Should a DH Be Eligible for the MVP?

[rugbyfreak]

This issue raged hot and heavy in '05, when the list of candidates boiled down to A-rod and Big Papi (Vlad got one first place vote, the only other player to get even one).

The debate, of course, centered around whether a man who does not take the field is worthy of this award. I believe the four choices in the poll pretty much cover the different categories of opinion.

I have no doubt about my opinion: While I believe a season holding down a defensive position carries additional weight in placing a vote, I believe if a DH's hitting one year is so head-and-shoulders above the rest, I would give it to him.

My reason? It's not DH's fault that the AL created the position, nor is it usually his call that he plays it. It's the manager's. (There are rare exceptions where the player insists on DHing only--Frank Thomas was adamant to Chisox management on this point. But this is very rare. Most players, even the ones who are too gimpy or know they are disasters in the field, will still say publicly that, while their training as a ballplayer dictates that they play the field, they will gladly comply and play DH, if that is the team's wish, or something like that.)

So, I would consider it an unfair bias to make any player who plays a recognized position ineligible for an award available to all other players. I have the same opinion regarding pitchers' eligibility for the MVP. I would, on a rare occasion, vote for a hurler who had an exceptionally dominating season. Here, the detractors insist they cannot vote for a guy who plays, at most, one-fourth of his team's games--and rarely plays a whole game, at that.

Fine, a good point, but I also say that we all know the impact of a lights-out pitcher is huge, since pitching itself is often cited as the real key to a team's success. In fact, so big that it overrides that of ordinary everyday players.

But back to the '05 season. On talk radio and in the papers, rarely had I seen an issue about the game produce such polarized opinions. Curiously, although the Ortiz supporters tried to say that the batting performances had been close, they really were not, at least in terms of who bested who in how many categories.

With a .321/.421/.610 line, A-rod edged out Ortiz (.300/.397/.604) on all three of those counts. Similarly, in the key counting numbers--HR/RBI/TB/R--Ortiz (47/148/363/119) was only able to top Alex (48/130/369/124) in the RBI tally. Additionally, Ortiz topped AR in BB's (119 to 91), while AR led in SB (21 to 1).

Among the "special batting" or relative areas, AR won the OPS+ (167 to 161). I know you guys like Win Shares, but I don't have those available.

But the point, I think, had been made: A-rod in a landslide, especially when an entire season of outstanding work at 3B (or maybe average, depending on whom you ask) is factored in.

So why, then, was the nation so torn about this one? Outstanding though Big Papi's season had been--and as close as most of the category totals were--the fact remains that AR took him down in every area but two.

I think I know (and then I'll sign off and let you guys post. Since arriving at their current teams (AR in '04, DO in '03), a very strange public-perception thing has been going on. Big Papi has suddenly become this mythic, folk-hero type of player, larger than life, the big, smiling giant who strides to the plate and saves the day once again. He really became a sensation in the '04 post-season, in which he had an amazing run of one game-winning hit after another.

Thanks to a smear campaign eminating from New York, AR's baseball reputation has taken off in the exact opposite direction, viscious stuff about him being a choker, etc. But that is stuff for another whole thread, so I will stop there. But I believe a national frenzy over DO being the premier clutch hitter the game has ever seen (there's that pesky clutch word again!) was so explosive that it nearly, by itself, succeeded in closing the MVP gap between the two. Plus, it's entirely possible that there are many voters out there who are adamant that a DH should never be the MVP, but I have no way of knowing that.

Perhaps the results here will give us some insight as to the national opinion on the matter.

So weigh in with your vote, plus: Submit your nominations for the greatest MVP-worthy DH seasons in history. Mine is Big Papi's '04 season, or even his '05, which was even better, and besides, he crushed Morneau across the board, yet finished a distant third, with no first-place votes.

Somebody please explain what happened to the Papi craze in that year's time, going from nearly taking out the great A-rod, despite the handicap og being a DH, then goes out in '05, blows that '04 year away (and yes, he continued to ring up walk-off hits), and gets routed by a relative nobody from the Twins? (A fine player, don't get me wrong, but let's face it: far from a household name, at least last year).

