what are the worst MVP selections ever?

[Buzzaldrin]

I don't think Cochrane was a bad choice because I think (though am not by any means sure) he really won it as player/manager. It was his rookie year as skipper and he took 1933's sub- .500 team to 101-53 and the series.

Having said that, he didn't deserve his 1928 MVP either really. Goslin and Manush seemed to be a lot more productive, and Ruth and Gehrig were certainly more valuable, but were ineligible.

Peckinpaugh was a pretty lame choice, but it shows how much defense was valued back then. I don't think Bob O'Farrell was a good choice, and he barely won over Hughie Critz- and check out Critz's two top 5 finish seasons and tell me if they scream MVP at you defense wizard or no.

[hellborn]

Even with it being wartime, Marty Marion was a pretty bad call.

[Joltin' Joe]

Roger Peckingpaugh (2.4 WAR) in 1925

[chicagowhitesox1173]

Roger Peckingpaugh (2.4 WAR) in 1925

Plus he cost Washington the WS that year and that was why they started voting in the offseason.

[NJYankeeFan]

Dawson was a truly awful choice. As was Mo Vaughn.

I think the worst was Miguel Tejada over A-Rod though. Both were shortstops and Tejada was worse in just about every single facet of the game.

[George H Ruth]

I'll add Kirk Gibson over Strawberry or McReynolds.

Did you know Kirk Gibson led the NL in WAR that year? Neither did the voters at the time. But he had a great OBP (.377) and stole 31 bases while being caught four times and did it all while playing statistically the best defense of his career.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

Did you know Kirk Gibson led the NL in WAR that year? Neither did the voters at the time. But he had a great OBP (.377) and stole 31 bases while being caught four times and did it all while playing statistically the best defense of his career.

That is interesting I never woulda thought he had the highest war that season. Yeah i'm sure the voters had no clue on that but I gotta give em credit for realizing how important he was to the Dodgers that season.

I always thought he was a bad pick for mvp but after learning that i give him alot more credit now.

[willshad]

That is interesting I never woulda thought he had the highest war that season. Yeah i'm sure the voters had no clue on that but I gotta give em credit for realizing how important he was to the Dodgers that season.

I always thought he was a bad pick for mvp but after learning that i give him alot more credit now.

Who else could you pick? Strawberry wasn't going to win it, with his .269 batting average, and nobody really stood out. Gibson was as good a choice as anyone. I'm actually surprised Hershiser didn't win it that year. He was unhittable down the stretch and in the playoffs...even better than verlander this year. I wonder why Verlander won MVP in a relatively common type season (historically speaking), while pitchers of the 80s and 90s who had much better years didn't even come close. I'm thinking guys like Gooden, Hershiser, Saberhagen, Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro, and Maddux. Heck even a few more modern seasons, by guys like Greinke and Santana were better than Verlander, and got almost no MVP recognition.Jared Weaver pitched about as well as Verlander did this year, and didn't get a single MVP point, not even a 10th place vote. Was Verlander paying off the voters?

[willshad]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[brett]

Andrew Dawson in 1987 really stands out.

Don Mattingly over George Brett and Rickey Henderson in 1985.

Agreed about Dawson particularly. He was a broken down corber outfielder by then and racked up big counting numbers but only a .328 on base percentage.

I count the following players as being more worthy that year:

Gwynn
Raines
Eric Davis
Jack Clark
Will Clark
Strawberry
Murphy
Schmidt
Ozzie Smith
Wallach
HoJo and
Pedro Guerrero
at least

[Captain Cold Nose]

Who else could you pick? Strawberry wasn't going to win it, with his .269 batting average, and nobody really stood out. Gibson was as good a choice as anyone. I'm actually surprised Hershiser didn't win it that year. He was unhittable down the stretch and in the playoffs...even better than verlander this year. I wonder why Verlander won MVP in a relatively common type season (historically speaking), while pitchers of the 80s and 90s who had much better years didn't even come close. I'm thinking guys like Gooden, Hershiser, Saberhagen, Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro, and Maddux. Heck even a few more modern seasons, by guys like Greinke and Santana were better than Verlander, and got almost no MVP recognition.Jared Weaver pitched about as well as Verlander did this year, and didn't get a single MVP point, not even a 10th place vote. Was Verlander paying off the voters?

It was not that ridiculous a choice. What happened in previous years is hardly relevent to the current voting year. Beyond your contentions of how poor Verlander's season was historically being extremely arguable, to say the least.

