Was Cal Ripken Ever Underrated?

MVP votes are always interesting, whether they make sense or not.  Looking at the MVP races this year, my current guesses are Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols, but who knows?  Psychological questions also matter, because these are voted on by particular groups of writers.  I would like to highlight one especially strange example of MVP voting, the AL MVP of 1984.

Going into 1984, Cal Ripken, Jr. was the defending AL MVP and his Baltimore Orioles were the defending World Series champs. Clearly Ripken was regarded as one of the very best players in baseball. When the 1984 season ended, though, Willie Hernandez won the AL MVP, while Ripken came in a paltry 27th. What happened?

First, Ripken’s performance did not fall off. Ripken came in 3rd in the AL in total bases, 9th in batting average, 4th in doubles, and 6th in OPS. In terms of fielding, Ripken led all AL shortstops in putouts, assists, total zone runs, and range factor. To combine fielding and batting, Ripken led all AL players in WAR with 9.2, 1.5 more than second place Dave Stieb. Clearly, Ripken’s performance was not the issue. That leads to psychology.

Willie Hernandez won the MVP as the star reliever of the World Series winning Detroit Tigers. Any MVP won by a reliever is a little strange. Hernandez threw only 140.1 innings, which will of necessity limit his ability to accumulate WAR. Yet he blew past Ripken and everyone else to win the award. Why did he win?

Here, I think we are at the limits of empiricism. We can demonstrate that Ripken had an excellent year, and I think we can demonstrate conclusively that Ripken had a better year than Hernandez. We can also prove that the Tigers, as a team, were better than the Orioles, 104 wins to 85. We can infer, I think, that Hernandez got two psychological bonuses from voters, one for being on a dominant team and the second for blowing only one save in the entire year. Then we hit a wall: Why did the voters ignore Ripken?

Sadly, that question I cannot answer. He lost the Gold Glove to Alan Trammell, who did have as distinguished a defensive season by any measure. He was ignored by MVP voters, despite having an outstanding year. Eddie Murray finished 4th in the voting, so the voters did not simply punish Oriole players for the team’s dropoff. For some reason that I cannot begin to explain, Ripken was ignored in 1984. I don’t know why. Hernandez strikes me as a weak MVP pick, to say the least, but Ripken coming in 27th while leading the league in WAR I find one of the strangest moments in MVP balloting history.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Baseball

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

6 Comments on “Was Cal Ripken Ever Underrated?”

  1. verdun2 Says:

    Welcome back.
    Let me start with the obvious observation that in 1984 WAR meant what happened when two states got crossways with each other, not baseball. So nobody knew Ripken led the league in the stat.

    I agree that Hernandez won the MVP because he was a major factor in a team that absolutely dominated the AL. Take a look at the team and it’s difficult to find a superior hitter for the voters to focus on, so a pitcher becomes an obvious. On the other hand Ripken dropping to 27th makes no sense at all.
    v

    • sportsphd Says:

      Happy to be back. Certainly WAR was unknown, but I find Ripken’s drop truly stunning. Hernandez I get, even if I think he was a poor pick. Ripken I can’t even fathom.

  2. Bill Miller Says:

    Welcome Back. I don’t pretend to have the definitive answer to this question, but I can speculate. Here goes:
    1) In the ’80’s, RBI’s were taken very seriously as a stat for hitters. Ripkin managed “only” 86 RBI’s, 24 fewer than his teammate Murray. A middle-of-the-lineup slugger driving in just 86 RBI’s back then definitely looked like a mediocre campaign.
    2) The “Save” stat suddenly became sexy around that time. Baseball people who “knew better” began to regard closers as baseball’s secret weapons. Thus, Steve Bedrosian and Mark Davis would also win Cy Young awards in the ’80’s.
    3) The Orioles just plain sucked in ’84, finishing 5th in the A.L. East. Anyone playing on a team that bad would have to have a phenomenal season just to get noticed. Ripkin, based on the traditional counting stats of the time (Homers, RBI’s, B.A., Hits) was viewed as having a good, but not a great season.
    Those are about all the reasons I can come up with. Interesting topic, Bill

  3. Bill Miller Says:

    O.K.,It was a little strong to say Baltimore sucked in ’84, as they did when over 80 games. But going from W.S. Champions to 5th place in one year is a pretty steep drop.

  4. Bill Miller Says:

    I meant “win”, not “when.” Amazing how distracting a three-year old boy can be in the background when you’re trying to think and type at the same time.
    Now I’ll shut up.

  5. Sportsphd Says:

    I agree with you about the role of RBI in the 1980’s. 1984 had weird standings. The Orioles finish fifth in the East, but they win 85 games, more than the West-winning Royals.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: