At the end of the COG, a lot of us were talking about a “next” project. Nothing has yet emerged or, more accurately, I haven’t found the time to follow-up some of the suggestions that were made. Thus, I’m delighted to introduce a new series authored by Dr. Doom, whom many of you will know from his frequent contributions as an HHS reader.
So, without further ado, I’ll let Dr. Doom introduce himself, after the jump.
Hey, y’all! Dr. Doom here, ghostwriting for Doug. Sorry I haven’t been around much lately. I had a little COG hangover here at HHS, and in March, my wife and I welcomed our first child into the world – a ten-pound future Prince Fielder or Rick Reuschel or something. As of his six-month appointment on Friday, he was in the 97th percentile for weight… so yeah. 😉
Anyway, I know I haven’t been super active in the last half-year, but I’m hoping to rectify that. I thought that maybe it would be worthwhile for me to try to put together one of the ideas we discussed: re-voting MVPs. I’m hoping to do so by writing this series (weekly, I hope) revisiting and re-voting seasons with several players worthy of MVP consideration.
Personally, my favorite thing here at HHS is the interesting discussions we have – it’s the reason the COG was so fun. Therefore, I’m not planning to put together EVERY MVP, because some of them are obvious. No one’s voting against Robin Yount in 1982 or Cal Ripken, Jr. in 1991 or Carl Yastrzemski in 1967 or Mickey Mantle in 1956, so I don’t want to re-hash things that are obvious. Likewise, I’m also not super interested in years in which the voters picked “wrong” between two candidates. Yes, maybe it’d be better if Ted Williams had those two MVPs over Joe DiMaggio. Maybe the world would be a more just place if Barry Bonds had topped Terry Pendleton in 1991. But those are binary choices that are more referenda on the voters and their lack of knowledge, instead of years when any of several candidates might have been a deserving choice.
What interests ME most, are those years when the choice isn’t easy – when there are three or more candidates, and not necessarily a “right” and “wrong” choice. Think this year’s AL Cy Young debate, if you want to know what I’m thinking about. I’m interested in how our community would choose to deal with some of the more challenging selections of the past. Some of these are years in which there are two or three players having “MVP-type seasons.” Some are years in which there’s really no one having an outstanding season, so the selection is difficult for that reason.
I have 14 seasons picked out, beginning in 1960 but with none from the last 10 years (I don’t want us to go TOO far back, but I think it’s best if we have a little bit of distance, as well). In each of these seasons, there were reasons to reconsider the choice of the BBWAA. These are elections where there were multiple candidates with similar seasons. Sometimes, the winner was one of those players, and sometimes he wasn’t.
My thought was that we’d have 3-ish days of pure discussion, with no voting, and then take the next four days to re-vote, with descending 10-player ballots, scored 14-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, just as the MLB award goes. If you feel like you can’t fill out all ten spots, that’s fine – but you have to fill out at least half. Ballots with fewer than five players named will be thrown out.
Now, I can’t require this of the rest of you, but I’m writing these posts without reference to WAR, not because I don’t use it (I think you all know that I do), but because it often wasn’t available to MVP voters. If you even want to make your selections without reference to it, more power to you. I kind of think I might do that, just so we’re not mechanically looking at WAR and listing the players in that order… because where’s the fun in that? But hey, reference what you want to, because looking at WAR can be interesting, too.
So, with all of that prelude out of the way, here’s the first post, and the first “controversial” election I have for us: the 1960 NL MVP race.
The 1960 season was, in many ways, the end of Major League Baseball as it had been. The following year, there would be a round of expansion. While teams had already moved and integration had happened, the baseball of 1960 still featured a 154-game season in both leagues and the same 16 franchises that had been duking it out for over a half-century. It was the last season in which the single-season HR record belonged to Babe Ruth. Although expansion would not reach the NL until two years later, this season was, in many ways, the last of the “good ol’ days.”
The NL “pennant race” was not much of one. The Pirates roared into first place for the first time on April 24th (their 11th game of the season and the 13th day overall). They gave up that lead two weeks later, but gained it back on May 18th – from which point they did not relinquish it. They weren’t even tied for first after July 24th. They won 95 games, outperforming their Pythagorean record by 3 games.
These, though, were the last vestiges of the “strength up the middle” years of MVP voting, wherein the BBWAA would pick a middle infielder, CF, P, or C as the MVP each season, usually from the pennant winner. In Pittsburgh’s case, a very balanced team with strong but not necessarily outstanding players all over the diamond, the honor fell to SS Dick Groat. Groat was a career .286 hitter entering 1960, but won a shocking batting title, hitting .325 (his career OBP entering ’60 had been only .324!), and in the days of batting averages and strength up the middle, that was all anyone needed. Never mind that his .325 was almost entirely empty – 25 2B, 6 3B, 6 HR, 85 R, and only 50 RBI! But he had a good glove and played a tough defensive position and won a batting title for a pennant winner in a cake walk, so what do you want from the voters?
Well, his teammate Don Hoak was the runner up, garnering 5 of the 6 1st-place votes Groat failed to receive. He played solid defense, as well, but added 16 HR to his .282 average, scored 97 and drove in 79, and his season got memorialized by one of my favorite moments from City Slickers, so there’s always that. The other 1st place vote that year also went to a Pirate – to Roberto Clemente, who batted .314 and paced the Bucs in RBI with 94, to go along with 16 HR and that gorgeous arm in RF. Oh… except it’s possible that none of those guys were the most valuable of the eyepatch-wearers. Vern Law was 20-9 with a 3.08 ERA in 271.2 innings, pacing the senior circuit with 18 complete games. Reliever Roy Face was also a popular down-ballot choice for MVP that year, going 10-8 in 114.2 stingy innings – 2.90 ERA, 1.064 WHIP, and what-weren’t-then-but-might-be-later 24 saves.
Milwaukee continued to be merely excellent instead of dynastic (perhaps justifying Bill James‘s claim that they were the team in baseball history to do the least with the most), winning 88 and outperforming their Pythagorean expectation by 4. Third-place St. Louis also outperformed their Pythagorean record, by SIX in their case, winning 86. Los Angeles, the previous year’s pennant-winner, fell back to fourth, and underperformed by 3, winning “only” 82. The Giants also finished about .500 (79 wins), and the rest of the second division was rounded out by the “usual suspects” – Cincinnati (67 wins), Chicago (60) and Philadelphia (59).
The Braves were led by the always-stellar combination of Eddie Mathews and Hank Aaron. Their numbers are indistinguishable from one another, basically – .277/.397/.551 with 108 R, 39 HR, and 124 RBI for one, and .292/.352/.566 with 102 R, 40 HR, and 126 RBI (and the league lead) for the other (Mathews’ stats listed first).
