PDA

View Full Version : How did Michey Cochrane beat out Lou Gehrig for MVP in 1934?



vigilantex69
01-29-2009, 09:43 PM
Ok, I know nobody posting on here would have been alive when this happened. Probably only a few of us would have had parents that were even alive when this happened. I was just looking at old baseball stats and I happened to come across Lou Gehrig. In 1934 he had an AVG of 363 with 49HRs and 165 RBIS! Yet he finished FIFTH in MVP voting behind some guy named Mickey Cochrane who won the award! Cochrane won it with 2 HR's 78 RBis and a 320 AVG. Am I missing something here? I'm just lost it says Cochrane won it in 1928 as well. I don't know THAT much about 1930's old baseball as most people probably don't but how on Earth could that have happened? If you look at Lou Gehrig's stats, there is NO DOUBT that he is the single greatest statistical hitter in baseball history. I know things have changed alot but MY GOD! SOMEBODY JUST LOOK AT HIS STATS!! The guy git 46 HR's and 184 RBIS in 1931 and he didnt even win the MVP award then either!!! Crazy stuff!

Towelie
01-29-2009, 09:47 PM
Wiki

In 1934, Connie Mack started to disassemble his dynasty for financial reasons and sold Cochrane to the Detroit Tigers, who made him player-manager. Cochrane led the Tigers to the World Series in 1934 and 1935.

drdirt
01-29-2009, 09:50 PM
:faint: that was one hell of a year! think of the $ he'd be makin these days.

Towelie
01-29-2009, 09:51 PM
Cochrane was selected American League MVP twice, in 1928 and 1934, primarily on his leadership abilities, which one writer has characterized as being “measured as easily as the distance to Oz.” On the field, Cochrane had a certain inspiration that infected other players to do their best. Cochrane never played on a team that finished in less than third place.

northsider
01-29-2009, 09:52 PM
The years before and beyond that were out of this world as well.

vigilantex69
01-29-2009, 09:54 PM
Interesting. I guess managers could get the MVP award then? I just thought it was strange because he got like 450 AB's so he couldn't have been managing that much.

whitesoxfan83
01-29-2009, 10:08 PM
if u want to keep it current, miguel tejada had no business getting the mvp over AROD in 2002.

Tejada

.308/.354/.508/.862

AROD

.300/.392/.623/1.015

:confused:

vigilantex69
01-29-2009, 10:26 PM
Yea but at least they had similar stats.

Maine's the man
01-30-2009, 02:50 AM
It is crazy... makes you think twice about how they decide the MVP now. Ill remember this story every year when the inevitable "how did this guy win the mvp over that guy?" post

bagwell368
01-30-2009, 09:15 AM
Mickey Cochrane was not just some guy. He is one of the 4-5-6 best catchers of all time. He had the best arm of his day, and was a great hitter.

Cochrane actually had six years better with the bat then the two years he won.

In those days the writers liked to spread the award around. Foxx in '32 and '33 was the first guy to win back to backs. Another unwritten rule is that nobody should get more then 3 - Gehrig got 2 - so that doesn't quite explain it. But latter - Ted, Mantle, Mays, Musial never jumped over 3 - although all of them deserved between six and nine. It is only with Bonds that the writers jumped over the invisible line of 3.

Injustices (keep in mind my comments below are within each season and each league - obviously Pedroia in '08 is no match for Pujols):

2 of Berra's 3 MVP should have been Mantle's.

Zolio Versalles in '65 for Twins - joke
Maury Wills in '62 Dodgers - joke
Dick Groat in '60 Pirates - joke
Hank Sauer in '52 Cubs - joke
Mo vaughn '95 RS - not over Belle he wasn't
Ichiro - '01 - novelty pick
Tejada - '02 - big RBI's, not the right pick
Rollins - '07 - give me a break - terrible choice

ThunderRoad75
01-30-2009, 09:35 AM
also micky mattle was name after micky cochrane..mantles father was a huge fan of micky cochrane

viktor06
01-30-2009, 09:40 AM
They gave it to the best player of the WS winning team I guess

bagwell368
01-30-2009, 09:50 AM
also micky mattle was name after micky cochrane..mantles father was a huge fan of micky cochrane

Right! I knew that. I had one of those paperback hero worship books on players as a kid. What was it? The Commerce Comet. Thanks.

bagwell368
01-30-2009, 09:52 AM
They gave it to the best player of the WS winning team I guess

Well that is the common wisdom but I believe more then half the guys I named didn't come from any WS winners. Plus the vote is supposed to come before the playoffs.

