A thread for talking about really interesting/stupid/incomprehensible award voting results (MVP, CY, RoY, etc.) from the past

There's been a lot of talk around here about this year's awards, and I always find myself craving stats while I watch N hours of playoff baseball every day. So here's the thread where we can talk about old voting results and generally point fingers and say WTF.

Dawson's 87 MVP has got to be the single worst vote I've seen in my lifetime. Way to let one stat (HRs) blind yourselves to everything else.

I was going to start with the 1982 Cy Young voting:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1982.shtml#ALcya

Vuckovich had a nice winning percentage and his team (the Brewers) won the AL East, and that's about all he had going for him. Based on WAR, a more deserving winner would have been ... literally ANYONE else who received votes that year! (except for Zahn) His K/BB ratio was barely over 1.00 and a WHIP over 1.50!

What's more, LaMarr Hoyt led the league in wins and didn't get a single vote! I guess his 19-15 record wasn't impressive enough (he also handily beat Vuckovich in WAR that year).

Dave Stieb 1982 was like Felix Hernandez 2010 -- a workhorse with an unimpressive W-L record pitching for a crappy team.

Vuckovich's SO/BB ratio is crazy.

There was plenty of weird shit going down in 1987. HRs were the big story that year so at the time it seemed natural and obvious that a couple of big HR guys would win the MVP. In the AL, all the MVP talk from August onward was about Bell vs Trammell, and although Bell was a lot more deserving than Dawson was (and of course I favoured him over Trammell at the time), when I look at the numbers now, Trammell clearly should have won, his numbers are just ridiculous for a shortstop. And his team WON the division, and he still didn't get the MVP! There's no way this vote would have turned out this way today.

Was it more common for writers to submit their ballot earlier, before the last weekend of the season? I'm wondering if some people voted for Bell a week early, before the Jays choked away the division.

Steve Bedrosian won the 1987 NL CY with numbers that probably 7-8 closers put up every year these days. Saves were a hip stat in the 80's (people loved voting for closers) and 40 saves was considered a LOT in 1987.

"There's no way this vote would have turned out this way today."

I submit that Justin Morneau is evidence that it would.

Bob Welch winning the Cy w/ 27 wins is not incomprehensible, but I think he was maybe the 6th-best pitcher in the league that year.

What about Tulo? He was getting a lot of MVP consideration last month, and if the Rockies had made the playoffs this year then he would have had a good chance of winning. And Jeter's in the discussion a lot, and probably should have won at least once (like in Morneau's year). And what about Pedroia's win in 2008?

xpost

But Jeters has never won (and has been robbed a couple of times) and Tulo was probably robbed of a ROY by Braun.

And I'm not saying that infielders don't ever win (I mean Brooks Robinson won in the 60s) just that it's not uncommon for voters to be blinded by the offensive exploits of a weak-fielding 1B/OF type and undervalue high performing guys in the middle of the field.

has Jeter ever led the league in WAR? Not with his defense, I wouldn't think.

Again it depends on which version of WAR you are using. He was definitely in the top 5 in 2005 (the year he finished second to Morneau) and 1999 (the year Pudge won the crazy split vote.)

Sure, but if the equivalent of 1987 had happened today, which would have meant Tulo having a monster September, the Rockies coming from behind to make the playoffs, and beating a team with a HR-hitting MVP candidate, then Tulo's probably the MVP. This is actually kind of what happened with Rollins in '07.

It's a bit trickier with four playoff teams per league, it means there are twice as many "winners" per league who will draw MVP votes, compared to 1969-1995.

otoh, in ancient days Phil Rizzuto somehow won one.

B-R WAR thinks that he deserved it to!

That said who knows how they are calculating defensive value from way back then.

yeah, I don't think they were charting plays by zone in George Weiss' day

Oh no--not him again.

A few I could not, and still don't, understand:

1)Vukovich over Stieb, mentioned above. (I think James wanted Quisenberry that year.)
2)Bell over Trammell. As much I lived and died with the Jays during that time--mostly died in '87, several times over--I would have voted for Trammell.
3)Never understood Mo Vaughn over Albert in '95. That was totally narrative--Belle had 50 HR and 50 doubles in an abbreviated season, and Cleveland had their first great year in ages. But he was a mean person, and Mo was a saint, so he lost.
4)I was dumbfounded that Piazza didn't win at least once during the mid-'90s. I would have voted for him over Larkin, and probably over Walker too.

