In fairness, let's look at the Senior Circuit ... least defensible NL MVP selection of the past two decades?
| Ryan Howard, 2006 |  4 (2.99%) |
| Jeff Kent, 2000 | 28 (20.90%) |
| Larry Walker, 1997 | 3 (2.24%) |
| Barry Larkin, 1995 | 20 (14.93%) |
| Terry Pendleton, 1991 | 48 (35.82%) |
| Kirk Gibson, 1988 | 24 (17.91%) |
| Other (who and when?) | 7 (5.22%) |
134 votes | 11 featured comments
It was much harder to cull a list of candidates in the NL (The first
four guys on the list, Howard, Walker, Larkin and Kent, all had decent
cases); do the NL writers just do a better job, or what?
Interestingly, no ML pitcher has won the MVP since Bob Gibsom in 1968 (and you could make a case he deserved that one, with the 1.12 ERA and all.) In that same period, AL voters have selected a pitcher SIX times -- three SP (McLain, Blue, Clemens) and three RP (Fingers, Hernandez, Eckersley). Wow.
Interestingly, no ML pitcher has won the MVP since Bob Gibsom in 1968 (and you could make a case he deserved that one, with the 1.12 ERA and all.) In that same period, AL voters have selected a pitcher SIX times -- three SP (McLain, Blue, Clemens) and three RP (Fingers, Hernandez, Eckersley). Wow.
Other: Andre Dawson 1987. Hawk was a legitimate MVP candidate in
other years, but he wasn't one of the top 10 players in the National
League that year (Tim Raines, Dale Murphy, Mike Schmidt, Pedro
Guerrero, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Daryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, Ozzie
Smith, Jack Clark).
On gut feel I went with Gibson in 1988.
Checking the stats I may have been too hasty.
Gibson - 290/377/483 149 OPS+ leading the Dodgers to the playoffs. It was one of only 2 times he played 150+ games.
Strawberry - 269/366/545 165 OPS+ leading the Mets to the playoffs.
Will Clark - 282/386/508 160 OPS+ not close to the playoffs but still viewed as a leader ala Mattingly
Hershiser - 23-8 2.26 ERA 148 ERA+ with 59 straight shutout IP to end the season and push the Dodgers to the playoffs
To me it should've been Hershiser (actually finished 6th) as he did what everyone dreams of a pitcher doing to end a season and push to the playoffs, I mean, c'mon, 59 shutout innings? Wow. I guess Cone doing a 20-3 record and Magrane winning the ERA title (165 IP) kept the voters from giving it to Hersh. Still, major record broken here guys. Strawberry was just too disliked to get it I guess for hitters.
Walker had the superficial numbers, Kent played 2B while hitting well, Howard was close to 60 HR, Larkin a great SS, Pendleton was 'the leader' for Atlanta shifting from national joke to National League champs.
Checking the stats I may have been too hasty.
Gibson - 290/377/483 149 OPS+ leading the Dodgers to the playoffs. It was one of only 2 times he played 150+ games.
Strawberry - 269/366/545 165 OPS+ leading the Mets to the playoffs.
Will Clark - 282/386/508 160 OPS+ not close to the playoffs but still viewed as a leader ala Mattingly
Hershiser - 23-8 2.26 ERA 148 ERA+ with 59 straight shutout IP to end the season and push the Dodgers to the playoffs
To me it should've been Hershiser (actually finished 6th) as he did what everyone dreams of a pitcher doing to end a season and push to the playoffs, I mean, c'mon, 59 shutout innings? Wow. I guess Cone doing a 20-3 record and Magrane winning the ERA title (165 IP) kept the voters from giving it to Hersh. Still, major record broken here guys. Strawberry was just too disliked to get it I guess for hitters.
Walker had the superficial numbers, Kent played 2B while hitting well, Howard was close to 60 HR, Larkin a great SS, Pendleton was 'the leader' for Atlanta shifting from national joke to National League champs.
Gibson's 1988 MVP was one of those awards given to a new player who joins a team and changes the entire culture of the squad. This was sort of the argument for Podsednik in 2005. Gibson's cultural impact truly was significant - it had been a while since laid-back southern California had seen a ballplayer that... intense?
