That 1987 MVP Vote
Over and over, we’ve seen MLB Hall of Fame voters cite the value of MVP and Cy Young results in weighing the candidacies of various candidates.
There is some logic to this train of thought. If a player was widely regarded as elite in a given season, or in multiple seasons, that could be a good indicator of the impact he made at the time. The problem comes when such voting proves to be way off base.
We can dispense with a long diatribe about stats. Voters can use common sense. They’re also entitled to vote with their eyes as well as their brains. If a close race emerges and two candidates sport similar resumes, weighing intangibles, considering performance in close-and-late situations or even considering whether or not the two players teams contended for the playoffs are all reasonable tie-breakers.
Common sense did not apply in 1987.
Andre Dawson enjoyed a fine season that year, leading the league in both home runs (49) and RBI (137) and winning the Most Valuable Player award. He also hit a pedestrian .287 and posted a weak .328 OBP. His knees wearing down by this time, Dawson was a shadow of his former rangy self, playing a merely adequate right field while other MVP candidates shone on defense. He got a boost from Wrigley Field, at the time one of the friendliest ballparks in the majors for hitters.
Few people outside Bill James’ office paid much attention to advanced metrics at the time. But voters had to have some inkling that 1987 was a banner year for players who could do it, not just swat home runs. With the benefit of hindsight, we see that Dawson accounted for 2.7 Wins Above Replacement, making his total package of offense, defense and environmental factors the equivalent of a solid, but unspectacular big-league starter.
That year, baseball was filled with charismatic players and team leaders enjoying great seasons. Tony Gwynn hit a preposterous .370, notched a .447 on-base percentage, stole 56 bases and won the Gold Glove — good for 8.1 Wins Above Replacement, or a typical Albert Pujols MVP season. Tim Raines missed the entire month of April thanks to baseball’s collusive off-season. Yet Raines also put up phenomenal numbers, hitting .330/.429/.526, stealing 50 bases in 55 attempts and even leading the league with 123 runs scored, despite playing in only 139 games. His five months of play were good for 6.8 WAR. Jack Clark, Eric Davis, Darryl Strawberry and Dale Murphy also put up monster numbers in a season that was later revealed to have been played using juiced baseballs. All of them, and several other players, handily outpaced Dawson in their all-around contributions.
The kicker, of course, was the performance of Dawson’s team. His Chicago Cubs finished dead last in their division that year.
And after all that, Dawson won the MVP. Despite Tony Gwynn’s season, measured by one objective measure, being THREE TIMES more valuable.
As David Brown notes in a Yahoo column today, Dawson’s MVP award in ’87 is the biggest shining light on the player’s resume, the single biggest reason he’s in the Hall of Fame.
But wait, there’s more. Dawson gained his biggest measure of fame in Chicago. Not just because the Cubs owned a much larger media presence than the Expos, but because Dawson’s MVP occurred while he was playing at Wrigley Field, not the Big O.
Andre Dawson is a fine player, and he’s far from the worst selection the writers have made for the Hall of Fame. But if the Hall of Fame decides to place a Cubs hat on Dawson’s plaque and not an Expos cap, and the 1987 MVP season is cited as one of, if not the biggest reason for his induction…well, I’m going to lose my shit.
I agree. The best player in 1987 in the NL was Raines. He had it all that year, it was his last great season IMO.
That was a darn good Expos season, they contednded right up until the Cards swept them in a DH on the last Wednesday nite of the season.
Had he been a good centre fielder (Guys I saw him, he was better than Vince Coleman but not by much, he could not properly track the balls like the greats) there is no question that he would have been in the Hall.
In a rare break over homerism, I’d probably argue Gwynn over Raines, by dint of Gwynn being awesome all year long and Raines just for five months. Even though collusion obviously wasn’t Raines’ fault, what-if scenarios aren’t really fair either. Gwynn hit .370. I mean, no shame of giving it him.
The broader point about freaking out if Dawson goes in a Cub because of this ridiculous vote stands, of course.
Ya Gwynn was great in ’87 but his club finished 65-97. To me he would still be a better pick than the Hawk. Guys like Jack Clark for the Cards & the Straw were more valuable IMO.
What if Raines won it, would he have gotten the 77% of votes this year? How much would an MVP season have helped him now?
Back when I thought I had the stones to blog regularly (I don’t), I wrote a blog post on this very subject, breaking down Ozzie Smith vs. Andre Dawson. Give it a read, maybe you’ll enjoy it. http://theboysofsummer.blogspot.com/2007/07/return-to-blogging.html
@theimpossibleman
Good post! Ozzie did indeed have a great 1987, and of course his defensive value annihilates Dawson’s that year.
Really just underscores the point that Dawson probably wasn’t even one of the 10 most valuable players in the league that year, let alone #1. And if you’re someone who considers team performance in the calculus, Dawson may not have even been top 50.
Raines should have won the MVP award that year on principle alone.
By the standards they were using back in 1987, Jack Clark should have won the MVP. Division winner, 35 hr, 100+ Rbi, .286 average. I think what really blew the writers away were 49 HR Dawson hit, which was just an insane number back then. But when you put Wrigley field, “juiced ball”, a .323 on base, in context it’s not that great a season.
What’s amazing in retrospect is that Clark had a .459 on base percentage compared to Dawson’s .328!!. I wonder if there has ever been a .131 disparity in on base percentage between the winner and another player?
I’ve often thought Jack Clark would still be on the HOF ballot if he had won the ’87 MVP and Dawson probably wouldn’t have been elected. Actually Clark at his peak was probably a better player than Dawson. The big problem with Clark is that he spent too much time in pitcher’s parks, (Candlestick, Jack Murphy). If he had played his entire career at Busch stadium he’s probably in the HOF.
With or without the ’87 MVP, Dawson’s resume is still much better than Clark’s. Dawson was a defensive and baserunning star for several years, while Clark was never a contributor in those areas. Combine that with Dawson’s longevity and Hawk has the edge.