[catbox_9]

I'd say if you're a full-time DH you shouldn't be MVP. I'd love to see the DH go the way of the dodo but that's not happening.

[Utility07]

Only when his hitting is above and beyond anyone else, to overcome the fielding factor.

Realistically, this is not possible.

[iPod]

Any player should be eligible for MVP. It just takes more offense, on average, to justify an MVP Award when you don't play the field.

[plask_stirlac]

A DH needs to put up monumental numbers to be Player of the Year, numbers approached by no fielding player.

A DH does not need to do that to be MVP, DHs and pitchers on the top teams should be completely eligible, if we're assuming team success is huge in the MVP.

What if the Red Sox get dominant pitching and Manny isn't his usual self but Ortiz does even better this year (better than Hafner), walking more in more PA, and the Red Sox win 96 with the next best team in Detroit or Cleveland with 91 or 92. Can't he win?

All AL teams need to use a DH and top guys usually DON'T want to fill it on an everyday basis, even if they could be replaced by a better fielder and then DH.

[Sankhara-dukkha]

Is this topic EVER going to die?

We've discussed this one ad nauseum. Everyone's reached their conclusions and no one is changing their opinions at this point.

You know where I stand.

[redlegsfan21]

The DH should never be considered for the MVP in the National League.

I honestly couldn't care less won wins what awards in the American League.

[Dodgerfan1]

I hate the DH rule with a purple passion, but I do believe that a DH can have such a monster season at the plate (where else would he have one?) that he should be eligible to win it. A DH can be just as valuable at the plate as anyone and, although I do believe being a complete player means being a good glove man as well as a good hitter, that the very intention of the MVP Award was to honor the player who meant the most to his team, and a DH can surely be that player. After all, there have been several players throughout the years who won the MVP Award despite being average/below average in the field. A DH can't HURT his team with fielding errors, after all, while some who have won the award can. Mo Vaughn, who won the MVP Award in '95, and Jeff Burroughs, who won it in 1974, were below average fielders and certainly cost their team a few runs those seasons. So, begrudgingly, I admit that DHs should be considered for MVP Award honors.

As for pitchers winning the MVP Award, no. I don't go for that one. They have a specific award for pitchers. An everyday player can't win the Cy Young Award. To me, a pitcher winning the Cy Yound Award and the MVP would be like an actor winning both the Best Actor AND the Best Supporting Actor Oscars. It doesn't seem right, to me.

[Mariano_Rivera]

If the DH's offense is enough to overcome the other players offebnse and defense than sure. In '05 that wasn;t true

[THE OX]

IMO a DH would have to have a .350, 50 HR, 130 RBI season merely to rate the same consideration for MVP as a .310, 35 HR, 110 RBI position player.

Slight threadcrap here, but since the establishment of a Cy Young Award in each league 4 decades ago, IMO pitchers should be ineligible for MVP voting. The Cy Young IS the pitchers' MVP equivalent!

[dl4060]

Dh's should be considered just like any other player. I think Ortiz was great in 04' and a very worthy candidate, but Arod was clearly better IMO. If a DH is the best player in the league I don't see any reason he should not win the award. I think Travis Hafner was the best player in the AL last year, he just didn't play enough games.

[SamtheBravesFan]

The DH is a player, like it or not. Therefore, he has to be considered.

[digglahhh]

I don't really understand the difference between the second and third option. Players are considered based upon their overall contribution to their team. So, DHes should be considered, but their value is only in half of the game, so they have to be above and beyond offensively.

[Mattingly]

I'm stuck between the 1st and 3rd choices. If he has 60+ dingers and at least 140 ribeyes, I'll think otherwise. Until then, I seriously doubt that I'd be interested.

I happen to like David Ortiz, but that doesn't change my beliefs in this.

I don't really understand the difference between the second and third option. Players are considered based upon their overall contribution to their team. So, DHes should be considered, but their value is only in half of the game, so they have to be above and beyond offensively.
Same as I was thinking. Is the DH going to stop 3-5 unearned runs from piling in by making a great play? Bases loaded, 2 outs, you make a great dive and throw to a base, end of inning. What can the DH do then? Nada, that's what.