Gibson (and Pendleton in 1991) also drew support from the fact that each came to a new team, both had impressive seasons, and both times their team surprised everyone and finished first. Both men had come from winning oprganizations, and both got a lot of credit for teaching their new teammates How to Win. (Well, Pendleton, anyway - Gibson appears to have intimidated his teammates into winning!) Gibson was regarded as a serious MVP candidate from soon after Opening day. (Hershiser didn't even emerge as a Cy Young candidate until his incredible September - Danny Jackson had that award locked up on August 31.)
Both men largely won their awards because of the famed "intangibles" they provided. Which wasn't much of a factor in the 2006 race (even if they call Jeter "Captain Intangibles" in Boston.) The 2006 vote was decided by the writers favorite Bright and Shiny Number, the one that bestowed mysterious MVP awards on George Bell and Don Baylor and Juan Gonzalez.
Gibson (and Pendleton in 1991) also drew support from the fact that each came to a new team, both had impressive seasons, and both times their team surprised everyone and finished first. Both men had come from winning oprganizations, and both got a lot of credit for teaching their new teammates How to Win. (Well, Pendleton, anyway - Gibson appears to have intimidated his teammates into winning!) Gibson was regarded as a serious MVP candidate from soon after Opening day. (Hershiser didn't even emerge as a Cy Young candidate until his incredible September - Danny Jackson had that award locked up on August 31.)
Both men largely won their awards because of the famed "intangibles" they provided. Which wasn't much of a factor in the 2006 race (even if they call Jeter "Captain Intangibles" in Boston.) The 2006 vote was decided by the writers favorite Bright and Shiny Number, the one that bestowed mysterious MVP awards on George Bell and Don Baylor and Juan Gonzalez.
do the NL writers just do a better job, or what?
Looks that way - at least since they had their monumental brain cramp in 1987 (Andre Dawson for MVP? Steve Bedrosian for Cy Young?). Of course, much of the time Barry Bonds wasn't giving them any choice...
Looks that way - at least since they had their monumental brain cramp in 1987 (Andre Dawson for MVP? Steve Bedrosian for Cy Young?). Of course, much of the time Barry Bonds wasn't giving them any choice...
Oh geez, Dawson 87 has to be one of the worst of all time.
His team comes in dead last in the NL East, hits 287/328/568 OPS+ of 129, he had better 6 times and was at 124 the year before when he got 0 votes, not even a 10th place one.
Ozzie Smith - 303/392/383 OPS+105 while play short like, well, himself.
Jack Clark - over 1000 OPS for the division winner
Other with a raw OPS of at least 900 vs Dawson's 896 (Dawson was drastically helped by his park)...
Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Tim Raines (my pick for MVP), Tony Gwynn, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy, Mike Schmidt (14th place playing 3B), Pedro Guerrero.
The only things Dawson had in his favor were his league leading RBI and HR totals. Sadly that is all the writers saw that year (see George Bell for another example of this).
His team comes in dead last in the NL East, hits 287/328/568 OPS+ of 129, he had better 6 times and was at 124 the year before when he got 0 votes, not even a 10th place one.
Ozzie Smith - 303/392/383 OPS+105 while play short like, well, himself.
Jack Clark - over 1000 OPS for the division winner
Other with a raw OPS of at least 900 vs Dawson's 896 (Dawson was drastically helped by his park)...
Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Tim Raines (my pick for MVP), Tony Gwynn, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy, Mike Schmidt (14th place playing 3B), Pedro Guerrero.
The only things Dawson had in his favor were his league leading RBI and HR totals. Sadly that is all the writers saw that year (see George Bell for another example of this).
My vote goes to Larkin in 1995. I don't like pitchers getting the MVP in general, but in this case the writers goofed by not picking Greg Maddux. He had an historic season in leading the Braves to their only World Series of their 14 straight division titles era. Not far behind that is 1988, when Hershiser was an obvious pick over Gibson. Again, I don't like pitchers getting the award, but when no hitter stands out from the others and there's an incredible pitching season going on, you have to give it to the pitcher, as long as he's not a bloody reliever. I don't ever want to see another reliever get an MVP for as long as I live.
