Why did Barry Larkin win the MVP?

[Cubsfan97]

Was he really MVP worhty in 1995? Im know he out up good numbers, but I dont think they're MVP numbers really. I mean, he put up numbers just a bit better than mark DeRosa put up last yera, and he only had 400 some at bats. Is there something that Im failing to see?

[SamtheBravesFan]

I believe it was because he was seen as the catalyst of the division champion Cincinnati Reds. Barry Larkin got 11 first-place votes. Dante Bichette of Colorado, who led the league in homers with 40, got 6. Greg Maddux got seven. We all know what he did. Mike Piazza got 3. Ron Gant actually got one, but he was waaaaaaaaaaaay down on the place list. Larkin won it by just 30 points.

[538280]

You have to realize #1 he had in the 400s in ABs and only played 131 games because 1995 was a delayed season because of the previous year's strike. The Reds played 144 games. He missed a few games anyway, but it's not as big a problem as it first seems. Overall, I don't necessarily think Larkin deserved the award either but he did have an excellent season, certainly far better than DeRosa. He had a .394 OBP and a .492 SLG for a 133 OPS+, from a shortstop, and a very good to great fielding one at that, that's very special. Plus he stole 51 bases at 91% so you're looking at around a 145 OPS+ equivalent I'm guessing, and from a GG caliber SS. Definitely top echelor close to MVP at least caliber. He also got a lot of credit for leadership and good team play. Do I necessarily think he's better than Barry Bonds, who was a GG LF and had a 168 OPS+? I don't know, but Larkin certainly has an argument. It was probably hard for the writers to get too enthused about Bonds that year either because it really was a small step down from a normal Bonds season, even though he was still probably the best player in the league. It's also hard to overlook Piazza who on a rate basis may have the best hitter in the league, and from catcher.

[STLCards2]

You have to realize #1 he had in the 400s in ABs and only played 131 games because 1995 was a delayed season because of the previous year's strike. The Reds played 144 games. He missed a few games anyway, but it's not as big a problem as it first seems. Overall, I don't necessarily think Larkin deserved the award either but he did have an excellent season, certainly far better than DeRosa. He had a .394 OBP and a .492 SLG for a 133 OPS+, from a shortstop, and a very good to great fielding one at that, that's very special. Plus he stole 51 bases at 91% so you're looking at around a 145 OPS+ equivalent I'm guessing, and from a GG caliber SS. Definitely top echelor close to MVP at least caliber. He also got a lot of credit for leadership and good team play. Do I necessarily think he's better than Barry Bonds, who was a GG LF and had a 168 OPS+? I don't know, but Larkin certainly has an argument. It was probably hard for the writers to get too enthused about Bonds that year either because it really was a small step down from a normal Bonds season, even though he was still probably the best player in the league. It's also hard to overlook Piazza who on a rate basis may have the best hitter in the league, and from catcher.

I would have put them:

1. Bonds
2. Larkin
3. Piazza

You are correct-larkin may not have been the best, but he wasn;t a bad choice either.

[willshad]

This was a bad choice for MVP. Piazza was actually WAY better than his raw numbers would indicate. His road stats were downright absurd: 229 AB 23 HR 57 RBI .384 BA .432 OB .734 SLG. I actually think that Piazza was underrated in his prime, due to the fact that he was SO hurt by his home parks, and had to compete against guys who had bloated numbers due to steroids, playing in Colorado or other better hitting stadiums or lineups, or getting more playing time due to position. I dont even want to imagine what his numbers would have been like in a favorable hitting enviroment. True, he missed time, and Im not saying he would have kept up those types of numbers in a full season of at bats...but even with a slump we are talking Ruth-level hitting in neutral environments, from a catcher. And his team finished first. Larkin won it because Piazza's raw numbers didnt indicate at all what kind of hitter he was. Bichette was pretty much the opposite of Piazza...ALL his good hitting came at home. Still, Piazza was actually better on the road than Bichette was in Colarado, if you can believe that.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I would have given the MVP to Greg Maddux. He had:

28 GS, 19-2, 1.63 ERA, 262 ERA+, 10 CG, 3 SHO, .811 WHIP, 181 K, 23 BB

He led the NL in wins, W%, IP, CG, SHO, ERA, ERA+, BB/9, K/BB, second in H/9, and third in Ks, plus he played Gold Glove defense. As usual the MVP voters don't like voting for pitchers. Maddux finished 3rd in the MVP voting behind Dante Bichette. :rolleyes:

[willshad]

I would have given the MVP to Greg Maddux. He had:

28 GS, 19-2, 1.63 ERA, 262 ERA+, 10 CG, 3 SHO, .811 WHIP, 181 K, 23 BB

He led the NL in wins, W%, IP, CG, SHO, ERA, ERA+, BB/9, K/BB, second in H/9, and third in Ks, plus he played Gold Glove defense. As usual the MVP voters don't like voting for pitchers. Maddux finished 3rd in the MVP voting behind Dante Bichette. :rolleyes:

Maddux had a season for the ages, but i think a pitcher shouldnt really ever get MVP. I can see maybe if no hitter had a standout season, like 1968 or 1988, but if you have a catcher who is the best hitter in the league (and on a first place team) then it really shouild go to him.

[PVNICK]

My impression was he won becuase he was the best player on the best team and played GG SS. Also, I could be imagining things but Bill James had written up about how he felt Ozzie Smith got screwed out of MVP in 1987 because the voters just look at the triple crown numbers and fail to take defense into consideration. This may have planted a seed in some voters minds that it is more than just fantasy numbers. Piazza rightly or wrongly may have been looked at as a de facto DH since he had a bad defensive rep. Bonds had already won three awards so having an average Bonds season was not enough as already pointed out.

[brett]

I would have given the MVP to Greg Maddux. He had:

28 GS, 19-2, 1.63 ERA, 262 ERA+, 10 CG, 3 SHO, .811 WHIP, 181 K, 23 BB

He led the NL in wins, W%, IP, CG, SHO, ERA, ERA+, BB/9, K/BB, second in H/9, and third in Ks, plus he played Gold Glove defense. As usual the MVP voters don't like voting for pitchers. Maddux finished 3rd in the MVP voting behind Dante Bichette. :rolleyes:


I probably would have gone for Maddux as well. In fact a 262 ERA+ probably saves more runs than any hitter produced that year given 200+ innings in a shortened season.

And I would have probably had Piazza second, but I really couldn't have chosen at the time.

Maddux kills Piazza in Warp III 13.0 to 9.0 and since Piazza was a below average baserunner he should be a little below that.

The only thing you heard about Bonds all year was how he was having an off-season. His WARP was 11.9 and he probably gets underrated because he was a good baserunner.

Larkin only had an 8.8 WARP III. I think that he was not a terrible choice and now I think he probably was better than Piazza that year, but behind either Madddux and Bonds.

Considering that Bonds played in the field and that he was a good baserunner, I think that Bonds probably would edge Maddux in actual value but its certainly close enough that we need to look at other factors.

[Second Base Coach]

Greg Maddux had in excess of fifty percent more Win Shares than the next best pitcher in baseball that year. Not just in the NL, but in all of baseball.

He was the best player in baseball on the days in which he pitched.

Bonds has the every day honors of course.

Larkin was neither.

[letsplaytwo]

A better question is why did Kirk Gibson win the MVP?