Biggest MVP snubs ever
 

One of the biggest snubs was in '47 when Ted Williams won the triple crown for the 2nd time, and had a WAR of 9.5 but finished 2nd to DiMaggio (who had his 56 game hitting streak) but only a WAR of 4.7.

Not only did Ted win the triple crown (.343, 32 HRs, 114 RBI), but he also led the league in runs (125), walks (162), OBP (a whopping .499), slugging (.634), OPS (1.133), OPS+ (205), total bases (343), while only striking out 47 times.

DiMaggio's slash line was only .315/.391/.522, only 20 HRs and 97 RBI.


Willie Mays got snubbed frequently--one of the more absurd ones was in 1964 when he led the league in HRs (47), slugging (.607), OPS (.990), and OPS+ (172), WAR (11) and won a Gold Glove, and finished in 6th place behind Ken Boyer, Johnny Callison, Bill White, Frank Robinson and Joe Torre.

I realize they didn't look at OPS and WAR back then, but come on, you don't need those stats to realize the greatness of Willie.

Any others that exasperate you?

Every single one given to a reliever. They simply do not play enough to be the most valuable player in the league, and it has been a complete joke every time it has happened.

Willie Hernandez finishing 1st (Quisenberry was 3rd) in 1984, Fingers in 1981, Eckersley in 1992, etc.

There's no real argument that any of these guys were the best player in their leagues that year.

Oh yeah.

Mattingly was royally screwed out of his back to back MVPs in 1986 by Roger Clemens. Clemens had a good year, he won 24 games and led the AL in ERA and WHIP, but Mattingly was a beast. Nobody in the league went to bat more than he did in 1986 and he led the league in hits, doubles, slugging, OPS, OPS+ and total bases while hitting 352 with 31 homers and 113 RBI's.

His 1986 season was even better than his 1985 season and he still lost out to Roger Clemens, who was actually outpitched by 2nd place Cy Young vote getter Teddy Higuera (9.4 WAR for Higuera to lead the league vs 8.8 for Clemens).

Higuera finished 15th in the MVP vote despite being the better pitcher and losing the Cy Young too.

If you're using WAR to knock Clemens, Clemens was 2nd in WAR and Mattingly was 5th that year. Doesn't seem like a robbery to me.

I used WAR to point out Clemens wasn't the best pitcher in the league but he won not only the Cy Young but also the MVP.

Gehrig not getting it in 1934 has to be the worst ever.

He won the Triple Crown.....and finished 5th in voting!

Maybe he wasn't the nice guy we all thought he was.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/a...rds_1934.shtml

Agreed. I think the Eckersley's win in '92 was particularly troublesome because not only was he not the best player (I think Kirby Puckett who had a 7.1 WAR was), but he wasn't even close to the best pitcher. Roger Clemens was 18-11 with a 2.41 ERA and a 1.074 WHIP and had a WAR of 8.7 compared to Eckersley's 2.9.

Yeah, that's atrocious. I think it's crazy that 3 guys on Detroit finished ahead of him (Cochrane won it, Gehringer, and Schoolboy Rowe), and he didn't even come in first on his own team (Lefty Gomez did). Gehrig slugged an insane .706 and his war was 10.1

I think back in the day, they really favored catchers like Cochrane for MVP. I mean Yogi Berra and Roy Campanella each winning 3? They were great players, but not always the best out there.

See the contradiction? I’d say Clemens was the best pitcher in the league that year. If we treat WAR as the arbiter, as you are here, then Mattingly doesn’t deserve the MVP either and Clemens was a better choice than him. By your standard here Higuera was robbed, not Mattingly who was 5th.

They did not like to do repeat winners in the early days, though Gehrig did end up getting a second. This is a big part of why guys like him and Ruth didn’t win every year. The approach was very different in the early 30’s and I think that should not be forgotten.

Uh no. When I compared Higuera to Clemens it was pitcher to pitcher. I don’t believe a pitcher should ever win MVP unless he does something incredible, which I don’t think Clemens did.

It’s also my opinion and I posted what I thought because it’s what I think. It’s not always an invitation for you to give your opinion on my own.

So WAR is to compare and rank only pitchers. Makes sense.

Sir, I do not think you understand how a message board works.

I compared two pitchers because they were both up for the Cy Young.

I don’t think you understand my opinions don’t need to pass your smell test. You aren’t the arbiter of anything, to use your phrasing.

