I always felt that Kirk Gibson's 1988 MVP was egregious. Darryl Strawberry led the Majors in SLG, OPS, OPS+, HR, and played on a 100 win team that won its division by 15 games. And Will Clark hit for average, power, and registered 100 RBI, 100 R, and 100 BB back in an era when that was tough to do. Gibson's numbers were solid and the Dodgers did win their division, but he felt like the 5th best player in the NL that year.
Some years I looked over felt like the 8th best guy in the league walked away with the award. While it is hard for a starting pitcher to be considered the most valuable, some guys were just untouchable in the 30 games they played and would end up 15th on the ballot.
For years I have thought they need to give a hard definition to value and add awards not based on value, but on how good a player played. Have a position player of the year and pitcher of the year for the player, regardless of team record, who has the best numbers. Then make the MVP position player only and make the CYA an MVP for pitchers. I really don't see how you can, with any accuracy at all, determine who was better or more valuable between a great shortstop and a great starting pitcher. It makes no sense for them to share awards.
Clarification. What I am saying is, a guy like Shohei absolutely deserves recognition for how incredible he has played. But is he actually valuable? Take him off the Angels and what happens? They are already awful,they won't make the playoffs and will have a losing record, again. Maybe we should limit candidates to players on teams that make the post season, or at least have a representative season where they really compete. I get the argument that it is unfair to punish players for being on a bad team, but I don't look at it that way. I see it as rewarding players whose contributions lead their team to success. Like last year. Even aside from having higher WAR. Judge almost singlehandedly willed his team to a division title while the Angels, like this year, finished as a losing team, outside the playoffs. Judge deserved the award for multiple reasons, and among them is the fact his production actually mattered. It had actual value to his team. Last note. Pls don't think I'm hating on Shohei, I'm in freaking awe of that dude. He was just an obvious example of a great player whose contributions actually didn't lead their team anywhere. Not his fault, but the word Valuable is right there in the award name.
@snerdterguson - Value comes in all forms. Yes, if you took Ohtani off the Angels, they'd be one of the worst teams in the league... so there's his immense value. He single-handedly keeps them from being the A's or Royals. And if you looked at it a different way... if you took Acuna off the Braves and put an average right fielder out there, the Braves would still be the best team in baseball because that's just how loaded they are. So even though he's been probably the best player in the NL on the best team, his value gets lost a little bit given how dominant they are at all facets of the game. So I would not argue that Acuna is more valuable to the Braves than Ohtani is to the Angels simply because of team standings.
@@chili015 maybe I should clarify. MEANINGFUL value. What ohtani has done for Thea gels, through no fault of his own, has had zero value that meant anything.
I'm nominating Ryan Braun, not because he beat out Matt Kemp in 2011, when Kemp had better slash numbers at the tail end of when slash numbers were one of the biggest factors, and not just because Braun did steroids. It's because Braun tried to ruin the life of the guy who collected his sample to cover up the fact he broke the rules. One of the most underrated bad things that an athlete ever did.
Definitely a reasonable nomination. I did consider mentioning it but I felt like if I did I would have to mention every award won by roided players and even then I felt like Lou was the most snubbed. I remember watching a video about him trying to cover up the situation, just bad news all around.
@@TapirBaseball I guessed that maybe the wave of steroid MVPs is why Braun was left out. A Rod also went after people to cover himself but people know that. People forgot Braun in Milwaukee.
Like Ted Williams, the writers really screwed over Belle because they didn't like him personally. Ted Williams lost 3 MVPs. One in 1941 when he batted .406, and two more in seasons he got the triple crown.
Great video, great editing. No dead space, volume was consistent & you provided all information needed without leaving any blanks or repeating yourself. WELL DONE sir. I see your channel growing quickly!
@@TapirBaseball Funny enough, I’m trying to get back into baseball after being out for a while. I’m a UA-camr as well - but don’t have the editing capabilities to make videos like you do. I really enjoy this content & am sure that many others do as well. Best of luck to you - I’ll be looking out for all your future content 🇺🇸🤘
It took me a long time to learn really simple edits so I wouldn't get discouraged if I was you. I am now working with an editor (Joe Plate, Link in my description) and it is probably the only way I am able to stay consistent. Off topic, but your name is very similar to my favorite album "Joe's Garage".
@@peteyprimo7173 Not only true. Actually they face more batters than hitters. And since good pitching usually is the reason for winning championships, pitchers not only shall, but must win MVP honors each and every year.
@@DrD313that's why 162 games is too much, the other sport that i follow football only played 60 odd games max if you go far in all of the competition that you participate in.
@@TapirBaseball I am too young to remember precisely, but how much of a story was that during the season? I assumed it wasn’t much of a conversation until Michael Lewis’s book was published.
It was way before my time as well so I'm not sure. I just know voters were much more in favor of the "best player on the best team" way than they are now.
@@TapirBaseball true, absolute insanity. I can’t imagine looking at a guy that OPS’s over 1.000 with 57 homers and elite defense and being like “well his team doesn’t win!” For justification. Wild times
I’d say the biggest problem with Griffey in 1996 is that he might not have even the most valuable player on his own team. Alex Rodriguez put up better numbers across the board at the plate, and while he wasn’t as valuable defensively, he was still above average at shortstop and their total WAR were very close.
The Mariners had so much talent in their organization during those years. Imagine if they had Griffey, ARod, David Ortiz, Ichiro, Randy Johnson, and Edgar all on the field together.
@@TapirBaseball That is cheating slightly, since Griffey had already taken a step back by the time Ichiro crossed the pond, Ortiz didn’t become an elite hitter until Edgar’s 2nd-to-last season, and it would have been difficult to get Edgar and Ortiz on the field together anyway since they are the top two DH’s of all time. But that’s still a lot of elite-level HOF talent to be on a roster in the same time period.
Great video! Keep up the good work. My vote for one of the weirdest MVP votes was the 2000 NL vote. Todd Helton put up insane numbers and somehow only finished 5th in the voting.
Thank you so much, I’ve enjoyed your videos for a couple months now so that means a lot. While I was going over MVP voting through the year I saw a lot of years where the best player seemed to finish 5th-10th.
Voters have never known how to handle Coors. Which is kinda ludicrous, since we know player splits. Hell, the Coors effect almost kept Larry Walker out of the Hall (and has kept Helton out so far). In 2000, Helton slashed .353/.441/.633 AWAY from Coors Field. He would have been MVP-worthy if every game had been played on the road that year. And he hit like that while being that unicorn of baseball, a first baseman who actually contributes to his team in the field. If you're an MVP with no enhancement, then you're still an MVP if the altitude makes you look even better than you are. Bring him down to sea level, Todd Helton was still the best player in 2000.
Amazing Video man! I have never known anything about baseball besides (toss ball, hit ball, try to catch ball), but this video was really interesting to a newb like me. Keep it up :)
You should've mentioned that Cochrane only won because up until that season, prior award winners were ineligible for the ballot. This is the same reason that Lou Gehrig won in 1927, because even though his stats were insane, Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs with even better stats on possibly the greatest team ever would've easily gotten him another trophy
Very good point. I did learn about that rule and for some reason I must of forgotten to include it in the video. It is always funny learning Ruth only one 1 MVP while being the best player for a decade.
Sadly, people still use the one MVP as reason Ruth was not as good as Bonds, who had 7. If not for that rule, Babe likely has 8 with zero controversy, maybe 10. From 1920-1931 or 32, there's a serious case for him being MVP, except in 1925 when he missed time with a stomach issue (the belly ache heard round the world, the papers called it) I'm not mad that it led to Gehrig getting it in 27 though. He's my favorite historical player (meaning players I wasn't alive to see). And his numbers every year were MVP worthy in a bubble. For fun sometime, go look at his BBRef page. Go down to 1938 and look at his numbers. Then let it sink in that he was doing that while ALS was ravaging his body and sapping his strength and harming his hand eye coordination.
That’s not true. Jimmie Foxx won the MVP in 1932 and 1933. The reason cochrane won the MVP in 1934 was because he was the player-manager of the Tigers, and in his first year in that position, the Tigers won their first pennant since 1909, as well as having a very good season stats wise.
The last season in which that rule existed was 1928 (Cochrane's first MVP). A better question for the 1934 season (despite Gehrig's TC season) is why didn't his far superior teammates, Charlie Gehringer or Hank Greenberg, win it?
If you look at Batters Faced for starting pitchers and compare that against plate appearances for batters, it starts to look like a far more even comparison. Yes, they only play once every 5 games, but the number of opportunities they each have are actually often similar. I get the argument that pitchers have the Cy Young award, but if you want the most valuable player, it very well could be a pitcher.