Willie Mays (.319/.381/.555 – scored 107, knocked in 103, belted 29 and swiped 25… and was WILLIE MAYS in CF) was his usual self. Ernie Banks, playing for a terrible team and beginning (only slightly) to show his age at SS, was just about as good a hitter as he’d been in the previous two seasons, during both of which he’d won MVP: .271/.350/.554 with a league-leading 41 HR, plus 117 RBI and 94 scored.
Two Cardinals, Lindy McDaniel and Ken Boyer, were the other standouts in 1960. McDaniel was the highest-finishing pitcher in the MVP vote that year (topping Vern Law in MVP votes, but trailing both Law and Warren Spahn in Cy Young votes), but only started two games. As a reliever, he appeared 65 times and went 12-4 with 27 saves (which, remember, weren’t counted in 1960). He had a 2.09 ERA and 105 Ks in 116.1 pitched. Boyer finally put it all together. His .304 average was right in line with his career mark (three of his previous five seasons had shown averages of .306, .307, and .309), but his SLG jumped from a previous high of .508 to .562, as he hit 26 doubles to go along with 32 homers. He rounded that out with 95 R and 97 RBI, and Ken Boyer defense at third.
So, who will it be? One of the pennant winners? A stalwart Brave? A Cardinal? A third consecutive MVP for Ernie Banks? The perpetual candidate Willie Mays? Or someone I didn’t even mention? Let the discussion (and voting) commence!
Welcome back Doom and congrats on the child!
Definitely looking forward to this series. But a couple of questions first. We just cast one vote for the person who think should have won, correct? And when is the voting deadline?
Dr. Doom has proposed a full ballot of ten (like the BBWAA), with a requirement that at least 5 names appear, ordered by voter preference. Ballots would be scored 14-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 for 1st through 10th choices.
Ah yes, that’s what I get for skimming!!! And now I’m seeing that he proposes 3ish days for discussion before voting.
Not sure I want to comment at this point. I’d prefer to hear what people who remember this season have to say first.
I’ll be sure to have a short summary of the “rules” at the bottom of subsequent posts, but thought it should be a little more long-form here for the first one. But yeah, that’s the gist – BBWAA scoring, minimum of five players per ballot (which shouldn’t be too hard, honestly). Please feel free to peruse whatever baseball websites you want – don’t just limit yourself to this post. I just wanted to give some “flavor” to each season in question so that we can get the feel for it.
Despite his infamy as being the player traded for Lou Brock, Ernie Broglio had a really good season. He won 21 games (7 in relief). He pitched in 52 games, starting 24 of them, completing 9 of those 24 starts. He finished 14 games (though no saves – not even retroactively), and finished 2nd on the team in IP with 226.1. I’m not sure he’s the MVP, just thought his usage was interesting.
He looked to be a spot starter until about July, and then became part of the rotation. Still pitched a little in relief though. Led the league in pitching WAR, wins (tied with Spahn), and ERA+, finished 4th in strikeouts and 8th in games pitched. If it matters, he got bombed his last two games – 8.1 IP, 13 hits, 10 R, 8 ER, 9 BB, and 5 Ks – but the Cardinals were already out of the race at that point. Had a 2.52 ERA prior to those last two games.
1960 Willie Mays = 2016 Mike Trout. Best player in baseball on a team not really going anywhere. 3rd place in MVP vote seems similar to where Trout will likely end up this year.
Groat’s not really a terrible choice – best player on the pennant winning team.
Honestly, I’ve looked at this a couple of times and I have absolutely no idea. For me, this year feels way too complicated. No one stands out. As Artie Z. says Groat’s not a terrible choice. But that’s basically damming with faint praise. Who else? Mays had by far the most WAR. But without WAR, he doesn’t stand out above about 5-10 other people. I feel like I could just toss a bunch of names in a hat and pull them out and do just as well.
I think Frank Robinson deserves to be in the conversation, even though his team was still a year away (as was Robinson’s actual MVP award).
In 1960, Robinson led in SLG, OPS, OPS+ and Offensive Win % (9 Robinsons = .773, edging out the 1906 Cubs). As with every season of his career, Robinson lost WAR value based on the positions he played (in 1960, 15% of Robinson’s batting WAR was lost based on positional adjustment; for his career it was 20%). Later in his career, Robinson lost more WAR for playing those positions badly, but in 1960 he was an average to slightly above average fielder.
Robinson also led in HBP.
The perception of Robinson, during 1960 at least, may be that he had a slump in the middle of the year that cost the Reds a shot at the pennant (or at least of being in contention).
On May 29th Robinson was at .307/.413/.621 with 9 HRs and 29 RBI through 38 games (39 team games). The Reds went 20-18 and were 4 games out. That’s a 35 HR, 110 RBI type season if he continues it throughout the year.
From May 30th-August 6th Robinson went .216/.335/.456 with 11 HRs and 23 RBI in 55 games (the Reds went 19-36 in those games). It looks like he missed 8 games during that stretch. The Reds were 17.5 games out at that point, in 6th place.
From August 7th-October 2nd Robinson went .379/.481/.725 with 11 HRs and 31 RBI in 46 games (41 starts – looks like he missed 6 games). It didn’t matter – the Reds went 20-26 and were already out of the race.
I chose that middle part of the season by eyeballing his game logs and tried to make it as bad as I could, but really the idea was to get a sense of what the perception might have been. A torrid ending to the season when the team was already out of the race likely didn’t help him with the voters. It’s not to dismiss his overall numbers, just to put some context into the numbers.
It’s really difficult to get a grasp of everything going on during a season. On July 31st the Pirates were 2 games ahead of the Braves. Dick Groat hit .373 in August. On August 31st the Pirates were 6.5 games ahead of the Cardinals. Groat probably got some credit (likely deserved) for helping separate the Pirates from the rest of the league.
Groat had played every game through September 6th when he was hit by a Burdette pitch in the first inning (Pirates were 7 ahead of the Cardinals). He would miss the next 17 games (so he played one less game than Robinson) and the Pirates were 5.5 games ahead of the Braves (the race was over at that point). The Pirates would end up 7 games ahead of the Braves (beating them in the last 2 games of the season), gaining 1 1/2 games after Groat’s return (he went 3 for 10 in the last 3 games of the year against the Braves, with 2 runs and 2 RBI). It takes a good bit to shape the narrative down.
David P (@6), if you think this one is tough, wait’ll you see some of the others that are coming down the pipe! At least this year HAS a clear WAR leader. There are some years with this much confusion, and no one standing head-and-shoulders above the rest.
Doug (@7) and Artie (@5), I would probably agree with you, that Robinson and Broglio should be in the conversation. I left them out because, basically, the BBWAA did. Also, I didn’t want these posts to be just me listing all the options; I know how much people love poking around on baseball-reference, so I figured I can leave some of the candidates out there for people to discover for themselves – especially if the MVP voters ignored those candidates.