There was a bit of backlash against Roger Clemens winning the MVP in 1986. At the time a lot of people though Jim Rice or Don Mattingly would have been better choices. Regardless of how Hershiser was in the playoffs, the awards are voted on before the post-season, so that is not a consideration. In a year where there were plenty of fine seasons but no true standout, a pitcher who had the season Verlander did was as good a choice as any if you actually put things in the context of 2011.

[willshad]

It was not that ridiculous a choice. What happened in previous years is hardly relevent to the current voting year. Beyond your contentions of how poor Verlander's season was historically being extremely arguable, to say the least.

There was a bit of backlash against Roger Clemens winning the MVP in 1986. At the time a lot of people though Jim Rice or Don Mattingly would have been better choices. Regardless of how Hershiser was in the playoffs, the awards are voted on before the post-season, so that is not a consideration. In a year where there were plenty of fine seasons but no true standout, a pitcher who had the season Verlander did was as good a choice as any if you actually put things in the context of 2011.

That still doesn't explain how another pitcher, who also picthed in the same league in the same year, such as Jared Weaver, did not get even one tenth place vote. I admit Verlander was a tiny bit better, but really their seasons were almost identical, besides the won/loss record. I know..the 24 wins, the triple crown, the first place team. To me, it is not right that he could win it, while Weaver doesn't get any votes at all. If their records were switched around, would Weaver have won MVP?

[Los Bravos]

If Weaver had won the triple crown and carried a team into the playoffs.

[Captain Cold Nose]

That still doesn't explain how another pitcher, who also picthed in the same league in the same year, such as Jared Weaver, did not get even one tenth place vote. I admit Verlander was a tiny bit better, but really their seasons were almost identical, besides the won/loss record. I know..the 24 wins, the triple crown, the first place team. To me, it is not right that he could win it, while Weaver doesn't get any votes at all. If their records were switched around, would Weaver have won MVP?

If Weaver had gone on the winning streak Verlander had when the Tigers were a bit behind in the race, eventually resulting in the Angles winning their division and Weaver winning the pitching triple crown, which, like it or not, resonates greatly with the voters still, as well as being on the winning side of the one time they faced off this year, I would sincerely hope so.

The little things that separated Verlander and Weaver this year were the right little things. Did Verlander have an all-time great pitching season? No, I don't think so. Did he have a good enough year when his main competitors either cooled off greatly when the games mattered most or had their teams basically fold up as they tried to do their best from keeping it that way? I think so. A lot of factors went into Verlander winning it.

As much progress as the writers in general are making in the realm of advanced methodology, the general mindset that still hits home easiest with the casual fan is winning the day. Personally, I would have picked Bautista and Kemp this year, but Verlander and Braun were not bad choices like so many that have been named in this thread. With Dawson, they went for the story and the man, not the player. That's too Hollywood for me.

[Francoeurstein]

Steve Garvey (1974). Still one of the most overrated players IMO.

[BigRon]

Lots of good and interesting choices. I'll still go with my nominee, Willie Stargell in 1979. I haven't done the research and probably won't, but I think there's a good chance that Stargell had lower WAR and WS totals than any other winner. He also played in only about 70% of his team's innings in the field. He was aided greatly by the fact that Winfield didn't play on a winner and Schmidt had a low BA. Hernandez, the co-winner, probably should have won it outright given the circumstances, but the hoopla surrounding The Famalee, and the reality that Stargell did have a number of big hits late in the season, and the fact that he was perceived as a beloved elder statesman, etc.- sealed the deal for him. Parker was far and away the best player on the Pirates in 79.

[willshad]

Steve Garvey (1974). Still one of the most overrated players IMO.

in defense of Garvey, There were really no 'wow' type of seasons in the NL that year, and , based on the player evaluation methods of the time, his pick wasn't a bad one. This was a period of transition in the NL, as the older stars were passing their prime, men like Stargell, Bench, Brock, and Rose. Also , the newer generation were just starting out...Schmidt, Parker, Foster, Luzinski. It's easy for us to say now: 'Schmidt had 10.5 WAR and Garvey only had 5.1! What a travesty!' But at the time, batting average was looked at more than on base percentage, and there was no OPS+, much less WAR. If a guy hit well over .300 with some power, it was considered a great year, regardless of anything else. From the current point of view we would look at Jim Wynn's year, or Joe Morgan's year, and look at on base percentage, positional value, and stolen bases, and see how it all adds up. But at the time, all that mattered was the fact that Wynn only batted .271 , and Morgan only had 67 RBI.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

in defense of Garvey, There were really no 'wow' type of seasons in the NL that year, and , based on the player evaluation methods of the time, his pick wasn't a bad one. This was a period of transition in the NL, as the older stars were passing their prime, men like Stargell, Bench, Brock, and Rose. Also , the newer generation were just starting out...Schmidt, Parker, Foster, Luzinski. It's easy for us to say now: 'Schmidt had 10.5 WAR and Garvey only had 5.1! What a travesty!' But at the time, batting average was looked at more than on base percentage, and there was no OPS+, much less WAR. If a guy hit well over .300 with some power, it was considered a great year, regardless of anything else. From the current point of view we would look at Jim Wynn's year, or Joe Morgan's year, and look at on base percentage, positional value, and stolen bases, and see how it all adds up. But at the time, all that mattered was the fact that Wynn only batted .271 , and Morgan only had 67 RBI.

