A little project I'm thinking of doing (HGM's Historical MVP/Cy Young Choices)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogue9

I don't know I would wish that if I had only one wish. But I do often wish I could have seen some of these awesome players.

---

Ruth, Williams, Johnson... if I could only go back and see 3... they would be it. If I could see 5 id add Cobb and Probably Jackie Robbinson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

Ruth, Williams, Johnson... if I could only go back and see 3... they would be it. If I could see 5 id add Cobb and Probably Jackie Robbinson

---

What about Old Hoss and that Blue Moon guy from Field of Dreams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

What about Old Hoss and that Blue Moon guy from Field of Dreams

---

I dont remember the blue moon buy... but I dont know if we are talking aobut the same Old Hoss... I'd like to see him but there are many Id like to see more. 300 wins in I think 7-10 yeras :D 59-60 in 1 season over 600 IP... yea... ill take him... he pitched somehing lik e23 or the final 25 games... and didnt even pitch the whole season.. really a remarkable guy :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

What about Old Hoss and that Blue Moon guy from Field of Dreams

---

I think you are confusing Moonlight Graham with Blue Moon Odom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

I dont remember the blue moon buy... but I dont know if we are talking aobut the same Old Hoss... I'd like to see him but there are many Id like to see more. 300 wins in I think 7-10 yeras :D 59-60 in 1 season over 600 IP... yea... ill take him... he pitched somehing lik e23 or the final 25 games... and didnt even pitch the whole season.. really a remarkable guy :D

---

Old Hoss radbourn, he pitched I believe the final 60 after returning from a suspension for drunkenness. blue Moon guy is an entirely different person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

I think you are confusing Moonlight Graham with Blue Moon Odom

---

Yea, thats him. i knew Blue Moon was seperate, but I thought they were both Blue Moon's

Back on topic...

I've decided to go back to 1876, the first year of the National League. Since I'll only be doing the NL, it'll be just one MVP and one Cy Young per year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Back on topic...

I've decided to go back to 1876, the first year of the National League. Since I'll only be doing the NL, it'll be just one MVP and one Cy Young per year.

---

You could do the Players league

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

You could do the Players league

---

You know that the Player's League existed for one year, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You know that the Player's League existed for one year, correct?

---

Yes I do, but they still played, so you can do the awards for that one year.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Yes I do, but they still played, so you can do the awards for that one year.....

---

Are you also aware that there were a handful of other leagues as well, such as the American Association, which actually played for multiple years? The Player's League just seemed like a very odd choice to mention, given the other leagues in existence at the time. At any rate, I'm only doing the National League.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Are you also aware that there were a handful of other leagues as well, such as the American Association, which actually played for multiple years? The Player's League just seemed like a very odd choice to mention, given the other leagues in existence at the time. At any rate, I'm only doing the National League.

---

Yes, I am aware. Why do you always assume you know everything and we know nothing? I was just throwing it out there, you don't have to get so rude about it

Oh jeez, how was he rude about saying that? Let him do his own thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVEN11323

Oh jeez, how was he rude about saying that? Let him do his own thing.

---

He always acts so pompous, and like he knows everything, and then rubs it in everyone's face

You just read it that way, but I don't think he meant it that way. I didn't see anything wrong with the way he said it.

Anyway HGM, going back farther than 1901 seems a little extreme and if you do, I agree that doing only the NL, would be ideal.

HGM, I went through both of our picks. There were 432 awards total (4 awards per season, 108 seasons) and I agreed with you on 277 of those awards. That means I agreed with you about 64% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boomboom

You just read it that way, but I don't think he meant it that way. I didn't see anything wrong with the way he said it.

---

I didn't mean it in any way, and I'm sorry if it came out wrong. I just found it odd that of the pre-1901 non-NL leagues, you'd pick the Player's League to mention.

A couple notes before I start going back further - The game was very different back in the 19th century. Rules were different, and player use, particularly pitchers, were different. Yes, Hoss Radbourn pitched 75 games and 678.2 innings in 1884..but Pud Galvin pitched 72 games and 636 innings. Most teams had one main starting pitcher, which makes Hoss's efforts less valuable, which is why while he has the upper edge on the Cy Young award (I haven't looked closely yet), he very well may not be the MVP. It's going to be a lot harder for a pitcher to win an MVP back in his time, as the game was just so different.

1900:

MVP: Honus Wagner
Cy: Joe McGinnity

McGinnity had a 131 ERA+ in 343 innings, while Wagner had a 175 OPS+.

1899:

MVP: John McGraw
Cy: Vic Willis

John McGraw beats out Ed Delahanty, even when considering their difference in playing time (in favor of Delahanty). McGraw had a ridiculous .547 on-base percentage, and also stole more than 70 bases while playing excellent defense at the more important position of third base. The Hall of Merit over at BaseballThinkFactory, particularly Dan Rosenheck's work, has swayed me on McGraw, particularly his 1899 season.

Vic Willis beats out Cy Young, besting him in ERA+ and innings.

1898:

MVP: John McGraw
Cy: Kid Nichols

McGraw takes home his second consecutive MVP, and didn't suffer from playing time issues this season. Kid Nichols bests Clark Griffith despite an 18 point lead for the latter in ERA+, thanks to a 60 inning difference.