Regarding Robinson, I think there are two things that hurt him, and position is not one of them. I think the biggest was probably being on a terrible team. Look at Robinson’s 1960 and 1961; they’re basically indistinguishable (well, there’s the batting average, but I don’t know that a guy who hits nearly .300 with 30 HR is discriminated against; there is one other thing, which I’ll get to in a minute). But the Reds’ records in those two years are not at all alike. The other thing in 1960 that hurts him, I think, is that he only played 139 games. In other words, he missed 10% of the season. When a guy misses that much, doesn’t particularly distinguish himself, and there are THIS many good candidates, it doesn’t surprise me that he doesn’t get a ton of love in the voting.
Vada Pinson also had a pretty good year for a not-so-good team (the 6th-place Reds). He finished in the top 4 in GP (3), PA, AB, R, H, 2B, 3B, SB (and CS); as an outfielder GP, GS, CG, innings, and PO; as a centerfielder, Assists (and errors). And he played in both All-Star Games, with a walk and a strikeout, and six innings in centerfield.
OBS – Pinson was a bit before my time but I had his baseball card as a kid (I think from ’73). I remember staring and staring and staring at it, wondering what happened. At age 26, he seemed a certain HOFer. And then, nothing. Not that he was terrible post age-26, but his career definitely didn’t live up to the early expectations. Him and Cesar Cedeno remain the great mysteries of my childhood.
Actually, another player who followed the same pattern was Fred Lynn. He hit some higher heights, and because he walked quite a bit his OPS+ is a lot higher, but he showed a lot of promise early and, possibly because of being injury prone, faded into being a good player but nothing like what he had been.
NSB – As far as I know/remember, Lynn’s fade was 100% attributed to injuries (seems a common problem in CF; see Grady Sizemore for another example). Whereas Pinson’s and Cedeno’s fades were much more mysterious.
What is the mystery with Cedeno?
He was great.
For a decade.
Playing CF and stealing 50-60 bases a year… on astroturf.
Probably why it was only a decade.
But he certainly had hype…
“At 22 Cedeno is as good or better than Willie was at the same age. I don’t know whether he can keep this up for 20 years, and I’m not saying he will be better than Mays. No way anybody can be better than Mays. But I will say this kid has a chance to be as good. And that’s saying a lot.””
– Leo Durocher
Voomo –
From age 19-29, Cedeno accumulated 49.2 WAR, and had a very good shot at the HOF. But then his 30s came, and he only accumulated 3.5 more WAR. That’s a huge dropoff. No one really seems to know what happened though he did have some injuries as well as some personal problems.
Right. I guess it doesn’t seem like a mystery to me because I’m making an assumption that the turf aged his legs.
979 games on turf through those 11seasons.
As a CF who attempted 70 steals a year.
It would be a mystery to me if he played at a high level any longer than that.
Doesn’t seem like the turf was the main issue. Here’s what I’ve uncovered.
He missed most of 1978 after tearing knee ligaments, sliding into second base. In 1979, he contracted hepatitis and lost 14 pounds. In 1980, he bounces back and has his best season in a couple of years, only to break his ankle in the playoffs.
On top off that, back in 1973, his girlfriend was killed in a hotel room and Cedeno was charged with involuntary manslaugher. He was heckled for the rest of his career (in 1981 he went into the stands, after a fan who called him “killer”) and some say he never really recovered from the trauma of watching his girlfriend die.
Maybe astroturf played a role as well but it doesn’t seem like it was the primary problem.
Anyway, as I said, this was a childhood mystery, because none of this was known to my childhood self (born in ’69).
“No way anybody can be better than Mays”… unless Mays presides over the baptism of some future god, imbuing that child with Willie’s own greatness to supplement hereditary gifts.
But that could never happen.
Cedeno had a “Most Valuable Month” for the 1985 Cardinals, who acquired him after Jack Clark was injured. He hit .434 in 28 games, helping the Cardinals hold off the Mets for the NL East title. His career was pretty much done after that season.
As I recall, Pinson had bad knees in the latter part of his career, which took down his HOF chances. I still think there’s a case for his inclusion. (If HighPockets Kelly can be in the HOF, ANYBODY can be in the HOF!)
For some reason, Dave Parker isn’t ever talked about as them, but he’s basically the same, right? 32.4 WAR and an MVP through his age-28 season, 1.5 WAR the next, and then over three quarters of his remaining 6 WAR came in one season (4.7 in 1985). It’s a very similar case, and made even more interesting (in my mind, anyway) by the fact that he and Cedeno are less than 4 months apart in age! They also played together for the 1984 and ’85 Reds.
You know – you can made a Hall of Famer out of Cedeno and Parker, just by taking the best season of the two of them – and this is with two guys who were both at their best as young players, and forcing two bad Dave Parker seasons into it. You take Cedeno 1970-1974, Parker in 1975, Cedeno in 1976, Parker 1977-1979, Cedeno 1980-1984, and Parker 1985-1991. You get a guy with 70 WAR, an MVP, 9 All-Star games (1972-1974, 1976-1977, 1979, 1985-1986, and 1990), four 2B titles, two batting titles, and an RBI title. He’d have fewer HR than Parker and fewer SB than Cedeno, but plenty of each. Usually, that’s a fun exercise with guys who are the same age but one’s an early bloomer and one a late one. But in this case, switch around a couple of years, and you can still make two very good young players into a HOFer.
Parker signed on as hitting coach in St Louis during the McGwire era to get his name in front of the HOF voters again.
Johnny Callison was another one. Of course there will be more on him when the 1964 MVP vote is discussed.
Pinson also led in in the less enviable category of total outs made as a batter.
Dr. Doom, congratulations. I’m curious–for a Bonus Baby that size, have you already received a call from Scott Boras–just preliminary, of course?
Just noticing that Groat was the second to last player to be MVP with a SP below .400 (Maury Wills did it in 1962, but that was also the year he broke Ty Cobb’s SB record). Here’s a list of all MVP position players with SP below .400
Nellie Fox, 1959
Phil Rizzuto, 1950
Marty Marion, 1944
Frankie Frisch 1931
Roger Peckinpaugh 1925
I’m not sure what Rizzuto is doing on your list; his SLG was .439 in 1950.
Unsurprisingly, these are some of the worst MVP selections of all-time, with a very notable exception*.
*I’m not going to talk about 1960, because obviously you can see more info about that above. I’m also not going to talk about 1962 because… well… you’ll see why in next week’s post. 🙂
Fox was, by WAR, the 2nd-most valuable position player in the AL in 1959, at 6.0 (Mantle was at 6.6). In the NBJHBA, Bill James had Fox as MORE valuable than Mantle in 1959, which James had as the only time a player was more valuable than Mantle 1954-1964 (although Mantle was hurt in ’63 so James didn’t count that one, and Brooks Robinson rated even with Mantle in ’64).
