1973 MVP

[davego]

Was just randomly looking at some baseball stats and I went to 1973. Pete Rose was the MVP that year with 5 homeruns and an OPS of .838.

 

Baseball has changed (or at least the evaulation of).

 

Willie Stargell was 2nd in the MVP voting that year with 44 homeruns, OPS of 1.038.

 

Crazy.

[Fatter than Joey]

Well -- A couple of things....

 

Rose played for a team that won 99 games, and was probably the best team in the NL, if not all of baseball. Rose was considered the sparkplug of that team.

 

Rose was a decent fielder, led the league in hits (230 -- next closest 200) and had a .338 BA. He was hard to K, took a lot of walks, and scored a lot of runs.

 

You are certainly right though, the evaluation criteria has changed. Nowadays the award has moved towards a "best fantasy stats" award rather than "who helped his teams win more games."

 

The voting was very close that year, and at the end of the day, Rose's ability to play a harder position better, and the fact his team won 99 games and Stargell's won 82, probably what pushed a lot of voters over to Rose.

 

I could understand voting for both players. Stargell was very one-dimensional, Rose was multi-faceted. Without living through that season, I am not sure how I would have voted.

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

In 1973, Rose and Stargell played the same position (leftfield).

[Fatter than Joey]

In 1973, Rose and Stargell played the same position (leftfield).

 

Oops my bad -- they must have played Bob Robertson at 1st then. Rose played it better though.

[davego]

What caught my attention I guess is that if we took these seasons an applied it to 2007, I think Rose would considerd an above averge player, but Willie would be near MVP status. Guessing but...

[Ennder]

Batting average was way overemphasized back then, SLG is overemphasized now though.

 

There is no good argument for Rose winning MVP that year, its just one of those mistakes made by the voters.

[MNBrew]

It still gets into the zone of Most Valuable vs. Best Stats. Look at Barry Larkin winning the NL MVP in whatever year that was. Hardly the best stats, but perhaps more easily the most valuable to the success of his team.

[davego]

I don't disagree. I was just thinking if those two seasons (Rose and Stargell) were posted this year, Rose would be given very little consideration relative to Stargell. Not saying that is good, bad or anything. Just sort of stunned me how different most evaluations are done today.

[Jay Zahn]

Stargell didn't get the award because the Pirates had an extremely disappointing season. They had been a great team in 1971-72, then Clemente died, Blass went wild, the team underperformed and lost a winable pennant (the Mets won the division with a 82-79 record.) Tom Seaver would have been a good MVP choice, but it probably wasn't going to happen because he didn't win 20.

 

That being said Rose was a lousy choice. How often does a player like that (singles hitting batting champion at a hitter's postion) ever win the MVP? Hardly ever. Wade Boggs never won, and he was a better player. Rod Carew had to hit .388 with 100 RBI to do it. Besides the fact that Joe Morgan was a clearly better offensive player playing a tougher position. But batting average was overvalued, it was a weird year, and the writers got confused.

[mothershipconnection]

Besides the fact that Joe Morgan was a clearly better offensive player playing a tougher position.

 

Morgan had some very good numbers. It's so ironic that he's incredibly anti-moneyball when he led the league in OBP 4 times and was in the top two 7 times.

[brettac1]

Rose was kind of an early forerunner to the Eckstein phenomenon of today (obviously he was a much better player, especially when adjusted for era). He was a scrappy, small, white dude on a good team, who always got his uniform dirty. Media types love players like that, they make for good copy.

[dikapalooza]

I haven't looked at any stats yet, but what about Ichiro's MVP year? I think it was 2001. IIRC, he showed almost zero power that year. without comparing the two, I would think the stats would similar, though probably more steals for Ichiro.

[dikapalooza]

Yup, there it is.

 

Ichiro 01: .350 average, 8 HR, 127 R, 69 RBI, 56 SB, 242 hits, OPS .838

Rose 73: .338 average, 5 HR, 115 R, 64 RBI, 10 SB, 230 hits, OPS .838

 

One would probably recognize that Ichiro had the better year (and was more valuable to his team), but it's close

[whizkid]

Ichiro 2001 OPS+ 127

Rose 1973 OPS+ 138

Raw numbers don't help much across eras.

Stargell 1973 OPS+ 187

Giambi 2001 OPS+ 202

[M Skjellyfetti]

Interesting to note that Barry Bonds's slugging was greater than Ichiro's OPS in 2001. Holy crap.

[SoCalBrewfan]

Yeah, my first thought upon reading the original question was the Ichiro MVP, or Willie McGee in 1985. But there's always been a tension between the perception of a player being 'valuable' to a winning team as compared to simply voting for the best player in the league. I think MVPs are more likely to be the latter now than was the case in the 70s...I think of MVPs like Thurman Munson and Steve Garvey in that category. It's also unusual for the leadoff type guy to win, and usually it's only if there isn't a big slugger in any given year. Rickie Henderson should have won over Mattingly in 1985 (George Brett also had a case). Henderson did deservedly win in '90 despite a 50HR hitter and a spectaular Clemens season.