I've thought this as well, as to why pitchers (specifically starting pitchers) shouldn't be automatically disqualified from the MVP because "they only play every 5th game" A starter can do as much work in a quality start as a typical batter does across 5 games
Post 2000, Morneau in 2006 was terrible. Only position player in 23 years to not lead the league in a major offensive category or bWAR, and not score 100 runs in the season to win the award. The top 4 bWAR guys were Grady Sizemore, Vernon Wells, Carlos Guillen and Travis Hafner. I guess the writers either had something against Cleveland or didn't see a big enough name on the list and just went with the guy guy who had a lot of RBI's on a winning team (See Juan Gonzalez).
The Cleveland Indians dominated the American League in 1954, but the MVP vote was split among several Indians, allowing Yogi Berra to win. Jeff Burroughs in 1974 and Andre Dawson in 1987 were questionable choices.
The writer in question here is Dave Egan, who wrote for the Boston Record. He hated Ted Williams, and the feeling was mutual. In spring training, Williams would yell at Egan, "Hey you old goat, why don't you go die!!" Like I said, the feeling was mutual.... Egan refused to even name Williams even 10th on any ballot he filled out.....
@@vincentartura7299 in his autobiography, Ted said the writer was Del Webb who didn't give him a tenth place vote in 1947. Ted would confront him over something he wrote and the feud was on. I think Ted should have just not read the columns of the day and ignored the writers instead of fighting with them all the time. He was too thin-skinned for all the fame.
@scottodonnell7121 In the two sources I've checked, "Field of Screams" by David Schenin, and "The Baseball Hall of Shame" by Robert Nash and Alan Zullo, both Del Webb and Dave Egan are mentioned. Both books pointed at Egan as the worst of the two. I agree, Ted Williams was a bit too thin skinned for Boston, and especially New York.....
This video is about the worst MVP in baseball history but there is a difference between the worst mvp and the worst choice of candidates. That would probably be 1942 Gordon over Williams. That was simply anger at Williams by the writers.
💯 Belle had one of the greatest slugging seasons ever. The voters punished him purely because he was kind of a d!ck and they didn't like him. The older I get, the more I realize that so much of one's "success" in the world is based more on how likeable and popular you are, rather than your pure performance and effort.
In Willies 79 season he had his best hr season in a while but not by much, but I know the World series win played big because he definitely led that team & it was one of those legendary seasons because of a lot of outside hype too. They used a big musical hit (We are family) that the media hyped big time that even brough them to non-baseball fans attention. Sometimes a winning team helps if that player was hot & sometimes it doesn't.
My dad was on the west coast at the time but still mentioned how much of an impact the pirates were having on baseball. Their reach was across the whole country and it was really cool to read about a team like that. I wanted to fit in the Stargell stars but maybe that'll be for another video.
The worst snub was mo Vaughan beating belle for mvp. Vaughan was a great hitter too but belle was the only player to ever have 50 homers and 50 doubles in a season
I'm surprised that you don't think Don Baylor in 1979 over Fred Lynn is not at least a candidate. Lynn led the league in BA, OBP, Slugging, WAR and won a Gold Glove in center field. Don Baylor was mostly a DH who was 10th in OPS in the AL.
To add on what the narrator was talking about Lou Gehrig. In 1934, Mickey Cochrane won the M.V.P. award, however the narrator failed to mention that Lou Gehrig won the triple crown. Not only winning the triple crown, Mr. Gehrig also led the American League in OBP (.465) - SLG (.706) - OPS (1.172) - OPS plus (207) - total bases (409). How does someone with those statistics end up losing in the M.V.P. race???? Lou Gehrig should have had at least five M.V.P. awards!
There was a graphic on screen that showed every stat he led the league in. He really had an unbelievable season and was so far above every other player at the plate that year.
Before I even watch the video - I'm guessing Willie Hernandez in the AL in '84 or Dennis Eckersley. Closers should NEVER win MVP. Pitchers in general should never win it. It should be for every day players.
Greatest catch of all time might be a stretch, but way more difficult than the comments would have you believe. It was a routine play...for HIM. That's the point, most center fielders aren't making that play and certainly not that easy. I think the catch earlier in his career against the Yankees was much more difficult. He had to run full speed just to make it there and he still leapt up the wall and caught it in stride. Simple minds can't comprehend the difference in high difficulty plays, if someone makes it look easy they assume it IS easy.
Willie Stargell was not a first basemen he played before the DH. Great bats went to first. He was 39 and was not on steroids. He was a Left Fielder with a cannon for an arm. He was a big guy and his legs gave out but he still had hits in his bat and one of the greatest BIG inspirational leaders in MLB history. Also that MVP was partly for a life time of work. Oh and a thank you from the game.
Stargell should have won in 71, the year Pirates won it all, but for some reason they gave award to Joe Torre, who won the batting title. But in 72---Billy Williams led in most categories, but award went to Johnny Bench, whose power numbers were good but BA down.
Stargell winning made me think that the supposed post season not being taken into consideration in voting was a crock. All post season it was about "Pops".
Bellinger had a great start in the 2019 season but had a horrible 2nd half. The only reason his averages (.189 BA the 2nd half) were high was because of that start. Yelich should of got the MVP.
Second category makes me think of Ted Williams losing to DiMaggio in I think 48. Not talking the contentious 1941. There was another when Williams had double the WAR. Still those 2 were vastly bigger so it makes sense you mention them
Another one that probably should never have happened was Andre Dawson in 1987. He had a great season, leading the league in home runs and RBIs, but he was on the last place Chicago Cubs. He got the benefit of a split vote over which Cardinal should get the honor, Ozzie Smith or Jack Clark. Clark led the league in OPS with 1.055 and walks with 136, and also had 35 homers and 106 RBI, though he was injured such that he only played 131 games. Ozzie was, well, Ozzie: A defensive wizard with a light bat but was a menace on the basepaths. Sadly, this would be as close to the MVP as Ozzie would come.
Also fair to mention Gwynn that season as well. Any time Ozzie even hit close to league average he was one of the most valuable players in the league. If they counted backflips as a stat then he would of won MVP every year.
I was going to say the same thing. Along the same lines I would argue that Ryan Howard over Pujols in 2006 is similar because the Phillies didn’t make the playoffs finishing 12 games back.
It’s mind blowing how Albert Belle didn’t win a single MVP while he should of won multiple MVP’s. His attitude and personality had everything to do with that. He had so many GREAT seasons. (1995 especially). He prob had the best or one of the best 10 year stretches of all time
The criteria for MVP awards has evolved greatly over time. In the "old days" it was home runs, RBIs, batting average and hits that were most looked at by voting sportswriters. Nowadays for every day players it is some combination of on-base percentage, slugging percentage and total bases along with some consideration given to defense. RBIs are no longer a major factor in MVP choices, and batting average isn't either, unless it is so high that it strikes awe into those who look at the numbers. Rod Carew's MVP award season was a good example, where he batted .388 with 239 hits. Joe Torre batted .363 one year with well over 130 RBIs and sportswriters were duly impressed. They were never impressed, however, with the high batting averages of Tony Gwynn.
There are many examples in which a catcher won the MVP award but several other players had much higher yearly WAR. Yogi Berra was the beneficiary of such a bias in favor of catchers. Same with Campanella.
@@anthonyrusso6696 DiMaggio was leagues better than Williams as a fielder, possibly big enough to make up for the difference in offensive production DiMaggio was a sick hitter too. We're not exactly talking about Ichiro here
@@deepdrag8131 I'm actually 50-50 on '41, as for '42 I think Williams deserved it but it's closer than it appears. Williams had a lead glove and Joe Gordon provided amazing defense at second base. Williams was giving up like +5WAR on the field and I'm not sure whether the gap in offensive production is significantly larger than that
Trammel whitaker or gibson in 84 over willie hernandez. He was a great closer but they were blowing people out daily. One of the hitters shouldve won for sure
Kind of silly to say that Griffey was 'leagues above' Gonzalez in production, and then proceed to show their numbers...which were nearly identical. Also you failed to mention that Gonzalez's team finished ahead of Griffey's
Poor timing on my part to show just batting stats while saying that. That sentence was more meant in terms of Gehrig being “leagues above” his competition at the plate. Griffey was a much better defender while putting up the same if not slightly better batting stats which was the real reason that put him ahead.
1952 Hank Sauer (Roberts, Robinson, Musial) 1992 Dennis Eckersley (Clemens, Messina, Puckett, Big Hurt) 1974 was a poor vote for both leagues as neither Jeff Burroughs or Steve Garvey were the MVP of their respective leagues.
