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:

 

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)

 

 

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).