what are the worst MVP selections ever?

[brett]

I like Williams and give the edge to him, but Dimaggio can't be a terrible selection with 9.4 WAR or whatever stats you use-he's better than most MVPs and given that a replacement player is worth about 3 wins, he'd have produced about 12.4 "measured" wins to Williams' 14.3 which may be within the margin of error. Pick someone with fewer than half he WAR of the winner. Dawson had 2.7 WAR for a last place team in a year when 9 guys had 6.5 or more and 2 had 8+

[dl4060]

I don't agree about 1941. I think DiMaggio deserved it over Williams. DiMaggio was more valuable to his team than Williams was.

How so?

Williams had a superior season. That is how I define most valuable, the one with the most value. It is not Williams' fault he played on an inferior team. Williams was worth more to the Red Sox, his teammates just did not pick up the slack. Joe D does not deserve to win based on having superior teammates. Baseball is not basketball, there is far less symbiosis.

I will agree that it was not nearly as bad as 1947. I'm surprised I don't see that one mentioned more.

[EdTarbusz]

How so?

Williams had a superior season. That is how I define most valuable, the one with the most value. It is not Williams' fault he played on an inferior team. Williams was worth more to the Red Sox, his teammates just did not pick up the slack. Joe D does not deserve to win based on having superior teammates. Baseball is not basketball, there is far less symbiosis.

I will agree that it was not nearly as bad as 1947. I'm surprised I don't see that one mentioned more.

Check out the Yankees record when DiMaggio's hit streak began and their record when the hit streak ended. The hit streak was a large part of the turn-around. I don't agree that Williams had a superior season to DiMaggio. I think DiMaggio had a better season and was more valuable to his team in 1941.

[dl4060]

Check out the Yankees record when DiMaggio's hit streak began and their record when the hit streak ended. The hit streak was a large part of the turn-around. I don't agree that Williams had a superior season to DiMaggio. I think DiMaggio had a better season and was more valuable to his team in 1941.

I'm not a huge fan of WAR, but Williams had 120% of Joe D's WAR that year. He beat him by 50 points of ops+, which might be some sort of record, at least post-Ruth. I don't see how defense can account for such a massive disparity.

I think win shares has them even, and if WAR agreed it might give me something to think about, but 1.9 WAR is pretty significant.

I would like to see their numbers during the streak. My guess is that Williams out hit Joe during the streak, but I don't care enough to look it up.

What analysis leads you to think Joe had a superior season?

[EdTarbusz]

I'm not a huge fan of WAR, but Williams had 120% of Joe D's WAR that year. He beat him by 50 points of ops+, which might be some sort of record, at least post-Ruth. I don't see how defense can account for such a massive disparity.

I think win shares has them even, and if WAR agreed it might give me something to think about, but 1.9 WAR is pretty significant.

I would like to see their numbers during the streak. My guess is that Williams out hit Joe during the streak, but I don't care enough to look it up.

What analysis leads you to think Joe had a superior season?

WAR, Win Shares and OPS+ mean very little to me. I think Joe DiMaggio was more valuable to his team than Ted Williams was in 1941. The Yankees were spinning their wheels when the streak started and were well in first when it ended.

[willshad]

I think either Williams or Dimaggio would have been a fine choice..their seasons are nearly identical in value. You have to remember a few things:

1) Dimaggio was better defensively, and also played a more important defensive position.

2)Williams had a pretty big home/road split, and so did Dimaggio. If we take their road numbers, it is a lot closer, but Williams still has an edge. (1,228 OPS compared to 1.123). I imagine a lot of managers would prefer a great fielding center fielder who can put up a 1.123 OPS as compared to a poor fielding left fielder who has a 1.228 OPS,.

3) More importantly, Williams' OPS+ is a LOT more walk heavy (147 walks compared to only 76 for Dimaggio). A stat I like to use in situations like this (when the players are playing during the same season, thus similar run scoring environment) is runs produced (runs+RBI- HR) per plate appearance. This effectively gives the walks their proper value, since walks almost never result in RBI, and yet often lead to a run. Williams had 606 PA and produced 218 runs, while Joe D had 622 PA and produced 215 runs. Again, Ted has the advantage, but it is pretty thin.

[dominik]

I'm not a huge fan of WAR, but Williams had 120% of Joe D's WAR that year. He beat him by 50 points of ops+, which might be some sort of record, at least post-Ruth. I don't see how defense can account for such a massive disparity.

I think win shares has them even, and if WAR agreed it might give me something to think about, but 1.9 WAR is pretty significant.

I would like to see their numbers during the streak. My guess is that Williams out hit Joe during the streak, but I don't care enough to look it up.

What analysis leads you to think Joe had a superior season?

1.9 WAR is quite a lot but still 9.4 WAR is a great season. williams should probably have won it but if we are talking about the worst MVP choice there are a lot worse choices.
also don't forget that there is not only the defensive gap but also the positional gap. Williams was a LF and dimaggio a CF which is a premium position. on top of this dimaggio was a historical defender while williams was mediocre at best.

still his season was better but a lot closer than the OPS+ gap indicates.

[ol' aches and pains]

In 1941, there was no WAR except WWII, no OPS+, and no win shares. To use stats that didn't exist at the time is pointless
in these kind of discussions. The voters didn't have that information.

[THE OX]

I think the choice of Hank Sauer, a .270 hitter with 37 homers and an excellent 121 RBI's for the Cubs in 1952 was a mistake.

How about Robin Roberts, 28-7 for the Phillies, with 30 complete games and even 2 Saves , instead? The Phils even finished 10 games ahead of the Cubs in the standings.

There was no Cy Young Award in those days, as sort of a "pitcher's MVP" substitute, for the information of you younger folks. Sauer had a fine season, but Roberts' season was superb!

[HomeRunHomer]

2008 NL MVP.

Pujols won it on a team that was 4th in the NL Central- not as good a statistical season as 2009.

[pheasant]

I remember seeing the 1941 stats 25 years ago. I thought that even then, Williams was absolutely robbed. I thought, "How can a .400+ hitter who also led the league in HRs and runs scored not get the award?" I just couldn't see how a guy that outhomers another by 23% despite 85 fewer at bats AND that same guy who outhit Dimaggio by nearly 50 points still loses the MVP. I also added up now many times each man reach base safely(hits+walks) and I believe Williams EDGE out Dimaggio by about 80! I also remember reading that Williams batting average for the whole season was only 2 pts lower than Dimaggio's avg was during that famous streak. What's ironic is that Williams would get even more screwed over in later years. Joe Gordon's MVP victory over Williams was laughable. The MVP award was really a joke until the 1960s or so. I bet that if the MVP award had the same format as today, then Ruth WOULD NOT have won in 1919 or 1920. After all, his teams didn't win the pennant. Heck, Ruth probably wouldn't have made the top 5 in 1919. After all, his team was horrible that year. And we know that the reason why is that Ruth played terribly in 1919(according to those silly writers).

[Buzzaldrin]

While I personally think Williams was robbed, I understand the MVP voting in 1941 I think. I don't think people now look at it from the perspective of the times. Williams hit .400, yes, and it was the last time that's happened. No mean feat. Only four people (including Williams again) have even come within 20 points of that since. But while .400 was pretty awesome even at the time, I don't think it had quite the impact it has today. In the 20 years before 1941, there had been eight .400 seasons and nine (I think) other .390+ seasons. That's a whole bunch of people hitting in pretty much the same neighborhood as Williams, and a couple that outhit him by nearly 20 points.

Do you guys know that photo of Williams and Hugh Duffy from 1940? Here's the link:

http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-ph...ith-hugh-duffy

Duffy was a coach for the Sox. Today we may think of 1894 as ancient history and not modern ball, but Williams (and everybody else) had a guy still there who had hit .440. I mean, I suppose if no one tops 50 homers, or even 45, for the next 70 years, Bautista's 2010 might begin to loom in significance, even though there were many 50 homer seasons in the two decades before it.

DiMaggio on the other hand, completely shattered a record- and a popular record- that had stood for close to 50 years. Amd he was Joe DiMaggio of the Yankees. While I don't agree with the selection, I can completely see how it was made.

[bluesky5]

Cool photo and good points.

