Part 4: There Is No Anti-Yankees Bias in Award Voting

by Paul Semendinger

November 21, 2025

***

In order to understand this article series, it is important to first read Part One, Part Two, and Part Three which describes the overall premise and some of the background.

In short, there are Yankees fans that believe that there is an anti-Yankees bias among the writers, decision makers, the league, or whomever, that prevents Yankees players from winning awards such as the MVP. This anti-Yankees bias, they claim, is the reason that Yankees do not win certain awards, in certain years, and why some Yankees don't get into the Hall of Fame, and the like. Each time a Yankees player fails to get an honor that some fans think he deserves, these fans claim, "It's the anti-Yankees bias."

I am putting this entire notion to rest, once and for all, by showing clearly, with facts, that there is no anti-Yankees sentiment that causes Yankees to not win awards or the honors they deserve.

As I note in Part One, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to argue that Yankees don't win awards like the MVP when more Yankees have won the award, by a significant margin, than the players from any other team. Yankees players certainly and absolutely win awards.

Similarly, more Yankees are in the Hall of Fame than any other team - including some of the most borderline candidates in the Hall.

For Part 4, I will examine other seasons when Yankees didn't win an MVP Award in light of other awards, the time period, and etc. to put this notion to rest once and for all.

To reiterate, the main thesis here is that while a Yankee didn't always win an award that some might have felt he deserved, that it was not because the writers or the league was conspiring against the Yankees. Rather than there being some anti-Yankees bias or conspiracy, there are times when award giving isn't always fair or accurate. Just because a player didn't win an honor of some sort, say the MVP, does not mean that the writers or the league or the sport conspired against the player or his team.

Also, I used WAR here in the discussion knowing it was not used in most of the seasons below. WAR is used to see, retroactively, if the voters got it right or were at least in the ballpark...

***

Part III - Other MVP Controversies

1999 - Ivan Rodriguez Wins Over Derek Jeter This is the first time in this study that a Yankees player who deserved to win the MVP did not. In 1999, the MVP, should have been Derek Jeter. Jeter led position players in WAR. He led the league in his. The Yankees were winning a lot and he was seen as a key reason why.

When one looks at WAR, it's not close. Jeter had 8.0. Rodriguez was at 6.4.

But, when one looks at the standard numbers of the day, a different dynamic occurs:

Jeter: .349/24/102

Rodriguez: .332/35/113

Rodriguez's numbers, specially homers and rbis, look more impressive. He also hit .332.

Rodriguez also was a star. He had never won an MVP. Voters give extra credit to catchers. This is a reason Cal Raleigh earned so many votes in 2025. It's also a reason why Thurman Munson won an MVP. And Yogi Berra. And Roy Campanella. And Elston Howard. Among those who write and speak about baseball for a living, there has always been a propensity to give extra credit to catchers. That is just a fact and it seems to be what happened in 1999 rather than an anti-Yankees bias.

***

1998 - Juan Gonzalez Wins Over Derek Jeter

In 1998, Derek Jeter was a better player than Juan Gonzalez. Jeter was worth 7.5 WAR to Gonzalez's 4.9. This was a period, though, when big home run totals and big rbi totals helped rule the day.

Jeter: .324/19/84

Gonzalez: .318/45/157

Alex Rodriguez: .310/42/124, led the league in hits

The numbers there favor Gonzalez. But, it is A-Rod who should have won the MVP since he led the league in WAR at 8.5.

I do not believe there was an anti-Alex Rodriguez conspiracy at this time, but this exercise has shown in the last two articles that he deserved a few more MVP Awards.

***

1986 - Roger Clemens Wins Over Don Mattingly

In 1986, this vote frustrated me greatly. And for years after. It seemed to be the reverse of 1978, with both votes going against the Yankee and to the Red Sox.

Roger Clemens had a higher WAR than Mattingly (8.8 to 7.2). Teddy Higuera actually had a higher WAR than Clemens, but Clemens had an amazing standout season:

24-4, 2.48 and 238 strikeouts

Mattingly was still at his peak at the same time:

.352/31/113. He led the league in hits and slugging. He had a real case for MVP.

Wade Boggs and Jesse Barfield actually had higher WARs than Mattingly, but based on the standards of the day, Mattingly should have been the MVP. I'll attribute this not to an anti-Yankees bias, but to the fact that sometimes the voters get things wrong and the fact that Mattingly won the award in 1985, just the year before.

