The Worst MVP In Baseball History 

Some years I looked over felt like the 8th best guy in the league walked away with the award. While it is hard for a starting pitcher to be considered the most valuable, some guys were just untouchable in the 30 games they played and would end up 15th on the ballot.

For years I have thought they need to give a hard definition to value and add awards not based on value, but on how good a player played. Have a position player of the year and pitcher of the year for the player, regardless of team record, who has the best numbers. Then make the MVP position player only and make the CYA an MVP for pitchers. I really don't see how you can, with any accuracy at all, determine who was better or more valuable between a great shortstop and a great starting pitcher. It makes no sense for them to share awards.

Clarification. What I am saying is, a guy like Shohei absolutely deserves recognition for how incredible he has played. But is he actually valuable? Take him off the Angels and what happens? They are already awful,they won't make the playoffs and will have a losing record, again. Maybe we should limit candidates to players on teams that make the post season, or at least have a representative season where they really compete. I get the argument that it is unfair to punish players for being on a bad team, but I don't look at it that way. I see it as rewarding players whose contributions lead their team to success. Like last year. Even aside from having higher WAR. Judge almost singlehandedly willed his team to a division title while the Angels, like this year, finished as a losing team, outside the playoffs. Judge deserved the award for multiple reasons, and among them is the fact his production actually mattered. It had actual value to his team. Last note. Pls don't think I'm hating on Shohei, I'm in freaking awe of that dude. He was just an obvious example of a great player whose contributions actually didn't lead their team anywhere. Not his fault, but the word Valuable is right there in the award name.

@snerdterguson - Value comes in all forms. Yes, if you took Ohtani off the Angels, they'd be one of the worst teams in the league... so there's his immense value. He single-handedly keeps them from being the A's or Royals. And if you looked at it a different way... if you took Acuna off the Braves and put an average right fielder out there, the Braves would still be the best team in baseball because that's just how loaded they are. So even though he's been probably the best player in the NL on the best team, his value gets lost a little bit given how dominant they are at all facets of the game. So I would not argue that Acuna is more valuable to the Braves than Ohtani is to the Angels simply because of team standings.

@@chili015 maybe I should clarify. MEANINGFUL value. What ohtani has done for Thea gels, through no fault of his own, has had zero value that meant anything.

Like Ted Williams, the writers really screwed over Belle because they didn't like him personally. Ted Williams lost 3 MVPs. One in 1941 when he batted .406, and two more in seasons he got the triple crown.

I was gonna bring that one up. Belle was the obvious choice statistically, but the you know, the press

That was BS.

Andrew McCutchen over Paul Goldschmit comes to mind. Trout didn’t deserve it in 2016 either.

50 HR. 50 Doubles. 144 Games. Only guy who got screwed as bad as Williams and for similar reasons.

I appreciate you saying that. I am just trying to get better every video and show how great baseball is.

@@TapirBaseball Funny enough, I’m trying to get back into baseball after being out for a while. I’m a RU-vidr as well - but don’t have the editing capabilities to make videos like you do. I really enjoy this content & am sure that many others do as well. Best of luck to you - I’ll be looking out for all your future content 🇺🇸🤘

It took me a long time to learn really simple edits so I wouldn't get discouraged if I was you. I am now working with an editor (Joe Plate, Link in my description) and it is probably the only way I am able to stay consistent. Off topic, but your name is very similar to my favorite album "Joe's Garage".

Thanks! They should only get better!

ill say it, he should have won the AL MVP

Thome is one of several who had a better case that year for MVP over Tejada.

Baskemball Lerbon

None of that is true

@@peteyprimo7173 Not only true. Actually they face more batters than hitters. And since good pitching usually is the reason for winning championships, pitchers not only shall, but must win MVP honors each and every year.

Thank you so much, I’ve enjoyed your videos for a couple months now so that means a lot. While I was going over MVP voting through the year I saw a lot of years where the best player seemed to finish 5th-10th.

Voters have never known how to handle Coors. Which is kinda ludicrous, since we know player splits. Hell, the Coors effect almost kept Larry Walker out of the Hall (and has kept Helton out so far). In 2000, Helton slashed .353/.441/.633 AWAY from Coors Field. He would have been MVP-worthy if every game had been played on the road that year. And he hit like that while being that unicorn of baseball, a first baseman who actually contributes to his team in the field. If you're an MVP with no enhancement, then you're still an MVP if the altitude makes you look even better than you are. Bring him down to sea level, Todd Helton was still the best player in 2000.

Thank you so much! I am really happy to see how passionate people are about my favorite sport.

To be fair the writers were all but required to pick someone from the m**** b*** team.

@@TapirBaseball I am too young to remember precisely, but how much of a story was that during the season? I assumed it wasn’t much of a conversation until Michael Lewis’s book was published.