1897:

MVP: Willie Keeler
Cy: Kid Nichols

Keeler hit .424/.464/.539 and beats out Fred Clarke. Kid Nichols had a league-leading 170 ERA+ in 368 innings

1896:

MVP: Ed Delahanty
Cy: Kid Nichols

Delahanty led the league with a 190 OPS+, and second place Joe Kelley was at 164. Kid Nichols narrowly edges out Cy Young for the Cy award.

1895:

MVP: Ed Delahanty
Cy: Pink Hawley

Delahanty and his .500 OBP gets his second consecutive MVP. Pink Hawley pitched 444 innings (over 70 more than Cy Young) with a 143 ERA+ (11 below Young).

1894:

MVP: Hugh Duffy
Cy: Amos Rusie

This was the year that Hugh Duffy hit .440, a single season batting average record that still stands today, over 100 years later. Amos Rusie had a 189 ERA+ in 444 innings.

1893:

MVP: Ed Delahanty
Cy: Amos Rusie

Delahanty hit .368/.423/.583, placing second in OPS+ to Billy Hamilton, but with over 200 more plate appearances. Amos Rusie finished basically tied with Cy Young in ERA+ (144 to 145), while throwing 60 extra innings.

1892:

MVP: Dan Brouthers
Cy: Cy Young

Dan Brouthers had a 180 OPS+ while being solid in the field at first base. Cy Young dominated the league this year with a 176 ERA+ in 453 innings.

Will Cap Anson win the MVP anytime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Will Cap Anson win the MVP anytime?

---

Maybe? lol I haven't yet gotten to the peak of his career.

1891:

MVP: Billy Hamilton
Cy: Bill Hutchinson

Bill Hutchinson pitched 560 innings, 60 more than the second place guy, and roughly 140 more than Kid Nichols, the leader in ERA+. Hutchinson had a 125 OPS+, far behind Nichols' league-leading 152, but 140 innings is a massive difference. His lead in innings garnered him some MVP consideration, but just as Hutchinson dominated in innings, Billy Hamilton dominated the league in on-base percentage, the only player to finish above .400, and he was at .453. He also stole 111 bases and played good defense.

1890:

MVP: Bill Hutchinson
Cy: Bill Hutchinson

Hutchinson, again, dominated the league in innings. Billy Rhines posted a 184 ERA+, 50 above Hutchinson's mark of 134, but Hutchinson started 20 more games, and added some relief appearances. Without a standout position player, he also garnered the MVP award.

1889:

MVP: John Clarkson
Cy: John Clarkson

Try this on for size - John Clarkson led the league in ERA+ by 10 points, and led the league in innings by 200.

1888:

MVP: Roger Connor
Cy: Tim Keefe

The 1888 MVP was the hardest yet of the 19th century choices. I had 6 contenders - Roger Connor, Jimmy Ryan, Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, King Kelly, and Buck Ewing. After looking through a handful of information, I've concluded that Roger Connor was the most valuable player, with a 176 OPS+ in 134 games. As for the Cy Young, Tim Keefe led the league with a 156 ERA+ and pitched 434.1 innings.

1887:

MVP: John Clarkson
Cy: John Clarkson

His 1887 wasn't quite the huge degree of value he had in 1889, but it's up there. He placed 2nd in the league in ERA+, just two points behind the leader, and led the league by nearly 50 innings. Only Tim Keefe was particularly close in innings.

1886:

MVP: King Kelly
Cy: Lady Baldwin

Dan Brouthers led the league with a 206 OPS+, but Kelly wasn't far behind at 191. Kelly led him in on-base percentage, the more important of the two stats that make up OPS, while also playing half his games behind the plate and half in the outfield, compared to Brouthers position of first base. The positional difference gives Kelly the edge. Lady Baldwin had a 147 ERA+ in 487.2 innings, edging out Tim Keefe who had an innings advantage.

1885:

MVP: John Clarkson
Cy: John Clarkson

It's the third time that Clarkson's pulled off the feat of winning both awards. Oddly enough, he's done it in an "every-other-year" fashion in 1885, 1887, and 1889. As with the previous years, dominance in innings (not quite as much as 1889, but more than 1887) and a high level of excellence gives him both awards.

1884:

MVP: Charley Radbourn
Cy: Charley Radbourn

I doubted this in my statement prior to embarking on the 19th century, but it works out like this. I hadn't looked at anything besides his innings before making my previous statement, so I didn't see that he had a 205 ERA+ in those 670+ innings. Pud Galvin was relatively close to him in innings, but trailed him by 50 points in ERA+.

1883:

MVP: Dan Brouthers
Cy: Charley Radbourn

Dan Brouthers had a 187 OPS+ to lead the league, and only Roger Connor was particularly close at 171. Radbourn had another 600+ inning season, this time with a 152 ERA+, but he placed 2nd in innings.

1882:

MVP: Dan Brouthers
Cy: Jim McCormick

McCormick trailed Larry Corcoran and Charley Radbourn in ERA+ but had a huge advantage in innings, as he led the league by over 100. Dan Brouthers led the league in OPS+ again, a feat he accomplished 7 times in his career in the National League (and he also added one OPS+ title in the American Association).

1881:

MVP: Cap Anson
Cy: George Derby

Anson led the league with a 191 OPS+. Dan Brouthers was the only player within shouting distance of him at 179, but played 20 less games. George Derby had a 132 ERA+ and threw 494.2 innings.