IMO 1979 was the epitome of what an MVP is. Stargell carried that team as you mentioned not just on the field but on the bench in the clubhouse everywhere. Nobody gave a crap about WAR or OPS and these ridiculous stats. Back then we used the eyeball test. Let's not forget its most valuable, not best player and Stargell clearly was most valuable
Eye test is biased towards whoever you watch the most. It's the most subjective, least objective way to talk about sport. Calling WAR and OPS ridiculous when they measure what a player does to be good seems more ridiculous. At the point you're talking, why not just give the award to whoever's the nicest guy in the league? To me, kindness is the most valuable thing in baseball, unlike ridiculous things like stats or the eye test.
I wonder, for MVPs from 1990-present... Is Terry Pendleton the most obscure? I used him on an immaculate grid for a Brave who won MVP and under 1% of players picked him.
He would be a good pick for most obscure. It’s funny playing immaculate grid and putting the first guy to come to mind and assuming he would be everyone’s first choice only for it to be 1-2%.
I've never been able to understand how- On the one hand, pitchers in general should not be considered for the MVP award, but On the other hand, according to baseball conventional wisdom, 75% of the game of baseball is pitching. How is it possible to reconcile the idea that the most valuable players on a team should not be considered among the most valuable players in the league? The only thing I can think of in response to this is that perhaps the MVP award should be from here on out called the MVPP award- Most Valuable Position Player. If the name of the award clearly differentiates between pitchers (who are players) and position players, then this would solve the problem. Note I'm not arguing for any specific pitcher winning in a specific year. I'm just saying that pitchers are players as well, its called the Most Valuable Player award, and since baseball is 75% pitching... P.S. excellent job, thank you. One MVP which I always found a bit puzzling was Andre Dawson in 1987. He had good numbers, but I could have listed at least 10 players better than him, and since he played on a last-place team that year, you couldn't argue that in that year, it should have been someone from a winner.
I find the idea of the MVP a bit confusing and it has caused discussions since it's inception over whether it is purely about the individual's performance or if team success matters. You have a fair point in pointing out the hypocrisy of pitcher's not being able to be voted the most valuable yet it is generally agreed upon that pitching wins more than large run support. You can have a guy go 0-3 in the lineup and still score 10+ runs but if you have a pitcher who gives up 5 runs on his on you'll never throw a shutout (obviously). While I don't think this would happen I do think a better way of looking at it would be having an individual position MVP, it is hard to compare a catcher who hits slightly above average but has great defense to a first baseman that hits 50 homeruns and has to DH half of his games because he can't field. I appreciate you commenting and enjoying the video, I love baseball and it is awesome seeing others appreciate the game just as much if not more.
@TheTapir You raise fair points. And yes, it is confusing, and even if MLB were to change the name of the award to MVPP, there would still be confusion because of what you said- do you vote for the lighter hitting catcher who is a legitimate Gold Glover or a 1B who pounds 50 HR and plays mediocre defense? I think, though, that this is one of the things which makes the game so much fun. The controversy over who should get it and who deserves it is, to me, a lot of fun. Take care and you have my best. Keep up the good work.
I think that Goldschmidt should had won the award in 2013. He led the NL with Home Runs, RBIs, OPS and SLG and the writers give it to McClutchen, which did not even led the league in WAR. The WAR leader that year was Kershaw.
i love stats and analytics. that said, i watched many games when tejada won over a-rod. it was a correct choice. juan gonzales…that’s a tough one, and i’m from seattle, but…i do remember being nervous every time he came to the plate - he was a one-man wrecking crew. eckersley, to me, seemed justified. he was on a fading a’s team, maybe even not a good team that year, but they made the playoffs, and they don’t make it without him. to me, to decide who is most valuable, one would have to actually look at things like “in what situations did they get their RBIs?” “when they made a great catch, was their team up or down 10-1 already?” things like that. i watched jay buhner hit 40+ homers a few times, and they always seemed to come when we were up 8-3, stuff like that. i remember watching with my dad a few times, we’d be up like 9-1, and i’d say “watch, buhner will homer now that the game is out of reach for the other team…” and…waddya know 😂
I appreciate the insight of some one who got to watch a fair amount of games during that season. While I try to do my best not to be dictated strictly by stats, it is hard to get a complete picture without being present during the time of which ever season is being considered. I try and split my time researching between stat sheets, biographies, news articles, and books detailing the history of baseball to get a better picture than just looking at a million different numbers. I agree that it definitely depends on when RBIs, hits, and other contributions happen. I have a few similar stories with my dad where we just get gut feelings and sure enough the ball is gone the next pitch.
How exactly did Tejada "win" over A-rod? And Tejada was only the second most valuable player on the A's 2002 - first was Barry Zito. Eckersley is an interesting case, as the A's in 1992 weren't quite as good as their record indicated -they went 96-66 but their Pythagorean record was 89-73. Were those "extra" 7 wins due solely to Eckersley saving a few close ones? I don't know, but it does seem the writers were a little too fixated on the whole "save" thing. If instead of Eckersley, they had a less dominant closer, they'd have won 93 or 94 instead of 96 and still would have made the playoffs, so I disagree with the claim that "they don’t make it without him". "to me, to decide who is most valuable, one would have to actually look at things like “in what situations did they get their RBIs?”" - the one situation when hitters get RBIs is when runners are on base "“when they made a great catch, was their team up or down 10-1 already?” things like that." - if you want to know who was valuable, try to determine who was responsible for the score being 10-1 in the first place
Very instructive video, and as you say, we all have our own ideas. My question on the MVP is, valuable to who? To himself? If that's the case, then just give it to the highest WAR every year and have done with it. Baseball is a team sport, and I like to imagine that it means valuable to your team. Controversy in this is demonstrated by Andre Dawson's NL win in 1987. His 49 home runs and 137 RBIs led all of baseball, certainly great accomplishments in themselves, but he played on the Cubs, a team that finished last in a six-team division that year with a 76-85 record. My question has to be, what did his 49 HRs do for that team, and how much worse than dead last would they have been without him? Give him an award for his HRs, certainly, but MVP? Sorry, just can't see it.
Great question. I think every voter has a different answer to this, some think you should only consider the individual's performance while others just vote for the best player on the best team. I think there are arguments for both but I just don't like the idea of knocking someone for an individual award because their teammates are bad. I appreciate your comment, well spoken.
It really comes down to Eckersley for me. Eckersley was for sure a worthy hall of fame player, but a 1.91 ERA for a closer in 80IP is hardly exceptional enough for an MVP, especially when that same year Roger Clemens threw triple the innings at a 2.41 ERA pace. At least Rollie Fingers 1981 was at a 1.04 ERA pace and Willie Hernandez's 1984 had 140ip at a 1.94 clip so that at least has comparably favorable volume.
Cochrane was a good to great Catcher. You don't hear it often, but Gehrig was not considered even a good First Baseman. That's a big difference in defensive value. I'm not arguing that Cochrane should have won the award; I am saying that it was close. There were several years where the writers basically decided not to give Mantle the award again when they should have and later on, that would happen to Mays
Ted Williams was denied the MVP IN 1941 AND 1942 in spite of hitting 406 in 1941 and winning the triple crown in 1942. He lost because he was unpopular with the writers, In spite of being statistically dominant.
Stargell was chosen MVP in 1979 for a good press story. Dave Parker had the better year on the same team. If Stargell handing out stars was what made the Pirates win in 1979 then it should have worked in 1980. Or maybe it was the disco song WE ARE FAMILY.
Haven’t watched yet, but it’s gotta be Mickey Cochrane. I remember being a kid and marveling at all the amazing MVP stats through the years. Then there was a dude who hit 2 Home Runs, barely any steals and wasn’t a pitcher. I always assumed it was a spite vote, they just didn’t want to give the award to all the other more deserving players.
Another commenter mentioned how it was the first year in which they didn't have the "one and done rule" and most likely some voters were still holding by that. It does stick out like quite the sore thumb in terms of stats but I hope I highlight what made him a great a player while not providing the most exciting batting numbers.
@@TapirBaseball and @timothybrown5999 - Catchers are the leaders of their team - and the position is harder to play well than 2B or 1B - plus he also Managed the team. The Tigers went from 5th in 1933 (while he was playing for the Philadelphia A's) to getting within one game of Winning the WS in 1934).
I think Lou Gehrig couldn't win the MVP because he won it the year before and wasn't allowed to win it two years in a row. It was some stupid rule they had back then.
I’m not knowledgeable enough on the history of baseball to come up with my own thoughts. But based on this video, and the comments about Cochrane over Gehrig, I would say the most confusing is Marty Marion. Cochrane beating Gehrig with our current knowledge is ludicrous, but with that information about one MVP per player being either a rule or a debate at that time, I understand why he didn’t get it. Also, it’s hard to say Marion’s value wasn’t outside of the stat books, so I’m sure there’s something more at play there. Based on the knowledge and the information in the video and comments about Cochrane v Gehrig though, Marion is the one that makes me most curious. Enough that I might look up some videos about him.
