- The Triple Crown is cool. It has a cool name, historical importance, and is a fun competition to follow throughout the season. To win it, one must lead the league in batting average, home runs, and RBIs. Only the best players are able to achieve this. Here is the total list of players who have achieved the honor since 1900: Nap LaJoie, Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby (twice), Jimmy Foxx, Chuck Klein, Lou Gehrig, Joe Medwick, Ted Williams (twice), Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Carl Yastrzemski, and Miguel Cabrera. A player has to be very good to win the triple crown, but these stats are like pitcher's wins: they indicate who the best players are but do not fully evaluate them. First, batting average. It is almost a meaningless stat compared to on base percentage. Batting average just includes hits, OBP includes hits and walks. Since a walk counts for exactly as much as a single (assuming the single doesn't drive home a run), it doesn't make any logical sense to not include them. Next: Home runs. A home run is the best possible thing that a baseball player can do. However, doubles, triples, and steals all count for extra bases as well and need to be measured. Third: RBIs. RBIs indicate how much a hitter contributes, but are entirely dependent on the other players on the team. On it's own the Triple Crown is a fun competition and a great achievement. The problem is that the league MVPs almost every year are selected on the base of these three stats, ignoring other important measures of player value.
Rogers Hornsby won the Triple Crown in 1922, hitting .401 with 42 home runs and 152 RBI - The player who missed out on the most MVP awards due to the Triple Crown evaluation method is almost certainly Rickey Henderson. It is weird to think that the Hall of Famer and all-time leader in stolen bases and runs scored is underrated, but he may have been. Henderson only won the MVP once, but he should have won several more. The main reason for this is that he didn't hit for a high average, and (since he was a lead off hitter) didn't hit very many home runs or RBIs. Henderson's two greatest skills- on base ability and base stealing- are the two most undervalued (offensive) skills in MVP voting.
Rickey Henderson was dominant at getting on base and then taking more bases - Measuring offensive output is fairly simple. It doesn't require advanced stats; just basic logic. A single or walk counts for one base, a double is two, triples are three, and home runs count for four bases. The simple way to look at the value of a steal is that it is worth one base, the same as a single or a walk; a player stealing second upgrades his hit to a double. If a player is caught stealing, then that downgrades the value of his at bat to an out. Strikeouts, ground outs, and pop flies are neutral. They don't create anything, but don't take anything away. Grounding into a double play is negative since it takes away a player who was already on base. A player could also hit a sacrifice fly, but those are not really intentional (they would obviously rather get a hit) so I'm not counting them. So, a way to truly evaluate the total run-producing value of a player would be this simple formula, which I will call total bases/total runs created (I am aware that a stat called runs created already exists, but I can't think of a better name):
- Total bases created= Total bases [singles + (doubles*2) + (triples*3) + (home runs*4)] + walks and HBP + steals - times caught stealing - double plays grounded into
- Divide that by four to get total runs created (4 bases=1 run)
- Henderson was massively underrepresented throughout the 80's in MVP voting. He would be far more productive than the league's MVP most years, but would not perform as well on the Triple Crown stats and therefore would not win the award. Take his rookie year in 1980 compared to that year's AL MVP George Brett:
- Total bases created formula:
- Brett: (298 total bases + 58 walks + 15 steals - 6 times caught stealing - 11 double plays grounded into)/4 =
- 88.5 total runs created
- Henderson: [236 total bases + 117 walks + 100 steals - 26 times caught - 6 double plays]/4=
- 106.5 runs created
- Brett was no where near Henderson in total offensive output, although he was a better defensive player. However, Brett won the MVP while Henderson finished 10th. The reason why is a reliance on triple crown stats. Brett looks much better than Henderson if one only looks at those three measures.
- Triple Crown Stats:
- Brett: .390, 24 home runs, 118 RBI
- Henderson: .303, 9 home runs, 53 RBI
- Brett was certainly an outstanding player in 1980, and he was a deserving MVP. The issue is, the MVP race should have been a two man competition between him and Henderson. Instead, Henderson finished tenth in AL MVP voting behind four players who hit over .300 with more than 100 RBIs (Brett, Reggie Jackson, Cecil Cooper, and Eddie Murray), two very good relief pitchers (Goose Gossage and Dan Quisenberry), one starter having an out of nowhere 25 win season (Steve Stone, who would only play one more season after 1980 and never won more than 15 games in any other season), the Yankees' catcher (Rick Cerone, who was an excellent defender but never better than good for a catcher on offense), and the poor man's Henderson (Willie Wilson, who had a higher batting average than Henderson, but his OBP was 63 points lower and he had 31 fewer steals). Other than Cerone and the pitchers, everyone who finished higher in voting than Henderson did so because of batting average, home runs, and RBIs, ignoring just how much Henderson actually contributed to his team.