Back to your 1995 do-over MVP Greg Maddux: 19-2 in 28 GS, with a 1.63 ERA and a 1.67 RA. He allowed more than 3 runs twice all season long. Two times. He completed 10 games, 3 of them shutouts. His team's record was 22-6 in his starts. How'd they ever lose 6? He pitched 209 and two thirds innings, in a labour-shortened season. That's 7.49 innings per start. You're lucky to get 7 1/3 innings as a maximum from some guys these days. Peripherals? K/BB: 7.87, BB/9: 0.99, K/9: 7.77, H/9: 6.31, HR/9: 0.34, WHIP: 0.81, BA: .197, OBA: .224, SLG: .258. This in a league that averaged .263/.331/.408. That's a .482 OPS allowed by Maddux in a league where the average OPS was .739. I reflect on these numbers to allow you to drink them in and realize the traveshamockery that was visited upon Mr. Maddux simply because he "plays every fifth day." With "Nintendo numbers" like these, I'd have to say he didn't need to play more often than that to be the MVP of the NL in 1995. He wuz robbed!
The same goes for The Bulldog in '88. 59 straight scoreless innings in the midst of the pennant race to get his team into the playoffs. 23 wins. Offering to go to the bullpen to wrap up crucial games down the stretch and in the playoffs. He was awesome. It was this era's year of the pitcher, and no hitters stood out, so why was he not the MVP? Probably something about writers and intangibles, toughness and grit. Whatever, the point is these 2 deserved the MVP for being head and shoulders above the position players in their respective years, but they didn't get it and so we came away with two players in Larkin and Gibson that had nice seasons, but in any other year would not have won the MVP because they weren't dominant.
I must admit though, the National League poll was much harder to come up with large gaps between who won and who should've won. I thoroughly support the notion that the most glaring omission is the Andre Dawson debacle of 1987. Truly repulsive and as clear cut a case as any of writers being hypnotized by HR and RBI totals (yawn!) as any I've seen.
Back to your 1995 do-over MVP Greg Maddux: 19-2 in 28 GS, with a 1.63 ERA and a 1.67 RA. He allowed more than 3 runs twice all season long. Two times. He completed 10 games, 3 of them shutouts. His team's record was 22-6 in his starts. How'd they ever lose 6? He pitched 209 and two thirds innings, in a labour-shortened season. That's 7.49 innings per start. You're lucky to get 7 1/3 innings as a maximum from some guys these days. Peripherals? K/BB: 7.87, BB/9: 0.99, K/9: 7.77, H/9: 6.31, HR/9: 0.34, WHIP: 0.81, BA: .197, OBA: .224, SLG: .258. This in a league that averaged .263/.331/.408. That's a .482 OPS allowed by Maddux in a league where the average OPS was .739. I reflect on these numbers to allow you to drink them in and realize the traveshamockery that was visited upon Mr. Maddux simply because he "plays every fifth day." With "Nintendo numbers" like these, I'd have to say he didn't need to play more often than that to be the MVP of the NL in 1995. He wuz robbed!
The same goes for The Bulldog in '88. 59 straight scoreless innings in the midst of the pennant race to get his team into the playoffs. 23 wins. Offering to go to the bullpen to wrap up crucial games down the stretch and in the playoffs. He was awesome. It was this era's year of the pitcher, and no hitters stood out, so why was he not the MVP? Probably something about writers and intangibles, toughness and grit. Whatever, the point is these 2 deserved the MVP for being head and shoulders above the position players in their respective years, but they didn't get it and so we came away with two players in Larkin and Gibson that had nice seasons, but in any other year would not have won the MVP because they weren't dominant.
I must admit though, the National League poll was much harder to come up with large gaps between who won and who should've won. I thoroughly support the notion that the most glaring omission is the Andre Dawson debacle of 1987. Truly repulsive and as clear cut a case as any of writers being hypnotized by HR and RBI totals (yawn!) as any I've seen.
His team's record was 22-6 in his starts. How'd they ever lose 6?
A fine question! Let's find out!
May 7 - Maddux left after 5 with a 4-1 lead. The bullpen lost it 5-4. This was his 3rd start of the season, and this of course was the year that was delayed by the strike. The teams played an extremely abbreviated spring training schedule, and starters workloads were being watched carefully in the early going. Maddux had worked 5 and 5.2 innings in his first two starts.