If even a pitcher--whom he replaces at the plate--cannot field, he's doing himself a disservice by allowing runs to score. Heck, even those runs don't count as "earned" if he's the one making the errors.

[plask_stirlac]

Same as I was thinking. Is the DH going to stop 3-5 unearned runs from piling in by making a great play? Bases loaded, 2 outs, you make a great dive and throw to a base, end of inning. What can the DH do then? Nada, that's what.


First the DH has to be better on offense. MVP 1st place votes last year: Morneau 15, Frank Thomas 0 (but still high).
Then he has to be so much better as to negate all defense if it's a good or great defensive player or just defense at all. Ortiz beats Morneau there for example.
And he probably needs to be on a better team. Ortiz wasn't on a team up to his play last year.

There are a lot of reasons voters won't choose a DH, it's not that likely in most years. But it shouldn't be because of the position.

[catbox_9]

I'd say pitchers can win the MVP only in very rare circumstances. In 1968 the MVP went to 2 pitchers and they were without a doubt MVPs. Today, a pitcher needs 25 wins to get it in my opinion (and that hasn't happened since 1990). I'm a Tigers fan but to this day I don't understand how Hernandez won the Cy Young and MVP that year. He was a closer and got the MVP? Unless you get 80 saves I don't think you should be considerred for that award.

[nerfan]

Any player should be eligible for MVP. It just takes more offense, on average, to justify an MVP Award when you don't play the field.

Exactly. A DH who hits .450/.600/.900 should win the MVP.

(Or less than that, he just has to be the best hitter in the league)

[AstrosFan]

I think a DH should definitely be eligible for the MVP. If he's that good, and his bat was worth more than any other player's batting/fielding/pitching contribution, why shouldn't he win it? If Babe Ruth put up his 1921 line today, and DHed, he'd be tops in baseball, no doubt about it.

[The Dude]

To answer one of the original questions, which DH seasons were MVP worthy:

1973-Frank Robinson?
1982-Hal Mcrae:
1987-Paul Molitor: 2nd in AVG (.353) and OBP (.438). 1st in Runs, 3rd in OPS+, and 4th in SB. However, he played a higher percentage of his games actually on the field, so I don't know if this would count.
1995-Edgar Martinez: Led the league in AVG, Runs, OPS+, Doubles, and RC. He was 3rd in SLG, and 4th in RBIs. He lacked a leaderboard ranking in HR, but he still hit 29.
2000-Frank Thomas
2006-Travis Hafner. And the guy missed an entire month.


These are just a couple, and some of those more than others.

[M'sfan4ever]

The DH shouldn't exist period, it's an awful rule. That being said, no player that plays 3 to 4 times per game should not be considered for the MVP no matter what his numbers are at the plate. The only exception to this is the Jason Giambi type player that only plays DH on a part time basis.

[Westlake]

The DH shouldn't exist period, it's an awful rule. That being said, no player that plays 3 to 4 times per game should not be considered for the MVP no matter what his numbers are at the plate. The only exception to this is the Jason Giambi type player that only plays DH on a part time basis.

What about the starting pitcher that appears only once every five days that puts up a 249 IP, 2.14 ERA, 322 K, 35 BB line? Is that not good enough for an MVP? Or the DH than hits .360/.480/.700, 63 HR, 159 RBI?

[plask_stirlac]

The DH shouldn't exist period, it's an awful rule. That being said, no player that plays 3 to 4 times per game should not be considered for the MVP no matter what his numbers are at the plate. The only exception to this is the Jason Giambi type player that only plays DH on a part time basis.

I'm lost, too many negatives. Should a DH be eligible, yes or no?

[Wade8813]

Options 2 & 3 seem like the same thing to me (unless the only competition at hitting is a bad enough fielder, so the team would be better off with the lack of fielding a DH provides than the penalty the other guy provides).