George Brett was incredible in 1980, but still wasn't as productive as Henderson - Henderson's impact on his team's run totals was consistently staggering. In 1993, he was traded from the A's to the Blue Jays 2/3 of the way through the season:
- Blue Jays RBI totals:
- Roberto Alomar (batting second)
- Without Henderson: 122 hits, 59 RBI, .49 RBI/hit
- With Henderson: 70 hits, 40 RBI, .57 RBI/hit
- Paul Molitor (batting third):
- Without Henderson: 134 hits, 68 RBI, .51 RBI/hit
- With Henderson: 77 hits, 43 RBI, .56 RBI/hit
- Team record:
- Without Henderson: 60-43, .58 winning percentage
- With Henderson: 34-20, .63 winning percentage
- Team runs scored per game
- Without Henderson: 5.2
- With Henderson: 5.6
- The two players hitting directly behind Henderson drove in significantly more runs than they did without him. The team also increased their winning percentage by 5% after adding Henderson, and they went on to win the World Series All this despite the fact that Henderson wasn't hitting particularly well (for him) during those two months, only batting .215/.356. He did walk almost twice as often as he struck out, and he stole 22 bases. Now check out how the A's fared with and without him:
- Record:
- With Henderson: 43-58, .43 winning percentage
- Without Henderson: 25-36, .41 winning percentage
- Runs scored per game:
- With Henderson: 4.6
- Without Henderson: 4.1
- In 1993, a 34 year old Henderson having about an average season for him was able to be worth about half a run per game more than whoever he replaced.
- The 1985 Yankees got about the same improvement in runs scored per game by adding Henderson:
- 1984 Yankees
- 4.7 runs per game
- 1985 Yankees
- 5.2 Runs per game
Henderson added half a run per game to any offense he played for
- The 1984 Yankees had basically the same lineup as in '85. They still had superstars Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, and Willie Randolph. The only significant difference was replacing Omar Moreno in center field with Henderson. It wasn't like Henderson was replacing an average player in the lead-off spot either; Randolph hit first in '84 and hit .287/.377 although he only had 10 steals. The other main difference on the team was Mattingly's RBI totals:
- 1984: 207 hits, 110 RBI, .53 RBI/hit
- 1985: 211 hits, 145 RBI, .69 RBI/hit
Mattingly was a great player, but the main reason he hit so many RBIs in 1985 was the presence of Rickey Henderson
- Mattingly was a much better player in 1985 than he was in 1984, and he was certainly one of the five best players in the league. The hits/RBI stat is a bit misleading for him because he had a lot more extra base hits in '85 than he did in '84. However, Mattingly ended up winning the MVP in '85 while Henderson finished third, despite Henderson clearly being the top reason for the Yankees improved offense. That year was the most egregious example of voters valuing RBIs more than creating runs. Henderson finished 1985 with an outstanding 111.5 runs created, not quite Barry Bonds level (Bonds created 150.5 runs, almost one per game, in 2001), but right around Willie May's level (Mays created 115.75 runs in his 51-homer 1955 season). Mattingly finished with a (still very good) 102.75 runs created. However, just like Brett five years earlier, Mattingly had much better triple crown stats than Henderson:
- Mattingly: .324, 35 homers, 145 RBI
- Henderson: .314, 24 homers, 72 RBI
- Mattingly was outstanding in 1980, but saying he was better than Henderson that year is almost (yes, this is an exaggeration) like if Guy Rogers won the NBA MVP with his league-leading 825 assists on the 1962 Philadelphia Warriors instead of his teammate Wilt Chamberlain who averaged 44 points per game (Bill Russell somehow ended up winning the 1962 MVP instead). Mattingly was a very good player, but Henderson was the guy creating and scoring most of the runs. Throughout his career, whoever hit behind Henderson would always get a lot of RBIs; just look at Dwayne Murphy. In 1982 Murphy batted after Henderson in the A's lineup, and he hit 94 RBIs despite only having 127 hits. In 1983 Murphy did it again: he had 75 RBIs in 107 hits. In 1985, the year Henderson left, Murphy was only able to get 59 RBIs in 122 hits despite the fact that he hit more homers, doubles, and triples than he did in 1983. Henderson's on base ability and amazing base running allowed him to convert a much higher percentage of his team's hits to runs scored. He was worth about half a run per game more than the average lead off hitter, which is about a 10% improvement. If the purpose of baseball is to score more runs than the other team, then a player who adds 10% more runs per game than his replacement should probably have won more than one MVP.
