Your 1985 AL MVP
Written by Bill   
Friday, 29 January 2010 11:21
Got into a discussion the other day about this award. There was some pretty strenuous arguing over whether the winner should've been Don Mattingly (who actually won it in a landslide, with 23 first-place votes) or George Brett (who got the other five).
 
It's a pretty interesting discussion on a lot of levels. Both played corner infield positions (though Brett played the more challenging and more valuable one) and were given Gold Gloves. The numbers:
 
Player Avg. OBP SLG R HR RBI OPS+ wOBA RC/27
Mattingly .324 .371 .567 107 35 145 156 .399 7.7
Brett .335 .436 .585 108 30 112 178 .433 10.1

I say it's interesting mostly because of how our perceptions have changed. It's easy to see why Mattingly would have won in 1985. He led the league in doubles and RBI, way ahead of Brett and 21 ahead of second place Eddie Murray. The only category Brett led the league in that actually existed back then was slugging percentage, and I doubt anybody even looked at that. The Royals did go on to win the Series while the Yanks missed the playoffs, but the Yanks still won 97 games, thanks in large part to Donnie Baseball.
 
But you can guess where I'd come out as between these two guys. The advanced metrics* show Brett as a much, much better hitter. Driven mostly by the OBP advantage (Brett walked a career-high 103 times in '85, almost twice Mattingly's total, though 30 of Brett's were intentional), Brett blows Mattingly out of the water across the board in all but the 2B, HR, R and RBI categories. Throw in that Total Zone wasn't as impressed with Mattingly's fielding this year as most observers were, and the positional adjustment for Mattingly's playing the easiest position on the diamond, and the Wins Above Replacement is a rout too: Brett 8.0, Donnie 6.4.
 
*wOBA is weighted on base average, discussed briefly by me here and detailed here, and RC/27 is Bill James' runs created formula per 27 outs made by the batter, or in other words an approximation of how many runs a team would score per game if they had nine copies of that player.
 
Even Mattingly's huge edge in RBI is largely an illusion; per Baseball Prospectus, Mattingly drove in 22.4% of the runners who got on base for him, which is great...but Brett was right behind him at 21.2%. The difference was that the Yankees' lineup could get on base, with a .344 OBP to the Royals' .313 (just think what it would be without Brett's .436!). The Yankees had Mattingly, Winfield, Randolph and Rickey; the Royals had Brett and a lot of pitching and defense. The difference was opportunity, not quality. When it comes down to quality, Brett beats Mattingly going away.

But Brett isn't my MVP either. This guy is:
(click here to read why)
 
Henderson .314 .419 .516 146 24 72 157 .436 9.3
 
And of course you can add 80 steals at a near-90% rate to that. 
 
Even if you can see the case for Brett over Mattingly, Henderson over Brett might be hard to swallow. Brett wins handily in every offensive category (except the anachronistic wOBA, which factors in Henderson's baserunning and thus kind of spoils part of the punchline for me). This was the one year that Henderson played centerfield full time, but there's not much of a value difference between playing 3B and playing CF. So what gives?
 
I could just tell you that Henderson beats Brett easily in WAR (10.0 to 8.0), but that's not going to convince anybody that needs convincing. So I think that a look at the different components that make up WAR is in order.
 
It's helpful that there's no real positional difference between the two, and all the other little adjustments WAR makes completely even out. So all we're looking at are the three main things that players can do: (1) create runs from the batter's box' (2) create runs on the bases; and (3) prevent runs on defense. (As an aside: from here on out, I'm largely copying from a post I made on the Rob Neyer Baseball message boards.) 
 
Brett gets 55 batting runs above average, Rickey 49. Makes sense, right? They got about the same number of plate appearances (Rickey missed a bunch of games but made it back by leading off and playing for an offense that turned the lineup over more often), and Brett had a 178 OPS+, Rickey 157. Both great, Brett a little better. You might even give Brett a bigger advantage. Want to make it 60 runs to 49? Okay, let's.

For baserunning, Rickey gets 17 runs, Brett 3. That makes sense to me too; Rickey was obviously a fantastic baserunner, while Brett was very smart, but pretty slow by this point in his career.

