1952: The Year Robbie was Robbed of the MVP Award

As young kids we often rail against injustice crying, "That's not fair!" at anyone who will listen. As adults we learn that, yes, injustice is all around us, that life really isn't fair, and that we must pick our battles and fight injustice for issues of major importance. There is at least one of those minor injustices that I still cannot let go, however. I cannot understand how the Phillies great righthanded pitcher, Robin Roberts, was denied baseball’s Most Valuable Player trophy in 1952. 

First some background. This was back in the day before the Cy Young Award for best pitcher was instituted in 1956. Lacking a specific award for pitchers, the baseball writers often awarded the MVP to pitchers. In fact, Roberts' teammate Jim Konstanty had won it in 1950 and the Philadelphia Athletics great lefty Bobby Schantz won the American League MVP in that same year of 1952 with a 24-7 record. 

By 1952, Roberts had established himself as the premiere righthanded pitcher in baseball. He was a rookie in 1948, and then pitched the Phillies to the pennant in 1950, when he went 20-11 and beat the Brooklyn Dodgers on the last day of the season to send the Phillies to the World Series. He backed that up with a 21-15 record as the Phillies fell to fifth place in 1951. 

In 1952, Roberts' performance was off the charts. It was the finest performance by a National League pitcher since Dizzy Deam won 28 in 1935. Roberts was dominant. His record was 28-7, with a 2.59 ERA. In his last 23 starts, he went 21-2 and both those losses came when the Phillies were shut out. He led the league in complete games with 30 and innings pitched with 330. He walked just 45 and struck out 148. He even worked two games in relief and recorded two (retroactive) saves. 

All this was not good enough to get Roberts the MVP award. The Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) chose to give the award to Chicago Cubs left fielder, Hank Sauer. Sauer had had a very good season. He led the league with 37 home runs and 121 RBIs. He hit .270 for a Cubs team that finished 77-77 in fifth place. However, he ended the season in a prolonged slump, hitting just three home runs and driving in just nine runs in his last 30 games.

Under the rules in effect at the time, 24 baseball beat writers had votes. They could name 10 players on their ballots. A descending number of points were awarded for first through tenth place positions on the ballot. Sauer got 226 points, Roberts 211, and the great Brooklyn Dodger rookie reliever Joe Black got 208. Sauer and Black got eight first place votes and Roberts seven. 

Criticism of the choice was swift and vehement.

Oscar Fraley (UPI) - "Anybody who knows the difference between a bunt and a punt must be completely flabbergasted by the selection of Hank Sauer in the National League. Most of the voters obviously never heard of Robin Roberts...one theory is they were all on vacation and the ballot was filled in by the editor of the women's page."

Joe Cashman (Boston Record) "It's a ridiculous selection. Sauer cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Roberts or Black..."

Dan Daniel (New York World Telegram and Sun) "How can you pass up a pitcher who won 28 games for a team like the Phillies?"

Howard Rosenthal (New York Herald Tribune) "It was a travesty. Roberts won 17 and lost only one after the All-Star game."

John Debringer (New York Times) "I cannot understand how anyone can rate Sauer over Roberts and Black.

Arch Murray (New York Post) "In my book, the man was Robin Roberts."

Even Hank Sauer was surprised at the selection. "Yes, I'm surprised," he told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "but I can tell you I sure am tickled pink. I thought maybe the other guy, Roberts, would win it."

So, what happened? How could Roberts have possibly missed out? Theories abound. One good analysis was recently published by Travis M. Nelson on The Boy of Summer blog. Nelson's theory is that rookie relief pitchers Joe Black and Hoyt Wilhelm (who finished fourth in the voting) siphoned off votes that should have gone to Roberts. In fairness, Black, who won the Rookie of the Year award, had a great season. Some voters, particularly New York scribes, might have favored Black because he was the most valuable player on the team that actually won the pennant. In those days, many writers would only vote for players on winning teams. It's a good theory, nicely laid out in the article.

Another theory was prevalent right after the vote. Gayle Talbot, writing for the Associated Press argued that a bloc of Mid-Western writers colluded to "stuff the ballot box" for Sauer, while the eastern writers divided their ballots between Roberts and Black. One writer Talbot quoted as saying, "Those guys started planning this back in the middle of the year. That was when they started working on me, anyway." The general consensus of New York based writers was that Sauer's poor final month disqualified him from the award.

One more theory popped up in my research that is even more sinister. In his book, The Ten Best Years of Baseball: An Informal History of the Fifties, Harold Rosenthal points to the fact that one writer inexplicably left Roberts off his ballot altogether. Here's Rosenthal on the controversy:

Old timers still talk about the [1952 MVP] ballot. It was unusual one of the writers didn't have Roberts on the ballot at all, leading observers to wonder what he was looking at from his perch in the press box. It turned out that the errant elector was (a) a Philadelphia newsman who had himself pitched for the Phillies in an earlier era and (b) no particular admirer of Roberts to the point where he brushed him in their daily comings and goings.

From Rosenthal's description that sportswriter can only be former major league pitcher and Philadelphia Inquirer writer Stan Baumgartner. I cannot independently corroborate this account or even find any evidence that there was bad blood between Roberts and Baumgartner. To the contrary, Roberts was typically well liked by one and all throughout baseball, but this story surely puts an interesting twist on the controversy.

For his part Roberts felt that the best explanation was that the eastern writers split their vote between Black and he, while the western writers were solid for Sauer. He took the loss with his characteristic grace. In his biography Throwing Hard Easy he wrote:

I can't say I was all that disappointed. Awards were really not that important to me, and I accepted the outcome without giving it too much thought. I had won 28 games and that was all I really cared about.

Well, Robbie, you're a bigger man than I am. I am still angry at the injustice and think that if that MVP had been justly awarded, Roberts may have been inducted into the Hall of Fame sooner and his name would now carry more of the recognition it deserves as the greatest righthanded pitcher of the 1950s and one of the greatest pitchers of all-time.

Sportswriter John Posnanski, who listed Roberts as #72 in his The Athletic series on the 100 Greatest Players of All-Time, put it this way.

I think Roberts belongs in every discussion of the greatest pitchers ever. And he's never really mentioned in those. I think Roberts should be known by every baseball fan and he really isn't. He's not even the most famous Robin Roberts going, placing a distant second to the wonderful television broadcaster.

I rest my case - for now.

Sources

Harold Rosenthal, The 10 Best Years of Baseball: An Informal History of the Fifties, Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1979.

John Posnaski, "The Baseball 100: N0. 72, Robin Roberts," The Athletic, January 15, 2020.

Gayle Talbot, "Most Valuable Tiff Continues," Associated Press, November 22, 1952.

Robin Roberts with Paul C. Rogers, Throwing Hard Easy: Reflections on a Life in Baseball, Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2014.

Travis M. Nelson, "How did Robin Roberts lose the NL MVP in 1952?" The Boy of Summer blog, January 16, 2020.

"How Could Robin or Black Miss? Eastern Scribes Inquire," The Sporting News, December 3, 1952, 14.