The DH shouldn't exist period, it's an awful rule. That being said, no player that plays 3 to 4 times per game should not be considered for the MVP no matter what his numbers are at the plate. The only exception to this is the Jason Giambi type player that only plays DH on a part time basis. A Mariner's fan, hating on the rule that allowed us to keep Edgar going...? :( :confused: :eek: :ughh :dismay: :faint: :rant: :sigh: :noidea :cry:

And seriously, if Babe Ruth had been a DH, he'd still deserve to win a dozen MVPs.

[Padday]

Same as I was thinking. Is the DH going to stop 3-5 unearned runs from piling in by making a great play? Bases loaded, 2 outs, you make a great dive and throw to a base, end of inning. What can the DH do then? Nada, that's what.

He can make up for those runs by making a great offensive play. You know what they, say the best defence is a good offence.

As for the question, my views have allways been that the DH is a part of the game and I don't really argue either way. I'm a bit of a fence sitter with this.
But I believe that he should definitely be eligable for MVP as DH's can still be very valuable players. If it was best player award then I wouldn't think they would have a chance because they're obviously not as good players as those who can do offense and defense well, but if a DH's offensive prowess is what is the driving force behind the success of a team then obviously he is a very valuable member.

[Brooklyn]

If Ortiz had been at first base in 2005 would that have been enough to put him over A-Rod? What if he played all 159 of his games at first base, and was a terrible first baseman? Would anyone have cared? Do people just want to see him stand out there, or actually play good defense?

My point is that voters will give players credit in the MVP voting for excelling defensively (although it is unclear if they really give that much credit). But voters don't generally take away credit for a terrible defensive player. If they are not going to take away credit for a terrible defensive player, why should they take credit away from a player that doesn't play defense at all? Ortiz is actually helping his team by playing DH over 1B - the team is overall stronger with him at DH.

The object of baseball is winning games. In simple terms, the player that does the most to help his team win those games should be the MVP. I personally think offense goes much further toward this then defense does, but defense has some value. So as long as the player's offense is enough to overcome another player's offense + defense, then he should be seriously considered.

Bonds was not a good fielder by the time he won his last MVP. If he had been DH, would he haev been any less deserving (allegations aside). Was he really more valuable as a below average fielder than as a DH?

[Padday]

I agree with the last post. I mean how many players actually got picked for MVP mainly for their defensive play. A player who's got a rocket of an arm and could make the difficult play everytime but who is weak when he's at the plate is much less valuable than someone who doesn't even play defense but is an above average hitter in my opinion. You'll only have to make big defensive plays every once in a while, while your at the plate over 3+ times in a game.

[tearforamariner]

Okay, what if no other MVP candidate was a of stellar fielding quality that season? Let's look at, say, I don't know, 1995.

In 1995, there were 3 serious MVP candidates: Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle, and Edgar Martinez. Vaughn was a 1st baseman and not a very good one, and Belle Left Fielder, also not too good of one. Edgar was pretty clearly the best hitter that year, although Belle was pretty good as well.

I guess my question is, if a DH's competition has average or below average fielding at unimportant fielding positions, can a DH win? I mean, fielding isn't the reason Vaughn won that year.

[plask_stirlac]

Okay, what if no other MVP candidate was a of stellar fielding quality that season? Let's look at, say, I don't know, 1995.

In 1995, there were 3 serious MVP candidates: Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle, and Edgar Martinez. Vaughn was a 1st baseman and not a very good one, and Belle Left Fielder, also not too good of one. Edgar was pretty clearly the best hitter that year, although Belle was pretty good as well.

I guess my question is, if a DH's competition has average or below average fielding at unimportant fielding positions, can a DH win? I mean, fielding isn't the reason Vaughn won that year.

I see your point but it brings the MVP into question, what it is and what it should be. Playing ability also wasn't why Vaughn won, I think. Apparently Vaughn won because he was more personable and acceptable, the true MVP was Belle, Randy Johnson, or Edgar but it is a voted award. I'm also not sure how Valentin got 9th if Mo won, kind of like the Twins last year. The Indians were incredibly good as was Belle, he probably should have won.

Still not a bad point, Ryan Howard had no defensive value and he won.

[Dodgerfan1]

Okay, what if no other MVP candidate was a of stellar fielding quality that season? Let's look at, say, I don't know, 1995.