May 12 - Maddux left with a 4-3 lead in the 8th; the bullpen lost it in 11 innnings.
May 17 - Maddux lost 6-5 to the Rockies, allowing all 6 runs in eight innings for the first of his two losses.
June 3 - Maddux left after 8 in a 1-1 tie against Houston; the bullpen lost it in the tenth.
August 9 - Maddux was touched up for 5 runs in 6.2 by the Reds for his second loss of the season.
September 10 - Maddux worked one inning against the Marlins and left for a pinch-hitter (none other than Jason Schmidt!). The Braves had clinched the day before, and most of their regulars left this one early. The Marlins ended up winning 5-4.
The Other No-Decisions
June 9 - Maddux was one out away from a 2-1 win over the Cardinals when a Lankford double tied the game. The Braves won it in extras.
July 6 - Maddux worked eight shutout innings against the Dodgers but left a scoreless tie for a pinch-hitter in the bottom of the eighth. The Braves won in the bottom of the ninth.
July 24 - Maddux left a 2-2 tie against Pittsburgh after seven; the Braves won it in the ninth.
A fine question! Let's find out!
May 7 - Maddux left after 5 with a 4-1 lead. The bullpen lost it 5-4. This was his 3rd start of the season, and this of course was the year that was delayed by the strike. The teams played an extremely abbreviated spring training schedule, and starters workloads were being watched carefully in the early going. Maddux had worked 5 and 5.2 innings in his first two starts.
May 12 - Maddux left with a 4-3 lead in the 8th; the bullpen lost it in 11 innnings.
May 17 - Maddux lost 6-5 to the Rockies, allowing all 6 runs in eight innings for the first of his two losses.
June 3 - Maddux left after 8 in a 1-1 tie against Houston; the bullpen lost it in the tenth.
August 9 - Maddux was touched up for 5 runs in 6.2 by the Reds for his second loss of the season.
September 10 - Maddux worked one inning against the Marlins and left for a pinch-hitter (none other than Jason Schmidt!). The Braves had clinched the day before, and most of their regulars left this one early. The Marlins ended up winning 5-4.
The Other No-Decisions
June 9 - Maddux was one out away from a 2-1 win over the Cardinals when a Lankford double tied the game. The Braves won it in extras.
July 6 - Maddux worked eight shutout innings against the Dodgers but left a scoreless tie for a pinch-hitter in the bottom of the eighth. The Braves won in the bottom of the ninth.
July 24 - Maddux left a 2-2 tie against Pittsburgh after seven; the Braves won it in the ninth.
Gibson was the right pick by far. He joined a team that had won 73 games the year before and finished dead last in runs scored. Ironically, despite actually scoring basically the same amount of runs in '88 as a team, the Dodgers ascended to the middle of the pack in a year with a strong overall pitching environment. They did this by only adding Gibson to an awful offensive club -- Scioscia, Stubbs, Sax, Shelby, Marshall and the illustrious trio of Alfredo Griffin, Jeff Hamilton and Dave Anderson manning the left side of the infield. The Dodgers' one in-house big bat, Pedro Guerrero, was limited to 59 games due to injury. Gibson simply carried the offence for a championship club.
Magpie alluded to this -- Gibson's "intangibles" were palpable that season. Not captured in his hitting numbers was the fact that he turned a great season of hustle, going 31-for-35 in stolen base attempts, scoring 106 runs and grounding into only 8 double plays. (More tangible effects of "intangibles.") Gibson was huge down the stretch, too; he wasn't even picked to the All-Star Team after the first half.
Anyway, since the question relates to "indefensibility," I think it's a pretty good "defence" to writers who gave the MVP to the #3 guy in adjusted OPS+ to say that adjusted OPS+ hadn't been invented yet. In addition to the reasons listed above, the dominant rate stat used to evaluate hitters then was batting average, and Gibson's was much better than Strawberry's.