Defensively, Henderson gets 16 runs, Brett just 1. Makes sense to me again; Henderson was always a very good fielder, and here he's 26 and probably the fastest guy in the game. Brett was pretty good in his prime, but now he's 32 and two years away from a move to first base. Average seems pretty plausible.

So add it all up (none of the other adjustments WAR makes has any real effect here) and even giving Brett the extra credit for batting, Brett has 64 runs above average, Henderson 82, which WAR says is worth about two runs over the course of the season. I think you could find little quibbles with the numbers all you want and Henderson would still come out at least a little ahead.
 
Would Rickey have been a unanimous HOF if he had won two MVPs? Well, no. But he might've picked up one or two more of those dunderheads' votes.
Interestingly, there are some who argue the CYA among the same two teams: Brett Saberhagen or Ron Guidry? Personally, I think Saberhagen wins that matchup easily, but I'd give it to either his teammate Charlie Leibrandt or...wait for it...Dave Stieb (fast becoming the Official Retired Pitcher of TDS).


Digg! Reddit! Facebook! Technorati! StumbleUpon! BallHype: hype it up!
Comments (12)Add Comment
...
written by lar @ wezen-ball, January 29, 2010
Not gonna argue with anything there. I can easily understand the Mattingly love that year. That was an insane number of RBIs and that team, with Rickey flying around like that, must've been pretty fun to watch. Of course, like you point out, the voters saw the right things from that Yankees team, they just misinterpreted it (reward Mattingly for the RBIs instead of Rickey for being on the bases).

The only thing I'd point out is that 1985 is Boggs' first great year, and he deserved more consideration than he got (8.5 WAR).
Not Brett
written by jimn, January 30, 2010
Henderson or Mattingly could either have been the MVP. I hate when Underlying statistics are brought into HoF, CY, or MVP debates. These rewards should be about result statistics such as RBI, Runs Scored, Wins, ERA (MAYBE HR, SB, Ks). These are the objective in the game of baseball, to score runs for your team, and limit runs for the other team. These days we are obsessed with the strategic and causal numbers that allow one to produce such results, such as OBP, OPS, and the bastard "what if" stats like RC and Batting Wins. Those are fine things to study to understand the game, but not to give out awards. Awards of this nature should be based on results, plain and simple. Mattingly produced more actual runs, even if Brett produced more theoretical runs. He wins MVP over Brett in '85. To say otherwise is to be overly-sophisticated to the point of ignorance.
...
written by Cyril Morong, January 31, 2010
Awards should be based on results? Maybe, but some guys have an easier time getting those results. If you have Rickey Henderson getting on base for you, you will have alot more RBIs. That does not make a guy more valuable.

Here are the AVGs and SLGs for Brett and Mattingly with runners on base and with runners on scoring position.

Brett

ROB .367 .615
RISP .340 .558

Mattingly
ROB .321 .549
RISP .314 .463

Brett does better in both stats in both situations. I think that shows better results. And Brett had a .436 OBP while Mattingly had .371. That is a huge difference in results. The object of the game is to get on base and not make outs
...
written by Bill@TDS, February 01, 2010
Everything Cyril said.

RBI and runs scored are absolutely terrible measures of how well one individual batter did at scoring or preventing runs. RBI measure some undefined combination of the hitter's ability to drive in runners + his teammates' ability to get on base for him and give him opportunities. And when you've got a teammate like Rickey Henderson getting on and running the bases in front of you, the scale tilts heavily toward the "opportunity" side.