Doom–I obviously Phailed on Phil.
I also just realized something that I think is a little odd. I would throw out Peckingpaugh’s season (it was before the modern award, which started in 1931). Here are those seasons again:
Frankie Frisch (1937)
Marty Marion (1944)
Nellie Fox (1959)
Dick Groat (1960)
Maury Wills (1962)
As mentioned above, Fox’s season was a legitimately great one, and his winning the award is not unreasonable. But if the others go down as “bad” selections, isn’t it a bit odd that they’re ALL in the NL? I think that’s strange, in the same way that I think it’s strange that there have been three relief-pitcher MVPs in the AL, but none in the NL. I don’t know if these things actually reveal “cultural” differences between the two leagues, but they’re always really, really interesting to me.
Doom, it might be coincidence, but I also think the NL was thought of as a smaller-ball pitching and defense league. The Yankees were dominant mashers–arbitrarily picking the period from Frisch’s 1937 to Wills’ 1962, the Yankees won the pennant all but five years, and it’s possible that the AL was defined by their personality.
One point I wanted to make about Wills. In 1962, in a ten team league, Wills had 13% of all steals in the NL. By comparison, Cobb’s 1915 existing record of 96, in an 8 team league, was only 6.6% of the AL total.
Mike L:
The AL stopped being the power league in 1947 and didn’t regain that status until expansion. From 1947 through 1959 the NL dominated in HRs, sometimes by as many as 300 (1197/879 in 1953) due to a variety of factors, notably the adjustments to field size in the NL and the impact of Ralph Kiner’s big bat in the shrunken Forbes Field. In 1960 the AL eked out a 44 HR lead for the first time since 1946.
To me, anyway, growing up in the ’50’s, it was the NL that was the power league.
NSB, I realize I worded that poorly. In the AL, the Yankees were the dominant team–and during that 1937-62 stretch they took 14 MVPs, and it’s possible the writers, in choosing an AL MVP, related to Yankee power, etc. To come back to your point, I think that the non-Yankee part of the AL was generally considered somewhat inferior to the NL for part of that period.
I’ve been looking over these numbers for a couple of days now. I’m having a really hard time separating Mays, Mathews, Aaron, Banks, and Boyer. They’re all right there in SLG – .551-.566 is the spread for the whole lot. They all played 151+ games (that’s kinda why I’m leaving Frank Robinson out of this discussion, at least for now – Mays, Banks, Aaron, and Mathews are all within 14 PAs of one another; Boyer is 50 behind, Robinson is another 50 behind THAT). All of them hit 29-41 HR. Admittedly, that’s kind of a big spread, but the fewest HR went to Mays in a pitchers’ park, while the most went to Banks in a hitters’ paradise, so those are a lot closer than I suspected.
“Officially,” we won’t be voting until tomorrow, but I thought I’d get some of my thoughts today out there. When I look at these five candidates, I see a four differences that stick out to me.
First of those is OBP. Banks (.350), Aaron (.352), Boyer (.370) and Mays (.381) made out more often than Mathews (.397). That’s a strong point in his favor. The difference between Mathews and Banks, who had a difference of only 7 PAs on the season, amounts to over 30 outs (31-32, depending on how you count it) – in other words, Ernie Banks made more than one entire game’s worth of outs that Mathews didn’t make.
The second thing I’m looking at, which is defensive position. This is a huge edge to Banks and Mays, playing the most difficult non-catcher positions on the diamond, and still playing them well, by all accounts. Mathews and Boyer are pretty neutral (Boyer would have the edge based on reputation at his position). Aaron is hurt most by this factor… except that you remember that he was still young, fast, and had a good arm. Sure, he was no Mays, but he wasn’t a slouch, either!
The third factor that differentiates them is batting average. These are kind of all over the map with this group. I’m of the philosophy generally that BA doesn’t matter – except when it does. And, all other things being even (which they sort of are in this case), I’d rather have a guy who hits the ball more. They’re each about 12 points ahead of the next guy: Mays (.319), Boyer (.304), Aaron (.392), Mathews (.377) and Banks (.371). This is, obviously, not as important as OBP, but is something to consider, I think.
The last remaining factor I can see is actual effect on the scoreboard. (You could look at base-stealing, but honestly, once you’ve factored in CS, I don’t really think any of them made a bit of difference by stealing or not.) Scoreboard is a tough one. It’s based on teammates and ballpark a lot. So I’m just going to look at what share of their teams’ runs these players were involved in. A simple formula: (R+RBI-HR)/tmRuns. Here are the percentages:
Boyer – .250
Aaron – .260
Mathews – .267
Banks – .268
Mays – .270
In other words, they all participated in 25-27% of their teams total runs (Mays was actually sub-.270, but it rounded up).
These guys are so ridiculously even that, as things go right now, I have to put Boyer 5th in this group due to having 50 fewer PAs than the others, which matters when you’re trying to make distinctions this fine. I would, as of now, put Aaron 4th, because he doesn’t really stand out in ANY of the four “diving deeper” things I’ve looked at in this post. But the other three are awfully tough to separate. I think I put Mathews 3rd, because he’s got the OBP edge, but grades out poorly looking at defense and batting average. And between the other two? Wow. I just don’t know. I’d love to see someone give me some more guidance!
What’s odd above Banks’ season, and the reason his BA, SLG and RBI dropped from his MVP years in ’58 and ’59, was he hit fewer singles. Seems strange but that’s the fundamental difference in his stat line. Extra-base hits were on par with the two prior years, strikeouts down (slightly), walks up (slightly), but only 82 singles compared to 103 and 112 the two prior years. He started slow (.227/.355/.523) through May 17, picked it up (.319/.399/.648) from then until the first ASG, but cooled off (.249/.310/.495) the rest of the way. Maybe he was pressing to hit homers (which he succeeded at) but that led to more flyouts and popups, which cut down on singles and hurt his BA, SLG and RBI.
I wonder if he might’ve been showing some age. Perhaps he was no longer fast enough to beat out some of the grounders from his MVP seasons. The strength to mash in that cool, summer, Lake Michigan air may have been there, but perhaps he no longer had the legs to carry him to first on a ground ball. It was his age-29 season after all, and he must’ve been slower than he was a couple of years earlier. Or maybe you’re right and he was pressing. Particularly pressing for HR in Wrigley early or late in the season, when the ball doesn’t carry as well and the wind rushes in, could cause a slump like that.
Dr. Doom: Very nice analysis, but I disagree with dinging Boyer for having fewer PA than the other elite NL position players. His Cardinals team was decidedly below average at the plate. As a team they scored 16 fewer runs than league average and had almost 100 fewer PA than league average, whereas the teams for which Mays, Aaron, Mathews and Banks played had either league average or above average PAs. The differences among these teams do not account for all of Boyer’s shortfall – maybe a third of it. But still, it’s not entirely Boyer’s fault. When you’re on a below average offensive team, you’re going to get fewer chances to bat.
