Why MVPs are arbitrary.
So I always thought that the MVP award was supposed to go to the player who had reasonably distanced himself from the pack as a hitter on a decent team. I was also willing to make exceptions for extraordinary pitchers. And then, on a whim, I decided to check out Tim McCarver's stats after finding some amazing "I hate Tim McCarver" websites. And I discovered something unspeakable; McCarver finished second in MVP voting in 1967.
Seeing that something was amiss, I immediately checked out the necessary information, trying to piece together why on earth somebody who hit .295 with 14 HR, 69 RBI, and 8 SB finished second in the MVP voting.
I found that St. Louis had won the World Series that year; I also found the following St. Louis Cardinals:
1) Orlando Cepeda, who finished first in MVP voting with a .325, 25 HR 111 RBI performance...
2) Lou Brock, who finished seventh; Brock had a slightly lower OPS than McCarver, but more steals, home runs, and a higher batting average.
3) Curt Flood, who finished thirteenth; Flood hit .335 that year...
4) Julian Javier, who finished eighth with numbers sort of similar to McCarver's.
And then I found out who finished third: Roberto Clemente, who hit .357 for an average Pittsburgh club, with an OPS that was 132 points better than McCarver's. Sadly, the news wasn't much better for fourth and fifth: Ron Santo and Hank Aaron shared those slots.
To recap, in 1967, McCarver- who was not statistically near the top of any category- who was not necessarily in the top 3 at hitting on his own team, finished second in MVP voting.
Wow.
Oh, but there are countless other "mysterious" finishes. Take 1965, where Zoilo Versailes beat out Twins teammate Tony Oliva for an AL MVP award. Here are the stats:
Versailes: .273, 19 HR, 77 RBI, 27 SB, OPS .781
Oliva: .321, 16 HR, 98 RBI, 19 SB, OPS .870
There's actually a whole book about this though which you can check out or buy, called "Cool of the Evening: the 1965 Minnesota Twins."
We could look at 1995 where Albert Belle got jobbed by Mo Vaughn (though Belle didn't exactly treat the media very well that year, and Vaughn played pretty well). You could also make a good case for Maddux in 1995, Pedro in 2000, and any number of other years where pitchers didn't win MVPs because they were pitchers. Seriously, isn't this one of the most ridiculous arguments ever? Pitchers can't win MVPs because they pitch only once every four or five days? There are some seasons where position players of a league are simply overmatched by a pitcher (in fact, this year Clemens is doing it to the NL). When those seasons are such that the pitchers completely overmatch even the best hitters, those pitchers are the "most valuable players" and should win MVPs.
Why is it that players who should win the MVP don't? Shouldn't sportswriters make sure to get it right all the time?
The answer is simple: those players should all win, and sportswriters ought to get it right. Here's hoping they do it this year.
Seeing that something was amiss, I immediately checked out the necessary information, trying to piece together why on earth somebody who hit .295 with 14 HR, 69 RBI, and 8 SB finished second in the MVP voting.
I found that St. Louis had won the World Series that year; I also found the following St. Louis Cardinals:
1) Orlando Cepeda, who finished first in MVP voting with a .325, 25 HR 111 RBI performance...
2) Lou Brock, who finished seventh; Brock had a slightly lower OPS than McCarver, but more steals, home runs, and a higher batting average.
3) Curt Flood, who finished thirteenth; Flood hit .335 that year...
4) Julian Javier, who finished eighth with numbers sort of similar to McCarver's.
And then I found out who finished third: Roberto Clemente, who hit .357 for an average Pittsburgh club, with an OPS that was 132 points better than McCarver's. Sadly, the news wasn't much better for fourth and fifth: Ron Santo and Hank Aaron shared those slots.
To recap, in 1967, McCarver- who was not statistically near the top of any category- who was not necessarily in the top 3 at hitting on his own team, finished second in MVP voting.
Wow.
Oh, but there are countless other "mysterious" finishes. Take 1965, where Zoilo Versailes beat out Twins teammate Tony Oliva for an AL MVP award. Here are the stats:
Versailes: .273, 19 HR, 77 RBI, 27 SB, OPS .781
Oliva: .321, 16 HR, 98 RBI, 19 SB, OPS .870
There's actually a whole book about this though which you can check out or buy, called "Cool of the Evening: the 1965 Minnesota Twins."
We could look at 1995 where Albert Belle got jobbed by Mo Vaughn (though Belle didn't exactly treat the media very well that year, and Vaughn played pretty well). You could also make a good case for Maddux in 1995, Pedro in 2000, and any number of other years where pitchers didn't win MVPs because they were pitchers. Seriously, isn't this one of the most ridiculous arguments ever? Pitchers can't win MVPs because they pitch only once every four or five days? There are some seasons where position players of a league are simply overmatched by a pitcher (in fact, this year Clemens is doing it to the NL). When those seasons are such that the pitchers completely overmatch even the best hitters, those pitchers are the "most valuable players" and should win MVPs.
Why is it that players who should win the MVP don't? Shouldn't sportswriters make sure to get it right all the time?
The answer is simple: those players should all win, and sportswriters ought to get it right. Here's hoping they do it this year.
posted by mike at 10:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home