But it is improper to compare 2 players up for the MVP using the same exact metric? Surely you can step back and see why that doesn’t make much sense.

Never claimed to be the arbiter. Your opinions do not need to pass my ‘smell test’. I am allowed to comment, just as you are and do. Try harder.

Under 10 posts in and we are already bickering.

Really had high hopes that this would be a bicker-free thread, but alas.

George Brett in 1985.

Brett . 335/.436/.585 OPS + 179
Mattingly .324/.371/.567 OPS + 156

Brett led his team to a 1st place finish. Brett also played a premium position on defense, providing positive value and winning a gold glove. Mattingly wasn't even the best player on the 2nd place Yankees. He drove in 145 runs because Rickey Henderson was always in scoring position ahead of him, .419 OBP 80 SB and 146 runs. Wade Boggs also had a better season and should have finished ahead of Mattingly.

Arod losing to Juan Gonzalez in 1996? Hornsby losing to Dazzy Vance the year he hit .424?

I was talking about the Cy Young. It’s an award that typically goes to the “best” pitcher. Statistically , Clemens wasn’t the best pitcher.

The V in MVP stands for value. It can’t be determined with one stat. I didn’t mention WAR in any context.

You’re the only one using WAR to determine who should win MVP.

Arod and others losing to Juan Gonzalez in 1998 as well. Juan must have been a great guy and pal to the voters.

In the mid 90s you could have just punched Juan Gonz' ticket to the Hall.

Downhill at age 31, steroid era, and WAR not liking him have really hurt. He was one of the most fun guys in the 90’s. I thought he was a shoe in as a fan at the time. Never punch the ticket until it’s over.

He was pretty vehement in his denials, but even his owner said he suspected him and believed Canseco.

He’s in ‘double trouble’ on it I think. If he is guilty, he’s out because only David Ortiz is exempt from that standard. If he didn’t do it, he isn’t in because he didn’t create as much value as some of the roiders. Fred McGriff, Carlos Delgado not even making it past 1 ballot, there’s a whole group of guys who would be considered or in if they didn’t play at the same time as the roiders, whether or not they are guilty themselves.

It still amazes me how well Jose Canseco’s accusations have aged.

1995. Mo Vaughn winning when he probably should have finished no higher than 4th or 5th. In my opinion Albert Belle should have won the MVP. Belle just wasn't popular with the press.

There are many great examples but I tend to agree that George Brett was the most deserving that Mattingly That Year

HOWEVER, I think that Ricky Henderson was more deserving that year.
He had .314/.419/.516 but he had 24 Home Runs, 72 RBI's, 146 Runs 80 Stolen Bases
But Brett and Donnie both put up great years so it is hard to argue with any of them

Yeah, I think Rickey deserved it with his 9.9 WAR and his 146 runs (in only 143 games), much of which was because of his 80 steals (and only 10 caught). Note that this was tied for his career high in WAR with the lone season he did win MVP (1990).

I think Wade Boggs would be my #2 in 1985 as he led the league in Avg .368 and OBP with .450 and his absurd 240 hits. His WAR of 9.1 was higher than Brett (8.3) and Mattingly (6.5). 1985 was arguably Boggs' best year.

Does anyone have a good source for highest single season WAR for a reliever? I'm curious how Eck's 1992 compared to others in the modern relief era (say, post '86). Obviously, the high IP "firemen" of the late 70' and early 80's had higher WAR seasons, but in the "closers throw one inning" era, is 2.9 especially good?

Can't believe it took 24 posts for someone to say this!!

A few top WAR seasons for relievers in the last 50 years. Not sure exactly which were closers throwing one inning years....

Goose Gossage 8.2 in 1975, 6.0 in 1977, 4.5 in 1982, 3.5 in 1983, 3.4 in 1980, 3.2 in 1978

Mark Eichorn 7.6 in 1986

Bruce Sutter 6.5 in 1977, 4.9 in 1979, 4.5 in 1984

Dan Quisenberry 5.5 in 1983, 4.2 in 1985, 3.3 in 1982 and 1984

Greg Minton 5.4 in 1982

Mariano Rivera 5.0 in 1996, 4.3 in 2008, 4.2 in 2004, 4.0 in 2005, 3.9 in 2006, 3.7 in 1997, 3.6 in both 2003 and 2009, 3.5 in 1999, 3.4 in 2001

Willie Hernandez 4.8 in 1984 (MVP)