Fair enough, Brendan. Honestly, though, with this group, it feels like some of those hairs HAVE to be split; what do you use as a guide? PAs may not be fair, but I had to look for SOMETHING! And if I WEREN’T to consider it… I’d probably still have him 5th in the group. HIs strongest showing is in batting average, and that’s the least important one. He was worst in participating in the runs for his team, which, unlike PAs, should even out – a great player on a bad team would score/drive in a HIGHER percentage of runs. Yet Boyer, on a poorer offense, was LESS involved in the actual scoring of runs. How would you rank those five? Or would you have someone else in the mix?
I agree that hairs need to be split, and as a group that’s something HHS is pretty good at. Good point about Boyer not standing out in terms of % of team runs, as might be expected of a great player on a poor team. I do not know how I would rank the five players. Obviously, this is something I will need to come to grips with in the next couple days if I’m going to vote intelligently. For the moment, I’m thinking Mays and Mathews (not necessarily in that order) ahead of Aaron, Banks and Boyer (again not necessarily in that order), so in the end I very well might have Boyer fifth among them.
I love this project, Doom. For all the tremendous work Doug has done to keep this site worth visiting, this is the kind of exercise that will make it a daily must-read for me again.
My initial thoughts on 1960: There’s certainly been a shift in MVP voting, not necessarily toward WAR, but toward rewarding great players rather than players on great teams. WAR tends to tell us a lot about talent and the various ways it manifests itself on the baseball field. In an eight-team league in the ‘50s, the best players were probably the best players year-in and year-out. The NL WAR leaders in 1960 were Mays, Mathews, Banks, and Aaron- the usual suspects.
By basing their search on pennant winners with high batting averages, the voters gave themselves an opportunity to look at some players like Groat and Hoak who may not otherwise have been on their radar.
Of course, this preference may have been driven by the fact that one team made the “playoffs”, so a player from a non-playoff team couldn’t possibly have been more valuable. Moving on…
Groat’s case falls apart pretty easily. A .325 batting average sounds great, but five players got on base more, 34 (of 38 qualifiers!) had a higher isolated slugging, and four players meet both criteria. With such a gap in offense, Groat needed to be phenomenal on defense to close the gap, and while he may have been, Mays and Banks had pretty great gloves as well.
In 2007, Chase Utley played quality, up-the-middle defense for the division-winning Phillies. He batted .332 with a better OBP and ISO than Groat, raw or era-adjusted. Utley finished eighth in MVP voting. That seems about right for Groat in 1960.
I think it would be good to look at the vote that actually existed in more detail. Dick Groat was not just the winner; the voting wasn’t even close. It’s a little annoying to me, I must admit, that the baseball writers of earlier eras—or our current one—are dismissed with such easy and glib comments as, for instance, “well they were blinded by his BA”— or his HRs, or his RBIs. They always seem to have been blinded by something that we in our purer view would not have been. The fact remains, I suppose, that they were blinded by Groat’s .011 batting advantage over Clemente on the same team (.325 to .314), but they weren’t blinded by Clemente’s 44 RBI advantage.
What I really want to say is that Groat’s MVP had nothing much to do with BA alone. Otherwise, Mays’ .319 plus his huge advantage in HR, R, RBI, SB, and SLG would have been the blinding factor.
No, Groat was picked first on 16 ballots out of 22, and his point total was 276, 114 more than Hoak’s in second place and 161 more than May’s third place total. It was a walkaway win(Groat, like Lou Boudreau, was a notoriously slow runner). So what did the writers see? They saw, as they did in 1963, when Groat again topped all position players in the vote but lost the award to Sandy Koufax, a team leader in a key position who fielded well, came up with the big play, and seemed to bind a winning team together. They had more than just statistics to look at. They saw Groat and his MVP competition in action and decided decidedly in his favor. Groat, by the way, was injured in September that season and missed three weeks of play. The writers still thought he was the best. We’re supposed not to take WAR into account in these proceedings, so let’s just say that his WAR was remarkable, given the 3-weeks he lost and the fact that he had just 2 HRs.
There are some good points in there, NSB. Permit me to make a few of my own.
First is that I don’t think this was a notably “bad” selection. There have been many worse. He was a pretty good player, having a pretty good year. Not at all a bad selection. I didn’t say they were “blinded.” I just think that noting that this was the “strength up the middle” era (objectively true, looking at MVP voting), and noting that it was ALSO a high-batting average era (again, as borne out by studying the MVPs of the time) shows that he was going to be the MVP over Hoak. If they’re averages were reversed, though, but otherwise remained the same, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Hoak would’ve won the award.
As to your point about Groat in ’63… funny how that was ALSO the only other year of his career when he hit .300 (batting .319, third in the NL). One might actually say that his leadership qualities, as measured by the voters, were directly proportional to his batting average and team’s finish (the Cards, his new team as of ’63, were second to Koufax’s Dodgers).
Look at Roy Campanella in the ’50s. Campy basically alternated years as MVP, winning the odd years ’51-’56. His Dodgers won in ’52, ’53, ’55, and ’56. Yet, he only won MVPs in the odd years, when his average was .325, .312, and .318. He was conspicuously down-ballot when his averages were .269, .207, and .218.
I’m not looking to downplay the importance of leadership. It IS an important skill. However, don’t you think it’s a little suspicious that it ALSO works to add the “leadership” narrative on ex-post-facto? I mean, was Groat just a worse leader in other years, and only good in ’60 and ’63? Or do the voters only care when you’re a good leader, you’re winning, AND you have a good statistical year? To me, those other factors seem much, much more important. You often see guys with good statistical years showing up, even if they’re bad leaders or on bad teams. I don’t know of any players who were consistently on the top of MVP leaderboards solely for having good leadership qualities.
And that’s the other thing. It’s not JUST batting average – it’s batting average and winning. Pennant winner, league-leading hitter, up-the-middle position. If the Giants had finished first, do you really think Groat would’ve been the MVP? I don’t. And I have a hard time thinking that the successes of one’s teammates should matter that much in choosing an MVP. I mean, if the Pirates could’ve had Groat or Ernie Banks for a replay of 1960, do you REALLY think they’re going with Groat?
Finally, you point out that they watched the games. And they did. Well, the couple of voters from Pittsburgh did, anyway. But keep in mind that MOST voters only saw a player a handful of times per year. And they weren’t watching highlights or video, they weren’t listening to radio broadcasts. They weren’t even scouring the sports pages of the local papers in other metros. They were reading box scores and stats, same as we are. I’m willing to bet there are one million people in America today who watch more baseball in a year than the average MVP voter did in 1960.
