Where Does Willi Castro Rank Among the Worst Team MVPs in Twins History?

Subjectivity in voting makes for some poor choices.

I am a little surprised not to see representation from the mid-90's.

Why did you choose WAR sole measure towards determining most valuable? Aren’t there things valuable to the team not measured in WAR? Could a reliever ever win?

Why Baseball Reference WAR over Fangraphs WAR? Wouldn’t it be better to at least report both?

Some bad teams in 2021 and 2022 , 

Polanco mvp in 2021 , Correa mvp in 2022  ...

Both deserving but man was it bad baseball   ...

38 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

What a mean spirited article. Sad.

And rather pointless, in my opinion.

I actually kind of understand the Reardon choice in '87.  

Those of us scarred by the memories of Ron Davis closing games in the years prior viewed Reardon as a bullpen savior.  No lead was safe for Davis, and he racked up a staggering number of losses and blown saves in the early-mid 80s.  By '87 Davis was gone and Reardon arrived, becoming an integral part of changing the Twins from perpetual losers to World Series winners.  He wasn't perfect, but most leads were safe in his hands.

What an awful and depressing article.  Come on can't you guys do any better than that?

His value goes beyond WAR.  His ability to shift from one position to another mid-game allowed us to put our best players on the field as the opposing pitchers changed.  

Considering most of our 'best' players only played a shortened season due to injuries, hard to see anyone but Castro or Santana being worthy from the position side of things.

We've had a lot of bad teams in the mid 70's through the early 80's when I had stopped watching them. There have to be worse ones in there.

Reardon over Viola and Power over Killebrew are picks that look really bad in hindsight.

Regarding Vic Power in 1962, I think that may say more about the writers than it does about Vic Power or Harmon.  Case in point:  This article, for all practical intents and purposes appears to use WAR as a barometer, and yet almost a dozen guys on the team had a higher WAR than Castro. Go figure.

1 hour ago, dxpavelka said:

Regarding Vic Power in 1962, I think that may say more about the writers than it does about Vic Power or Harmon.  Case in point:  This article, for all practical intents and purposes appears to use WAR as a barometer, and yet almost a dozen guys on the team had a higher WAR than Castro. Go figure.

The Fangraphs rankings were quite different but the author chose to ignore them.  There were 3 Twins (Correa/Buxton/Lopez) with higher fWAR.

I think Reardon was chosen in 1987 because their closer (Ron Davis) had been so bad the year before and Reardon stablized the bullpen.

I think the fact that Castro was able to stay in the field for a whole season is valuable in itself - it is the reason why he led the team in doubles and triples, along with his expected steals. He slumped at the back end of the season, as did nearly everyone else. Maybe the players' disheartened moods after the inactive trade deadline were contagious and contributed to the slumping. But I have no issue with Castro as team MVP. It's a statement on the condition of the rest of the team. It is very telling that he was the only Twins position player on the All Star roster.

Vic Power - that was a fun one to remember! I was a small kid, remembered him for being a vacuum cleaner with the glove taking errant infield throws. He was no Killebrew of course, but he sure did help the infielders.

(I meant to say "...no Killebrew at the plate...")

I would have appreciated this article had the headline been true, and/or had the Baseball-Reference WAR ranking method been clearly stated in the first part of the text. 

The Baseball-Reference WAR result is not the be-all and end-all determiner of overall value, especially with Fan Graphs having different opinions.

Perhaps the owners of the site need to make a rule that the bloggers can’t write about teams that existed before they were born. 

WAR as a criteria  for MVP. You can have the opinion that is the most important thing, perhaps it will be someday if there is ever any agreement on defensive metrics.   MVP is a baseball writers award,. The blogger seems oblivious to the rules that have been in place since the beginning.  From the writers association website 

The ballot states

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1.  Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2.  Number of games played.

3.  General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4.  Former winners are eligible.

5.  Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

That third criteria is the subjective portion. Stomp your foot and complain, thems the ru

22 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The Fangraphs rankings were quite different but the author chose to ignore them.  There were 3 Twins (Correa/Buxton/Lopez) with higher fWAR.

any one of whom would have been a better MVP choice.  But what do I know?