For those of us who are too young to remember this one, I'm particularly interested in hearing the opinions of those who remember the 1979 NL MVP vote:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1979.shtml#NLmvp

I "get" this one (the narrative, IOW) -- Stargell was the "emotional leader" of the Pirates, like the David Ortiz of that team (almost the same nickname, even), the Pirates made the playoffs, and he put up decent power numbers. Aside from that ... WTF?!?!? He missed about a month and a half of the season and brought nothing to the table other than power hitting (NO value for defense, baserunning, getting on base). How did Hernandez get ten 1st place votes to Stargell's four and not win the award outright? Why was Hernandez so polarizing? Was Stargell in the top 50 in WAR that year?

Hernandez was a 1B who didn't hit for power. He was undervalued for basically his entire career.

yes, Pops got it for Lifetime Achievement/leadership

Also Stargell won with 4 1st place votes!?!?!

Morbs, were a lot of people saying that Stargell didn't deserve the award? How controversial was it?

I'm not totally buying the idea that Hernandez was underrated. He won an MVP award and finished in the top ten in the voting four times (and once finished 11th). He played most of his career in two really prominent baseball markets, NY and STL.

The Cards finished 15 games out in '79, so he didn't win the award for "leadership". He got a lot of first place votes, which means a handful of writers put him way down on their ballots or didn't vote for him at all. Why?

I don't remember huge controversy, esp since by the time the result was announced the Pirates had won the WS.

It might not have been a tie!

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/05/who_was_really.php

Wait, so B-R's chart is wrong? Stargell got ten 1st place votes and Hernandez got only four?

Actually my evidence for the fact that he's underrated is the fact that he's not in the Hall despite like 10 straight GGs and being a pretty strong offensive player for his era, but looking at the voting it looks like at least seem people THEN seemed to recognize he was a very very very good.

So maybe he's more underrated today then he was then lol.

There is so much strangeness in that 1979 vote ... Larry Parrish finished fourth but got zero 1st place votes, but *five* players got 1st place votes but finished below him in the overall voting. Gary Carter and Bill Madlock each got a first place vote and finished 17th and 18th. Madlock's 14 total points means he got one first place votes and NO OTHER MVP VOTES OF ANY KIND FROM ANYONE. Considering he was traded to Pittsburgh in midseason, he obv got the Shannon Stewart treatment from a Pittsburgh writer. 1979 is crazy, it's like a Pazz and Jop ballot or something.

xposts

either BR or BA is wrong about the 1st-place votes, I'm not sure which.

That was the first team I followed and Stargell took that team to the top... without question without him, they're also-rans. Pops knees were falling apart and he kept the Pirates in so many games (seems like every week he won the game with a walk-off), I really don't think there's ever been a more valuable player on a team other than Bonds that I've seen in my lifetime. I know it doesn't count but he was also NLCS and World Series MVP, this was not a fluke. It would be great if you could give the award for pleasing all these goofy ahistorical algorithims, but Pops was thee MVP in the *classic* sense.

So Dave Parker's contributions matter less because he was hitting earlier in the games?

yes.

seems like every week he won the game with a walk-off

ANECDOTAL ALERT!

Sorry Morbs, I was not in my 30s at the time.

back off willie

Keri wrote this column 2 years ago:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keri/080805

Voters sensed that A-Rod was using 'roids.

I can't believe that Shasta once rooted for really ugly yellow coloured laundry.

they hadda wash a lotta blow outta that laundry too (not Stargell's)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41a7FPBR4kL.jpg

he kept the Pirates in so many games (seems like every week he won the game with a walk-off)

I totally understand the romance of Stargell's '79 win, even though that was the year I started university and stopped paying attention to baseball--Scorsese and ether were much more important. Anyway, you could check Stargell's last couple of weeks very easily: just go baseballreference's game logs, or get them somewhere else.

I can't believe that Shasta once rooted for really ugly yellow coloured laundry.

― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:09 AM (38 minutes ago)

Stove-pipe caps! Stars! DISCO! what's not to like?

Willie during Sept./Oct. '79:

The good: 8 homers
The pretty good: 18 RBIs
The not-so-good: .222/.328/.485

I'm not saying this invalidates the memory that he had some walk-off game winners.

He had to win these games in the late innings because he'd performed so poorly during the early innings.

All part of his master plan to make his homers as memorable as possible. Did Dave Parker have such a plan? I think not.

