The enduring appeal of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America’s Most Valuable Player award lies in its unique prestige, distinguishing it from other sports accolades. Nearly 95 years after its inception in both leagues, the debate still thrives over the precise definition of “most valuable.” If the award simply recognized the player with the best overall statistics, why didn’t the BBWAA label it as such?

In recent decades, with the rise of advanced metrics, it would be straightforward for the Baseball Writers to focus solely on statistics, excluding the subjective “valuable” from the equation. Yet, although undocumented, it seems likely that by naming the award “most valuable,” the writers intended to prioritize “team” and “winning” over individual achievements. Historically, this is supported by the fact that 67% of the award’s 191 victors came from teams that topped their divisions.

This context leads us to Aaron Judge’s narrow victory (355-335) over Mariners catcher Cal Raleigh for the American League MVP. Judge’s dominance was undeniable, leading the league in batting average (.331 vs. Raleigh’s .247), runs (137 vs. 110), on-base percentage, slugging, OPS (1.144 vs. .948), and total bases. His remarkable season included hitting 53 home runs, the most ever by a batting champion, and he became the first player since the 1961 expansion era to lead the majors in batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging in a single season.

So why was the decision so tightly contested?

The answer lies in the intangible essence of “most valuable.” Although it’s been many years since my time as an MVP voter, my approach was to assess a player’s contribution to his team’s success, starting with the final standings, particularly focusing on first-place teams. For instance, I always found it peculiar when Andre Dawson won the 1987 NL MVP, despite playing for a last-place Cubs team. How valuable could a player be if his team finished at the bottom?

Admittedly, Dawson led the NL in home runs and RBIs that year, but his victory was largely due to the division between voters regarding the 95-win NL East champion Cardinals. With MVP candidates like Ozzie Smith, who earned nine first-place votes and finished second, and Jack Clark, who secured three first-place votes and placed third, the Cardinals’ votes were split, leading to Dawson’s win.

While Raleigh had himself a somewhat different season for the ages — his 60 homers dwarfed the Royals’ Salvador Perez’s 48 as the all-time record for a catcher, as well as Mickey Mantle’s all-time record in a season by a switch hitter. Besides also leading the AL with 125 RBI (to Judge’s 114), Raleigh tied an MLB record with 11 multi-homer games.

But what’s important in his case (and again here’s where ‘most valuable’ comes into the equation), Raleigh did it as a catcher, universally regarded as the most important position on the field in terms of all the added responsibilities — working with the pitchers, calling the games, etc. — it entails.

Raleigh posted up in 159 of the 162 games in the season, appearing in 121 of them as a catcher, 119 as a starter. He led the American League with 1,072 innings caught and did not allow a single passed ball all season. He was unquestionably the most valuable, most important player on the Mariners — and yet I’m not sure if he would’ve gotten quite as much support as he got if the Mariners hadn’t also won their first AL West division title since 2001.

By contrast, great as Judge’s season was, the Yankees were unable to win the AL East while Judge played 95 games in right field and 56 games as a designated hitter and played in the field only 15 times after suffering a flexor strain of his right elbow in late July. I’m not saying he wasn’t the most valuable Yankee — his numbers alone attest to that — but unlike Raleigh, who basically did it all himself, there were times this season — especially when Judge was down — you could’ve made a case for Cody Bellinger, with his power, speed, defense and versatility, as being the most valuable Yankee.

Just sayin’.

IT’S A MADD, MADD WORLD

Of all the BBWAA award results the one I found somewhat surprising was the Guardians’ Stephen Vogt winning American League Manager of the Year fairly easily over the Blue Jays’ John Schneider — with 113 points and 17 first-place votes to 91 and 10. Nothing against Vogt, a fine manager who won the award for the second year in a row despite having four less victories than last season, but Schneider did a truly remarkable job in leading the Blue Jays from last to first and establishing a strong clubhouse camaraderie that was so evident in the postseason, weaving Ernie Clement, Nathan Lukes and Addison Barger into the everyday lineup and letting them flourish. I understand the case for Vogt, leading the Guardians back from the dead at the trade deadline by going 19-4 down the stretch, but a lot of that great comeback had to do with the simultaneous epic collapse of the Tigers.

Adding to the drama was the revelation that one of the voters, Rosie DiManno, a columnist with the Toronto Star, voted for Vogt first and Schneider second — which touched off a furor in Toronto. But for what it’s worth, even if DiManno flipped-flopped her first and second place votes, Vogt still would’ve won, as most of the writers from New York, Boston and Tampa Bay all had Vogt first. I have to say, however, DiManno’s explanation for her vote — “John Schneider was a net negative and didn’t help the Blue Jays, yet I had him as the second-best manager in the AL” — was mind-boggling. If she really felt that way, why did she vote for him at all? I wonder if that’s what she’ll tell Schneider when she sees him the first time in spring training in Dunedin next year. For the record, since 1990 there have been 11 managers to take their teams from last to first according to the Elias Sports Bureau, five of whom — Jim Fregosi with the Phillies in 1992, Bruce Bochy with the Padres in 1997, Buck Showalter with the Diamondbacks in 1998, John Farrell with the Red Sox in 2015 and now Schneider — failed to win Manager of the Year honors.