- Although Henderson probably lost the most potential MVP awards due to the Triple Crown bias, he is far from the only player to be affected by it. Miguel Cabrera is an example of a player who has both benefited and been hurt by this bias. In 2011 he led the MLB in OBP (.448) and doubles (48) and walked 19 times more than he struck out, which is an incredible feat in the pitching-dominated 2010s. He also led the MLB in batting average (.344) but he “only” hit 30 homers and 105 RBIs, and he finished fifth in MVP voting. The next year his OBP was 55 points lower (.393), he had 32 more strikeouts than walks, and his batting average dropped 14 points. However, that year he hit .330 with 44 home runs and 139 RBI, winning the American league triple crown and the MVP. Here is a comparison between the two years:
- 2011:
- Led MLB in average, OBP, and doubles
- Stat line: .344/.448/.586, 179 OPS+, 105.75 runs created
- Fifth in AL MVP voting
- 2012:
- Led MLB in home runs and RBI, led American league in average and SLG
- Stat line: .330/.393/.606, 164 OPS+, 105.25 runs created
- Won AL MVP
- Cabrera was a bit better in 2011, but in 2012 he changed his game, getting on base way less and hitting more home runs and RBIs, and he won the MVP. At the same time, Mike Trout received the same treatment in MVP voting:
- 2012:
- .326/.399/.564, 168 OPS+, 67 walks, 49 steals, 106.25 runs created
- Second in AL MVP voting (72% of vote)
- 2013:
- .323/.432/.557, 179 OPS+, 110 walks, 33 steals, 116.5 runs created
- Second in AL MVP voting (67%)
- 2014:
- .287/.377/.561, 167 OPS+, 83 walks, 16 steals, 109.75 runs created
- Won AL MVP (100%)
- Then look at his triple crown stats for those years:
- 2012: .326, 30 home runs, 83 RBIs
- 2013: .323, 27 home runs, 97 RBIs
- 2014: .287, 36 home runs, 111 RBIs
Trout won the MVP when he stopped getting on base and stealing so often
- In order to win the MVP, Trout had to drop his Henderson skills (on base percentage and base running) and raise his Mattingly skills (home runs and RBI). He was the best player in the MLB by any measure in 2014 either way, and since Cabrera wasn't as dominant as he was in 2012 and '13 he was basically running unopposed, but it is still interesting to see how his MVP votes rose along with his RBI total while his overall productivity fell.
- The bottom line is this: home runs, RBI, and batting average are great. However, they are not the only ways a player contributes to their team. The most undervalued stats in MVP voting are on base percentage and steals. The more times a player is on base, the more chances he has to score, and good base running puts him in a better position to score. This is pretty basic logic. The most productive player possible would hit a home run every single at bat (basically like Barry Bonds from 2001 to 2004). However, non-Bonds players can't do that, so they find other ways to create runs. Rickey Henderson only hit for a .300 batting average seven times in 25 seasons, he only had three 20+ home run seasons, and he never hit 100 RBIs. However, he stole more than 50 bases 13 times and he had a .400 or higher OBP 15 times (and had two more .390 OBP seasons). He even led the league in walks (118) and steals (66) in 1998 when he was 39 years old! These skills made him worth about half a run per game more valuable than whoever he replaced. Despite the value that a player like Henderson can provide, MVP voters seem to be stuck in the mindset that only three stats matter: batting average, home runs, and RBI. The game of baseball is won by more than just power hitters batting cleanup, and the MVP award should reflect that.
No comments:
Post a Comment