Gibson vs. Hershiser in the MVP race of 1988 was actually a very
interesting debate. Both contributed in tangible ways
approximately the same value to a winning club (once one accounts for
Gibson's fielding and baserunning). A club that in fact had no
business winning. The key to the season though in retrospect was
the bullpen, which went from being a real weakness to a tremendous
strength. Jay Howell was brought in from Oakland during the off-season
to close in place of Matt Young/Alejandro Pena. This allowed Pena
to fill the set-up role and his performance improved markedly, and the
back end of the bullpen followed suit.
The club would not have won without Gibson (that much is pretty clear from what happened in 1989). It would not have won without Hershiser. It would not have won without Jay Howell. Everything needed to go right for that club to win. They were nowhere near the club that the Mets were, but like the Twins of 87 and the Cardinals of 06, they won their division and won 4 of 7 from a better club in the playoffs.
Gibson was, to my mind, a reasonable choice, but Hershiser and Strawberry would also have been.
The club would not have won without Gibson (that much is pretty clear from what happened in 1989). It would not have won without Hershiser. It would not have won without Jay Howell. Everything needed to go right for that club to win. They were nowhere near the club that the Mets were, but like the Twins of 87 and the Cardinals of 06, they won their division and won 4 of 7 from a better club in the playoffs.
Gibson was, to my mind, a reasonable choice, but Hershiser and Strawberry would also have been.
Mike Green, I'd have to say the Dodgers of '88 won two 4 of 7 series that they had no business being in at all. The Mets of '88 were scary good and the A's, well Jays' fans found out how tough that juggernaut could be in '89 when Rickey Henderson and Co. destroyed us.
They could play big ball with the "Bash (read needle) Brothers" and small ball with some of their waterbugs including Canseco's 40-40 year, in the year of the pitcher no less, and they could pitch. I'm surprised they didn't win all three World Series' from '88-'90, given their mediocre opposition in all three. That's life in the playoffs though.
Look at that Mets team: Gooden, Darling, Cone, Ojeda, Fernandez all basically healthy (only 4 starts were made by other starters) with Myers finally and brilliantly assuming the closer role in place of new Dodger Jesse Orosco.
The A's had a big three of: Stewart, Welch and Storm Davis and three other starters: Curt Young, Todd Burns (?) and Steve Ontiveros. The bullpen was quite impressive with the Eck asserting his grip on the rest of baseball, aside from some huge momentum swinging playoff homeruns remembered by baseball fans and Blue Jay fans everywhere.
The Dodgers basically had a big three of: Hershiser, Tim Leary, and Tim Belcher along with the ancient Don Sutton and the battered and abused Fernando Valenzuela, and some contribution from Shawn Hillegas. The bullpen was full of career years and you can include the big three in that because Hershiser, despite being very good, never had another year like that. How could he? Excellent comparison between this Dodgers team and this years Cards. Both were given no chance and got hot for four weeks in October, proving once again there's no rhyme or reason in the playoffs, just get yourself there and anything can happen.
They could play big ball with the "Bash (read needle) Brothers" and small ball with some of their waterbugs including Canseco's 40-40 year, in the year of the pitcher no less, and they could pitch. I'm surprised they didn't win all three World Series' from '88-'90, given their mediocre opposition in all three. That's life in the playoffs though.
Look at that Mets team: Gooden, Darling, Cone, Ojeda, Fernandez all basically healthy (only 4 starts were made by other starters) with Myers finally and brilliantly assuming the closer role in place of new Dodger Jesse Orosco.
The A's had a big three of: Stewart, Welch and Storm Davis and three other starters: Curt Young, Todd Burns (?) and Steve Ontiveros. The bullpen was quite impressive with the Eck asserting his grip on the rest of baseball, aside from some huge momentum swinging playoff homeruns remembered by baseball fans and Blue Jay fans everywhere.
The Dodgers basically had a big three of: Hershiser, Tim Leary, and Tim Belcher along with the ancient Don Sutton and the battered and abused Fernando Valenzuela, and some contribution from Shawn Hillegas. The bullpen was full of career years and you can include the big three in that because Hershiser, despite being very good, never had another year like that. How could he? Excellent comparison between this Dodgers team and this years Cards. Both were given no chance and got hot for four weeks in October, proving once again there's no rhyme or reason in the playoffs, just get yourself there and anything can happen.