In 1995, there were 3 serious MVP candidates: Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle, and Edgar Martinez. Vaughn was a 1st baseman and not a very good one, and Belle Left Fielder, also not too good of one. Edgar was pretty clearly the best hitter that year, although Belle was pretty good as well.

I guess my question is, if a DH's competition has average or below average fielding at unimportant fielding positions, can a DH win? I mean, fielding isn't the reason Vaughn won that year.

Good post, IMO. Exactly the point I was trying to make. A DH cannot cost his team runs in the form of fielding errors. I know that's reverse logic, of a sort, but it is true. Vaughn, George Bell and Burroughs are among the below average fielders who have won an MVP Award for HITTING ONLY, and since that's all a DH does too, what the hell??

[digglahhh]

If Ortiz had been at first base in 2005 would that have been enough to put him over A-Rod? What if he played all 159 of his games at first base, and was a terrible first baseman? Would anyone have cared? Do people just want to see him stand out there, or actually play good defense?

My point is that voters will give players credit in the MVP voting for excelling defensively (although it is unclear if they really give that much credit). But voters don't generally take away credit for a terrible defensive player. If they are not going to take away credit for a terrible defensive player, why should they take credit away from a player that doesn't play defense at all? Ortiz is actually helping his team by playing DH over 1B - the team is overall stronger with him at DH.

The object of baseball is winning games. In simple terms, the player that does the most to help his team win those games should be the MVP. I personally think offense goes much further toward this then defense does, but defense has some value. So as long as the player's offense is enough to overcome another player's offense + defense, then he should be seriously considered.

Bonds was not a good fielder by the time he won his last MVP. If he had been DH, would he haev been any less deserving (allegations aside). Was he really more valuable as a below average fielder than as a DH?

Buy this guy a brew.

David Ortiz would have been LESS valuable if he played 1B.

The only argument against that is one that doesn't involve Ortiz and is purely circumstantial. The Sox just happen to have an offensive legend who is also subpar in the field on the team. So, if Ortiz could play 1B, Manny could DH and they'd save runs in LF. But it is not Ortiz's fault that Manny is subpar out there and the DH is an individual award anyway.

This becomes individual, how deep do you want to analyze these situations? So, even if Hafner was the best hitter in the league last year, his inability to play a defensive position, even part time, monopolized the DH spot and kept Victor Martinez from being able to contribute with the stick on days he was given a rest from catching. Do you subtract 50 ABs worth of V-Mart's production from Hafner's totals?...

[plask_stirlac]

Buy this guy a brew.

David Ortiz would have been LESS valuable if he played 1B.

The only argument against that is one that doesn't involve Ortiz and is purely circumstantial. The Sox just happen to have an offensive legend who is also subpar in the field on the team. So, if Ortiz could play 1B, Manny could DH and they'd save runs in LF. But it is not Ortiz's fault that Manny is subpar out there and the DH is an individual award anyway.

This becomes individual, how deep do you want to analyze these situations? So, even if Hafner was the best hitter in the league last year, his inability to play a defensive position, even part time, monopolized the DH spot and kept Victor Martinez from being able to contribute with the stick on days he was given a rest from catching. Do you subtract 50 ABs worth of V-Mart's production from Hafner's totals?...

If Ryan Howard played DH, he wouldn't be MVP I don't think. For some reason DHing makes a player worse defensively to some people, even if ability is constant. Put Ortiz in his place and he's NL MVP.

[tearforamariner]

The Indians were incredibly good as was Belle, he probably should have won.


I will argue until I am blue in the face that Edgar should have, not that Belle was a bad choice. I am a homer afterall :D. But seriously, I urge to review Edgar's numbers, particularly that OBP.

[plask_stirlac]

Edgar Martinez had a gargantic year, MVP and Best Player quality. I can recognize that as I like to recognize Cy Young Award quality years without the offense to back them up (Randy Johnson and Ben Sheets 2004).

However there's less wrong with the Indians and with Belle, who wasn't particularly bad in the field at all, for sure. He had a historic slugging percentage to match Edgar's OBP and a 1.200 OPS over the second half for a 54-23 team in that stretch, to complement the first half. It would slight Belle more to give the award to Edgar.

