1987 MVP's Bell and Dawson really?

[Chickazoola]

So in the NL Jack Clark has a monster year with an OPS+ of 176 for a division winner, and loses to Dawson because he hit 49 homers.

In the AL Allan Trammell has a monster year with an OPS+ of 155 as a SS for a division winner, and loses to Bell because he hit 47 homers.

As a note neither Bell's nor Dawson's team made the playoffs.

Has there been another year where the MVP has been wrongly given in both leagues?

[philkid3]

Don't forget Wade Boggs, who probably deserved it and didn't even get a first place vote.

Looking back, 1987 is the worst voting I have ever found. I have no idea what was going on.

[Chickazoola]

Don't forget Wade Boggs, who probably deserved it and didn't even get a first place vote.

Looking back, 1987 is the worst voting I have ever found. I have no idea what was going on.

I just looked up Wade Boggs after I posted, and yes he had an awesome year too.

Could it be that voters were swayed by the homerun totals? I mean it was the "year of the homerun" after-all.

[csh19792001]

Looking back, 1987 is the worst voting I have ever found. I have no idea what was going on.

In the AL...
Remember Molitor's year? His OPS+ in the second half was 183, he hit in 39 straight games, and he led in runs and doubles despite only playing 117 games. The knock on Boggs was that he got a big boost from playing at Fenway. He coined the term "wall double". Boggs demonstrated he could adapt to Yankee Stadium in later years, too, though.

In the NL....
Looking back through some season wrapups written at the time, it isn't clear whether writers realized that an all time record number of homers were hit in the Majors in 1987, or that Dawson got many cheap HR at Wrigley. Some seemed to be cognizant of Dawson's glaring ineptitude in important areas.

Thomas Boswell of The Washington Post wrote in early October of that year:

"Ozzie Smith and Alan Trammell for most valuable players in the National and American leagues. Not Andre Dawson and George Bell, even if they hit 50 homers each."

"The NL MVP, who should be clearcut, isn't. The man who deserves it appears to be running fourth in straw polls of sportswriters who vote. If Smith doesn't win it, then melt down the award. It's simple, Smith finished second only to Montreal's Tim Wallach in actual runs produced for his team (181 to 179) and he may be the greatest fielding shortstop in baseball history.

Also, consider that only two players in the previous 22 years had reached the magical 50 homer threshold.

Gwynn was very fast then- he was a smart and savvy baserunner and stole tons of bases. He was also a very good corner outfielder. The change in conditions to the HR style game of today put him at a distinct disadvantage, yet he was still possibly the most valuable offensive player in the game that year. From that point on in his career, Clark became a guy who took a ton of pitches and waited for the HR ball.

Personally, I would probably have picked Ozzie. Best fielder in the game, incredibly fast, and a total team player. He never, ever struck out, stole lots of bases at a tremendous clip, and scored 100 runs without hitting a single home run and wasn't even a leadoff hitter. Hell, he even hit .300. How many modern players have scored 100 runs in a year without a single home run?

[philkid3]

Ozzie Smith is another good choice.

[Los Bravos]

As a note neither Bell's nor Dawson's team made the playoffs.

To be fair, the Jays had an excellent season and seemed like a cinch to win the division, until Bobby Cox worked his special magic.

[Gee Walker]

To be fair, the Jays had an excellent season and seemed like a cinch to win the division, until Bobby Cox worked his special magic.

Jimy Williams was managing the Jays that year, if you can call it managing. With the pennant on the line, he had Willie Upshaw, with an OPS+ of 87, starting every game at first base while Fred McGriff and Cecil Fielder sat on the bench.

In the seven games at the end of the season that cost the Jays the pennant, Bell went 3 for 27 - all singles - with 1 RBI and 2 walks. Quite the performance at the crucial point of a pennant race for an MVP.

In the Tigers' last seven games Trammell went 9 for 27, with 2 doubles and a home run, 4 R, 3 RBI and 4 BB. For four of those games the Tigers and Jays were playing each other - but I guess the sportswriters thought there must have been a better story with the Yankees, I guess... because they just couldn't have seen those games.

[parlo]

I never liked Gibsons 1988 MVP.
Then again, his postseason made it seem justified.

[brett]

In the NL there were about 10 guys better than Dawson. And he won most publications' player of the year as well. Jack Clark did have a problem in that he basically did nothing after the all-star break.

Better:

Raines
Gwinn
Smith
Eric Davis
Jack Clark
Will Clark
Dale Murphy
Darryl Strawberry
Mike Schmidt
Possibly Howard Johnson

[philkid3]

I never liked Gibsons 1988 MVP.
Then again, his postseason made it seem justified.

I'm actually higher on Gibson's MVP than most people of my statistical leaning. I disagree with it, but I don't think it's as egregious as people seem to act. For the most part.

I don't believe he single handedly dragged the Dodgers kicking and screaming in to contention and taught them how to play baseball.

[EdTarbusz]

In the NL there were about 10 guys better than Dawson. And he won most publications' player of the year as well. Jack Clark did have a problem in that he basically did nothing after the all-star break.

I believe that Jack Clark had an Albert Belle type reputation among the sposrtswriters that probably cost him some support.

[csh19792001]

I guess the sportswriters thought there must have been a better story with the Yankees, I guess... because they just couldn't have seen those games.

It's funny, the writers gave it to Vlad in 2004 for the exact same reason. Remember how he put the team on his back the last three weeks of the year and got them to the playoffs?

[digglahhh]

Andrew Dawson was a physically gifted specimen, he really looked more impressive than a hard statistical analysis shows him to have been. It's kinda hard to describe, his physical presence, the batting stance, the way he ran (in his prime)... He was kind of like a poor man's Vlad Guerrero, but somehow a little more graceful. This is entirely my impression and may be totally at odds with how others viewed him. I was pretty young during Dawson's heydey, but I have pretty good memories of him.

Gwynn's 1987 season was marvelous, but the Padres were horrendous, almost losing 100 games.

.370/.447/.511 is an awesome year anyway you slice it. 1987 was a homer explosion, and that worked against Gwynn's game. Yet he still posted an OPS+ of 158. At that time, as Chris stated, he was also still a GG-caliber outfielder. Gwynn also stole 56 bases that year (against 12 CSes). That is a tremendous season.

It doesn't really matter what he did though, when Eric Show is your #1, you're not going to be a very good team!

[dgarza]

Could it be that voters were swayed by the homerun totals? I mean it was the "year of the homerun" after-all.

I might have thought so, too, yet McGwire and Dale Murphy did get much MVP support despite their HR numbers, 49 & 44 respectively.

[MyDogSparty]

In the Tigers' last seven games Trammell went 9 for 27, with 2 doubles and a home run, 4 R, 3 RBI and 4 BB. For four of those games the Tigers and Jays were playing each other - but I guess the sportswriters thought there must have been a better story with the Yankees, I guess... because they just couldn't have seen those games.

I thought I remember hearing that a lot of voters had already turned in their ballots or made up their mind before that last series between the Tigers v. the Blue Jays. Trammell really did come through though when it counted that season. It's a shame for him that he didn't win the award because it would help his HOF resume to look more like Barry Larkin's.