A.L. MVP controversy: then and now

[The Big Train]

No matter who wins the A.L. MVP award, it will obviously be a controversial choice given the number of worthy candidates. It's probably fair to say that it will be difficult to argue that "player A" was a clear cut winner, or that "player B" was totally shafted. Those casting ballots will have an easy time justifying their selection since several players have put up impressive numbers.

Such was not the case in 1942. Several of those casting ballots that year were clearly in need of either glasses or medication. Rich Lederer at http://www.baseballanalysts.com/ reminds us of how Ted Williams won the Triple Crown in 1942 but lost the MVP award to Joe Gordon of the Yankees. Williams did more than just win the Triple Crown though. He led the league in everything.

Quote: "He won the traditional Triple Crown (AVG, HR, RBI) and swept the rate stats (AVG, OBP, SLG). He even captured the so-called Quad Award by leading the league in OBP, SLG, times on base (TOB), and total bases (TB). The Thumper also led in walks, extra-base hits, runs, runs created, and adjusted OPS (or OPS+).

Gordon, on the other hand, led the A.L. in two categories only. Strikeouts and Grounded Into Double Plays (GIDP). I'm not kidding!

Need more evidence that Williams got shafted? The Boston left fielder earned 46 Win Shares and the Yankee second baseman was credited with 31. In addition, Ted picked up 15.3 Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP3) and Joe had 10.9. By both measures, Williams was worth about 4-5 more wins than Gordon that year."

Williams: .356/.499/.648, 217 OPS+, 186 H, 141 R, 36 HR, 137 RBI

Gordon: .322/.409/.491, 155 OPS+, 173 H, 88 R, 18 HR, 103 RBI

Lederer then goes on to explain how Williams was short-changed again in 1947 when he again won the Triple Crown and led the league in every important category, but lost out to DiMaggio who didn't lead the league in anything other than MVP votes.

[schmidty]

Williams vs Gordon seems to be a classic case of picking the best player on the best team rather than the best player period (dismissing any anti-BoSox conspiracy theories for the moment).

[bravo369]

i'm usually of the mindset that the MVP should come from a winning team...or at least a team within contention. Those stats by Ted Williams are insane but there really must have been a reason Joe Gordon won. what were his stats. perhaps he hit .800 against the redsox that year and hit 5 gamewinning homeruns against them and that alone won him the MVP with the rest of his numbers.

basically the point i'm making is that without going back to that time, we really don't know what happened. looking at numbers doesn't always tell the whole story although leading in every offensive category probably warranted an MVP

[Matthias]

although leading in every offensive category probably warranted an MVP

probably.

[mikhayl]

I hate the idea of an MVP award (by itself) because the award becomes more about semantics than about on field performance. The major problem with the award is that some believe that a "good" player on a contending team is more valuable than a "good" player on a poor team; some people don't believe that. This debate happens to be one of those situations where no amount of argument is really going to change anyone's mind.

I wish baseball would go to a format similar to that used by the NHL. Each year the Hart Trophy is awarded by sports-writers to the league MVP -typically a key player on a playoff team. The Lester B. Pearson trophy is also awarded each year to the league's most outstanding player, as voted by the players. Last year Alexander Ovechkin, from a lottery team, won a substantial amount of the vote for the Pearson award.

[acsguitar]

The MVP is too much hype by ESPN.

They start talking MVP about two weeks into the season as long as it has to do with a yankee or redsox


or Chris Shelton

[1337_Dude]

MLB has the right ideas, they just aren't putting it together very well. They have an award for the leagues best pitcher and for the leagues best hitter, they just need to give a strict guidelines for what kind of player the MVP should be given to. Another thing they really need to do is, promote the Hank Aaron award to no end. If the award starts to mean something, then a lot of problems will be solved.

The MVP is too much hype by ESPN.

They start talking MVP about two weeks into the season as long as it has to do with a yankee or redsox


or Chris Shelton

Did he get to 40 yet?