When I was a kid in the late 1970's Garvey was considered a big star because:

1) He hit .300 and drove in 100 RBI every year
2) Played for the Los Angels Dodgers
3) Had those Pop-Eye forearms and that haircut.

[Francoeurstein]

in defense of Garvey, There were really no 'wow' type of seasons in the NL that year, and , based on the player evaluation methods of the time, his pick wasn't a bad one. This was a period of transition in the NL, as the older stars were passing their prime, men like Stargell, Bench, Brock, and Rose. Also , the newer generation were just starting out...Schmidt, Parker, Foster, Luzinski. It's easy for us to say now: 'Schmidt had 10.5 WAR and Garvey only had 5.1! What a travesty!' But at the time, batting average was looked at more than on base percentage, and there was no OPS+, much less WAR. If a guy hit well over .300 with some power, it was considered a great year, regardless of anything else. From the current point of view we would look at Jim Wynn's year, or Joe Morgan's year, and look at on base percentage, positional value, and stolen bases, and see how it all adds up. But at the time, all that mattered was the fact that Wynn only batted .271 , and Morgan only had 67 RBI.

This is true, and I do realize that was how players were evaluated back in the day. However, if that was the case today it would definitely be a snub.

[willshad]

This is true, and I do realize that was how players were evaluated back in the day. However, if that was the case today it would definitely be a snub.

It would be on the level of Morneau's MVP award.

[Los Bravos]

'74 is a touch before my time as an active, attention paying fan but I am pretty sure that the Dodgers winning the NL pennant that year was a significant aspect of his MVP award and not just his traditional stats.

[Yankwood]

It's very easy now to go back and look at numbers and say so and so should have won the MVP because of this stat and that number and these numbers over here and those stats over there, but sometimes you just had to live through a season and see the nuances of how a year may have unfolded to really know.
Many times, as you know, it's not necessarily what you did but when you did it that matters to many voters. They cover teams and understand why a certain player was more valuable to his team for that particular season that we looking back can't figure out or understand.
That being said, I thought Ron Guidry got ripped off the year Jim Rice won. Not that Rice didn't have a monster year but I thought without Guidry the Yankees are a distant also ran instead of the World Champions that they became.

[Joltin' Joe]

Chuck Klein in 1932. He was a total Baker Bowl fraud. His home/road split that year is laughable at best.

Home: .423/.464/.799
Road: .266/.340/.481


Sure this was before they had home/road splits but couldn't anyone see that he was merely an average hitter who put up Jekyll and Hyde numbers only because of the joke of a park he played half of his games in?

He almost won it in 1931 and 1933 as well when he came in 2nd both years in the MVP voting.

1931
Home: .401/.465/.740
Road: .269/.327/.421

1933
Home: .467/.516/.789
Road: .280/.338/.436

I mean do you even need to look at home/road splits to realize that this guy is a fraud of the first degree? You would think the voters would realize this just from watching him play on the road day in and day out.

[Steven Gallanter]

Edgar Martinez may have been even more deserving than Belle. But Vaughn was definitely not the right choice.

Some other recent ones that come to mind are

Juan Gonzalez in '96 and '98
Pudge Rodriguez in '99 (probably about 6 or 7 more deserving players)
Justin Morneau in '06 (Mauer or Jeter)
Ichiro in '01 (116 win season and the novelty of a Japanese position player, but Giambi should have been the unanimous winner)
Pedroia in '08 (Mauer was much better, but somehow Morneau came in 2nd place and got 7 first place votes.)

It still boggles my mind that Justin Morneau finished in the top 2 in back-to-back seasons. He probably wasn't a top 15 position player in the AL in either season.

Brett Boone was the best player on the 2001 116 win Mariners and he would have been a better MVP than Ichiro or Jason Giambi.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[Joltin' Joe]

Brett Boone was the best player on the 2001 116 win Mariners and he would have been a better MVP than Ichiro or Jason Giambi.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

Back then, I thought it should've been Boone too. But now playing Monday morning quarterback, the right guy probably won as he was clean while the other two were not.