[pheasant]

A hitting steak is truly meaningless, in my opinion. Technically, someone could go 1/4 or 1/5 with a single and no walks each game and hit in 162 straight games. I'm truly not impressed all that much with the streak. The school of thought that I had when I played was very simple: reaching base as often as possible and HRs(when I played, I never looked at slugging%). I.e, the #1 goal I thought was to reach base since not many people hit HRs. The next area of importance is hitting HRs. Again, this is an old school thought by a mediocre baseball player. But it makes sense to some sense. Had Dimaggio put up Ruth's 1923 numbers, then I'd understand the selection. Ruth in 1923 hit.393, reached base 54%, and hit 41 HRs. Williams, .406, reached base 55%, and hit 37 HRs. Williams' .406 avg looks better, but Ruth's HRs are higher. Using an old school of thought, they look similar. Williams had an OB% pf 30+% higher than Dimaggio's and his HRs were 23% higher, they are not even in the same league. And .400 was done only once in the 1930s. And a .400+ hitter that also smashed 30+ HRs? Only 1 other man in history(Hornsby) did that. Actually, I don't even know if any other .400+ hitter managed more than 20 HRs.

[bluesky5]

A hitting steak is truly meaningless, in my opinion. Technically, someone could go 1/4 or 1/5 with a single and no walks each game and hit in 162 straight games. I'm truly not impressed all that much with the streak. The school of thought that I had when I played was very simple: reaching base as often as possible and HRs(when I played, I never looked at slugging%). I.e, the #1 goal I thought was to reach base since not many people hit HRs. The next area of importance is hitting HRs. Again, this is an old school thought by a mediocre baseball player. But it makes sense to some sense. Had Dimaggio put up Ruth's 1923 numbers, then I'd understand the selection. Ruth in 1923 hit.393, reached base 54%, and hit 41 HRs. Williams, .406, reached base 55%, and hit 37 HRs. Williams' .406 avg looks better, but Ruth's HRs are higher. Using an old school of thought, they look similar. Williams had an OB% pf 30+% higher than Dimaggio's and his HRs were 23% higher, they are not even in the same league. And .400 was done only once in the 1930s. And a .400+ hitter that also smashed 30+ HRs? Only 1 other man in history(Hornsby) did that. Actually, I don't even know if any other .400+ hitter managed more than 20 HRs.

Only 5 guys have ever had a 40+ game hit streak in 141 years. It's a pretty epic feat - 56. I agree Williams had the better statistical year. I would like to see the other Yankee players stats during the streak, I doubt any of them were more responsible than DiMaggio, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

[Buzzaldrin]

A hitting steak is truly meaningless, in my opinion.

well that's the whole point. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter a whole lot in choosing the 1941 MVP. That said- the rest of your argument is still entirely based on modern standards: "The school of thought that I had when I played was very simple: reaching base as often as possible and HRs", -to use your own words. That was when YOU played. That was emphatically NOT the school of thought in 1941.

Although you bring up an interesting point by accident- lost in the shuffle in 1941 was Williams breaking John McGraw's single season OBP record of .548- which even Ruth never topped. OBP didn't have the clout it has these days however, so that just remains under the radar.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Did I miss this one on the board.
Can't be left off the list, 1942.
Joe Gordon over Ted Wlliams. Ted not only whips Joe bad in the hitting numbers but also, The Triple Crown.

[EdTarbusz]

Did I miss this one on the board.
Can't be left off the list, 1942.
Joe Gordon over Ted Wlliams. Ted not only whips Joe bad in the hitting numbers but also, The Triple Crown.

I think the 1942 MVP selection was guided by overheated patriotic war-time politics more than anything else.

[pheasant]

I think the 1942 MVP selection was guided by overheated patriotic war-time politics more than anything else.

Williams wasn't liked and it showed with the MVP voting. On two different occasions(you mentioned one of them), Williams won the triple crown AND also led the league in runs, walks, ob%, slug%, OPS, and OPS+, yet didn't get the MVP.

But my favorite is his 1940 season. That year, he went .344/.442/.594 and led the league in runs with 134, yet finished 14th in the MVP race. Granted, he might not have necessarily deserved the MVP that year. But 14th? That's the most hilarious one yet!

[EdTarbusz]

But my favorite is his 1940 season. That year, he went .344/.442/.594 and led the league in runs with 134, yet finished 14th in the MVP race. Granted, he might not have necessarily deserved the MVP that year. But 14th? That's the most hilarious one yet!

William's 1940 season was seen by some as something of a failure. He started off slow and wasn't really able to make use of the shortened RF wall at Fenway Park. He also had his first real media controversy that season (his firehouse comments). William's 1940 season was seen by some of the writers as more of a sophmore slump than anything else.