Lee Smith 4.8 in 1983, 3.2 in 1986

Jeff Montgomery 4.6 in 1989, 4.4 in 1993

Keith Foulke 4.5 in 1999, 3.7 in 2001, 3.5 in 2003 and 2004, 3.0 in 2000

Mark Davis 4.4 in 1989, 3.1 in 1988

Bill Caudill 4.4 in 1982

bob James 4.3 in 1985

Rollie Fingers 4.2 in 1981 (MVP), 3.8 in 1976

John Wetteland 4.2 in 1993

Trevor Hoffman 4.1 in 1998, 3.9 in 1996, 3.1 in 1997

Roberto Hernandez 4.1 in 1996

Tom Gordon 4.0 in 2004, 3.0 in 2005

Byung-Hyun Kim 4.0 in 2002, 3.1 in 2001

Mike Marshall 4.0 in 1972, 3.1 in 1974, 3.0 in 1973 and 1978

J.J. Putz 4.0 in 2007

Joe Nathan 3.9 in 2004, 3.3 in 2006 and 2008, 3.2 in 2013, 3.0 in 2009

Jose Mesa 3.9 in 1995

Billy Wagner 3.8 in 1999, and 3.5 in 1990

Dave Righetti 3.8 in 1986, 3.3 in 1984

Jesse Orosco 3.8 in 1983

Brad Lidge 3.8 in 2004

Francisco Rodriguez 3.7 in 2006, 3.3 in 2004

Eric Gagne 3.7 in 2003

Craig Kimbrel 3.6 in 2017, 3.2 in 2012, 3.1 in 2013

Jeff Shaw 3.6 in 1997, 3.3 in 1996

Jeff Brantley 3.6 in 1990

Jeff Reardon 3.5 in 1982

Bobby Thigpen 3.5 in 1990

Tom Henke 3.4 in 1989, 3.3 in 1987, 3.0 in 1990

Armando Benítez 3.4 in 2004, 3.3 in 1999

Robb Nen 3.4 in 1998

Dennis Eckersley 3.3 in 1990, 2.9 in 1992 (MVP)

John Smoltz 3.3 in 2003

Al Holland 3.3 in 1983

Heath Bell 3.3 in 2007

Doug Jones 3.2 in 1988, 3.0 1997

Todd Worrell 3.2 in 1987

Randy Myers 3.1 in 1990 and 1997

Edwin Diaz 3.1 in 2018

So Dennis Eckersly's 2.9 during his MVP season doesn't really standout--it wasn't even his best WAR as relief pitcher.

The highest Mariano ever finished in MVP was 9th (2004 and 2005) and he never won a Cy Young.

Thanks Charles. I can see a closer winning Cy Young in a year without a standout starter (although there will almost surely be a starter who compiled more WAR than a reliever), but winning MVP when there are viable candidates does seem a bit odd.

Yeah, its been a while since a reliever won a Cy Young--Eric Gagne back in 2003--and there have only been 9 Cy Youngs in total for relief pitchers.

Who knows, maybe if Sandy Alcantrana and a few other starters shit the bed down the stretch they'll give it to Edwin Diaz in the NL this year. Highly unlikely though

Gossage put up some insane numbers in the 6 range if I recall

I agree with you for the most part, however Doctor Mike Marshall and Rivera may have been exceptions...


Probably the biggest snubs would be those who played at a time when nobody was allowed to win more than one MVP (how stupid)...the Babe definitely comes to mind.

.

There has always been the debate on whether Most Valuable Player meant best player. Sometimes it's easy when the best player is on the most successful team. Either way, it's up to the individual voters definition. It always cranked me when one would say something like they didn't vote for X because "His team didn't make the playoffs", when X had a better year and his team wouldn't have even sniffed the playoffs without X.

Neither one won an MVP, though a reliever who throws over 200 innings I wouldn't have such a problem with as I do guys like Willie Hernandez.

Jeter losing in '06 to Justin Morneau

Slightly different MVP award but Gary Carter should have won the 1986 WS MVP and it shouldn’t have been particularly close. Hats off to Ray Knight but the Kid was robbed.

Gary Carter may have been robbed of the '82 NL MVP too. He won the Gold Gold and Silver Slugger award with a .293 BA, slugged .510 (6th best) with 29 home runs (7th best) and led the League in WAR with 8.6. Yet he finished 12th in the vote.

