Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series

[poksey_MLBTS]

@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

@poksey_mlbts said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.

None of those stats existed back then. And the biggest screw up in voting history is the 2016 AL Cy young award

Check out the 1934 AL MVP. Imagine anyone voting Mickey Cochrane over Lou Gehrig today.

Cochrane even getting the MVP over Charlie Gehringer that same year is asinine lmao. Gehrig is clearly the most deserving there, but Gehringer is at least acceptable

I think a lot of the reasoning back then was because Cochrane was a Player/Manager, and they won the pennant. Looking at it now, it's completely laughable that he won the award, especially over what Gehrig did that season. He won it over Gehringer because he was the apparent leader on that Tigers team, but yeah, Gehringer shouldve been easily ahead of him too.

[jcassaro44_PSN]

Pops Sig in 19 as sooooo good... A prime would’ve been nice too, his MVP was a career achievement award, it’s like Al Pacino winning an Oscar for Scent of a Woman and not The Godfather.. I was hoping for a good Pop to spot start and use as a bench bat, hopefully his sweet swing makes up for his stats.

[Chrono_Omega_PSN]

@ericulous1_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

Don't forget the Philadelphia screw job that was 2006, Ryan Howard beating Albert Pujols.

I'm not saying this was as big a travesty, Howard had a monster season but Albert's 8.4 war was almost 3 points higher, his SLG %, BA, OBP, OPS, runs all higher.

Also, didn't Pops share the NL MVP with Keith Hernandez?

I agree on both accounts. Winfield should have won and Verlander should have won. No question on either.

I always thought 2006 was Alberts best season and he was injured for a few games too and still put insane numbers up. Howard was a monster that year, but overall Pujols was the best all around player.

[nymets1987_PSN]

The Willie Stargell card absolutely Rakes For me in moments

[HtonSecurity5x_PSN]

Hell be good vs righties, which is all that matters

Prime from the early 70s with an outfield as his primary would be sick

[Dolenz_PSN]

@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

@cdnmoneymaker93_xbl said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.

A prime Stargell card based on like 71-74 would’ve made so much more sense, and would be way more useful for collections.

These stats didn't exist then!!!!!

Thank you for pointing out the very obvious thing that everybody knows. I didn’t say they should’ve used them back then, I’m just pointing out how hilariously bad the voting looks now with modern knowledge.

Even if you look at stats that they had back then, Stargell winning MVP over Winfield was still clearly just based on popularity and team record.
Stargell: 32 HR, 82 RBI, .281 AVG, .352 OBP, .552 SLG
Winfield: 34 HR, 118 RBI, .308 AVG, .395 OBP, .558 SLG

There has been an argument for quite a while about MVPs. The argument in this case being how valuable was Winfield to a Padres team who finished 22 games back. At best his value to the team that year was that he kept them out of last place.

Stargell, on the other hand played a big part of the Pirates winning the division. His 2.7 fWAR was enough to push them to the top of the division since they only won it by 2 games over Montreal.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the above logic but I understand it. These days I think MVP is just kind of synonymous with best performing player in the league but it hasn't always been that cut and dried.

[jogger171717_PSN]

@dolenz_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

@cdnmoneymaker93_xbl said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:

Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.

A prime Stargell card based on like 71-74 would’ve made so much more sense, and would be way more useful for collections.

These stats didn't exist then!!!!!

Thank you for pointing out the very obvious thing that everybody knows. I didn’t say they should’ve used them back then, I’m just pointing out how hilariously bad the voting looks now with modern knowledge.

Even if you look at stats that they had back then, Stargell winning MVP over Winfield was still clearly just based on popularity and team record.
Stargell: 32 HR, 82 RBI, .281 AVG, .352 OBP, .552 SLG
Winfield: 34 HR, 118 RBI, .308 AVG, .395 OBP, .558 SLG

There has been an argument for quite a while about MVPs. The argument in this case being how valuable was Winfield to a Padres team who finished 22 games back. At best his value to the team that year was that he kept them out of last place.

Stargell, on the other hand played a big part of the Pirates winning the division. His 2.7 fWAR was enough to push them to the top of the division since they only won it by 2 games over Montreal.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the above logic but I understand it. These days I think MVP is just kind of synonymous with best performing player in the league but it hasn't always been that cut and dried.

I understand that, and I think it’s for the best that most voters don’t think that way anymore. Imagine if trout never won MVP no matter how good he played because of factors totally out of his control?

As for Stargell contributing to the pirates, Dave Parker had over double his fWAR while also having a higher wRC+. If anybody should’ve won MVP for helping the pirates win the division, it should’ve been him. He contributed much more than Stargell did and was more important to the team’s success, so that argument doesn’t really hold much weight.