Matt-the-great
01-30-2009, 10:07 AM
the award should still give consideration to exceptional leaders, and not just the most popular or best stat guy

BoognishMN
01-30-2009, 10:32 AM
MVP, Most Valuable Player. I have no context to this event since I never saw either play but, it is different than a silver slugger or simaler award that uses stats only. There could have been something intangible that your missing that did not show up in the stat sheet. Its possible he was clutch or had a hot month to clinch the pennant.

Nighthawk
01-30-2009, 10:43 AM
Maybe back in the day they used the MVP for what it meant.....MOST VALUABLE! Just because you hit a gazillion homers and drove in tons of runs doesnt mean you were your teams most valuable player. However ill just stop trying to guess and take bagwells word for it. :D

bagwell368
01-30-2009, 10:44 AM
MVP, Most Valuable Player. I have no context to this event since I never saw either play but, it is different than a silver slugger or simaler award that uses stats only. There could have been something intangible that your missing that did not show up in the stat sheet. Its possible he was clutch or had a hot month to clinch the pennant.

Sure, I think Cochrane was immensely respected in his time. I was getting more to guys like Sauer and Versalles who were brutal choices and no amount of intangibles could change that. Belle's unpopularity lost him at least two MVP's. Pedroia pulls that year off when AROD is hitting 56, forget it. Very subject to change that is for sure.

leiasgoldbikini
01-30-2009, 11:45 AM
DiMaggio winning in 1941 is a joke. Nice year, but the MVP belonged to Ted.

Adalbjorg
01-30-2009, 05:11 PM
Ok, I know nobody posting on here would have been alive when this happened. Probably only a few of us would have had parents that were even alive when this happened. I was just looking at old baseball stats and I happened to come across Lou Gehrig. In 1934 he had an AVG of 363 with 49HRs and 165 RBIS! Yet he finished FIFTH in MVP voting behind some guy named Mickey Cochrane who won the award! Cochrane won it with 2 HR's 78 RBis and a 320 AVG. Am I missing something here? I'm just lost it says Cochrane won it in 1928 as well. I don't know THAT much about 1930's old baseball as most people probably don't but how on Earth could that have happened? If you look at Lou Gehrig's stats, there is NO DOUBT that he is the single greatest statistical hitter in baseball history. I know things have changed alot but MY GOD! SOMEBODY JUST LOOK AT HIS STATS!! The guy git 46 HR's and 184 RBIS in 1931 and he didnt even win the MVP award then either!!! Crazy stuff!

A better question is how the hell did Ted Williams win the Triple Crown twice and not win MVP in either year? Talk about New York bias!

AllKohn
01-30-2009, 05:28 PM
Some guy named Mickey Cochrane........this is why I hate fantasy sports. They make any loser with a computer think they understand the sport.

Cochrane was probably one of the most influential players ever.

As for the how could Tejada win over A-rod in 2002...it's called heart. Also helping your team make the playoffs and winning 21 straight.

The only MVP award I have seen that was outright rediculious was the one given to Barry Larkin in 1995

Gup
01-30-2009, 06:24 PM
the award should still give consideration to exceptional leaders, and not just the most popular or best stat guy

i agree:clap:

leiasgoldbikini
01-30-2009, 06:29 PM
the award should still give consideration to exceptional leaders, and not just the most popular or best stat guy

I would let something like this be the determining factor between a group of players that all had dominant statistical years. But I wouldn't let a player that had just a good season be considered because someone can tag him as a "good leader".