It was way before my time as well so I'm not sure. I just know voters were much more in favor of the "best player on the best team" way than they are now.

@@TapirBaseball true, absolute insanity. I can’t imagine looking at a guy that OPS’s over 1.000 with 57 homers and elite defense and being like “well his team doesn’t win!” For justification. Wild times

STEROIDS

I'm glad you enjoyed it. All credit for the editing goes to Joe Plate (his link is in the description). More videos are on the way!

Thanks! Look forward to bringing you more of Tapir’s content!

💯 Belle had one of the greatest slugging seasons ever. The voters punished him purely because he was kind of a d!ck and they didn't like him. The older I get, the more I realize that so much of one's "success" in the world is based more on how likeable and popular you are, rather than your pure performance and effort.

Definitely a reasonable nomination. I did consider mentioning it but I felt like if I did I would have to mention every award won by roided players and even then I felt like Lou was the most snubbed. I remember watching a video about him trying to cover up the situation, just bad news all around.

@@TapirBaseball I guessed that maybe the wave of steroid MVPs is why Braun was left out. A Rod also went after people to cover himself but people know that. People forgot Braun in Milwaukee.

My dad was on the west coast at the time but still mentioned how much of an impact the pirates were having on baseball. Their reach was across the whole country and it was really cool to read about a team like that. I wanted to fit in the Stargell stars but maybe that'll be for another video.

79 MVP was payback for 71.

Tony Gwynn should have had a few more MVP's

And 1973.

The World Series had nothing to do with his MVP because the voting takes place before the postseason.

I agree. Look at Walter Johnson’s MVP. Easily one of the most valuable seasons ever

I've thought this as well, as to why pitchers (specifically starting pitchers) shouldn't be automatically disqualified from the MVP because "they only play every 5th game" A starter can do as much work in a quality start as a typical batter does across 5 games

Thank you, that means a lot!

Very good point. I did learn about that rule and for some reason I must of forgotten to include it in the video. It is always funny learning Ruth only one 1 MVP while being the best player for a decade.

Sadly, people still use the one MVP as reason Ruth was not as good as Bonds, who had 7. If not for that rule, Babe likely has 8 with zero controversy, maybe 10. From 1920-1931 or 32, there's a serious case for him being MVP, except in 1925 when he missed time with a stomach issue (the belly ache heard round the world, the papers called it) I'm not mad that it led to Gehrig getting it in 27 though. He's my favorite historical player (meaning players I wasn't alive to see). And his numbers every year were MVP worthy in a bubble. For fun sometime, go look at his BBRef page. Go down to 1938 and look at his numbers. Then let it sink in that he was doing that while ALS was ravaging his body and sapping his strength and harming his hand eye coordination.

That’s not true. Jimmie Foxx won the MVP in 1932 and 1933. The reason cochrane won the MVP in 1934 was because he was the player-manager of the Tigers, and in his first year in that position, the Tigers won their first pennant since 1909, as well as having a very good season stats wise.

The last season in which that rule existed was 1928 (Cochrane's first MVP). A better question for the 1934 season (despite Gehrig's TC season) is why didn't his far superior teammates, Charlie Gehringer or Hank Greenberg, win it?

@@snerdterguson Wow Ruth led the league in WAR 10 times

The Mariners had so much talent in their organization during those years. Imagine if they had Griffey, ARod, David Ortiz, Ichiro, Randy Johnson, and Edgar all on the field together.

@@TapirBaseball That is cheating slightly, since Griffey had already taken a step back by the time Ichiro crossed the pond, Ortiz didn’t become an elite hitter until Edgar’s 2nd-to-last season, and it would have been difficult to get Edgar and Ortiz on the field together anyway since they are the top two DH’s of all time. But that’s still a lot of elite-level HOF talent to be on a roster in the same time period.

​@@TapirBaseballand they lost to a dude that carried his team to the playoffs in the 2nd half of the same division.

I agree ARod deserved it in 1996

@@dvon1097 I don't

I am glad you found it.

Some win because of good press. Some lose because of bad. Another agenda choice by the writers.

DiMaggio over Williams in 1947 was even more egregious.

@@loringjohnson7797 I think that was the year one writer who didn't like Ted didn't even give him a tenth place vote! And it made the difference.

The writer in question here is Dave Egan, who wrote for the Boston Record. He hated Ted Williams, and the feeling was mutual. In spring training, Williams would yell at Egan, "Hey you old goat, why don't you go die!!" Like I said, the feeling was mutual.... Egan refused to even name Williams even 10th on any ballot he filled out.....

@@vincentartura7299 in his autobiography, Ted said the writer was Del Webb who didn't give him a tenth place vote in 1947. Ted would confront him over something he wrote and the feud was on. I think Ted should have just not read the columns of the day and ignored the writers instead of fighting with them all the time. He was too thin-skinned for all the fame.