[pheasant]

It's funny how it works. He had a phenomenal year in 1940. He was in the top 3 in nearly every important category. In addition, he proved that he wasn't a sophmore jinx by outhitting the immortal Foxx that year. Yet Foxx played 6th in the MVP voting. Foxx's line? .297/.412/.581 vs William' .344/.442/.594. Williams outscored Foxx in runs 134-106 and and drove in more runs while outhitting Foxx by 47 points. This is truly the biggest joke of them all.

[drstrangelove]

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives...liams_an_1.php

Nice read about the 1942 and 1947 seasons...

My favorite quote on 1942:

"Williams led the league in everything. He won the traditional Triple Crown (AVG, HR, RBI) and swept the rate stats (AVG, OBP, SLG). He even captured to so-called Quad Award by leading the league in OBP, SLG, times on base (TOB), and total bases (TB). The Thumper also led in walks, extra-base hits, runs, runs created, and adjusted OPS (or OPS+).

Gordon, on the other hand, led the A.L. in two categories only. Strikeouts and Grounded Into Double Plays (GIDP). I'm not kidding!"


My favorite quote on 1947:

"Once again, let the record show that Williams led in every important offensive category. AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, R, HR, BB, R, RBI, TB, TOB, XBH, and RC. DiMaggio? He didn't lead the league in anything (other than MVP votes)."


It's true that writer's didn't have access to some of the modern stats that we have today. I think that being said, they were aware that Williams led in all if not all of the known statisitical measures. It was not as if he led only in WAR, OBP+ and RC. Moreover, we are somewhat less clear today than they were back then due to how writers have tended to vote for the last 40 years: in 1931, the MVP award was designated for the BEST player. Period. It had nothing to do with what team you played for. In fact, in 4 of the first 8 years in the AL, writers gave the award to someone not on the winning team. In 1942 and 1947, in this was more clearly a case of him being robbed than it is today.

[EdTarbusz]

It's funny how it works. He had a phenomenal year in 1940. He was in the top 3 in nearly every important category. In addition, he proved that he wasn't a sophmore jinx by outhitting the immortal Foxx that year. Yet Foxx played 6th in the MVP voting. Foxx's line? .297/.412/.581 vs William' .344/.442/.594. Williams outscored Foxx in runs 134-106 and and drove in more runs while outhitting Foxx by 47 points. This is truly the biggest joke of them all.

I think Williams's public persona hurt him in both 1940 and 1942. In 1940 he was regarded as a flakey kid who had some talent with the bat but had little interest in other facets of the game, more Babe Herman then Joe DiMaggio. In 1942, for some reason, Williams was the poster boy for selfish athletes who put their own needs before that of the war effort, because he had a very legit deferment (primary financial support for his Mother) and Williams made no apologies that he wanted to play out the full season in 1942 so that his Mother would have no financial problems while he was in the military. Williams also made it no secret that he was applying for flight training and that he planned on entering the military after the 1942 season was over.

[pheasant]

Apparently, stats didn't matter with Ted Williams in the MVP race.

In 1940, here are some of the players that ended up ahead of Williams(14th place,.344/.442/.594) in the MVP race:

Dick Bartell, 12th, .233/.335/.330
Joe Kuhel, 13th, .280/.374/.488

Had the MVP format been similar to the 1940s during Ruth's prime, then(using these same writers' thought processes):

Ruth would not have received a single MVP vote or point in 1919. The Sox finished 6th after winning the World Series 3 out of the previous 4 years. This was because Ruth now was a full-time outfielder. I.e, the more Ruth played the outfield, the worse the team became.

Ruth would have finished 20th in 1920. The Yankees with all of that talent finished 2nd. This was Ruth's fault. All of the attention he received for the homeruns hurt his team.

Ruth would have finished 30th in 1924. The Yankees couldn't beat out the lowly Senators. This was definitely Ruth's fault. Had Ruth sat out the entire season, they probably would have repeated as WS champions.

[Imapotato]

None

All were chosen either due to fantastic accomplishments, stats, key moments in winning a championship for their clubs or horrible rules in place (can't be MVP conseccutive seasons)

I have no qualm with any award except for Palmeiro's 1B GG when he was a DH...