It’s not that we today aren’t without our biases. We have them, and they influence these kinds of discussions. You’re right to call us out for them and to ask us to give the opinions of people at the time credence, as well. But it’s not like THEY were somehow magically without biases of their own. And given their biases, I think we’re within our rights to suggest that they might have been wrong. Perhaps research in baseball in 25 years will show them to have been more right than we are; I don’t know. But I think, given the evidence, Dick Groat was probably not the best choice for MVP in 1960.
I don’t know. I’m kind of with NSB on this one. 1960 was nearly a decade before I was born so I have zero context for what happened that season and why the voters might have chosen Groat. (tried finding some newspaper articles from that era but came up empty). And trying to ascertain motives of the voters 50 years after the fact seems like a bit of a wild goose chase.
Was Groat a bad choice? Maybe. I just don’t know. And it’s not like there’s anyone else who really jumps out as being above the crowd unless one goes purely by WAR (but if you do that, there’s no point to the whole exercise).
I also don’t understand the Campanella reference. Sure, his batting average was down the years he didn’t win the MVP. But so were all his other numbers as well.
This also doesn’t resonate with me:
“However, don’t you think it’s a little suspicious that it ALSO works to add the “leadership” narrative on ex-post-facto? I mean, was Groat just a worse leader in other years, and only good in ’60 and ’63?”
No one’s claiming that leadership has a 20 or 30 game impact and can turn a terrible team into a great team. But maybe Groat’s “Leadership Above Replacement” was worth an extra two or three wins and then he looks like a much better candidate.
BTW, Groat didn’t just win the BBWAA MVP that year. He also won the Sporting News MVP. So there was some consensus on the matter.
Dr. Doom @ 32:
1) I’m not plumping for Groat as the MVP, so if that’s your assumption it’s a wrong’un. Being a Yankee fan, I wasn’t much concerned with what was going on in the NL that year, I admit. It was a three team dogfight—Yanks, ChiSox, and Orioles—and the Yanks and Orioles were tied in first with the Sox a game or so back on Sept 15. Then the Yanks won their final 15 games. The big ongoing NL news was that the Pirates seemed to be about to break their jinx—the ’27 Yankees jinx—just as the White Sox had broken the Black Sox jinx the year before. These were the longest pennant dry spells in history at the time.
2) Groat actually batted .315 and .300 in ’57 and ’58, not that it matters to your point. However, as to that point, I think you should bow to David P’s reasoning @36. It isn’t that the leadership qualities weren’t there in lesser years; it was that better batting performance enhanced the overall value, as in Most Valuable Player.
3) 1960 may seem like the Stone Age to later generations, but in fact, with the smaller leagues it was fairly easy for people to keep track of what was going on re out-of-town teams, and much pre-game radio commentary—radio, predecessor to TV—was focussed on The Pennant Races, who was hot and why, etc. Further, another medium called now the “print” medium was crazy for Major League Baseball stories, and not just in the local papers. As a teen of those times I subscribed to both Sports Illustrated and Sport, and of course, the Sporting News was mainly a baseball sheet, weekly and comprehensive, both in statistics and informed commentary about all teams. Those out-of-town writers, if they were doing their jobs, were following the other teams on their beats via these multiple sources, even if they only saw visiting teams 22 times a year.
Actually, you know, 22 times is a fair number of times to help develop a general picture.
That would be for NL beat writers who traveled with their teams only, of course.
A couple of other names that probably belong in this conversation:
Don Drysdale
He didn’t make either of the All Star games (his 15-14 W/L record probably had something to do with that) but it was one of his best seasons. Almost 270 IP’s, led the league in strikeouts & 3rd in ERA in the hitter-friendly LA Coliseum (second in ERA+). I can see why he didn’t get a lot of support because of his W-L record but he deserved better.
Bob Friend
Another case where I can see why he didn’t get a lot of love from the voters but he was just as deserving as any of this teammates, 5 of whom finished in the top 12 in voting. Tied for 2nd in the league in IP’s (just ahead of teammate Law & Drysdale) with 275, 4th in ERA, led the league in SO/BB ratio, 3rd in shutouts.
Not sayin’ either of these guys should be the MVP, but they at least belong in the discussion.
A comment not related to the subject:
Why have the Red Sox suddenly taken over the AL east? Well, Toronto has folded, yeah, but it’s mainly the amazing BoSox pitching. Earlier in the year the team was ranking 10th or so in runs allowed, whereas now it is in a virtual tie for 3rd, meaning that the staff has more than made up for its earlier vagaries. If the pitching and hot bats of Ortiz and Betts keep going, the team is going to be a daunting proposition in the playoffs.
Last 21 games
16-5
129 R
62 RA
6.14
2.95
Hey, I just noticed the Twitter sidebar, and clicked on it for the first time. It seems that HHS has a robust and active life on that platform. Been wondering where all the activity on this fine site went to, and now I see.
From http://bbwaa.com/voting-faq/ , where they italicize this text:
Dear Voter:
There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.
Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.
Please continue the interesting discussions, everyone! But I also want to let you know that we’re ready to receive ballots, whenever you want to post yours! Post at least 5 names in your preferred order by midnight on Sunday, and your ballot will be counted. Vote away!
May we give reasons and commentary, or are we confined to a list?
Yes, please do! Discuss as long as you would like. Just make sure it’s clear that you’re making your final list.
OK:
Now is the time I have available to do this before Monday so I’m going ahead.
Yeah, it’s a logjam, and depending on which emphases you place on the available data, you can come up with different outcomes. I think Dick Groat was a very good choice, as I’ve made clear in other comments, but he isn’t my choice, because the data I always look at in these types of judgments focuses on such things as how well the player did in what used to be called clutch situations, how well he did in late innings, how well he did in the second half of the season, and how well he did against the teams his team had to beat.
The player who stands out, almost head and shoulders above the others seen from this complicated viewpoint is as big a surprise to me as it might be to everyone else:
1) Eddie Mathews. BA with RISP: .386, OPS 1.256. Men on base: .337 and 1.103. Two outs RISP: .422 and 1.225. Phenomenal. Against the Dodgers, Pirates, Giants, and Cards—the teams the Braves had to beat, he batted .288 vs .277 for the season, OPS of .959. Second half he hit 23 of his 39 HRs drove in 80 of his 125 runs, and had an OPS of 1.012.
2) Roberto Clemente, another surprise. After Mathews, though, he put up the most impressive numbers among the also rans. I don’t have time to give all the details for each player on my ballot, but Roberto was very steady throughout the season and excellent with runners on base.
3) Dick Groat: Excelled in the field, second half batted .339, very good with RISP.
4) Lindy McDaniel: 12 wins and 27 saves. ERA of 0.69 in save situations, Incredible August-Sept. Owned the Dodgers, Pirates, and Giants, had trouble with the Braves.
5) Ken Boyer. Great second half, good with runners on base.
6) Willie Mays. Poor second half, but good with runners on base, which wasn’t invariably the case with Willie.