The second highest WAR belonged to Andre Dawson (7.9) and he finished all the way back at 21st in the voting.

Dale Murphy won the MVP--he had a great year--36 HRs, and a league leading 109 RBI, but his WAR was only 6.1.

I’m convinced. Nicely done.

Sadly I do not believe Gary Carter was robbed of the NL MVP award. And you cannot only use WAR as the Stat. Dale had a great year as did Carter.
For 1 Gary Carter place 12th in voting (not 2 or 3 and not close)
Dale Murphy got 14 First place votes and Carter got 0.
Dale Murphy 36 HR, 109 RBI, and 113 Runs
Gary Carter 29 HR , 97 RBI , and 91 Runs

So hard to accept he got robbed when Dale had better stats, more 1st place voted (to no first place votes) and 11 other players were deemed more valuable that year than him

I hear you but remember Carter did that from the catching position. When your team has a catcher that can hit like that he can be much more valuable than an outfielder with similar stats. Catchers are much harder to come by. Just ask the 2022 Mets.

i am not disputing the importance of a catching position but if 11 other players that year are all voted ahead of him by the "voters" of that time. They do not feel he was the #1 or #11. and they do not feel his importance of his position over shadowed those 11 others and the vote was not even close

It's close for sure, but I don't think you can say Dale had better stats. Yes, he had more Home Runs, RBI and runs, but he had a lower batting average and lower slugging, lower OBP, and OPS. And its not every day a catcher wins the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger in the same year.

And I don't think you can look at who had the most first place votes to determine who deserved MVP. As this thread has shown, the voters don't always vote for the best or most valuable player.

That’s why they’re snubs and why the thread exists. :) For whatever reason the voters sometimes don’t like someone. Carter was not a negative personality by any means but I think he rubbed people the wrong way. I named my handle after him so I am biased here.

Murphy.281 vs Carter .293 batting average really close
Murphy .507 Carter vs .510 slugging real close

not enough of a difference to account for 11 people ahead of him.

Carter was well liked and respected so even if he was snubbed by some hard for me to believe he would be snubbed by all.

He was a deserving player like many of the others he just did not win it. Not sure how the voters of the day use position, team record, etc in there factoring.

But again we can agree to disagree and this is the beauty of this thread and forum

and I am a Carter Fan and I am a Met fan I was just looking at the numbers for stats, the number of players in the voting and in their positioning.

But in this case, even your hometown writers didn't vote you #1. :eek:

Guy was buried on the Expos. I happen to love Expos history but they lacked the national attention other teams received. If Carter had that kind of a season on the Yankees probably would have gotten AL MVP and immediate induction into Cooperstown.

That I cannot disagree with. As I mentioned I/We do not know the external factors in the voting and a small market team could be a disadvantage in the voting. Also having other worthy team mates can also dilute support for Gary Carter(Andrea Dawson was on the team and he batted .301 with 23 HR, 107 runs, 83 RBI and even stole 39 bases)

Another big factor for Dale might be TBS. Owned by Ted Turner all the Braves games were broadcast on that station while other games of your local team were not always. So the Braves and Murphy had National Exposure more than other players.

Regardless many worthy candidates but Dale Won.

Biggest MVP Snub
 

It is interesting no one has posted about Andre Dawson winning in 1987 for the last place Cubs. Cardinals won the East and the Giants won the West. The Mets and Expos each won over 90 games. Ozzie Smith or Will Clark not worthy candidates. From the voting it looks like Smith lost some votes to Jack Clark from his own team.

X won the MVP
Y did not win the MVP
X deserves the MVP over Y because he finished much higher in the vote.

The supposition is illogical, unless we conclude that the MVP voters are infallible. If rank in the MVP determines who actually deserved the MVP, every MVP vote has been correct and every single finish has always been in the correct order or close to the correct order. If we acknowledge that this is not the case, then the fact that X finished Z slots over Y is irrelevant.

Whether a player finished 1st, 12th, or 117th doesn’t logically matter because the question is who deserves the MVP, not who actually won.


I would pick Carter over Murphy that year, but I do not see any robbery here. Schmidt had a good case that year too.

That didn't hurt his teammate Al Oliver who finished 3rd in MVP voting. It was more likely that the voters under valued defense. Oliver was the better offensive player, but a stiff on defense, while Carter was a gold glove winning catcher.

very good point. Some how I forgot about Al Oliver.

Sorry to bump my own thread, but we were talking about Steve Garvey in a thread on the front page, and I was looking at his MVP year in '74.