Both Cochrane and Gehrig were both already one time MVPs at the time of that race. I should have put it in the video but he had already won one in 1928 (it was a slightly different award before 1931)
2nd baseman from NY who was a sensational fielder vs an outfielder from Boston with stone gloves I'm not saying it's fair, but you have to realize Williams is giving up like 5 WAR to this guy on defense
Great video. I’d personally lean toward Gordon over Williams in 42 as the most egregious choice. That’s definitely not to denigrate Joe Gordon’s excellent year, but there’s no comparison.
Sam Crawford won the award over Ted Williams despite Ted having beat him in every hitting category Except strikeout. Ted should have won 5 awards and wss cheated out of 3. Look it. Honorable mention: Phil Rizootto won as only a singles hitter.
MVP should mean you lead or carried your team somewhere. How can a last place team have a MVP player? Where would the team have finished without their MVP? Less than last place? It needs to be renamed OPY - offensive player of the year.
Was hoping Marion would be on here biggest robbery ever over Musial. As a side note I have to STRONGLY disagree with pitchers not deserving it. If a starter pitches 200 innings with a 1.30 ERA with 10 WAR he should absolutely be MVP. Same if a closer had 60 saves and a 0.50 ERA. If they’re the best player they should be MVP. Overall great video though love the idea and will be subscribing.
I appreciate it! I can see your argument with pitchers, I just feel like a lot of metrics used to measure them are much more situational than batters (Wins and saves). I still think they can create enough value to be an MVP, just that the way some people measure good vs. bad pitchers is flawed. I do think with inning limits it will be much harder for a pitcher to put up MVP caliber value but with the limit to pitchers on rosters and future possible rule changes to encourage pitchers staying out longer I think we could see this change.
That is the hard part of trying to analyze some of the older players. It is extremely hard to find any video showcasing much of anything. You really just have to go off of word of mouth and from everything I read he was a very solid defensive player so I have to take them on their word.
It would have to be a truly historic season for a pitcher to win it. 1968 for example. Gibson and McClain had seasons that will never be duplicated. When you think about it, maybe Ron Guidry should have won it in 1978 over Jim Rice.
Andruw Jones deserved the MVP in 2005 but they gave it to Pulhols. Andruw led the league in HRs & RBIs plus the best defensive center fielder in baseball at the time. Chipper got hurt that season & Andruw carried that team to the playoffs but whatever
Pujols was the right choice in 2005, he had higher average, on-base, slugging % than Andruw, he had more walks, more stolen bases, more runs scored, and the Cardinals went to the playoffs with a better record than the Braves.
@@matthewmorgan4765 well, the award is called most valuable player not the guy with the best offensive stats award emphasis on the word offense!! Andruw carried the Braves on his back the second half of that season, he deserved! BTW you may have missed this stat , Pulhols was at first base in 2005 racking up 14 errors while Andruw was collecting his 9th gold glove. Pulhols was a great player he just wasn't the most valuable player to his team that year, that is what the award is supposed to be for🙄
Zoilo Versalles was my choice hands down! I can't really understand him winning, because if you look at his offensive numbers (19 home runs and 77 RBIS, for instance), and they aren't that impressive. Plus, he led the league in strikeouts.
He led or tied the league in runs, doubles, triples, total bases, and both OWAR & DWAR. He was second in hits, third in stolen bases and won a Gold Glove as a SS.
I remember that year. Killebrew missed about 4-6 weeks with an injury or else he probably would have won it. Versailles numbers certainly were not overwhelming for an MVP but other than Oliva there was no one else who had a great year. I think he led league in R, TB, doubles and triples and was close in SB. he did provide a big spark, even with the number of error s he committed. Most ridiculous award was when Ted Williams won the triple crown but they gave award to Di Maggio. media did not like Ted.
Andre Dawson had a great season in 1987, but the Cubs still came in last. Without him, they'd have been no better. But without the strong all around season Ozzie Smith put together that year, the Cardinals don't make it to the post season. To me--and I'm a huge Dawson fan--Ozzie should have been the '87 NL MVP.
I had to blur a small part (20 sec) of the video due to a copyright claim. I'm sorry about the loss in the quality and I hope you still enjoy it!
I always felt that Kirk Gibson's 1988 MVP was egregious. Darryl Strawberry led the Majors in SLG, OPS, OPS+, HR, and played on a 100 win team that won its division by 15 games. And Will Clark hit for average, power, and registered 100 RBI, 100 R, and 100 BB back in an era when that was tough to do. Gibson's numbers were solid and the Dodgers did win their division, but he felt like the 5th best player in the NL that year.
Some years I looked over felt like the 8th best guy in the league walked away with the award. While it is hard for a starting pitcher to be considered the most valuable, some guys were just untouchable in the 30 games they played and would end up 15th on the ballot.
For years I have thought they need to give a hard definition to value and add awards not based on value, but on how good a player played. Have a position player of the year and pitcher of the year for the player, regardless of team record, who has the best numbers. Then make the MVP position player only and make the CYA an MVP for pitchers.
I really don't see how you can, with any accuracy at all, determine who was better or more valuable between a great shortstop and a great starting pitcher. It makes no sense for them to share awards.
Clarification. What I am saying is, a guy like Shohei absolutely deserves recognition for how incredible he has played. But is he actually valuable? Take him off the Angels and what happens? They are already awful,they won't make the playoffs and will have a losing record, again. Maybe we should limit candidates to players on teams that make the post season, or at least have a representative season where they really compete.
I get the argument that it is unfair to punish players for being on a bad team, but I don't look at it that way. I see it as rewarding players whose contributions lead their team to success. Like last year. Even aside from having higher WAR. Judge almost singlehandedly willed his team to a division title while the Angels, like this year, finished as a losing team, outside the playoffs. Judge deserved the award for multiple reasons, and among them is the fact his production actually mattered. It had actual value to his team.
Last note. Pls don't think I'm hating on Shohei, I'm in freaking awe of that dude. He was just an obvious example of a great player whose contributions actually didn't lead their team anywhere. Not his fault, but the word Valuable is right there in the award name.
@snerdterguson - Value comes in all forms. Yes, if you took Ohtani off the Angels, they'd be one of the worst teams in the league... so there's his immense value. He single-handedly keeps them from being the A's or Royals. And if you looked at it a different way... if you took Acuna off the Braves and put an average right fielder out there, the Braves would still be the best team in baseball because that's just how loaded they are. So even though he's been probably the best player in the NL on the best team, his value gets lost a little bit given how dominant they are at all facets of the game. So I would not argue that Acuna is more valuable to the Braves than Ohtani is to the Angels simply because of team standings.
@@chili015 maybe I should clarify. MEANINGFUL value. What ohtani has done for Thea gels, through no fault of his own, has had zero value that meant anything.
I'm nominating Ryan Braun, not because he beat out Matt Kemp in 2011, when Kemp had better slash numbers at the tail end of when slash numbers were one of the biggest factors, and not just because Braun did steroids. It's because Braun tried to ruin the life of the guy who collected his sample to cover up the fact he broke the rules. One of the most underrated bad things that an athlete ever did.
Definitely a reasonable nomination. I did consider mentioning it but I felt like if I did I would have to mention every award won by roided players and even then I felt like Lou was the most snubbed. I remember watching a video about him trying to cover up the situation, just bad news all around.
@@TapirBaseball I guessed that maybe the wave of steroid MVPs is why Braun was left out. A Rod also went after people to cover himself but people know that. People forgot Braun in Milwaukee.
Another (dis)honorable mention that comes to mind is Mo Vaughn over Albert Belle's 50/50 season in a strike-shortened 1995 season!
Like Ted Williams, the writers really screwed over Belle because they didn't like him personally. Ted Williams lost 3 MVPs. One in 1941 when he batted .406, and two more in seasons he got the triple crown.
I was gonna bring that one up. Belle was the obvious choice statistically, but the you know, the press
That was BS.
Andrew McCutchen over Paul Goldschmit comes to mind. Trout didn’t deserve it in 2016 either.
50 HR. 50 Doubles. 144 Games. Only guy who got screwed as bad as Williams and for similar reasons.
Great video, great editing. No dead space, volume was consistent & you provided all information needed without leaving any blanks or repeating yourself. WELL DONE sir. I see your channel growing quickly!
I appreciate you saying that. I am just trying to get better every video and show how great baseball is.
