The reason the Triple Crown is getting such attention is that it’s so unknown to most everyone because it hasn’t happened since 1967 when Carl Yastrzemski won it leading the Red Sox to their “Impossible Dream” pennant. But now, with Tigers’ third baseman Miguel Cabrera on the verge of winning the Triple Crown in the American League, there’s an increasingly contentious debate as to whether leading the home runs, RBI, and batting average will justify Cabrera taking the Most Valuable Player over Angels’ center fielder Mike Trout.
Trout has the accumulation of numbers including great defense and stolen bases to go along with power for a 10.4 Wins Above Replacement (WAR). Cabrera’s WAR has been reduced significantly because he’s a poor defensive third baseman. Discounting defense, Trout is still ahead by .9 wins per game over Cabrera when calculating offensive WAR.
So how is it going to be decided? Will it be based on the player with the big power numbers? The one with the higher WAR and better all-around game? Will the word “value” be taken literally and used out of convenience by the voter to achieve his ends of picking Cabrera or Trout and use a floating, elusive, and adaptive principle to counter disagreement? Will there be the “clutch” stats factored into the equation? Difficulty of opponent? Will it go macro by dissecting when they did their damage and against whom and a myriad of other reasons to do what one would prefer to do? A motivated supporter of either Trout or Cabrera can find a reason to do it. It’s not hard.
I wrote about Trout vs Cabrera recently here, but what’s interesting is examining how players who had previously won the Triple Crown were treated by the MVP voters. Let’s take a look at the Triple Crown winners, some of whom didn’t win the MVP.
(The MVP was called the “league award” before it became the MVP in 1931.)
1925: Triple Crown Winner—Rogers Hornsby, 2B, St. Louis Cardinals; won the MVP
Hornsby won the Triple Crown with 39 homers, 143 RBI, and a .403 BA. He had a 10.1 WAR and won the National League MVP. He also led the league in every major offensive category. His Cardinals team finished at 77-76.
Pirates’ right fielder Kiki Cuyler came in second in the voting and it was far closer than it should’ve been with Hornsby getting 91% of the votes and Cuyler 76%. Cuyler stole 41 bases, had 26 triples, and led the majors with 144 runs scored. Obviously the Pirates winning the pennant with a 95-58 record and pennant helped Cuyler’s case with many of the voters.
1933: Triple Crown Winner—Jimmie Foxx, 1B, Philadelphia Athletics; won the MVP
Foxx had 48 homers, 163 RBI, and batted .356. He also led the league in slugging, OPS, OPS+, and total bases. He had a WAR of 9.0. Foxx won the award relatively easily with 91%. Next was Lou Gehrig at 69%. The only player who warranted consideration based on the way his team finished was third place finisher, left fielder Heinie Manush of the pennant winning Washington Senators, and his numbers weren’t MVP-quality. He led the league in hits and triples.
The Senators didn’t have one significant star who “made” their 99-53 record. They finished 19 ½ games ahead of the A’s, but Foxx won the MVP anyway.
1933: Triple Crown Winner—Chuck Klein, RF, Philadelphia Phillies; did not win the MVP
Klein played for the Phillies who finished in last place in the National League with a record of 60-92. Klein led the league in every significant offensive category and had a 7.3 WAR. Klein had won the MVP in the National League in 1932, but finished in second place to New York Giants pitcher Carl Hubbell (there was no Cy Young Award then). The Giants won the National League pennant that season, Hubbell went 23-12 with a 1.66 ERA and an 8.5 WAR. Hubbell deserved the award.
1934: Triple Crown Winner—Lou Gehrig, 1B, New York Yankees; did not win the MVP
The Yankees finished second to the Tigers by seven games in the American League. Gehrig led the AL in everything from homers, to RBI, to batting average, to on-base, slugging, and total bases. He had a 10.1 WAR. But Tigers’ catcher Mickey Cochrane won the MVP based on the Tigers winning the pennant. There could be no other reason. The voting was close…but it was close between Cochrane and his teammate Charlie Gehringer. Gehringer should’ve won it over Cochrane. Gehrig came in a ludicrous fifth. You could try to make the argument of Gehringer over Gehrig. You’d be wrong, but given Gehringer playing second base well and Gehrig playing first base poorly, along with the Tigers winning the pennant, you could make the argument.
1937: Triple Crown Winner—Joe Medwick, LF, St. Louis Cardinals; won the MVP
Looking at Medwick’s numbers, he reminds me of Don Mattingly. He was a hacker who never walked, but never struck out either. In addition to the Triple Crown numbers, he led the National League in hits, runs, doubles, slugging, OPS, and OPS+. His WAR was 8.1.
The Cardinals finished in fourth place in the National League far behind the pennant-winning Giants. Gabby Hartnett came in second in the MVP voting, but Medwick deserved it and won it.
1942: Triple Crown Winner—Ted Williams, LF, Boston Red Sox; did not win the MVP
Williams led the AL in every offensive category by a lot. The Red Sox finished in second place in the AL behind the Yankees. Yankees’ second baseman Joe Gordon won the MVP. Williams’s WAR was 10.2 and Gordon’s was 7.8. The voting was close with Gordon accumulating 270 points to Williams’s 249. Of course Williams should’ve won. It’s doubtful anyone was paying attention to his shaky, uninterested defense back then, but the voters certainly knew that Williams had no use for the writers and perhaps that affected the voting more than Gordon’s Yankees winning the pennant with a far better team.
1947: Triple Crown Winner—Ted Williams, LF, Boston Red Sox; did not win the MVP
The Red Sox finished in third place, 14 games behind the pennant winning Yankees, but the absurdity of this MVP voting was stark. Joe DiMaggio won it with mediocre (for him) numbers of 20 homers and a .315/.391/.522 split. His WAR was 4.5.