@scottodonnell7121 In the two sources I've checked, "Field of Screams" by David Schenin, and "The Baseball Hall of Shame" by Robert Nash and Alan Zullo, both Del Webb and Dave Egan are mentioned. Both books pointed at Egan as the worst of the two. I agree, Ted Williams was a bit too thin skinned for Boston, and especially New York.....

He probably should have won MVP in 1973 over Pete Rose as well

Stargell should have won in 71, the year Pirates won it all, but for some reason they gave award to Joe Torre, who won the batting title. But in 72---Billy Williams led in most categories, but award went to Johnny Bench, whose power numbers were good but BA down.

There was a graphic on screen that showed every stat he led the league in. He really had an unbelievable season and was so far above every other player at the plate that year.

Ozzie Smith did not won the MVP in 1987. That award went to Andre Dawson.

Lmao. Just a couple dozen times. I like him so I appreciate the comparison.

LOL it was a pretty routine play.

@@willshadrobbing a home run is not a routine play

@@familyguyfreemoviedownload8314 it wasn't a very difficult play is what I meant. He was literally standing there waiting for the ball.

Greatest catch of all time might be a stretch, but way more difficult than the comments would have you believe. It was a routine play...for HIM. That's the point, most center fielders aren't making that play and certainly not that easy. I think the catch earlier in his career against the Yankees was much more difficult. He had to run full speed just to make it there and he still leapt up the wall and caught it in stride. Simple minds can't comprehend the difference in high difficulty plays, if someone makes it look easy they assume it IS easy.

@@mitchellkalina8191 definitely agree with ya the kid was a beast out there in centerfield.

Also fair to mention Gwynn that season as well. Any time Ozzie even hit close to league average he was one of the most valuable players in the league. If they counted backflips as a stat then he would of won MVP every year.

It makes someone like Pedro that much more impressive when he was putting up all time numbers while in the middle of the steroid era.

I was going to say the same thing. Along the same lines I would argue that Ryan Howard over Pujols in 2006 is similar because the Phillies didn’t make the playoffs finishing 12 games back.

There are many examples in which a catcher won the MVP award but several other players had much higher yearly WAR. Yogi Berra was the beneficiary of such a bias in favor of catchers. Same with Campanella.

Tony Gwynn never hit many homers or had many rbi.

Great question. I think every voter has a different answer to this, some think you should only consider the individual's performance while others just vote for the best player on the best team. I think there are arguments for both but I just don't like the idea of knocking someone for an individual award because their teammates are bad. I appreciate your comment, well spoken.

That was dimaggio's hit streak year tho, right? Not saying it's a good reason, but it's easy to see how voters may have gotten swept up in that.

@@anthonyrusso6696 DiMaggio was leagues better than Williams as a fielder, possibly big enough to make up for the difference in offensive production DiMaggio was a sick hitter too. We're not exactly talking about Ichiro here

When Williams was snubbed in ‘42 and lost to Joe Gordon it was an even worse injustice.

@@deepdrag8131 I'm actually 50-50 on '41, as for '42 I think Williams deserved it but it's closer than it appears. Williams had a lead glove and Joe Gordon provided amazing defense at second base. Williams was giving up like +5WAR on the field and I'm not sure whether the gap in offensive production is significantly larger than that

Definitely a notable year. I plan on making a video about Williams in the future and his time in the military while in his prime.

I find the idea of the MVP a bit confusing and it has caused discussions since it's inception over whether it is purely about the individual's performance or if team success matters. You have a fair point in pointing out the hypocrisy of pitcher's not being able to be voted the most valuable yet it is generally agreed upon that pitching wins more than large run support. You can have a guy go 0-3 in the lineup and still score 10+ runs but if you have a pitcher who gives up 5 runs on his on you'll never throw a shutout (obviously). While I don't think this would happen I do think a better way of looking at it would be having an individual position MVP, it is hard to compare a catcher who hits slightly above average but has great defense to a first baseman that hits 50 homeruns and has to DH half of his games because he can't field. I appreciate you commenting and enjoying the video, I love baseball and it is awesome seeing others appreciate the game just as much if not more.

@TheTapir You raise fair points. And yes, it is confusing, and even if MLB were to change the name of the award to MVPP, there would still be confusion because of what you said- do you vote for the lighter hitting catcher who is a legitimate Gold Glover or a 1B who pounds 50 HR and plays mediocre defense? I think, though, that this is one of the things which makes the game so much fun. The controversy over who should get it and who deserves it is, to me, a lot of fun. Take care and you have my best. Keep up the good work.

