Dawson’s selection was criticized, in part, because his on base percentage was only .328. Although WAR had not been created at this time, Dawson’s WAR was only 4.0. A better choice for MVP was Ozzie Smith, the
second place finisher. Although not having a power bat, his overall game produced a higher WAR.
WAR was not a stat then. I remember Dawson putting up numbers so superior to any offensive player on a division leader, that they had to essentially ignore the unofficial rule of giving it to someone on a contender
It wasn't an established stat, sure, but Dawson didn't put up any superior numbers other than home runs. His was probably one of the most undeserved MVPs ever.
The simple fact is that the MVP award is given to the most valuable player to his team in a given season. Other than 1946 and 1950, the Red Sox, would’ve sucked with or without Ted Williams. Ted’s numbers were essentially inconsequential to bad Red Sox team teams. The MVP award is not given to “the best player in baseball”, it’s given to the player that is the most valuable to their respective team. Williams phenomenal numbers rarely made a difference…the Red Sox just plain sucked in that era. Even Ted couldn’t overcome that.
This is missing 2013, Paul Goldschmidt v. Andrew McCutcheon.
Goldschmidt had more runs scored, more home runs, more RBIs, more walks, higher slugging percentage, higher on base percentage, comparable batting average, stolen base, and total hits to McCutcheon.
But the Pirates made the playoffs and the Diamondbacks didn't
You went through all that and didn't mention the two Juan Gone MVP Awards? I also think you spend way too much time going between two deserving MVPs and just the egregious ones.
I mean, this is mostly Red Sox propaganda. I'd further add your last one on Jason Giambi is...lazy to say the least. It's INCREDIBLY hard to compare the value of an everyday player to a starter.
IIRC, didn’t Andre Dawson win an MVP with the Cubs even though they finished LAST in their division?
Dawson’s selection was criticized, in part, because his on base percentage was only .328. Although WAR had not been created at this time, Dawson’s WAR was only 4.0. A better choice for MVP was Ozzie Smith, the
second place finisher. Although not having a power bat, his overall game produced a higher WAR.
Not only did they finish last, Dawson had like half the WAR of Tim Raines. The voters value division winners unless they don't.
WAR was not a stat then. I remember Dawson putting up numbers so superior to any offensive player on a division leader, that they had to essentially ignore the unofficial rule of giving it to someone on a contender
It wasn't an established stat, sure, but Dawson didn't put up any superior numbers other than home runs. His was probably one of the most undeserved MVPs ever.
The simple fact is that the MVP award is given to the most valuable player to his team in a given season. Other than 1946 and 1950, the Red Sox, would’ve sucked with or without Ted Williams. Ted’s numbers were essentially inconsequential to bad Red Sox team teams. The MVP award is not given to “the best player in baseball”, it’s given to the player that is the most valuable to their respective team. Williams phenomenal numbers rarely made a difference…the Red Sox just plain sucked in that era. Even Ted couldn’t overcome that.
This is missing 2013, Paul Goldschmidt v. Andrew McCutcheon.
Goldschmidt had more runs scored, more home runs, more RBIs, more walks, higher slugging percentage, higher on base percentage, comparable batting average, stolen base, and total hits to McCutcheon.
But the Pirates made the playoffs and the Diamondbacks didn't
You went through all that and didn't mention the two Juan Gone MVP Awards? I also think you spend way too much time going between two deserving MVPs and just the egregious ones.
I mean, this is mostly Red Sox propaganda. I'd further add your last one on Jason Giambi is...lazy to say the least. It's INCREDIBLY hard to compare the value of an everyday player to a starter.