Williams led the American League in every major offensive category and was again playing for a far inferior team. DiMaggio won the award by 1 point when he should have come in third behind Williams and Lou Boudreau.
1956: Triple Crown Winner—Mickey Mantle, CF, New York Yankees; won the MVP
The Yankees won the pennant by 9 games, Mantle led the American League in every major offensive category; he won the award unanimously and deserved it.
1966: Triple Crown Winner—Frank Robinson, RF, Baltimore Orioles; won the MVP
The Orioles won the pennant that year and Robinson won the AL MVP unanimously and deserved it. The interesting part of the Robinson’s 1966 season was how he’d been traded by the Reds the year before because Reds’ owner Bill DeWitt called the 30-year-old Robinson “an old 30.”
Challenging someone as cantankerous as Robinson—even now at age 77—is not a good idea. In truth, this trade in which Robinson was dealt for pitchers Milt Pappas, Jack Baldschun, and Dick Simpson might’ve been something the self-proclaimed experts who think they can study a stat sheet and know the ins-and-outs of baseball would pull and, in theory, it wasn’t a horrible idea.
Pappas has had his name sullied because he was traded for Robinson, but he was a very good pitcher who won 209 big league games. Simpson was 21 and had a big year in Triple A for the Angels in 1965 with 24 homers and 29 stolen bases, a .301 BA and .380 OBP (he was traded to the Orioles a week before they traded him to the Reds). Baldschun had been a useful reliever for the Phillies in the preceding years.
The pride of a man like Robinson was ignored and the trade and comments about why they made it set Robinson off on a mission to prove DeWitt wrong. And he did.
1967: Triple Crown Winner—Carl Yastrzemski, LF, Boston Red Sox; won the MVP
The only thing preventing Yastrzemski from winning the AL MVP unanimously was someone, somewhere who decided to vote for Cesar Tovar. Tovar had led the league in games, plate appearances, and at-bats. He batted .267 with a .325 OBP, 6 homers and 19 stolen bases. He was average defensively. Tovar was apparently voted for the MVP because of his attendance record.
Yastrzemski led the Red Sox to the World Series. The race went down to the wire with the White Sox, Twins, Tigers, and Red Sox all fighting until the end. Yastrzemski hit 9 homers in Sept./Oct. and had a .417/.504/.760 split in that last month-plus when it counted most.
For the most part, the rightful MVP has tended to win. There are mitigating circumstances when humans who rely on various biases and criteria are making the decisions. Some will be starstruck from the Triple Crown because it’s something many probably haven’t seen before. Others will lodge a “protest” vote against the stat people who are rolling their eyes and trying to bully the objectors of Trout’s candidacy using WAR as an end-of-story hammer without taking other aspects into account. Still others will try to use either the Tigers or Angels making the playoffs (or not) as the context of voting for or against either Trout or Cabrera.
When baseball awards are selected, there’s no list of reasons to vote or not vote for a candidate. All that can be done is to make a case and hope others agree. But I don’t see people making a case either way. I just see fighting, and all fighting is going to do is cause the factions to dig in and ignore any list of reasons, regardless of how logical and sensible they are. Being a hardline old-schooler or a condescending and arrogant stat person isn’t going to sway people to either side. That much I can guarantee.
11 thoughts on “Triple Crown Winners and the MVP”
Since “Valuable” is such a nebulous term in the context of baseball, performance, I’m afraid the best we can hope for is for people to put forth rational arguments for their case. I can live with either Trout or Cabrera, but I like the total package Trout is at this time.
Agreed. The problem is that there are no defined criteria for the award, but that at least spurs debate. This is a good debate.
Thanks for this synopsis. I agree with your assessments as well. I liked the Cesar Tovar reference. It was a Minneapolis writer who gave him the vote, and at that time was touting his versatility – multiple games at 6 different positions. It wasn’t until 1968 though that he played all 9 in one game. I think Cabrera deserves it this year, but it would be as big an injustice as the Williams/DiMaggio one if he doesn’t get it.
It’s a very interesting debate that many people are taking far too personally. There are good cases for both Trout and Cabrera. I’ll have my own pick—if I had a vote—in the coming days.
Sorry – I really meant to say it “would not be as big an injustice”, but some how that isn’t what I typed. I still think Cabrera is deserving.
I’d like to hear Teddy’s an Carl’s thoughts on WAR stats lmao wtf really
I’m pretty sure Ted Williams would say something obscene and unprintable if anyone questioned his value because of his defense.
I really enjoyed the post, but I have one issue with it. How do you know Lou Gehrig was a poor defensive 1st baseman? That statement is actually fairly ludicrous to make. There are probably only a handful of people alive who saw him play and I doubt they can give you an accurate read on his defense, which means we just don’t know.
If you look at the number of errors he made—consistently in the mid-teens—and his range factor plus defensive WAR stats, he was consistently below average. You mention “seeing” him play, but that’s not the whole story and I seriously doubt anyone who saw Lou Gehrig play would have an evenhanded analysis of his defense with or without numbers. He was average defensively at best according to the metric that we do have.
The Splendid Splinter didn’t lose the MVP in 1942 and 1947 because “reasonable people can differ”. He lost because of vindictive writers who knew better. And, as we found out in later years, who was the real good guy/bad guy between Williams and DiMaggio?
Williams was more interested in having the world admit that he was the greatest hitter who ever lived as a fact rather than because he was well-liked. He didn’t care what people thought of him on any basis other than performance. DiMaggio was enmeshed in perception and that’s how you got the public face and private warts. Williams was what he was.