***

1985 - Don Mattingly is MVP

It makes little sense to claim the writers (or whomever) have an anti-Yankees bias that prevented a Yankee from winning an award in 1986 when the year prior, they gave the award to a Yankee.

In 1985, Don Mattingly batted .324/35/145. The 145 runs batted in led the league. He deserved the MVP by the standards of the day, but by WAR (retroactively) his 6.4 WAR pales in comparison to Rickey Henderson's 9.9. Rickey, also a Yankee, should have been the MVP.

***

1978 - Jim Rice Wins Over Ron Guidry

This actually deserves its own article, but, in short, a great case can be made for either player. Ron Guidry was at his peak. Guidry's 25-3, 1.79 season propelled the Yankees to a tie with the Red Sox after 162 games.

Yes, a case can be made for Guidry - a strong case.

But, Jim Rice actually also had a historic season, one arguably greater than Guidry's. Baseball had recently seen some impressive win-loss records similar to Guidry's in 1978:

Gaylord Perry was 21-6 in 1978

Tom Seaver went 22-9 in 1975

Jim Palmer went 22-9 in 1973

Vida Blue went 24-8 in 1971

Bob Gibson went 23-7 in 1970

Denny McLain went 24-9 in 1969

Tom Seaver went 25-7 in 1969

and there were others...

Pitchers having very impressive seasons was not something out of the norm. Of that list, only Vida Blue had won an MVP.

But Jim Rice did something that no player since Joe DiMaggio in 1937 had ever done. Rice had more than 400 total bases. At the time, Rice's accomplishment was seen as more impressive. It simply was. Just as we can go back and look at WAR to see where voters may have made incorrect choices, we also must acknowledge the thinking of the day and 400 total bases was much more impressive and unique than a pitcher having a great season.

In 1978, Jim Rice led the league in:

• Games

• Plate Appearances

• At Bats

• Hits

• Triples

• Homers

• RBIs

• Slugging

• Total Bases

• Extra Base Hits

Rice was also 3rd in batting average, and second in runs scored.

That was a season that deserved honors.

We also cannot say, "The writers had an anti-Yankees bias" Guidry won the Cy Young in 1978. In 1977 Sparky Lyle won the Cy Young Award (and he wasn't nearly the best pitcher). In 1976, Munson was the MVP. The writers were certainly giving big time awards to Yankees players in that period.

The fact that Rice was the MVP makes a lot of sense. I wish Guidry had won it, but Jim Rice deserved it.

***

1976 - Thurman Munson Wins the MVP

In 1976, Thurman Munson was 12th in the AL in WAR. Fellow Yankees Graig Nettles and Roy White had higher WARs than Munson. Graig Nettles who led position players in WAR should have won the award. If Nettles had won in 1976 and in 1971 when he also led in WAR, he would likely be in the Hall of Fame today.

This was a case where the writers gave the award partially on leadership. They do this over and over. The MVP often goes to a catcher. That's just a fact. Again, this is why Cal Raleigh earned so many MVP votes in 2025. Catchers get special consideration. They always have. Yankees catchers among them.

***

1963 - Elston Howard Wins the MVP

Elston Howard hit .287/28/85. It was not a remarkable season. He earned just 5.2 WAR. There were other, more deserving players, including Carl Yastrzemski (a Red Sox). Howard though was a catcher...

***

1962 - Mickey Mantle Wins the MVP

Now, going back, it would be impossible to claim that there was an anti-Yankees bias as the Yankees won tons of awards looking backwards from 1962.

If a supposed bias exists or existed it would have to have been formulated and developed after 1963.

***

CONCLUSION - This study has demonstrated and proved, factually that the perceived anti-Yankees bias which supposedly prevents Yankees from winning the MVP Award simply does not exist. That discussion point should be put to rest completely. There is no rational or factual way to argue that the writers use an anti-Yankees bias to prevent Yankees from winning awards. There is, and has never been an anti-Yankees bias among the writers that has prevented a New York Yankee from winning an MVP.

***

Coming Next:

• Based on this article a quick look at catchers who won the MVP when they weren't the best players in the league. This actually shows a bias - one in favor of catchers. This explains much better than a conspiracy theory why Cal Raleigh earned significant MVP consideration in 2025.

• Pee Wee Reese vs Phil Rizzuto (the IBWAA gets this one first).

• The supposed Anti-Yankee Hall of Fame Bias that is also proven to be not factual.