7) Hank Aaron: Surprisingly middling with runners on base ( .247 BA with 2-outs RISP), so-so second half, .238 and .233 BAs against Dodger and Giants.
8) Ernie Banks: Mediocre with runners on base and against winning teams, in spite of high WAR.
9) Ernie Broglio. I don’t regard starting pitchers as eligible for the MVP, but Broglio appeared in more games as a reliever than starter, and had a 2.00 ERA in relief, so I’m putting him in the mix, since I only found 9 players worth bothering with otherwise.
10) Don Hoak. The least impressive of the possibles, but a good all-around performance.
I go back and forth on the issue of starting pitchers & the MVP, especially now since few get more than 35 starts in a season and you can count the guys who pitched as many as 250 innings in the century on your fingers (assuming you have at least 9).
One thing that makes it difficult to calculate is that when considering them for the MVP I think you need to take their hitting into account.
If I were just voting for Cy Young I would rank Bob Friend ahead of Vern Law. But for MVP I’m not sure how I would vote since Law- who was an above average hitter for a pitcher (probably about on par with Warren Spahn)- had a good year even by his own standards at the plate and Friend- who might have even been a slightly below average hitter for a pitcher- had a poor season at the plate even by those standards.
And Spahn- who led the league in wins and finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting to Law- actually had not only what was arguably worst season since his first as a pitcher but also what was by his standards a below average year at the plate as well.
FWIW Broglio had a good year at the plate (about on par with Law) and Drysdale- who might have been the only pitcher with as good a case for the Cy Young as Broglio- had what was a poor season at the plate.
Finally McDaniel- who hit about like you’d expect a pitcher to hit- had maybe a little bit better year at the plate than usual.
1. Ernie Broglio
2. Ernie Banks
3. Willie Mays
4. Eddie Mathews
5. Lindy McDaniel
6. Dick Groat
7. Ken Boyer
8. Frank Robinson
9. Vern Law
10. Don Drysdale
1. Hank Aaron
2. Dick Groat
3. Eddie Mathews
4. Willie Mays
5. Ernie Banks
6. Ernie Broglio
7. Don Drysdale
8. Don Hoak
9. Lindy McDaniel
10. Ken Boyer
1. Willie Mays
2. Dick Groat
3. Eddie Mathews
4. Ken Boyer
5. Hank Aaron
6. Frank Robinson
7. Ernie Banks
8. Ernie Broglio
9. Roberto Clemente
10.Del Crandall
This was certainly a team championship for the Pirates. I think a pretty strong case can be made for Groat deserving the MVP, but he was very nearly the only Pirate who I felt deserved an MVP vote.
1. Willie Mays
2. Ernie Banks
3. Eddie Mathews
4. Hank Aaron
5. Ken Boyer
6. Frank Robinson
7. Dick Groat
8. Ernie Broglio
9. Vada Pinson
10. Del Crandall
Toughest calls for me were at the very top and bottom. I’ll start with the bottom.
Shout-out to Roberto Clemente, whom I very nearly left on my ballot. But Gary Bateman’s choice of Del Crandall caused me to look into his year more. It was a pretty sensational year for a catcher, catching 141 games, batting .294/.334/.430 with 19 HR, 81 scored and 77 driven in. That’s with an excellent defensive reputation, and a chance for me to vote for a Milwaukee guy, so I couldn’t pass it up. Apologies to Clemente (who will, spoiler alert, have more opportunities during this series).
I always struggle with where to put pitchers. Sometimes, they’re having one of those years that you just can’t ignore. Broglio’s 1960 wasn’t that, for me; but it does absolutely belong right with the rest of these, so there it sits.
I included Pinson based on some of the arguments made by other posters above. It was a really solid year, and I think he deserves some support.
Dick Groat was not a bad MVP choice. It may have been a lazy MVP choice, but he certainly did have a good year.
Robinson is sixth, because I just thought that the other five were too close, and his lack of games played and PAs put him just below that group, but he’s closer to first than seventh, in my opinion.
3, 4, and 5 I explained in an earlier post. I REALLY wanted to vote for a Brave to win this, but they’re so close to one another, I couldn’t really see how I could pick one to win over everyone else. Next to one another with neither at the top feels right to me.
As for two and one, I really didn’t know how to slice this. I’ve gone back and forth a bunch of times, even trying to settle it with things like, “Well, Banks won the last two, so maybe it’s Willie’s turn.” But I HATE that crap when it happens today, so I’m not going to give in to that reasoning.
I ultimately decided by thinking that Mays was just hurt too much by his home ballpark, and that playing just about anywhere else in the NL, he would’ve put up even bigger numbers. So I’m going with him, although it’s really hard for me to say that.
A fun little thing that I’ll add here.
Bill James has pointed out that most players end their career with the same number of hits, secondary bases (TB-H+SB+BB), and R+RBI. Through yesterday’s games, for example, there were 39850 H this year, 41964 Secondary Bases, and 40064 R+RBI – not identical, but pretty close – within 5%, which is good enough for me. Anyway, this means that, if a player DOES do this, his batting average alone is a perfectly accurate representation of him as a hitter – see George Brett – because it implies the number of runs in which he participated and the amount he moved on the basepaths.
However, we know that it isn’t true. So, what I sometimes do for fun is add up all of those things – Hits, Secondary Bases, Runs, and RBI – divide by plate appearances, and divide by 3 (so that it looks like a batting average). Here are all 10 position players to receive votes so far, ranked that way:
Eddie Mathews – .397
Frank Robinson – .388
Hank Aaron – .366
Willie Mays – .351
Ken Boyer – .342
Don Hoak – .301
Roberto Clemente – .285
Vada Pinson – .284
Del Crandall – .265
Dick Groat – .233
This is a fun tool, because if we really want to be accurate when talking about these players, I think saying, “Eddie Mathews was a .397 hitter in 1960” is a lot more accurate than saying “Eddie Mathews was a .277 hitter in 1960,” at least as it relates to putting runs on the board.
Cool little stat, Dr. Doom.
Quite a drop off after Boyer in 5th place. Makes me think 5 names on the ballot will be enough.
Well only if you ignore pitchers and defense. 🙂
Somehow, I missed:
Ernie Banks – .343
Sunday is your final day to get your votes in! Don’t forget!
I’ll post a recap on this thread with final tallies, and the next rebound should go up Monday!
1 Aaron
2 Groat
3 Mays
4 Matthews
5 Broglio
6 Robinson
7 Hoak
8 Boyer
9 Banks
10 Law
Congratulations to Doom on the birth of Dr. Jr., and on his terrific early season stats!
It’s been a while since I logged on, and I’m sorry to have missed being part of this discussion. I think this sort of project can be a lot of fun, and I’m glad Doom has initiated it, but for various reasons I don’t now have a way to participate responsibly in the vote.
