What is a Most Valuable Player?

    In 1995 Mo Vaughn and Barry Larkin were voted baseball's most 
valuable players.  But were they?  Was Vaughn more valuable than 
Albert Belle?  Was Larkin more valuable than Greg Maddux?  I 
think not. 

    But, what is a most valuable player?  Is it the all round 
best player?  Is it the player that had the best year?  Is it the 
player, that if he wasn't playing, would subtract the most wins 
from his teams' record?  Or is the award given to the person 
having a pretty good year that shows respect for certain sports 
writers? 

    I think that each person who votes sees the "most valuable" 
in his own individual way.  What this means is that the most 
valuable award is often a popularity contest, and not given to 
the person who deserves it the most. 

    Let us look at the American league and compare Mo Vaughn and 
Albert Belle.  Belle scored more runs, hit more homeruns, had 
more RBIs, had a higher batting average, and had a much, much 
higher slugging percentage.  Only in RBIs was it even close: 129 
for Albert and 126 for Mo. 

    I think that a very good statistic for determining batting 
effectiveness , and one that is easy to calculate, is to add the 
batting average to the slugging percentage.  If we do that, we 
get a rating of 1.008 for Belle and 0.870 for Vaughn.  Not very 
close is it? 
 
    Let us now look at the National League and compare Barry 
Larkin and Greg Maddux.  Both had very good years.  Barry was 
second in stolen bases with 51, 6th in batting average at .319, 
and 5th in runs scored with 98.  Now none of these individual 
numbers is tremendous, but one must remember that this was done 
by one of the top fielding shortstops in baseball. 

    Now as far as Maddux goes, what can you say?  Here is one of 
baseball's greatest all time pitchers having maybe his best year.  
He was easily the best pitcher in baseball.  Was Larkin easily 
the best non-pitcher?  I don't think so. 

    Now some people say that a pitcher shouldn't be considered 
for the Most Valuable Player Award because he is not an every day 
player.  Hank Aaron, for one, has said this.  I have a tremendous 
amount of respect for Hank Aaron, both as a ball player and as a 
man.  But I don't agree with him here.  Hitters made more plate 
appearances against Maddux, than any individual hitter had plate 
appearances in the 1995 season.  The 1995 World Series is a good 
example of the value of pitching verses the value of hitting. 

    A better point raised against a pitcher winning the Most 
Valuable Player Award is that the pitcher can win the Cy Young 
award, so why give another award to that player.  Give it to 
someone else.  That makes some sense to me - especially since the 
term "most valuable" means different things to different people 
anyway. 

    I think a more meaningful way to give post season awards to 
baseball's best players, and the most fair, would be the 
following: 

    Give the "Willie Mays" award to the best outfielder.
    Give the "Lou Gehrig" award to the best infielder.
    Give the "Satchel Paige" award to the best starting pitcher.
    Give the "Rollie Fingers" award to the best relief pitcher.

    And finally, let the players on the World Series winning team 
vote for the "Most Valuable Player" from their team.  To me the 
"Most Valuable Team" is the one who which wins the World Series.  
Why shouldn't the "Most Valuable Player" come from that team? 

        Don Sibrel