As Andrew Sullivan might say, Morbius bait: Omar Moreno finished 15th in that '79 vote.

I seem to remember Billy Martin calling Omar "Bullets" when he was hitting .222 for the Yankees one season.

A couple more I don't get: the Cy Youngs given to Steve Bedrosian and Mark Davis in the late '80s. Notwithstanding that Bedrosian beat what looks like a weak field, both of them had the kinds of seasons that happen six times a year now. I guess some historical context is required, but I was puzzled by both awards at the time.

Even though I think they've gone too far in the other direction: relievers basically aren't even considered for Cy Youngs right now.

I can't really think of an instance, other than Mike Marshall, where a reliever might've been the best choice.

Carew was so much fun to watch. Got totally caught up in his run at .400 in 1977--[i]Sports Illustrated<i/> had a great cover story where he and Ted Williams sat around talking about hitting. (I think they tried the concept again the year Gwynn made a run at .400.) Ichiro's a very good comparison offensively; obviously Ichiro's got a lot more defensive value.

Carew from 73-78 was just a monster hitter.

Lost to history: Ralph Garr. For a very short time--'71 to '74, to be precise--I think he was more or less viewed as the NL's Rod Carew, even though in retrospect there's no comparison.

I was replaying the 1965 season and was surprised to learn that this guy won the MVP. I had, literally, never heard of him before.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1965.shtml#ALmvp

MVP with a .310 OBP. Blimey. In 1962 he got MVP votes with an OPS+ of 74. He must have been one HELL of a shortstop.

maybe they were ahead of their time back then, his WAR led the AL. but i have also literally never heard of that guy.

BP WAR also loves this guy's 1965. He led the league in 2B, 3B and total bases so it's not like he was some all glove dude at all.

never heard of him either. but, like Alex said, he had a solid season once you turn your head away from the horrid obp. he led in 2B, 3B and had respectable HR and SB numbers too.

I don't even have to click to know you're talking about Zoilo Versalles, but a few years before my time.

Remember, lowest offensive era since deadball.

Zoilo Casanova (Rodriguez) Versalles (Zorro)

I used to have a book about the AL MVP that had a short profile of every winning season, so I've heard of Versalles (but before I bought that book, never).

Also o_o at Maury Wills and his 660 OPS stealing five first place votes from Mays and Koufax in the NL.

versalles batted lead off and had the most strikeouts that year, but yeah he had some pretty good numbers (total bases esp)

I got his autograph at an old-timer event in 1986.

There was a chapter on Zoilo in the first baseball book I even owned, a blue one about MVPs with Mantle on the cover. (Not just AL, though, so it can't be the same book as NoTime). There was a chapter on Jim Konstanty, too. My dad got my copy autographed by Robin Roberts at spring training one year, which doesn't make a lot of sense seeing as he's not in the book.

Minnesota lead the league in attendance in '65 at 18k a game. The Red Sox drew 8k a game.

O_o

that can't be right.

i know but there it is

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1965-misc.shtml

Boston was terrible.

Not that it's especially important, but I found an image of the book I referred to above:

http://i.biblio.com/b/157m/265826157-0-m.jpg

Yes, baseball attendance was paltry through the ages by today's standards. Some terrible parks, a preponderance of weekday baseball, etc.

Bill Mazeroski

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mazerbi01.shtml

Hall of Famer?!

Posnanski on the 1955 NL MVP balloting:

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/03/1955-mvp-detective-story.html

If the 2004 NL Cy Young vote were held now, would Johnson beat Clemens?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2004.shtml#NLcya

Johnson had a lower ERA, more IP, more K, better K/BB, better K/9IP, and a lower WHIP. They weren't even close in any of these categories.

Clemens was 18-4 and his team made the playoffs. Johnson's team stunk and finished last.

It's like a carbon copy of last year's candidates in the AL, except this time Hernandez won the award (in a landslide) over Price and Sabathia.

I don't even remember hearing much about Johnson that year until the season was over. Hardly anybody was talking about how good he'd been pitching.

well

awesome

That vote was baffling to me even when it happened.

I forgot we had a thread about this at the time:

2004 Cy Young Awards - Predictions and Commentary

And that's pretty much how I remember it. Nobody really talked about Johnson until September, but it was too late and his case never really built any momentum before the end of the season.

I can't believe (and couldn't believe it in 2004 either) that Jayson Stark picked Johnson!

