Biggest gaps between WAR leader and MVP

[crissfan172]

So...I was supposed to be doing homework before studying for an exam, but I thought this was a better use of my time. I looked at every MVP season and compared the WAR of the winner to the WAR leader that year in each league. Here are the top 5 for each league. I used rWAR for no apparent reason other than I did.

American League

1. 6.5 1926: George Burns (4.6) over Babe Ruth (11.1)

2. 6.4 1934: Mickey Cochrane (3.7) over Lou Gehrig (10.1)

3. 6.1 1928: Mickey Cochrane (3.7) over Babe Ruth (9.8)

4. 6.0 1996: Juan Gonzalez (3.5) over Ken Griffey Jr. (9.5)

5. 5.6 1992: Dennis Eckersley (2.8) over Roger Clemens (8.4)

National League

1. 5.7 1971: Joe Torre (5.6) over Fergie Jenkins (11.3)

2. 5.2 1974: Steve Garvey (4.3) over Mike Schmidt (9.5)

3. 5.1 1926: Bob O'Farrell (3.4) over Hal Carlson (8.5)

4. 5.1 1985: Willie McGee (7.9) over Dwight Gooden (13.0)

5. 4.9 1964: Ken Boyer (5.8) over Willie Mays (10.7)

Also of note...Cabrera over Trout is 24th all-time in the AL at 3.8. If you want to see the rest of them, I uploaded the file to Google Docs. There are plenty of interesting years. My personal favorites are DiMaggio beating Williams twice, despite being clearly inferior. Obviously having a good team has always played a big role in MVP voting.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq9rxHw2emfNdEM2VGg2eWc2cXhqNTlUSHh1WVhBR2c#gid=0

[skanar]

Nick Markakis has the highest rWAR in the AL in 2008?! How did I not know that?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Nice research. Even the dummy analysts on MLB Network conceded that Trout was an overall better player than Cabrera. The "value to the team" and "post season" aspects really play into it a lot. I really don't have much isssue with the Cabrera choice. Even though he's not a good third baseman, his willingnes to do it and help the the team plays into it for me as well.

[crissfan172]

Nice research. Even the dummy analysts on MLB Network conceded that Trout was an overall better player than Cabrera. The "value to the team" and "post season" aspects really play into it a lot. I really don't have much isssue with the Cabrera choice. Even though he's not a good third baseman, his willingnes to do it and help the the team plays into it for me as well.

Personally...I can't defend the Cabrera selection, but I'm not really that upset about it. He was certainly the best hitter in the league, even if he wasn't the best player. The only thing that annoys me is watching writers try to defend it by saying that the Tigers made the playoffs when the Angels had more wins, or when they say that Cabrera had an historic season. I mean...Trout's season was pretty damn historic too, even though he didn't lead the league in stats rarely paid attention to anymore in BA and RBI.

On another note, there has to be a story with Babe Ruth (one I'm guessing begins and ends with the media not liking him), since he only won one MVP despite being being the best player in the league quite a few years.

[Frobby]

On another note, there has to be a story with Babe Ruth (one I'm guessing begins and ends with the media not liking him), since he only won one MVP despite being being the best player in the league quite a few years.

I guess the NY media bias hadn't taken hold yet!

[DrungoHazewood]

On another note, there has to be a story with Babe Ruth (one I'm guessing begins and ends with the media not liking him), since he only won one MVP despite being being the best player in the league quite a few years.

There was a rule (not sure if written or unwritten) in Ruth's time that you could only win the MVP once. I think it was a carry-over from the time when the Chalmers automobile company would give away a car to the MVP in the early teens, which was the first recognized MVP-type award. The Leagues themselves somehow voted on the MVP in the 20s, and the modern BBWAA award didn't start until 1931, when Ruth was 36. Also, at least for a time, you could only list one player per team on a ballot, so there were cases of two great players on one team splitting the vote and a lesser player from another team won.

Some of the early votes in the 20s you cite as biggest miscarriages of justice were really because Ruth, Gehrig, et al were ineligible since they'd previously won. In 1928 Tony Lazzeri finished 3rd in the voting despite being 5 WAR behind two of his teammates, because Ruth and Gehrig were ineligible.

There was also a weird fascination with catchers and their role as team leaders. Cochrane was an excellent player, but his 2nd MVP award came on an off year for him, where he hit 2 homers. A guy named Johnnie Bassler, a Tiger catcher, had three consecutive top-10 finishes despite never scoring 50 runs in a season and getting a total of one homer in his career.

[crissfan172]

There was a rule (not sure if written or unwritten) in Ruth's time that you could only win the MVP once. I think it was a carry-over from the time when the Chalmers automobile company would give away a car to the MVP in the early teens, which was the first recognized MVP-type award. The Leagues themselves somehow voted on the MVP in the 20s, and the modern BBWAA award didn't start until 1931, when Ruth was 36. Also, at least for a time, you could only list one player per team on a ballot, so there were cases of two great players on one team splitting the vote and a lesser player from another team won.

Some of the early votes in the 20s you cite as biggest miscarriages of justice were really because Ruth, Gehrig, et al were ineligible since they'd previously won. In 1928 Tony Lazzeri finished 3rd in the voting despite being 5 WAR behind two of his teammates, because Ruth and Gehrig were ineligible.

There was also a weird fascination with catchers and their role as team leaders. Cochrane was an excellent player, but his 2nd MVP award came on an off year for him, where he hit 2 homers. A guy named Johnnie Bassler, a Tiger catcher, had three consecutive top-10 finishes despite never scoring 50 runs in a season and getting a total of one homer in his career.

This is great stuff. So glad we have posters on here that I can learn weird stuff like this from. I might have to go back and look at how things shake out by taking away those seasons. A quick glance at the top 5 in the AL would remove the 2 Ruth seasons and get replaced with Willie Hernandez (4.6) over Ripken (9.8) and DiMaggio (4.5) over Williams (9.6).

I should also point out the 1979 NL MVP award. I took the average of the co-winners, rather than splitting them up. If I had, Stargell (2.3) over Winfield (8.1) would have been 1st on the NL list.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is great stuff. So glad we have posters on here that I can learn weird stuff like this from. I might have to go back and look at how things shake out by taking away those seasons.

Some of those early years still might be a little crazy, although a little closer. The 1926 AL race won by Burns was still pretty stilly. By rWAR he was the 14th-best player in an 8-team American League, and the 4th-best player on the Indians. The MVP probably should have been George Uhle, who won 27 games and threw 318 innings.

An interesting thing to do would be to look at lowest ranking by WAR of the winner. For example, in 1987 Andre Dawson was 13th among players who got votes, and George Bell was 10th, so both leagues gave the MVP to players who (at least arguably) weren't among the top 10 players in their respective leagues. The 1926 races had winners who were 9th and 14th among position players in 8-team leagues.

I should also point out the 1979 NL MVP award. I took the average of the co-winners, rather than splitting them up. If I had, Stargell (2.3) over Winfield (8.1) would have been 1st on the NL list.

That '79 vote was crazy. Stargell was 25th in the NL (at least among vote-getters) in rWAR. I'm 35 years removed from this, but it's hard to see how anyone could pick Stargell over Dave Parker, who was a very similar but clearly far better player. Parker was the MVP the year before, and didn't have the grandfatherly vibe going for him, which probably had an impact.

[CharmCityLights]

Personally...I can't defend the Cabrera selection, but I'm not really that upset about it. He was certainly the best hitter in the league, even if he wasn't the best player. The only thing that annoys me is watching writers try to defend it by saying that the Tigers made the playoffs when the Angels had more wins, or when they say that Cabrera had an historic season. I mean...Trout's season was pretty damn historic too, even though he didn't lead the league in stats rarely paid attention to anymore in BA and RBI.

Right on. The reasoning that the Tigers made the playoffs annoys me. In September and October, the Angels actually had a slightly better record. But the Tigers overtake the White Sox in the standings as the Sox collapse at the end of the regular season. So, the play of the White Sox affects who you vote for in the MVP race? Annoying.

[TGO]

There was also a weird fascination with catchers and their role as team leaders. Cochrane was an excellent player, but his 2nd MVP award came on an off year for him, where he hit 2 homers. A guy named Johnnie Bassler, a Tiger catcher, had three consecutive top-10 finishes despite never scoring 50 runs in a season and getting a total of one homer in his career.

Cochrane was also the manager of his team, though, which probably counted for a lot in the voters' minds back then.

[crissfan172]

Some of those early years still might be a little crazy, although a little closer. The 1926 AL race won by Burns was still pretty stilly. By rWAR he was the 14th-best player in an 8-team American League, and the 4th-best player on the Indians. The MVP probably should have been George Uhle, who won 27 games and threw 318 innings.

An interesting thing to do would be to look at lowest ranking by WAR of the winner. For example, in 1987 Andre Dawson was 13th among players who got votes, and George Bell was 10th, so both leagues gave the MVP to players who (at least arguably) weren't among the top 10 players in their respective leagues. The 1926 races had winners who were 9th and 14th among position players in 8-team leagues.

That '79 vote was crazy. Stargell was 25th in the NL (at least among vote-getters) in rWAR. I'm 35 years removed from this, but it's hard to see how anyone could pick Stargell over Dave Parker, who was a very similar but clearly far better player. Parker was the MVP the year before, and didn't have the grandfatherly vibe going for him, which probably had an impact.

I started doing this, but it turns out that BB-reference only let's you see the leaders in pitching WAR for pitchers. In other words, pitchers' oWAR's aren't included, which would make it extremely difficult to get complete answers. I'd basically have to look up a number of pitchers' oWAR's per year to add to their pitching WAR to get accurate rankings. I really wish they had a complete leaderboard for rWAR per season. That would make things much simpler.

Actually...looking at it, they give a top 10 for each year. So I could find the rankings for most years, which would lessen the work considerably. Ok...I got this.

EDIT: I'm going to be on Thanksgiving break all next week, so this isn't going to be finished until after that, but it's going to happen. Already finished listing the rankings of all top 10 finishers in the AL.

[DrungoHazewood]

Cochrane was also the manager of his team, though, which probably counted for a lot in the voters' minds back then.

It may well have. It had to be something like that, since he was 6th on his own team in rWAR.

I'm glad we don't have player-managers any more. Can you imagine the crazy MVP debates if JJ Hardy was also playing the Buck Showalter role? It would be unresolvable in this universe. The stats skeptics would say "prove to me that he's not more valuable than Mike Trout!" And you really couldn't, not with any real confidence. And you'd end up with the 174th best player in the league as MVP.

[Larry18]

On another note, there has to be a story with Babe Ruth (one I'm guessing begins and ends with the media not liking him), since he only won one MVP despite being being the best player in the league quite a few years.

Long story short, until 1931 a player could only win once.