How did Barry Larkin win the NL MVP in 1995?

Question

He had 15 HR, 66 RBIs, .319 average, and 98 runs scored. Good year, but not even close to what I'd consider an MVP year. Greg Maddux went 19-2 with an ERA under 2!

Answer 1

its close to impossible for a pitcher to win MVP. unless they break a record or are that dominiant. last 2 pitchers to win the MVP were Bob Gibson(27-4, ERA under 2) and Denny Mclain(31-8)

and larkin carried the reds all season. numbers arent everything you know

Answer 2

If you look solely at the stats you could ask the same thing about Kirk Gibson in 1988.

Answer 3

He collected the most votes in the balloting.

OK, that's a bit dry and technical. How did his season stack up against other NL players?

Here's the voting: http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards...

Assuming that all the serious candidates got some consideration, let's kick around the top few.

Bichette (second) had a very good season, and the Rox reached the playoffs. But he was just a plodding outfielder, and even then some writers were recognizing the effects of playing in the thin air, even if they would never admit it in print.

Maddux (third) had a God-like season. But (a) it was what was expected of him, at the time, (b) Atlanta reached the playoffs but that, too, was what was expected, and the trump, (c) Pitchers Don't Win MVP. (Fie upon all voting writers who accept this!) (Although, to their credit, seven voters put Maddux as their #1 vote, as opposed to six for Bichette.)

Piazza (fourth) led the Dodgers to the playoffs, but he was still something of a kid and there were (always) suspicions about his defensive play.

Karros (fifth) -- oh please. I suppose his decent season might have split a "Dodgers vote" and cost Piazza, but this is easily his peak season (at age 27, of course) and, well, sometimes lightning gets stuck in a bottle.

Sanders (sixth) was the biggest power bat on the Reds that year, and Gant (11th) got one first-place vote, because he was also a big bat on the Reds.

Himself (12th) was simply posting another Bonds-class year, the kind that had to get some down-ballot votes. (I mention him here just because it will annoy the haters, and that's always such good amusement.)

Larkin won because (a) he did have a great season and (b) he did it from the shortstop position on a postseason team. He hit, hit for power, fielded very well, and stole a lotta bases -- the kind of "all around" threat that, coupled with winning, the voters rather appreciate, perhaps a little too enthusiastically, but they didn't make a bad choice here. (I'd have gone with Maddux, but the writers, they just have This Thing About Voting For Pitchers.)

Larkin winning was certainly more palatable than had Bichette.