Garvey wasn’t even the best player on his team—that would be Jim Wynn.
More than a dozen players deserved the award more than Garvey, but none as much as Mike Schmidt.

Garvey's slash line: .312/.342/.469 with an OPS of .811 and an OPS+ of 130.
Garvey had 21 HRs and 111 RBIs.

Schmidt's slash line: .282/.395/.546 w/ an OPS of .941 and an OPS+ of 158.
Schmidt led the League in HRs with 36 as well as slugging.

Schmidt even stole 23 bases to Garvey's 5.

Schmidt was an outstanding fielder at third base, and Garvey, despite winning a Gold Glove, was a below average fielder at first base.

Schmidt's league leading WAR of 9.8 was more than double Garvey's 4.4.

And Schmidt came in 6th place in MVP voting.

I think I remember reading that Commissioner Ford Frick was so disturbed over the 1952 NL MVP voting, he worked towards creating the Cy Young Award. I am sure the Cubs would have been nothing were it not for their slugger, Hank Sauer. Be that as it may, the Phillies' great iron man, Robin Roberts, went 28-7 with the fourth place Phils.

Another snub was the 1969 National League MVP voting. I like Willie McCovey, who had a great season. Regardless, second place vote getter Tom Seaver had a brilliant season, and without Tom, the Mets would have been nothing. He was the player his teammates constantly looked to for confidence, inspiration, and leadership. Not taking anything away from Manager Hodges, but as far as the Met players go, their go-to teammate was Seaver.

What does it matter now, the voting occurred late in '69. There might have been some jealousy amongst the writers about all the adulation, attention, and glamour that was coming Seaver's way, what with his gorgeous loving wife, Nancy. --- Brian Powell

Point taken on Schmidt being the better player. That's a given I think.

Aside from the fact OPS+ and WAR were long from springing into existence to assess players on, I've gotta dispute the "Below Average Fielder at 1st Base" statement.

I'm not a Garvey mark by any means, but Garvey was 1st in the league in Range Factor and 2nd in the league in Fielding% at 1st Base. I'm not sure what else he's supposed to do to appease the WAR Gods.

It still kind of blows my mind that DH's get more of a benefit of the doubt in regards to Defensive WAR then 1st Basemen. A defensively average 1st Baseman who plays the field everyday is seen as a less valuable commodity defensively than a DH by the WAR metric.

The only defensive position on the field that sees more action than the 1st baseman is the Catcher. Yankees were blessed with a string of fantastic defensive 1st basemen in Don Mattingly, Tino Martinez and Mark Teixeira.

However between Martinez and Teixeira we were cursed with Jason Giambi. An Offensive juggernaut and an OBP god in his prime, but an absolute goofball at 1st base. When they couldn't push him into the DH hole, which was often, since the Yankees have always loved to employ multiple DH types every year, the entire infields morale would take a hit.

From the eye test anyways, it seems obvious to me, that an excellent 1st Baseman takes a lot of pressure off the rest of the infield.

The Dodgers won 102 games in 1974 and in those days, I think it was more likely for a player on a division winning team to be voted MVP even if someone else had better stats but was on a team that missed the playoffs.

Then it should have been Jim Wynn.

The AL was also a bad choice in 1974, there were numerous guys better than Jeff Burroughs that year, ignoring new analytics that determine this and just using the stats of that time.

RBI's were a much bigger deal then, then they are now...and he led the league in that category by quite a bit.

Doesn't explain why Johnny Bench didn't win it that year in the NL, but I think that, in combination with Texas surprisingly successful season, and the lack of defensive metrics (which kills Burroughs in the modern era), had a lot to do with him winning it that year.

Garvey led Wynn in hits and batting average by a lot and RBIs by 3 in 1974. Wynn had 11 more home runs and 9 more runs scored. Garvey was also a gold glove winner that year so he was considered to be a good fielder (apparently still up for debate now). Those were the stats considered most important back then. People weren't looking at OBP and OPS or other advanced metrics. Based on those stats, it's not surprising Garvey won the MVP over Wynn.

Okay, but I am not sure the purpose of this thread is to make excuses for poor decisions/reconstruct the reasons for the poor decisions, that occurred back in the day. I am not at all surprised Garvey won the MVP (for all the reasons you have provided and more), I am just saying he didn't deserve to win the MVP for a variety of reasons.

