Award Season

Hypothesis:


I think that changing the name of "Most Valuable Player" award to the "Most Valuable Performer" or "Most Valuable Performance" award would get rid of the alleged ambiguity.


I'm kinda sick of baseball analysts suggesting that Ryan Howard is a strong candidate for the MVP when he might be only the 5th most valuable player on his team.  It's a shame when writers who frequently show good work write that guy X "knows how to win".  Perhaps the path to enlightenment is all in the name...


I think using "Performer" instead of "Player" demystifies the phrase MVP.  While both P's refer to the same thing (baseball athlete), "Player" lends itself to including personality, intangibles, and so on.  When asked to judge a "Player" perhaps voters are projecting character archetypes on the athletes they observe.  How else do we end up with "He knows how to win".  This player is most valuable because he motivates his team.  However, this player makes everyone around him better and that's why his team won the division.  Howard deserves the award because his team is good and the MVP is always a slugging first baseman.


So what about Performer?  The Most Valuable Performer, if indeed this is a problem of labels and not meaning, might not lend itself to "heart and soul" and "Knowshowtowinningness" quite as easily.  The difference is demonstrated in the question.  


Who is the Most Valuable Performer?  The athlete who DID the best.


Who is the Most Valuable Player?  The athlete who IS the best.  


I have no idea of the original intention of "what" the MVP award was meant to honor.  I also think that is irrelevant.  The MVP should reward the performance and not the player - who brings with him the uniform, Win/Loss record, previous seasons work, media storylines, etc... I don't doubt that some players "help their teams win" beyond their hitting, pitching, and defense.  Yet, the assessment of these contributions is the result of speculation.  Do writers have the talent to assess the value of Howard helping one of teammates improve his swing?  What about the value of a "winning attitude"?  These suggestions reveal the author and not the athlete.  


Statistics are the epistemology of baseball for a good reason; the observer can only witness a small portion of meaningful interaction, both on and off the field.  As the statistics have gotten better, the scope of meaningful play has become clearer and more available.  Rewarding a player for non-performance qualities is like rewarding a 40 HR hitter over another 40 HR hitter because we watched the first player and didn't watch the second.  It's baseball, no one can see it all or even most of it - on the field.  Some players help their team win beyond their hitting, pitching, and defense.  But this defies assessment.  Any judgement along these lines is a guess, and a narrow, incomplete one at that considering the rest of the field that goes unobserved.


Baseball, more than other American sports, focuses on individual performances.  Years and years of data make this easy and enjoyable for everyone.  The focus on individual performance should extend to the MVP honor.  I think the scope of the MVPerformer could make this transition a welcome one.  Also, I'd be less miffed having these discussions.