@@TapirBaseball Funny enough, I’m trying to get back into baseball after being out for a while. I’m a UA-camr as well - but don’t have the editing capabilities to make videos like you do. I really enjoy this content & am sure that many others do as well. Best of luck to you - I’ll be looking out for all your future content 🇺🇸🤘
It took me a long time to learn really simple edits so I wouldn't get discouraged if I was you. I am now working with an editor (Joe Plate, Link in my description) and it is probably the only way I am able to stay consistent. Off topic, but your name is very similar to my favorite album "Joe's Garage".
Thanks! They should only get better!
The argument for SP winning the MVP is that they face about the same amount of hitters as hitters have for AB/PA. It cancels each other out.
None of that is true
@@peteyprimo7173 Not only true. Actually they face more batters than hitters. And since good pitching usually is the reason for winning championships, pitchers not only shall, but must win MVP honors each and every year.
@@peteyprimo7173 200 innings= at least 600 batters faced.
Rhey only impact one out of five games. That's the argument against SP's, right or wrong.
@@DrD313that's why 162 games is too much, the other sport that i follow football only played 60 odd games max if you go far in all of the competition that you participate in.
Tejada over A Rod will always be the worst in my mind. FIFTY SEVEN HOMERS
To be fair the writers were all but required to pick someone from the m**** b*** team.
@@TapirBaseball I am too young to remember precisely, but how much of a story was that during the season? I assumed it wasn’t much of a conversation until Michael Lewis’s book was published.
It was way before my time as well so I'm not sure. I just know voters were much more in favor of the "best player on the best team" way than they are now.
@@TapirBaseball true, absolute insanity. I can’t imagine looking at a guy that OPS’s over 1.000 with 57 homers and elite defense and being like “well his team doesn’t win!” For justification. Wild times
STEROIDS
Jeff Kent beating out teammate Bonds was ridiculous.
Not saying Jim Thome should have won the 2002 AL MVP, but he should have finished higher than 7th.
ill say it, he should have won the AL MVP
Thome is one of several who had a better case that year for MVP over Tejada.
I’d say the biggest problem with Griffey in 1996 is that he might not have even the most valuable player on his own team. Alex Rodriguez put up better numbers across the board at the plate, and while he wasn’t as valuable defensively, he was still above average at shortstop and their total WAR were very close.
The Mariners had so much talent in their organization during those years. Imagine if they had Griffey, ARod, David Ortiz, Ichiro, Randy Johnson, and Edgar all on the field together.
@@TapirBaseball That is cheating slightly, since Griffey had already taken a step back by the time Ichiro crossed the pond, Ortiz didn’t become an elite hitter until Edgar’s 2nd-to-last season, and it would have been difficult to get Edgar and Ortiz on the field together anyway since they are the top two DH’s of all time. But that’s still a lot of elite-level HOF talent to be on a roster in the same time period.
@@TapirBaseballand they lost to a dude that carried his team to the playoffs in the 2nd half of the same division.
I agree ARod deserved it in 1996
@@dvon1097 I don't
Great video! Keep up the good work. My vote for one of the weirdest MVP votes was the 2000 NL vote. Todd Helton put up insane numbers and somehow only finished 5th in the voting.
Thank you so much, I’ve enjoyed your videos for a couple months now so that means a lot. While I was going over MVP voting through the year I saw a lot of years where the best player seemed to finish 5th-10th.
Voters have never known how to handle Coors. Which is kinda ludicrous, since we know player splits. Hell, the Coors effect almost kept Larry Walker out of the Hall (and has kept Helton out so far).
In 2000, Helton slashed .353/.441/.633 AWAY from Coors Field. He would have been MVP-worthy if every game had been played on the road that year. And he hit like that while being that unicorn of baseball, a first baseman who actually contributes to his team in the field.
If you're an MVP with no enhancement, then you're still an MVP if the altitude makes you look even better than you are. Bring him down to sea level, Todd Helton was still the best player in 2000.
“H-E-quadruple baseball bats”?? Holy sheee-ittt. Neither Little Boy nor Fat Man has anything on THAT bomb.
Catchers were always thought highly of prior to the 60’s
Amazing Video man! I have never known anything about baseball besides (toss ball, hit ball, try to catch ball), but this video was really interesting to a newb like me. Keep it up :)
Baskemball Lerbon
You should've mentioned that Cochrane only won because up until that season, prior award winners were ineligible for the ballot. This is the same reason that Lou Gehrig won in 1927, because even though his stats were insane, Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs with even better stats on possibly the greatest team ever would've easily gotten him another trophy
Very good point. I did learn about that rule and for some reason I must of forgotten to include it in the video. It is always funny learning Ruth only one 1 MVP while being the best player for a decade.
Sadly, people still use the one MVP as reason Ruth was not as good as Bonds, who had 7. If not for that rule, Babe likely has 8 with zero controversy, maybe 10. From 1920-1931 or 32, there's a serious case for him being MVP, except in 1925 when he missed time with a stomach issue (the belly ache heard round the world, the papers called it)
I'm not mad that it led to Gehrig getting it in 27 though. He's my favorite historical player (meaning players I wasn't alive to see). And his numbers every year were MVP worthy in a bubble.
For fun sometime, go look at his BBRef page. Go down to 1938 and look at his numbers. Then let it sink in that he was doing that while ALS was ravaging his body and sapping his strength and harming his hand eye coordination.
That’s not true. Jimmie Foxx won the MVP in 1932 and 1933. The reason cochrane won the MVP in 1934 was because he was the player-manager of the Tigers, and in his first year in that position, the Tigers won their first pennant since 1909, as well as having a very good season stats wise.
The last season in which that rule existed was 1928 (Cochrane's first MVP). A better question for the 1934 season (despite Gehrig's TC season) is why didn't his far superior teammates, Charlie Gehringer or Hank Greenberg, win it?
@@snerdterguson Wow Ruth led the league in WAR 10 times
Wow. I just found your channel. Great editing! Look forward to seeing more
I'm glad you enjoyed it. All credit for the editing goes to Joe Plate (his link is in the description). More videos are on the way!
Thanks! Look forward to bringing you more of Tapir’s content!
If you look at Batters Faced for starting pitchers and compare that against plate appearances for batters, it starts to look like a far more even comparison. Yes, they only play once every 5 games, but the number of opportunities they each have are actually often similar. I get the argument that pitchers have the Cy Young award, but if you want the most valuable player, it very well could be a pitcher.
I agree. Look at Walter Johnson’s MVP. Easily one of the most valuable seasons ever
I've thought this as well, as to why pitchers (specifically starting pitchers) shouldn't be automatically disqualified from the MVP because "they only play every 5th game"
A starter can do as much work in a quality start as a typical batter does across 5 games
Willie mays or Ernie banks should have won the mvp in 1960, but they gave it to Dick Groat
Post 2000, Morneau in 2006 was terrible. Only position player in 23 years to not lead the league in a major offensive category or bWAR, and not score 100 runs in the season to win the award. The top 4 bWAR guys were Grady Sizemore, Vernon Wells, Carlos Guillen and Travis Hafner. I guess the writers either had something against Cleveland or didn't see a big enough name on the list and just went with the guy guy who had a lot of RBI's on a winning team (See Juan Gonzalez).
The Cleveland Indians dominated the American League in 1954, but the MVP vote was split among several Indians, allowing Yogi Berra to win. Jeff Burroughs in 1974 and Andre Dawson in 1987 were questionable choices.
If you make another video on this topic, I recommend taking a look at Joe Gordon over Ted Williams in 1942
DiMaggio over Williams in 1947 was even more egregious.
@@loringjohnson7797 I think that was the year one writer who didn't like Ted didn't even give him a tenth place vote! And it made the difference.
The writer in question here is Dave Egan, who wrote for the Boston Record. He hated Ted Williams, and the feeling was mutual. In spring training, Williams would yell at Egan,
"Hey you old goat, why don't you go die!!"
Like I said, the feeling was mutual.... Egan refused to even name Williams even 10th on any ballot he filled out.....
@@vincentartura7299 in his autobiography, Ted said the writer was Del Webb who didn't give him a tenth place vote in 1947. Ted would confront him over something he wrote and the feud was on. I think Ted should have just not read the columns of the day and ignored the writers instead of fighting with them all the time. He was too thin-skinned for all the fame.
@scottodonnell7121
In the two sources I've checked, "Field of Screams" by David Schenin, and "The Baseball Hall of Shame" by Robert Nash and Alan Zullo, both Del Webb and Dave Egan are mentioned.
Both books pointed at Egan as the worst of the two. I agree, Ted Williams was a bit too thin skinned for Boston, and especially New York.....
Great content, hope your channel continues to grow!
Thank you so much! I am really happy to see how passionate people are about my favorite sport.