I’d like to add a few comments, though, after reading through the discussion. The most germane concerns Doom’s #32 response to NSB #30 (who was backed by David P #36) about post-facto leadership rationales. I think we all know that in early MVP voting, there was much more emphasis on narrative than is true now, and although stats were always basic, the term “valuable” opened the door for broad considerations in the minds of sportswriters, who were, after all, in charge of baseball’s narratives. Groat’s leadership qualities became a major story during the course of the 1960 season, and I know that my own understanding of his selection at the time was that in MVP voting this had been a major factor, not a post facto. (Unlike NSB, I was focused on the NL that season, though forced to attend only AL games at the Stadium of the Oppressors because Brooklyn and the NY Giants were playing their home games away, in California). In addition, the Pirates were a “team of destiny” sort of story, because they were still seen through the lens of the godawful Pittsburgh teams of the ’50s; Murtaugh and Groat were portrayed in the press as keys to the spirit of the turn-around. And, of course, Groat was made a great story because you he was a two-sport star who had made good. My guess is that some sportswriters either believed their stories or felt obligated to act as though they did – after all, Groat’s stats were good enough that, as everyone here seems to agree, there was no cause for cognitive dissonance when his choice was made. The belief system about “value” just functioned somewhat differently in 1960, and one might argue that we could use a little more attention those dimensions now.
Tangentially, I wanted also to say, regarding, Voomo’s #17 quote from Leo D. about Cedeno, that if you read what Leo had to say about Cedeno after he’d managed him in Houston, it might help understand why Cedeno never fulfilled his promise – either because he was the slouch Durocher said he was or because he encountered as hostile a manager as Leo turned out to be (though in his autobiography Leo says he took the Houston job primarily to be part of Cedeno’s career, as he had been of Mays’s). Of course, the other factors mentioned here for Cedeno may be more germane than Leo’s prejudices.
Last: where’s Richard Chester? This string is perfect for him in multiple ways, and he’d probably have the clearest memories of the ’60 season, since I believe he’s HHS’s senior poster. I hope all is well.
I’ve written 2 long comments- one of which was my assessment of the 5 teams that finished over .500 in 1960 & the other detailing a few of my thoughts as to what MVP means- and my quite aged computer decided to reboot my internet browser when I was almost finished with the first one and about halfway thru the second.
So here’s my list without any of the rationale behind it, which I may or may not try to include in a later comment.
1) Ken Boyer
2) Eddie Mathews
3) Willie Mays
4) Lindy McDaniel
5) Ernie Banks
6) Dick Groat
7) Ernie Broglio
8) Hank Aaron
9) Don Hoak
10) Roberto Clemente
If there was a way just to vote for a position for MVP it’s very possible that I might put the Pirates catcher at #1. Smokey & Hal Smith proved to be an excellent platoon combination and they had as much to do with their success as anyone.
But I can’t so I won’t
7
1) Willie Mays
2) Eddie Mathews
3) Lindy McDaniel
4) Dick Groat
5) Hank Aaron
6) Ken Boyer
7) Ernie Banks
8) Frank Robinson
9) Don Hoak
10) Del Crandall
1) Eddie Mathews
2) Willie Mays
3) Hank Aaron
4) Dick Groat
5) Ken Boyer
6) Ernie Banks
7) Frank Robinson
8) Don Hoak
9) Vada Pinson
10) Don Drysdale
This is a nifty way to think about historical seasons- great idea and great work, Dr. Doom. I have been idiosyncratic here, mostly because this is for fun, and I have used WAR a bit, although I’ve accounted for Pittsburgh’s pennant and the winning teams slightly. And I’ve moved Mathews up mostly because I like the BB & OBP. I don’t like pitchers as MVPs unless they had a transcendent year, or were overlooked at award time (like Drysdale).
1) Mays
2) Mathews
3) Aaron
4) Banks
5) Boyer
6) Groat
7) McDaniel
8) F Robinson
9) Crandall
10) Broglio
Your 1960 MVP is Willie Mays!
This is the order in which all listed players finished (first place votes in parentheses):
Mays – 101 (3)
Mathews – 93 (2)
Aaron – 70 (2)
Groat – 68
Boyer – 58 (1)
Banks – 55
Broglio – 38 (1)
McDaniel – 34
Robinson – 28
Hoak – 15
Clemente – 12
Drysdale – 6
Crandall – 5
Pinson – 4
Law – 3
The top six finishers were named on all ballots, except for Hank Aaron, whom Voomo left off his ballot. Of the bottom five finishers, Del Crandall was named on the most ballots (4), but never higher than ninth-place, whereas Roberto Clemente, for example, managed to garner a 2nd-place vote.
Every voter voted for SOMEONE who finished outside the top 10. All of the players for whom Hartvig and no statistician but voted finished in the top 11. Otherwise, I would say that Hub Kid or –bill was closest to having the composite order represented on their ballot.
How close was this race? Had Brendan Bingham switched his top-2, we would’ve had a different winner!
I assume that Doug will be posting our next round very soon. For those of you who’d like it spoiled, the next round will be the 1962 National League!
Doom:
I count ten ballots, not nine, Mays with four first place votes, 2 seconds, 3 thirds, one 6th. Mathews second with 2 firsts, 3 seconds, 3 thirds, 2 fourths.
Outcome the same, of course.
Also, since I’m home briefly but heading out again for a few days, I’d like to get in a short preliminary comment on the next election before the voting starts. Here goes:
Maury Wills won the 1962 NL award, and again, it wasn’t a terrible choice. He was a spark-plug on base, scored a lot, disrupted the opposing team in a way that hadn’t been seen in years. But at the time I was one of many who thought Willie was robbed. Now, looking things over dispassionately, I see that Frank Robinson was also robbed.
You are spot on. I just didn’t count that one first-place vote, but the totals are correct. Thanks for the catch.
Agree about Wills – not a terrible choice. But 1962 WAS a terribly interesting year in the NL, and there were a LOT of good candidates, not just limited to Mays, Wills, and Robinson, either!
I managed to fail to vote–I’m still grieving over the Yankees-Toronto series–but I think Matthews loses for a fairly simple reason in the BB writers minds: His 1960 season was not as good as his 1959 season, when he finished 2nd in the MVP vote. I realize there isn’t that much of a difference, but particularly in the marquee stats like HR, BA, and SP, they were all down. Makes it easier for the voters to diminish Matthews empiric and comparative accomplishments–perhaps they thought they could not reward him.
I wrote out a list before voting opened, but my desk ate it, and I was toooo busy grading exams this weekend (71 total across three classes/two courses).
Well, hopefully Doug will be posting the next round soon, and you can be sure to take part in that one!
Echoing OBS’s story, I was also too busy to participate in this first one. Doom, any way we could extend the vote next time to more than a few days (maybe a week after discussion ends?)
Pingback: MVP Elections: 1962 NL |