Yes, it was often customary to hand over the MVP to a player on a team that won a lot of games and had a lot of hits. But that doesn't make it the right decision.

There's always a reason, but it isn't a good reason. Carew, Dick Allen, there are several better choices that don't use modern analytics to make their case and were better with the traditional stats.

It is an opinion. Some people value batting average and RBI more than OBP especially for a middle of the lineup guy. The team that wins is the one that scores the most runs, not the one that gets the most runners on base, or has the highest OPS+ or WAR. At some point, real production should trump theoretical stats.

Of course, but I'll come up with reasons anyways. :D

Dick Allen missed a boatload of games for a 4th place team, likely didn't even pass the eye test defensively by that point in his career at 1st Base, and was also busy cementing his bad boy status by then.

Carew. It has almost always been very hard for high average, low power guys like him, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, etc...to get MVP votes. Even when he did win the award in 1977, Al Cowens somehow got within sniffing distance of him in the voting, even though Carew batted .388, while playing almost every game that year, and dominating in several other non-power categories for the season.

I think it could also be argued, that the team that scores the most runs, almost always, ALSO got the most runners on base, and has the highest OPS+ and WAR rates for their players.....or close to it, at least.

Okay, but I am not just talking about "theoretical stats." Mike Schmidt led the League in HRs (15 more than Garvey) and had more RBIs and Runs than Steve Garvey. Just because LA won a lot of games, doesn't mean you should just hand the trophy over to Garvey when you have Jim Wynn on their team. Let's not forget that LA also had the Cy Young winner and 2 of the other top 4 Cy Young winners on the team. So its not like Garvey was a one-man show.

The Reds finished 4 games behind the Dodges for 2nd in the NL West. You could have easily given the MVP award to Johnny Bench, who had one of the best years of his career, with 33 HRs and a league leading 129 RBIs, while playing a Gold Glove catcher.

Are you seriously arguing that Steve Garvey deserved the MVP in '74?

Garvey did not lead the league in a single offensive category in 1974. It’s not hypothetical stats that show this was a bad call. There’s not a single stat that supports the choice.

Agreed. Vote just shows that, as someone pointed out, there used to be a huge emphasis on whether the player was on a division winning team. Dodgers won their division and Phils were 8 games back. Doesn’t help that Schmidt was a relatively new name in 1974. But yeah, by just about any metric, he was better.

Two of the least deserving MVPs ever have to be Roger Peckinpaugh in 1925 and Marty Marion in 1944.

Yes, they both played a valuable position in shortstop, and both played for pennant winners, but their hitting was abysmal, and neither was the best player on their team.

Peckinpaugh's slash line was .294/.367/.379 with 4 HRs and 64 RBIs. His OPS+ was 91 and WAR was a measly 2.7. Amazingly, he only appeared in 126 games. About 20 people deserved the MVP more than he did. Certainly Harry Heilmann and Al Simmons were more deserving. Heilmann's slash line was .393/.457/.569 with 13 HRs, 134 RBIs and an OPS+ of 161. Simmons' slashed .387/.419/.599 with 24 HRs, 129 RBIs and OPS+ of 149. Also, Simmons had more than twice as many hits with his leading 253 to Peckinpaugh's paltry 124 hits.

Marty Marion's slash line in 1944 was .267/.324/.362 with 6 HRs, 63 RBIs and an OPS+ of 90. His teammate, a guy named Stan Musial slashed .347/.440/.549 with 12 HRs and 94 RBIs. Musial had a League leading 197 hits to Marion's 135 and had an OPS+ of 174. Yet Musial finished 4th in the voting.

Apparently it was customary to just hand over the MVP to the shortstop of the pennant winner, regardless how awful he was at hitting.

An issue I have always thought about was 1979 when there was not one...but two....MVPs. (Hernandez and Stargell).
The 'M' in MVP is for MOST.
How do you have two MOSTS?

Was just looking at 1984, and I think even the runner-up was even questionable with Hrbek getting second place. Eddie Murray and Mattingly had great seasons in 84 but finished 4th and 5th in the voting.

George Brett should have been a 3 time MVP. He deserved the award in 76 and 85. Munson got it in 76 and Mattingly in 85. Mattingly should have won in 86.

Jack Clark should have been the MVP hands down. He missed time due to an injury and that cost him. He was the main reason the Cardinals won that year. That and Doc Gooden's drug problem and the injuries to the Mets' pitching staff.