This video is about the worst MVP in baseball history but there is a difference between the worst mvp and the worst choice of candidates. That would probably be 1942 Gordon over Williams. That was simply anger at Williams by the writers.
Surprised not to see Mo V and Albert Belle. Albert definitely deserved it. This coming from a Red Sox fan
💯 Belle had one of the greatest slugging seasons ever. The voters punished him purely because he was kind of a d!ck and they didn't like him. The older I get, the more I realize that so much of one's "success" in the world is based more on how likeable and popular you are, rather than your pure performance and effort.
In Willies 79 season he had his best hr season in a while but not by much, but I know the World series win played big because he definitely led that team & it was one of those legendary seasons because of a lot of outside hype too. They used a big musical hit (We are family) that the media hyped big time that even brough them to non-baseball fans attention. Sometimes a winning team helps if that player was hot & sometimes it doesn't.
My dad was on the west coast at the time but still mentioned how much of an impact the pirates were having on baseball. Their reach was across the whole country and it was really cool to read about a team like that. I wanted to fit in the Stargell stars but maybe that'll be for another video.
79 MVP was payback for 71.
Tony Gwynn should have had a few more MVP's
And 1973.
The World Series had nothing to do with his MVP because the voting takes place before the postseason.
The worst snub was mo Vaughan beating belle for mvp. Vaughan was a great hitter too but belle was the only player to ever have 50 homers and 50 doubles in a season
Some win because of good press. Some lose because of bad. Another agenda choice by the writers.
I'm surprised that you don't think Don Baylor in 1979 over Fred Lynn is not at least a candidate. Lynn led the league in BA, OBP, Slugging, WAR and won a Gold Glove in center field. Don Baylor was mostly a DH who was 10th in OPS in the AL.
Stargell's MVP was a lot about how amazing the 1979 Pirates team was and how he led them.
To add on what the narrator was talking about Lou Gehrig. In 1934, Mickey Cochrane won the M.V.P. award, however the narrator failed to mention that Lou Gehrig won the triple crown. Not only winning the triple crown, Mr. Gehrig also led the American League in OBP (.465) - SLG (.706) - OPS (1.172) - OPS plus (207) - total bases (409). How does someone with those statistics end up losing in the M.V.P. race???? Lou Gehrig should have had at least five M.V.P. awards!
There was a graphic on screen that showed every stat he led the league in. He really had an unbelievable season and was so far above every other player at the plate that year.
Before I even watch the video - I'm guessing Willie Hernandez in the AL in '84 or Dennis Eckersley. Closers should NEVER win MVP. Pitchers in general should never win it. It should be for every day players.
I agree. It is impossible to generate a lot of value when you only play once or twice a week.
Totally agree. Give them the CY Young which is basically the most valuable pitcher. They don't need both.
Dwight Evans should have won in 1984.
@@scottodonnell7121 Dewey should be in the HALL as well.
@@marcoslaureano5562 Yup. He was better than Jim Rice who begged his way in.
That Griffey catch at 6:40 was the best catch ever made period.
LOL it was a pretty routine play.
@@willshadrobbing a home run is not a routine play
@@familyguyfreemoviedownload8314 it wasn't a very difficult play is what I meant. He was literally standing there waiting for the ball.
Greatest catch of all time might be a stretch, but way more difficult than the comments would have you believe. It was a routine play...for HIM. That's the point, most center fielders aren't making that play and certainly not that easy. I think the catch earlier in his career against the Yankees was much more difficult. He had to run full speed just to make it there and he still leapt up the wall and caught it in stride. Simple minds can't comprehend the difference in high difficulty plays, if someone makes it look easy they assume it IS easy.
@@mitchellkalina8191 definitely agree with ya the kid was a beast out there in centerfield.
Willie Stargell was not a first basemen he played before the DH. Great bats went to first. He was 39 and was not on steroids. He was a Left Fielder with a cannon for an arm. He was a big guy and his legs gave out but he still had hits in his bat and one of the greatest BIG inspirational leaders in MLB history. Also that MVP was partly for a life time of work. Oh and a thank you from the game.
He probably should have won MVP in 1973 over Pete Rose as well
Stargell should have won in 71, the year Pirates won it all, but for some reason they gave award to Joe Torre, who won the batting title. But in 72---Billy Williams led in most categories, but award went to Johnny Bench, whose power numbers were good but BA down.
Great video. Smartly done!
Thank you, that means a lot!
Stargell winning made me think that the supposed post season not being taken into consideration in voting was a crock. All post season it was about "Pops".
Bellinger had a great start in the 2019 season but had a horrible 2nd half. The only reason his averages (.189 BA the 2nd half) were high was because of that start. Yelich should of got the MVP.
Second category makes me think of Ted Williams losing to DiMaggio in I think 48. Not talking the contentious 1941. There was another when Williams had double the WAR. Still those 2 were vastly bigger so it makes sense you mention them
Another one that probably should never have happened was Andre Dawson in 1987. He had a great season, leading the league in home runs and RBIs, but he was on the last place Chicago Cubs. He got the benefit of a split vote over which Cardinal should get the honor, Ozzie Smith or Jack Clark. Clark led the league in OPS with 1.055 and walks with 136, and also had 35 homers and 106 RBI, though he was injured such that he only played 131 games. Ozzie was, well, Ozzie: A defensive wizard with a light bat but was a menace on the basepaths. Sadly, this would be as close to the MVP as Ozzie would come.
Also fair to mention Gwynn that season as well. Any time Ozzie even hit close to league average he was one of the most valuable players in the league. If they counted backflips as a stat then he would of won MVP every year.
It makes someone like Pedro that much more impressive when he was putting up all time numbers while in the middle of the steroid era.
I was going to say the same thing. Along the same lines I would argue that Ryan Howard over Pujols in 2006 is similar because the Phillies didn’t make the playoffs finishing 12 games back.
It’s mind blowing how Albert Belle didn’t win a single MVP while he should of won multiple MVP’s. His attitude and personality had everything to do with that. He had so many GREAT seasons. (1995 especially). He prob had the best or one of the best 10 year stretches of all time
The criteria for MVP awards has evolved greatly over time. In the "old days" it was home runs, RBIs, batting average and hits that were most looked at by voting sportswriters. Nowadays for every day players it is some combination of on-base percentage, slugging percentage and total bases along with some consideration given to defense. RBIs are no longer a major factor in MVP choices, and batting average isn't either, unless it is so high that it strikes awe into those who look at the numbers. Rod Carew's MVP award season was a good example, where he batted .388 with 239 hits. Joe Torre batted .363 one year with well over 130 RBIs and sportswriters were duly impressed. They were never impressed, however, with the high batting averages of Tony Gwynn.
There are many examples in which a catcher won the MVP award but several other players had much higher yearly WAR. Yogi Berra was the beneficiary of such a bias in favor of catchers. Same with Campanella.
Tony Gwynn never hit many homers or had many rbi.
Ted Williams not getting it in '41 when he hit 406/553/735 is crazy to me
That was dimaggio's hit streak year tho, right? Not saying it's a good reason, but it's easy to see how voters may have gotten swept up in that.
@@anthonyrusso6696 DiMaggio was leagues better than Williams as a fielder, possibly big enough to make up for the difference in offensive production
DiMaggio was a sick hitter too. We're not exactly talking about Ichiro here
When Williams was snubbed in ‘42 and lost to Joe Gordon it was an even worse injustice.
@@deepdrag8131 I'm actually 50-50 on '41, as for '42 I think Williams deserved it but it's closer than it appears. Williams had a lead glove and Joe Gordon provided amazing defense at second base. Williams was giving up like +5WAR on the field and I'm not sure whether the gap in offensive production is significantly larger than that
Griffey was huge case of east coast bias
Ozzie Smith won the MVP and a silver slugger by hitting .303 with 0 homers😂
Ozzie Smith did not won the MVP in 1987. That award went to Andre Dawson.
I been looking for a video like this for a while
I am glad you found it.
Willie Hernandez wasn't even the third best player on his own team in '84
Trammel whitaker or gibson in 84 over willie hernandez. He was a great closer but they were blowing people out daily. One of the hitters shouldve won for sure
Yep. A serious head scratcher.
Kind of silly to say that Griffey was 'leagues above' Gonzalez in production, and then proceed to show their numbers...which were nearly identical. Also you failed to mention that Gonzalez's team finished ahead of Griffey's
I agree
exactly.. griffey may have been the overall better player, but he sure as hell wasn't leagues above gonzalez
@@brandonfarr6740 They were close enough where the fact that Gonzales' team finished first could justifiably make the difference.
Poor timing on my part to show just batting stats while saying that. That sentence was more meant in terms of Gehrig being “leagues above” his competition at the plate. Griffey was a much better defender while putting up the same if not slightly better batting stats which was the real reason that put him ahead.