[Dodgerfan1]

If Ryan Howard played DH, he wouldn't be MVP I don't think. For some reason DHing makes a player worse defensively to some people, even if ability is constant. Put Ortiz in his place and he's NL MVP.

Isn't that the major reason a player is inserted as a DH? Because he IS worse defensively than someone who is used in the field? For the most part, I believe that to be true.

[M'sfan4ever]

Scratch David Ortiz's name from the Red Sox DH spot and insert Jim Thome's name, or Jason Giambi, or Barry Bonds. Do you lose much, if anything? No, probably not. Is David Ortiz the most valuable player to his team? No, he's just a good hitter who doesn't do anything but go out and hit 3 or 4 times a game. He contributes nothing else to his teams wins or losses other than that. If the people who determine the names on the ballot for MVP aren't nominating players who play the whole game every game, and who are as talented in the field as they are at the plate, than they are idiots. To look at only one aspect of a players game, ignore everything else and then say he is an MVP, is ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as nominating a guy who plays 3 or 4 times a game. To look at a guy like Derek Jeter who is at a completely different level than 95% of the players in the game, and say that David Ortiz deserves to be in the same category as him is absolute idiocy. Until David Ortiz takes a regular spot in the field and proves he can do it all, he shouldn't even make the ballot much less win the MVP award.

[plask_stirlac]

A player is (or should be) put in at DH if he's entrenched as one of the Top 9 batters for the squad and isn't hurt or resting, isn't giving up a lot of fielding value, and won't moan about DHing.

Award voting that involves a full-time DH have to address the rule and uniqueness of the position.

Scratch David Ortiz's name from the Red Sox DH spot and insert Jim Thome's name, or Jason Giambi, or Barry Bonds. Do you lose much, if anything? No, probably not. Is David Ortiz the most valuable player to his team? No, he's just a good hitter who doesn't do anything but go out and hit 3 or 4 times a game. He contributes nothing else to his teams wins or losses other than that. If the people who determine the names on the ballot for MVP aren't nominating players who play the whole game every game, and who are as talented in the field as they are at the plate, than they are idiots. To look at only one aspect of a players game, ignore everything else and then say he is an MVP, is ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as nominating a guy who plays 3 or 4 times a game. To look at a guy like Derek Jeter who is at a completely different level than 95% of the players in the game, and say that David Ortiz deserves to be in the same category as him is absolute idiocy. Until David Ortiz takes a regular spot in the field and proves he can do it all, he shouldn't even make the ballot much less win the MVP award.

Really? I disagree. Thome WAS an MVP candidate but wasn't as great in the second half, nor were the White Sox.

A player

[dl4060]

Scratch David Ortiz's name from the Red Sox DH spot and insert Jim Thome's name, or Jason Giambi, or Barry Bonds. Do you lose much, if anything? No, probably not. Is David Ortiz the most valuable player to his team? No, he's just a good hitter who doesn't do anything but go out and hit 3 or 4 times a game. He contributes nothing else to his teams wins or losses other than that. If the people who determine the names on the ballot for MVP aren't nominating players who play the whole game every game, and who are as talented in the field as they are at the plate, than they are idiots. To look at only one aspect of a players game, ignore everything else and then say he is an MVP, is ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as nominating a guy who plays 3 or 4 times a game. To look at a guy like Derek Jeter who is at a completely different level than 95% of the players in the game, and say that David Ortiz deserves to be in the same category as him is absolute idiocy. Until David Ortiz takes a regular spot in the field and proves he can do it all, he shouldn't even make the ballot much less win the MVP award.

Why? The vast majority of an everyday player's value comes from his bat, not his glove. Would you like to give us some statistical evidence of your opinion? Everything I've heard on the subject backs up the theory that most of an everyday player's value is offensive, until I hear some concrete evidence otherwise I will stick to that opinion. Ortiz was clearly the Red Sox MVP last year, Manny was better, but did not play as much. Ortiz was as good a candidate as anyone I can think of. Much better than Ichiro, that's for certain.