I think Johnson would win handily today. Another fascinating case is Ryan's in '87:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1987.shtml#NLcya

Bedrosian was probably one of the more mediocre picks ever--that a closer would win with a 2.83 ERA and almost a hit per inning is unthinkable today. So toss him out, and you've got no starter besides Ryan with an ERA under 3.00 (it was a hitter's year), and the guy with the most wins, Sutcliffe, also has the highest ERA. Meanwhile, Ryan leads the league in ERA, H/9, K, even K/BB ratio; for reasons I don't understand, he's behind Hershiser, Welch, and Scott in WAR. His record? 8-16.

The voters loved closers in the 80's and 90's. Guys were picking up Cy Young votes (and even winning the award) with numbers that wouldn't draw a second glance today.

Ryan's 1987 is one of the oddest outlier seasons ever. I'm guessing his lower WAR is due to park effects, the Astrodome was an extreme pitchers park (as was/is Dodger Stadium, but less so, I think). Sutcliffe's 3.68 ERA in Wrigley in a hitter's year looks pretty good in that context.

"for reasons I don't understand, he's behind Hershiser, Welch, and Scott in WAR."

63 innings is why he's so far behind Hershiser (and to a lesser extent Welch and Scott). Imagine there are some park adjustment reasons too.

I guess this is the point where I remind people that WAR is a counting stat.

i'm pretty sure the voters are slowly learning, and CC Sabathia is paying the price

I think Verlander would win this year with any set of voters though.

WAR is a counting stat.

This isn't really true.

No it basically is. Plate appearances are a major component of position WAR and inning pitched is a major component of pitcher WAR.

I didn't notice about Ryan's low inning count. I knew there was a pronounced park effect in the Astrodome, but I didn't think it was significantly greater than in Dodger Stadium at the time.

Both are very pitcher friendly, but looking at the multi-year park effects the Astrodome was little more pitcher so.

Explanation of park factors in B-R is a fun read:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/parkadjust.shtml

No it basically is. Plate appearances are a major component of position WAR and inning pitched is a major component of pitcher WAR.

As it should be! The most valuable player on a team shouldn't be the 20 year old call-up who gets called up and hits a double in his one and only plate appearance in the bigs during a season.

Value = production, not straight averages.

I don't know if any of you remember Ryan's '87, but I was following him at the time, quite fascinated. His run support for the year was 3.28; the league average that year was 4.52 runs per game. I did a quick calculation of his ERA in his 16 losses, and it was 3.77. One thing I noticed is that he was charged with only 65 earned runs and another 10 unearned. That seems higher than normal--my guess is he caught a break there.

I remember that year well, but I was mostly following what McGwire was doing at the time.

And then marveling at the Twins post-season.

What's kind of amazing about Ryan vs. Hershiser innings pitched thing is that they had virtually the same # of G/GS. I usually think of Ryan as being quite the workhouse so I am surprised to see that he pitched no complete games in '87. Although maybe if the Dodgers had restrained Hershiser's innings a little those years he might not have fallen apart completely post-89.

No it basically is.

I distinguish between cumulative stats and pure counting stats, but after some research I think I might be alone on that.

Ryan's season looked less impressive when I scanned his game log. He only got credit for seven or more innings in 14 out of his 34 starts, with no complete games. He was 40 that year, so I hardly want to knock him, but as a convenient point of comparison (being on the same team), Mike Scott got credited with seven-plus in 24 out his 36 starts, with eight complete games.

If you need an example of how much things have changed in the past few years, then check out the 2007 RoY voting (i.e. Tulo vs Braun).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2007.shtml#NLroy

We all remember this: Braun's otherworldly hitting and poor defense (and fewer games played) vs Tulo's great hitting and great defense. Everyone, including statheads, said it was a close call and there was no wrong answer.

But that was before WAR started to dominate all statistical discussions. According to bWAR, it's not even close: 6.5 to 1.8.

IOW, nobody really had a handle on how to quantify their defensive contributions. It was obvious that Braun's defense would cancel out some of the value he had as a hitter, but it was generally assumed that it would be a wash in comparison to Tulo's all around good play on both sides of the ball.

I was thinking that, on top of defense, a lot of voters might have shortchanged park factors, but weirdly enough 2007 had the smallest park factor in Colorado's history (107, vs. Milwaukee's perfectly neutral 100).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/COL/attend.shtml