Defense is part of the sport
Yes they were pretty similar in offense
On the field well...
1974. Jeff Burroughs was 25th in the league in WAR, and Steve Garvey was 17th in the league in WAR.
Sucks that helicopter got hurt in 2019. He was having an unbelievable season. That injury was also the start of a few year stretch of bad seasons
My guess before seeing the video would be (1) Zolio Versailles or (2) Phil Rizzuto. Let's watch and see....
Great video, Has anyone ever told you that you sound like moist critical
Lmao. Just a couple dozen times. I like him so I appreciate the comparison.
1952 Hank Sauer (Roberts, Robinson, Musial)
1992 Dennis Eckersley (Clemens, Messina, Puckett, Big Hurt)
1974 was a poor vote for both leagues as neither Jeff Burroughs or Steve Garvey were the MVP of their respective leagues.
Mo Vaughn probably shouldn’t have one in 95
Griffey is one of my all time favorites but Belle deserved it with the only 50 50 season in history
Jim Konstanty, Zoilo Versailles and Jeff Burroughs. Tough to get worse than this.
Good video. I always thought William's had a better year than Bench in '72. William's out hit Bench by 60 points.
Joey Votto should have won it over Stanton in 2017.
Decided to pause it and go look at all MVPs and see if i am on same page
IMO 1979 was the epitome of what an MVP is. Stargell carried that team as you mentioned not just on the field but on the bench in the clubhouse everywhere. Nobody gave a crap about WAR or OPS and these ridiculous stats. Back then we used the eyeball test. Let's not forget its most valuable, not best player and Stargell clearly was most valuable
Eye test is biased towards whoever you watch the most. It's the most subjective, least objective way to talk about sport. Calling WAR and OPS ridiculous when they measure what a player does to be good seems more ridiculous. At the point you're talking, why not just give the award to whoever's the nicest guy in the league? To me, kindness is the most valuable thing in baseball, unlike ridiculous things like stats or the eye test.
You sound like the MoistCritikal of Baseball
Nice, lol.
Anytime a pitcher wins mvp, all position players get robbed
I believe that in Cochrane's and Gehrig's day, players were only allowed to win one MVP award in their lifetime.
I wonder, for MVPs from 1990-present... Is Terry Pendleton the most obscure? I used him on an immaculate grid for a Brave who won MVP and under 1% of players picked him.
He would be a good pick for most obscure. It’s funny playing immaculate grid and putting the first guy to come to mind and assuming he would be everyone’s first choice only for it to be 1-2%.
@@billykammerer241 huh? He never won mvp.
Probably should have been Bonds in 1991 but Pendleton had an amazing year. Probably doesn't qualify as a travesty
Good video
I would add A Fraud because it is now known that he was juiced from day one
The MVP award is not for the "best" player but the one who was the "most valuable." There is a big difference.
I've never been able to understand how-
On the one hand, pitchers in general should not be considered for the MVP award, but
On the other hand, according to baseball conventional wisdom, 75% of the game of baseball is pitching.
How is it possible to reconcile the idea that the most valuable players on a team should not be considered among the most valuable players in the league?
The only thing I can think of in response to this is that perhaps the MVP award should be from here on out called the MVPP award- Most Valuable Position Player. If the name of the award clearly differentiates between pitchers (who are players) and position players, then this would solve the problem.
Note I'm not arguing for any specific pitcher winning in a specific year. I'm just saying that pitchers are players as well, its called the Most Valuable Player award, and since baseball is 75% pitching...
P.S. excellent job, thank you. One MVP which I always found a bit puzzling was Andre Dawson in 1987. He had good numbers, but I could have listed at least 10 players better than him, and since he played on a last-place team that year, you couldn't argue that in that year, it should have been someone from a winner.
I find the idea of the MVP a bit confusing and it has caused discussions since it's inception over whether it is purely about the individual's performance or if team success matters. You have a fair point in pointing out the hypocrisy of pitcher's not being able to be voted the most valuable yet it is generally agreed upon that pitching wins more than large run support. You can have a guy go 0-3 in the lineup and still score 10+ runs but if you have a pitcher who gives up 5 runs on his on you'll never throw a shutout (obviously). While I don't think this would happen I do think a better way of looking at it would be having an individual position MVP, it is hard to compare a catcher who hits slightly above average but has great defense to a first baseman that hits 50 homeruns and has to DH half of his games because he can't field. I appreciate you commenting and enjoying the video, I love baseball and it is awesome seeing others appreciate the game just as much if not more.
@TheTapir You raise fair points. And yes, it is confusing, and even if MLB were to change the name of the award to MVPP, there would still be confusion because of what you said- do you vote for the lighter hitting catcher who is a legitimate Gold Glover or a 1B who pounds 50 HR and plays mediocre defense?
I think, though, that this is one of the things which makes the game so much fun. The controversy over who should get it and who deserves it is, to me, a lot of fun.
Take care and you have my best. Keep up the good work.
Chipper Jones in ‘99. Bagwell had better offensive numbers but McGwire numbers were ridiculous. Topped Jones by 20 HRs and 30+ RBIs.
I think that Goldschmidt should had won the award in 2013. He led the NL with Home Runs, RBIs, OPS and SLG and the writers give it to McClutchen, which did not even led the league in WAR. The WAR leader that year was Kershaw.
It was more a feel-good story with the Pirates finally back in the playoffs for the first time since The Slide...
The Least Valid Most Valuable Player Award?
Pedroia caught me by surprise in 2008.
He had a fantastic season at the plate and in the field. Totally deserving.
i love stats and analytics.
that said, i watched many games when tejada won over a-rod. it was a correct choice.
juan gonzales…that’s a tough one, and i’m from seattle, but…i do remember being nervous every time he came to the plate - he was a one-man wrecking crew.
eckersley, to me, seemed justified. he was on a fading a’s team, maybe even not a good team that year, but they made the playoffs, and they don’t make it without him.
to me, to decide who is most valuable, one would have to actually look at things like “in what situations did they get their RBIs?” “when they made a great catch, was their team up or down 10-1 already?” things like that.
i watched jay buhner hit 40+ homers a few times, and they always seemed to come when we were up 8-3, stuff like that. i remember watching with my dad a few times, we’d be up like 9-1, and i’d say “watch, buhner will homer now that the game is out of reach for the other team…” and…waddya know 😂
I appreciate the insight of some one who got to watch a fair amount of games during that season. While I try to do my best not to be dictated strictly by stats, it is hard to get a complete picture without being present during the time of which ever season is being considered. I try and split my time researching between stat sheets, biographies, news articles, and books detailing the history of baseball to get a better picture than just looking at a million different numbers. I agree that it definitely depends on when RBIs, hits, and other contributions happen. I have a few similar stories with my dad where we just get gut feelings and sure enough the ball is gone the next pitch.
How exactly did Tejada "win" over A-rod? And Tejada was only the second most valuable player on the A's 2002 - first was Barry Zito.
Eckersley is an interesting case, as the A's in 1992 weren't quite as good as their record indicated -they went 96-66 but their Pythagorean record was 89-73. Were those "extra" 7 wins due solely to Eckersley saving a few close ones? I don't know, but it does seem the writers were a little too fixated on the whole "save" thing. If instead of Eckersley, they had a less dominant closer, they'd have won 93 or 94 instead of 96 and still would have made the playoffs, so I disagree with the claim that "they don’t make it without him".
"to me, to decide who is most valuable, one would have to actually look at things like “in what situations did they get their RBIs?”" - the one situation when hitters get RBIs is when runners are on base
"“when they made a great catch, was their team up or down 10-1 already?” things like that." - if you want to know who was valuable, try to determine who was responsible for the score being 10-1 in the first place
Andre Dawson 1987
Very instructive video, and as you say, we all have our own ideas. My question on the MVP is, valuable to who? To himself? If that's the case, then just give it to the highest WAR every year and have done with it. Baseball is a team sport, and I like to imagine that it means valuable to your team. Controversy in this is demonstrated by Andre Dawson's NL win in 1987. His 49 home runs and 137 RBIs led all of baseball, certainly great accomplishments in themselves, but he played on the Cubs, a team that finished last in a six-team division that year with a 76-85 record. My question has to be, what did his 49 HRs do for that team, and how much worse than dead last would they have been without him? Give him an award for his HRs, certainly, but MVP? Sorry, just can't see it.
Great question. I think every voter has a different answer to this, some think you should only consider the individual's performance while others just vote for the best player on the best team. I think there are arguments for both but I just don't like the idea of knocking someone for an individual award because their teammates are bad. I appreciate your comment, well spoken.