There's nothing "what if" about this. George Brett did a much better job than Mattingly did of producing runs for his team. There's absolutely no question about that. The Yankees' hitters were better than the Royals' at literally every position except third base, so the Yankees scored 150 more runs and gave Mattingly had over a hundred more RBI opportunities. Nothing about that captures "results," just opportunity. Brett was a better and more valuable hitter; switch Mattingly and Brett (pretending for a moment that they played the same position), and the Yankees score more runs and the Royals even fewer. That's not theory or conjecture, it's just obviously true (as Cyril demonstrated). Throw in that Brett played third base while Mattingly was limited to first, and it's just not even close.
The Difference Was The Stretch Drive Performances
written by Tommy in CT, February 01, 2010
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the tendency of MVP voters to attach great weight to late-season performance in pennant races, it is a well established tradition. A recent and striking case in point: by late August of the 2006 season the AL MVP debate included only two names: Jeter and Ortiz. Justin Morneau wasn't even in the discussion, but he won the MVP award on the basis of a torrid September finish that powered the Twins' drive into the post-season.

Mattingly won because he was BEAST down the stretch as the Yanks' almost caught the Blue Jays. He batted .350 and slugged .681 in August and Sept/Oct, driving in 66 runs in 62 games. Henderson was the greatest offensive player I'd ever seen for three months from May to July, but had a terrible August/September. And Brett batted just .260 and slugged .512 in September for the Royals as they held on to win the AL West. True, Brett had many timely hits for the Royals, driving 26 runs in 35 games in Sept/Oct, but Mattingly drove in 40 runs in 34 games in Sept/Oct.

I recall the '85 pennant race distinctly, and Mattingly was a one-man gang in August and September. Henderson and Winfield each batted around .240 over the last two months. Mattingly almost single-handedly kept the Yanks in the race and brought them to within two games with two to play after trailing by 9.5 games in early August.

I can hear the stat geeks now: "A game is a game, and it doesn't matter if it's played in April or September." Tell it to the MVP voters, friends. And tell it to the fans, too. Every Yankee fan I knew was touting Henderson for MVP at the end of July, but by the end of the season Donnie enjoyed unanimous support from Yankee fans because of his amazing finish.
...
written by Matt @ Fack Youk, February 01, 2010
Having the metrics we have now, it's easy to see Henderson was the MVP that year. But as you point out, Mattingly had the stats - RBI, HR, 2B - that the voters valued, and that many still value.

Mattingly might have received a little karmic payback the following year. His '86 was even better than his '85, but he lost out to Clemens for MVP that year.
...
written by Bill@TDS, February 01, 2010
Tommy in CT:
But it's true: a game is a game, and it doesn't matter if it's played in April or September. And telling it to the voters and fans is pretty much what so many of us have been trying to do. Anyway, the difference between the two in Sept/Oct is a couple of hits and a couple of HR. Even if you believe that those games should be weighted more heavily, I don't see any way it cancels out Brett's huge advantage over the season as a whole.

It's fitting to compare it to the Morneau MVP, since that was one of the worst selections of all time, much worse than 1985. And just like with Mattingly, Morneau had a much more deserving teammate who didn't have the sexy HRs and RBI. Just as Rickey, with his .400 OBP and ridiculous 22 steals at a 90%+ rate in Sept/Oct, was at least as important to the Yankees' stretch run as Mattingly, Mauer -- who hit .337/.439/.517 in those months, actually even out-OPSing Morneau -- was far more important to the Twins' run, and would've been my 2006 pick for MVP (well, him or Jeter).

It's not the stretch run, it's the fans' (and most BBWAA voters are, and were especially then, really just paid and slightly better informed fans) perceptions of the stretch run, which is driven by an extreme overreliance on fun things like HR and RBI.

Matt, that's a good point about '86 (WAR gives Clemens an edge over Mattingly, but it's certainly close enough to argue, and there's no way Clemens or almost any pitcher would've won it nowadays). Actually, Boggs comes out ahead of them both (just as, like Lar points out, he did in '85).

Great to see some new names in the comments (thanks, BTF!). Hope you guys stick around...
I looked at the same race a while back
written by Jeff Zimmerman, February 01, 2010
you idiots are missing the point
written by jimn, February 01, 2010
rbi and runs scored are the only measure of run production in the past. the point of the game is to win. period. not making outs and getting on base are things you do in order to score runs, but the only way to win is SCORING RUNS and PREVENTING RUNS. I don't care that some players have more opportunities while other players are more efficient with the opportunities they have. this fascination with the theoretical is stupid. mattingly produced more. period.
missing the point! What I mean by results!
written by jimn, February 01, 2010
i mean seriously, mattingly and brett couldn't have switched places, that's theoretical bullshit. these stupid "advanced metrics" are good for many things. they are good for scouting, they are good for projecting players. they are also good for idiot losers obsessed with the theoretical amount of runs a player could score in another lineup.

