But you can never go wrong yakking about baseball MVP, especially when you have contrasting types of players in contention.
Start with the premise that it's a nebulous concept to begin with. How much stock are we really supposed to put in the word ``valuable"? Is ``valuable" actually a synonym for ``irreplaceable," and if that's the case, why should a player be penalized if his team has an adequate substitute for him, thus rendering him less ``irreplaceable"? I must tell you I have a real problem when people harp on this word ``valuable," as opposed to, for example, ``outstanding." I'd like to introduce another word: worthy. Most Worthy Player. How does that sound?
The current system carries with it no guidelines, other than the stipulation that, Cy Young Award or no Cy Young Award, pitchers are eligible. Anyone who cannot honestly factor pitchers into the mix is supposed to inform the Baseball Writers Association of America of his or her position, and is supposed to be replaced. That's a fact.
But a system in place before this one was instituted in 1931 did have a guideline. There was something called the League Award available from 1922-29, and, according to the indispensable encyclopedia ``Total Baseball," its committee adopted a set of rules that included a declaration that the trophy was to honor the player ``who is of greatest all-around service to his club and credit to the sport during each season; to recognize and record uncommon skill and ability when exercised by a player in the best interests of his team and to perpetuate his memory."
And there was more. The rules also instructed voters to select a ``winning ballplayer," while reminding them that ``combined offensive and defensive ability is not always indicated by a system of records."
Interesting.
The system was deeply flawed, however. Repeat winners were not permitted. Thus, when Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs with 164 runs batted in and 158 runs scored in 1927, he wasn't eligible. Well, they tried.
