1941 mvp

[yankeebiscuitfan]

We all know that Ted Williams came short 37 votes in the 1941 MVP voting, to lose it to Joe DiMaggio.

DiMaggio had his 56 game hitting streak in that season. He also had 125 RBI and 30 homeruns.

Williams on the other hand hit .406 for the season, had 120 RBI and 37 homeruns.
Besides that, Williams didn't chicken out on the last day of the season. He played the double header vs the Philadelphia Athletics.

This discussion is going on since the 1941 season, but do you think DiMaggio was the rightfull winner of the MVP title or do you think that Ted Williams had deserved it?

IMO this is a tough call. Both had accomplished some very rare feats in that season and their HR and RBI stats were quite similar.

I am curious about you opinions.

[Mudge]

I have always felt that Williams deserved the MVP in 1941, but I understand why DiMaggio won it.

DiMaggio's streak was impressive, no doubt, though perhaps mitigated a bit by some generous official scoring decisions (but that works both ways -- perhaps Williams got a few of them too)

Looking only at the numbers, for the most part they are fairly close.

WILLIAMS: 606 PA, 186 H, 33 doubles, 3 triples, 37 HR, 147 BB, 27 K, 335 TB, 11.3 WAR (11.6 oWAR, -0.3 dWAR)
DIMAGGIO: 621 PA, 193 H, 43 doubles, 11 triples, 30 HR, 76 BB, 13 K, 348 TB, 9.4 WAR (8.6 oWAR, 0.8 dWAR)

What skews everything are Williams' walks. That's why he ends up with a 234 OPS+ as opposed to DiMaggio's 184.

Keep in mind that the Yankees finished first and the Red Sox finished 2nd. That always matters in the MVP voting.

[yankeebiscuitfan]

Why would the number of walks he got be a bad thing? A pitcher must throw four balls to give up a free pass. That is a bigger burden for his arm than a hit or a strikeout. It is about getting on base no matter if that is because of a basehit or a walk. Just my two cents.

[Mudge]

Why would the number of walks he got be a bad thing? A pitcher must throw four balls to give up a free pass. That is a bigger burden for his arm than a hit or a strikeout. It is about getting on base no matter if that is because of a basehit or a walk. Just my two cents.

It is not a bad thing, but I bet walks were not considered (by baseball people) as "manly" as a hit back then.

[Scoobean]

A 56 game hitting streak is pretty damn impressive, but the rest of Joe's numbers although close fall a little short of Ted Williams. William who hit over .400 in my opinion is more impressive then a 56 game hitting streak as it is something accomplished throughout the entire season. Ted also had 1 more RBI and 7 more HR's then Joe. In my opinion the MVP should have went to Ted Williams.

[RickD]

Williams hitting .406 looks better with time and distance but at the time, hitting .406 was huge but 34 players had hit .400 or better prior to Williams. Williams .406 was not the highest end of season BA whereas DiMaggio's hit streak IS the record.

IMO setting the record deserves MVP status for a season. If Williams had ended higher than Hugh Duffy's .440 I could see maybe looking at him for MVP.

Both records are impressive but IMO DiMaggio got what he deserves.

[Old Sweater]

Both had great numbers deserving of the MVP in 41, but IMO, you switch Williams to being the media darling, of the two, and he wins it by a more lopsided vote. Also IMO, the media liked DiMaggio so much better then Williams, you could have switched their stats, straight across the board, and DiMaggio would have still won the MVP.

[yankeebiscuitfan]

Both had great numbers deserving of the MVP in 41, but IMO, you switch Williams to being the media darling, of the two, and he wins it by a more lopsided vote. Also IMO, the media liked DiMaggio so much better then Williams, you could have switched their stats, straight across the board, and DiMaggio would have still won the MVP.

So in other words: Like the ASG it is a kind of popularity contest. Sure there are players that deserve it, but when one is liked more than the other, even if his stats are less good, he wins it.

Not good....

[Old Sweater]

So in other words: Like the ASG it is a kind of popularity contest. Sure there are players that deserve it, but when one is liked more than the other, even if his stats are less good, he wins it.

Not good....

Yep, but that is the way the world has always worked.

[Mudge]

And one of the things that the Yankees (possibly by virtue of being in PR savvy New York) learned well was that public relations and marketing are crucial to the development of a loyal fan base.

Joe DiMaggio was a media darling (I mean for crying out loud, the guy married Marilyn Monroe -- talk about media coverage), and he was heads and tails above Ted Williams in that regard, but it's virtually impossible to cut through what was marketed (by whomever) and what was the truth.

[The National Limited]

I read the other day that at the same time Dimaggio had the hitting streak, Williams had a run of even more consecutive games where he got on base in every game. I can't remember the exact number, but it was higher than Joe's 56 games getting a hit.

[Mudge]

The Williams streak actually occurred in 1949.

No doubt (in my mind) that Williams' streak was more impressive. But the Yankee PR machine was far more sophisticated than the Boston one at the time, and with good reason: New York and Boston were, and are, very different places. So, DiMaggio's streak was far more vigorously and effectively promoted. Add to it, Joe DiMaggio was the PR poster boy of the graceful, urbane and malleable ballplayer; Williams was the cranky, loner perfectionist. This was also an era when taking a walk (as Williams did often) was looked upon as unmanly. Now, of course, it is the centerpiece of a good offensive lineup (see the current Red SOx and Yankees).

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201107/does-ted-williams-own-more-impressive-streak-joe-dimaggio