I appreciate the insight of some one who got to watch a fair amount of games during that season. While I try to do my best not to be dictated strictly by stats, it is hard to get a complete picture without being present during the time of which ever season is being considered. I try and split my time researching between stat sheets, biographies, news articles, and books detailing the history of baseball to get a better picture than just looking at a million different numbers. I agree that it definitely depends on when RBIs, hits, and other contributions happen. I have a few similar stories with my dad where we just get gut feelings and sure enough the ball is gone the next pitch.

How exactly did Tejada "win" over A-rod? And Tejada was only the second most valuable player on the A's 2002 - first was Barry Zito. Eckersley is an interesting case, as the A's in 1992 weren't quite as good as their record indicated -they went 96-66 but their Pythagorean record was 89-73. Were those "extra" 7 wins due solely to Eckersley saving a few close ones? I don't know, but it does seem the writers were a little too fixated on the whole "save" thing. If instead of Eckersley, they had a less dominant closer, they'd have won 93 or 94 instead of 96 and still would have made the playoffs, so I disagree with the claim that "they don’t make it without him". "to me, to decide who is most valuable, one would have to actually look at things like “in what situations did they get their RBIs?”" - the one situation when hitters get RBIs is when runners are on base "“when they made a great catch, was their team up or down 10-1 already?” things like that." - if you want to know who was valuable, try to determine who was responsible for the score being 10-1 in the first place

Yep. A serious head scratcher.

I agree. It is impossible to generate a lot of value when you only play once or twice a week.

Totally agree. Give them the CY Young which is basically the most valuable pitcher. They don't need both.

Dwight Evans should have won in 1984.

@@scottodonnell7121 Dewey should be in the HALL as well.

@@marcoslaureano5562 Yup. He was better than Jim Rice who begged his way in.

It was more a feel-good story with the Pirates finally back in the playoffs for the first time since The Slide...

Another commenter mentioned how it was the first year in which they didn't have the "one and done rule" and most likely some voters were still holding by that. It does stick out like quite the sore thumb in terms of stats but I hope I highlight what made him a great a player while not providing the most exciting batting numbers.

@@TapirBaseball and @timothybrown5999 - Catchers are the leaders of their team - and the position is harder to play well than 2B or 1B - plus he also Managed the team. The Tigers went from 5th in 1933 (while he was playing for the Philadelphia A's) to getting within one game of Winning the WS in 1934).

I plan on making a video in the future about what could of been if Williams didn’t miss the years he did due to military service

He had a fantastic season at the plate and in the field. Totally deserving.

That is the hard part of trying to analyze some of the older players. It is extremely hard to find any video showcasing much of anything. You really just have to go off of word of mouth and from everything I read he was a very solid defensive player so I have to take them on their word.

He would be a good pick for most obscure. It’s funny playing immaculate grid and putting the first guy to come to mind and assuming he would be everyone’s first choice only for it to be 1-2%.

@@billykammerer241 huh? He never won mvp.

Probably should have been Bonds in 1991 but Pendleton had an amazing year. Probably doesn't qualify as a travesty

I agree

exactly.. griffey may have been the overall better player, but he sure as hell wasn't leagues above gonzalez

@@brandonfarr6740 They were close enough where the fact that Gonzales' team finished first could justifiably make the difference.

Poor timing on my part to show just batting stats while saying that. That sentence was more meant in terms of Gehrig being “leagues above” his competition at the plate. Griffey was a much better defender while putting up the same if not slightly better batting stats which was the real reason that put him ahead.

Defense is part of the sport Yes they were pretty similar in offense On the field well...

I was just looking at that MVP race today for a different video. Todd Helton crushed that year.

Both Cochrane and Gehrig were both already one time MVPs at the time of that race. I should have put it in the video but he had already won one in 1928 (it was a slightly different award before 1931)

It was really interesting learning about both Cochrane and Marion. Both seemed to be very interesting players that stats can’t fully appreciate.

@@TapirBaseball Okay. THAT makes the whole thing more confusing.

@@MaikeruShinigami I agree lol

Him moving to centerfield from shortstop seemed to be a deciding factor. Having an elite season at another position swayed some voters his way IMO.

Vlad was a better hitter in 2021 but obviously Ohtani made a lot of contributions on the mound

Cochrane had already won an MVP and Lou won 2 in his career.

The MVP doesn't take postseason performance into account though.

@@matthewmorgan4765 True. But I'm just saying. Like everyone looks at stats and listens to the media say how great A-Rod and Bonds were. But they don't know the real story. Like I'd take Kirby Puckett over them for an important series for sure, no doubt.

It would have to be a truly historic season for a pitcher to win it. 1968 for example. Gibson and McClain had seasons that will never be duplicated. When you think about it, maybe Ron Guidry should have won it in 1978 over Jim Rice.

I plan on making a video all about Williams and his time serving as well.

Finally, after 2 months someone noticed! It was just a picture of Ichiro that I liked (I know he won it on the Mariners).