AWARDS SHOULD BE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, NOT ABOUT WHAT THEORETICALLY COULD HAVE HAPPENED. I think that either henderson or mattingly could win this based on how you weight runs scored versus runs batted in. but OPS or RC shouldn't matter for awards.

This is a complicated team game, and a team game where individuals are sometimes only as good as the team they're on. That shouldn't mean that we reward players on worse teams because they were in a tough situation to produce runs or win games. That doesn't make sence. What makes sence is to reward the players who actually did produce runs and actually did win games. Why have we gotten so soft that winning has taken a back seat to individualistic bullshit statistics? George Brett having fewer opportunities does not make him a more valuable player! It makes him a better talent, sure. But MVP shouldn't be a talent competition. You aren't valuable because you have talent. You're valuable because you did something with your talent. And Don Mattingly did more than George Brett. End of story. That's what I mean by results.

Grow up, people. You are making a mockery of a great game.
...
written by Bill@TDS, February 01, 2010
"Idiots"? Very nice, jim.

The "point" you are attempting to make is something that everyone here has heard a thousand times. The problem with it is that it's just not true. Runs and RBI are very poor measures of individual run production. Say one guy walks, the next guy doubles and the third guy grounds out or flies out to bring the run home. All three players were necessary to "produce" that run, and the one who did the most to produce it -- the guy who hit the double -- doesn't get any credit for it at all; meanwhile, the guy who did the least -- actually using up one of his team's outs -- gets the RBI.

And his good-but-not-great .371 OBP, compared to Brett's .433, caused him to make more outs and, relative to Brett, kept his team from SCORING RUNS. The fact that he ultimately scored and drove in more runs than Brett is due entirely to the fact that his teammates were better at producing runs than Brett's were. It has nothing to do with Mattingly's "production" at all, which was worse than Brett's in every way.

Also, his playing first base rather than third base meaning he was doing less to PREVENT RUNS than Brett. Brett was significantly better at both producing and preventing runs than Mattingly was.

Again, the fact that you don't understand something doesn't make it theoretical at all. Brett was better at creating and preventing runs for his team than Mattingly was. That's just a fact. There's nothing, not one single thing, that Mattingly could do in 1985 that Brett couldn't do better. Mattingly's teammates were better, which gave him higher R & RBI totals, but in those things you care about -- SCORING RUNS and PREVENTING RUNS -- Brett was clearly and indisputably better.

But you're certainly not an idiot, just very, very wrong about this...

...
written by Bill@TDS, February 01, 2010
jimn, that "what I mean" post didn't do anything to explain your point (again, everyone clearly understands your point -- it's just so obviously wrong and misguided). It just makes you sound sadder and angrier. Everything I said above (posted at the exact same time as yours) still holds. Brett "actually did produce runs" better than Mattingly did.

Write comment

busy
 

About Bloguin

Bloguin is the revolutionary blog network specifically focused on helping bloggers get the most out of their websites. We're currently working on building a large network of online communities and hope to expand our blogging coverage to include a wide range of topics.

Advertisers

The Bloguin Network allows advertisers to promote their products and services to our ever-growing number of visitors. We offer both site-specific ad placements as well as the ability to run a network-wide campaign. If you're interested in working with Bloguin to meet your advertising needs, please contact us.

Bloggers Wanted

The Bloguin Network is always looking to expand. We're specifically looking for blogs in the sports, entertainment, and video games field, but are open to adding any type of quality site.. If you're a blogger and interested in joining our network, please fill out our application form.

The Bloguin Login

The Bloguin Login gives you full access to everything our network has to offer. Your name and password will work for each and every one of our sites. Signing up is simple, and will allow you to post in all our forums, create member blogs, and access other cool features! What are you waiting for? Create an Account!