carries a team to a championhship or close to it, It's obvious. If he's with a run of mill team, it's not.
Earnie Banks won in 1958 and '59, and Cubs finished 5th both years 20 and 13 games out of first place respectively. Banks hit over 40 homeruns each season, which is rare for a shortstop. How valuable was Banks to the Cubs? If they didn't have him, would they have finished last? Maybe, but is the difference between 5th and 8th important to the game?
In 1960 Banks led the league with 41 homeruns, batted in 117 runs and hit .271. Dick Groat won the MVP with 2 homeruns, 50 RBIs and lead the league with a .325 average. What was the difference. Groat was a steady influence on the Pirates who won the National League pennent. You could say that Banks should have won for a third time, but his team finished 7th, and the Pirates won it all, although the World Series is not supposed to count.
I have read that Williams got screwed by a Boston sports writer, Dave Eagan, who didn't like him. I have read that the sports writers vote for 10 players on a ranked system from 1 to 10. Eagan didn't even put Williams on the list!
And sorry, but as a kid who collected the Fleer "Baseball Greats" cards from the very early 1960s, Stan Musial did not impress me all that much. There were a number of American League players, including Ruth, Gehrig and Williams who had higher lifetime batting averages and hit more home runs. The American League always seemed to be stronger and more interesting. When I was buying cards in bubble gum, I got a lot of Stan Musial cards, but had a hard time getting Willie Mays and Micky Mantle. I remembe how thrilled I was when I finally got a Mays card.
Seven batting titles and six times leading the league in SLG, and you were not impressed?
OK.
Joe, gave you an lol because I agree with you, hard to impress that guy.
Musial was my dad’s favorite player along with millions of other midwestern kids at that time.
I think they were pretty impressed!
Well........Ruth, Gehrig and Williams WERE better.
that is the first time I have ever heard someone say that they were not impressed by Stan Musial
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I am not in the camp that an MVP needs to come from a first place or playoff team. many examples that I dont agree with. I always thought Strawberry should have won the 88 MVP instead of Gibson. He was a better player that year in my book.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Agree completely! Strawberry slugged 39 home runs, nobody else had over 30. Best OPS too.
Got me thinking. Hitting for average AND power might be the hardest thing in pro sports.
Looking at guys who won 5 or more Batting titles, here's what I found;
Ty Cobb 12 Batting titles 8 SLG titles.
Rogers Hornsby 7 Batting titles, 9 SLG titles
Ted Williams 6 Batting titles, 9 SLG titles
Honus Wagner 8 Batting titles, 6 SLG titles
Stan Musial 7 Batting titles, 6 SLG titles
Tony Gwynn 8 Batting titles, 0 SLG titles
Rod Carew 7 Batting titles, 0 SLG titles
Wade Boggs 5 Batting titles, 0 SLG titles
Some notable others;
George Brett 3 Batting titles, 3 SLG titles
Tony Oliva 3 Batting titles, 1 SLG title
Larry Walker 3 Batting titles, 2 SLG titles
Carl Yastrzemski 3 Batting titles, 3 SLG titles
Hank Aaron 2 Batting titles, 4 SLG titles
Mickey Mantle 1 Batting title, 4 SLG titles
Willie Mays 1 Batting title, 4 SLG titles
Babe Ruth 1 batting title, 13 SLG titles.
Lou Gehrig 1 batting title, 2 SLG titles
The fact that you think Musial should have won the MVP during a year he didn't even play renders this whole thing an exercise in stupidity. The other thing is that statistics like WAR, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ hadn't even been thought about yet. Instead of staring at stat sheet to decide how good a player was the voters actually watched them play and used the only stats they had which were limited.
Why get worked up over stuff that happened 80 years ago??
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
I never said Musial should have won in the year he was in the Navy. I said " I am just going to assume he wins it if he plays".
You're the one who seems worked up. I thought it was interesting. I thought it might be a little fun.
The voters obviously had an agenda, at least in some years. I came right out and said that I had one.
I did say I felt he "deserved" 6, and no, not for 1945.
Merry Christmas!