It really comes down to Eckersley for me. Eckersley was for sure a worthy hall of fame player, but a 1.91 ERA for a closer in 80IP is hardly exceptional enough for an MVP, especially when that same year Roger Clemens threw triple the innings at a 2.41 ERA pace. At least Rollie Fingers 1981 was at a 1.04 ERA pace and Willie Hernandez's 1984 had 140ip at a 1.94 clip so that at least has comparably favorable volume.
Zoilo Versalles led the league in errors (39) and led the league in strikeouts (122)
Cochrane was a good to great Catcher. You don't hear it often, but Gehrig was not considered even a good First Baseman. That's a big difference in defensive value. I'm not arguing that Cochrane should have won the award; I am saying that it was close. There were several years where the writers basically decided not to give Mantle the award again when they should have and later on, that would happen to Mays
Ted Williams was denied the MVP IN 1941 AND 1942 in spite of hitting 406 in 1941 and winning the triple crown in 1942. He lost because he was unpopular with the writers, In spite of being statistically dominant.
Stargell was chosen MVP in 1979 for a good press story. Dave Parker had the better year on the same team. If Stargell handing out stars was what made the Pirates win in 1979 then it should have worked in 1980. Or maybe it was the disco song WE ARE FAMILY.
I like how Marty Marion won over his own teammate Stan Musial, who put up 2x WAR. LOL
Haven’t watched yet, but it’s gotta be Mickey Cochrane. I remember being a kid and marveling at all the amazing MVP stats through the years. Then there was a dude who hit 2 Home Runs, barely any steals and wasn’t a pitcher. I always assumed it was a spite vote, they just didn’t want to give the award to all the other more deserving players.
Another commenter mentioned how it was the first year in which they didn't have the "one and done rule" and most likely some voters were still holding by that. It does stick out like quite the sore thumb in terms of stats but I hope I highlight what made him a great a player while not providing the most exciting batting numbers.
@@TapirBaseball and @timothybrown5999 - Catchers are the leaders of their team - and the position is harder to play well than 2B or 1B - plus he also Managed the team. The Tigers went from 5th in 1933 (while he was playing for the Philadelphia A's) to getting within one game of Winning the WS in 1934).
I think Lou Gehrig couldn't win the MVP because he won it the year before and wasn't allowed to win it two years in a row. It was some stupid rule they had back then.
I’m not knowledgeable enough on the history of baseball to come up with my own thoughts. But based on this video, and the comments about Cochrane over Gehrig, I would say the most confusing is Marty Marion. Cochrane beating Gehrig with our current knowledge is ludicrous, but with that information about one MVP per player being either a rule or a debate at that time, I understand why he didn’t get it.
Also, it’s hard to say Marion’s value wasn’t outside of the stat books, so I’m sure there’s something more at play there.
Based on the knowledge and the information in the video and comments about Cochrane v Gehrig though, Marion is the one that makes me most curious. Enough that I might look up some videos about him.
Both Cochrane and Gehrig were both already one time MVPs at the time of that race. I should have put it in the video but he had already won one in 1928 (it was a slightly different award before 1931)
It was really interesting learning about both Cochrane and Marion. Both seemed to be very interesting players that stats can’t fully appreciate.
@@TapirBaseball Okay. THAT makes the whole thing more confusing.
@@MaikeruShinigami I agree lol
I probably didn't pay attention, but what about Joe gordon beating Ted williams who had a triple crown?
2nd baseman from NY who was a sensational fielder vs an outfielder from Boston with stone gloves
I'm not saying it's fair, but you have to realize Williams is giving up like 5 WAR to this guy on defense
@@DanielSong39 I guess thank you for clarifying, and I guess I understand now.
Great video.
I’d personally lean toward Gordon over Williams in 42 as the most egregious choice. That’s definitely not to denigrate Joe Gordon’s excellent year, but there’s no comparison.
Definitely a notable year. I plan on making a video about Williams in the future and his time in the military while in his prime.
Sam Crawford won the award over Ted Williams despite Ted having beat him in every hitting category Except strikeout. Ted should have won 5 awards and wss cheated out of 3. Look it.
Honorable mention: Phil Rizootto won as only a singles hitter.
I think Ted Williams would have put on the best 5 year stretch ever if he didn’t serve in the military.
My vote goes to Joe Gordon, who was MVP in 1942 when Williams won his first Triple Crown.
I plan on making a video in the future about what could of been if Williams didn’t miss the years he did due to military service
I remember one year Andre Dawson won mvp on a last place Cubs team. He had a great year but the team was terrible.
I saw the thumbnail and thought this was a Worse MVP in History video is Ohtani
Vlad was a better hitter in 2021 but obviously Ohtani made a lot of contributions on the mound
Canseco over Mike Greenwell
Cheating juice monkey.
Haha
MVP should mean you lead or carried your team somewhere. How can a last place team have a MVP player? Where would the team have finished without their MVP? Less than last place? It needs to be renamed OPY - offensive player of the year.
Was hoping Marion would be on here biggest robbery ever over Musial.
As a side note I have to STRONGLY disagree with pitchers not deserving it. If a starter pitches 200 innings with a 1.30 ERA with 10 WAR he should absolutely be MVP. Same if a closer had 60 saves and a 0.50 ERA. If they’re the best player they should be MVP. Overall great video though love the idea and will be subscribing.
I appreciate it! I can see your argument with pitchers, I just feel like a lot of metrics used to measure them are much more situational than batters (Wins and saves). I still think they can create enough value to be an MVP, just that the way some people measure good vs. bad pitchers is flawed. I do think with inning limits it will be much harder for a pitcher to put up MVP caliber value but with the limit to pitchers on rosters and future possible rule changes to encourage pitchers staying out longer I think we could see this change.
Marty Marion's is pretty hard to figure out, without the benefit of being able to SEE HIM PLAY (defense.)
That is the hard part of trying to analyze some of the older players. It is extremely hard to find any video showcasing much of anything. You really just have to go off of word of mouth and from everything I read he was a very solid defensive player so I have to take them on their word.
Worst MVP? Any time a starting pitcher is named that.
It would have to be a truly historic season for a pitcher to win it. 1968 for example. Gibson and McClain had seasons that will never be duplicated. When you think about it, maybe Ron Guidry should have won it in 1978 over Jim Rice.
Andruw Jones deserved the MVP in 2005 but they gave it to Pulhols. Andruw led the league in HRs & RBIs plus the best defensive center fielder in baseball at the time. Chipper got hurt that season & Andruw carried that team to the playoffs but whatever
Pujols was the right choice in 2005, he had higher average, on-base, slugging % than Andruw, he had more walks, more stolen bases, more runs scored, and the Cardinals went to the playoffs with a better record than the Braves.
@@matthewmorgan4765 well, the award is called most valuable player not the guy with the best offensive stats award emphasis on the word offense!!
Andruw carried the Braves on his back the second half of that season, he deserved!
BTW you may have missed this stat , Pulhols was at first base in 2005 racking up 14 errors while Andruw was collecting his 9th gold glove.
Pulhols was a great player he just wasn't the most valuable player to his team that year, that is what the award is supposed to be for🙄
Hands down 1991 Cal Ripken. The Orioles lost 95 games and finished sixth in a seven team division. I'm a huge Oriole fan but yuk on that one.
The only reason Ken Griffey, JR was not back to back MVPs was because of where he played. Plain and simple
Even before watching it's got to be a reliever
80’s was the worst for MVPs and Cy Young for voting.
Zoilo Versalles was my choice hands down! I can't really understand him winning, because if you look at his offensive numbers (19 home runs and 77 RBIS, for instance), and they aren't that impressive. Plus, he led the league in strikeouts.
He led or tied the league in runs, doubles, triples, total bases, and both OWAR & DWAR. He was second in hits, third in stolen bases and won a Gold Glove as a SS.
I remember that year. Killebrew missed about 4-6 weeks with an injury or else he probably would have won it. Versailles numbers certainly were not overwhelming for an MVP but other than Oliva there was no one else who had a great year. I think he led league in R, TB, doubles and triples and was close in SB. he did provide a big spark, even with the number of error s he committed.
Most ridiculous award was when Ted Williams won the triple crown but they gave award to Di Maggio. media did not like Ted.
The worst MVP pick was Roger Peckinpaugh in 1925. His teammate, Goose Goslin, was far superior and didn't even receive a vote.
Andre Dawson had a great season in 1987, but the Cubs still came in last. Without him, they'd have been no better. But without the strong all around season Ozzie Smith put together that year, the Cardinals don't make it to the post season. To me--and I'm a huge Dawson fan--Ozzie should have been the '87 NL MVP.
If Ohtani wins it this year, that will be a huge precedent. It will show that you don’t have to be the best player, you just have to be popular