"As talented on the field as they are at the plate?" That certainly does not describe Jeter, he is a mediocre shortstop at best, and please don't bring up his gold gloves, that award lost it's luster when Palmeiro won it while playing something like 19 games at first. A ballplayer is valued by the sum of his parts, and some of those parts are much more valuable than others. Hitting is more valuable than baserunning or defensive play. If a player gets no value from his defense, he really has alot to make up for with his offense. If he does, however, make up that ground, I will happily award him the MVP. The only offensive player who was definitely better than Ortiz last year was Hafner, and he did not play quite enough games for me to see him as the MVP. Manny was probably better too, but he also needed about 10-15 more games. Manny played in the field, but I don't think he exactly added alot of value with his defense.

[Padday]

Scratch David Ortiz's name from the Red Sox DH spot and insert Jim Thome's name, or Jason Giambi, or Barry Bonds. Do you lose much, if anything? No, probably not. Is David Ortiz the most valuable player to his team? No, he's just a good hitter who doesn't do anything but go out and hit 3 or 4 times a game. He contributes nothing else to his teams wins or losses other than that. If the people who determine the names on the ballot for MVP aren't nominating players who play the whole game every game, and who are as talented in the field as they are at the plate, than they are idiots. To look at only one aspect of a players game, ignore everything else and then say he is an MVP, is ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as nominating a guy who plays 3 or 4 times a game. To look at a guy like Derek Jeter who is at a completely different level than 95% of the players in the game, and say that David Ortiz deserves to be in the same category as him is absolute idiocy. Until David Ortiz takes a regular spot in the field and proves he can do it all, he shouldn't even make the ballot much less win the MVP award.

I'd say that hitting three or four times a game is a huge contribution. Let's say there's a left fielder who doesn't have to make a single defensive play in a game but still gets a few hits and a few crucial RBIs in the game. Would you not consider that enough of a contribution?

[Brooklyn]

Scratch David Ortiz's name from the Red Sox DH spot and insert Jim Thome's name, or Jason Giambi, or Barry Bonds. Do you lose much, if anything? No, probably not. Is David Ortiz the most valuable player to his team? No, he's just a good hitter who doesn't do anything but go out and hit 3 or 4 times a game. He contributes nothing else to his teams wins or losses other than that. If the people who determine the names on the ballot for MVP aren't nominating players who play the whole game every game, and who are as talented in the field as they are at the plate, than they are idiots. To look at only one aspect of a players game, ignore everything else and then say he is an MVP, is ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as nominating a guy who plays 3 or 4 times a game. To look at a guy like Derek Jeter who is at a completely different level than 95% of the players in the game, and say that David Ortiz deserves to be in the same category as him is absolute idiocy. Until David Ortiz takes a regular spot in the field and proves he can do it all, he shouldn't even make the ballot much less win the MVP award.


Calling people that don't agree with you an idiot tells me a lot about you.

As for your post, inserting Thome or Bonds or Giambi for Ortiz and your team wouldn't lose much. But your team wouldn't lose much, either, if you insterted Thome or Giambi or Ortiz for Howard.

[digglahhh]

To look at a guy like Derek Jeter who is at a completely different level than 95% of the players in the game, and say that David Ortiz deserves to be in the same category as him is absolute idiocy.

Or the reverse...

And what kind of argument is the substitution argument anyway?

Substitute one of the best hitters in the game with another one of the best hitters in the game and not much changes. Well, gee... how profound.

Substitute Derek Jeter with another first rate shortstop and what... the Yanks fall of the face of the earth?...

Derek Jeter, as all around player is phenomenal, a first ballot HOFer. I really like the guy, don't get it twisted because of my Mets avatar. However, when it comes down to the most important part of the game, David Ortiz is light years beyond Derek Jeter. I mean, the difference is enough to turn Pat Burrell into Vladimir Guererro...

So, being as this is the most VALUABLE player, and not the best or most skilled all around player, how a player contributes his value is not nearly as important as how much value he actually contributes.

[digglahhh]

And BTW, to address the pitcher argument, which has also been touched upon, just about any starting pitcher with any reasonable MVP will have a virtually equal number of batters faced as an offensive player has ABs.

Take a second to process that.

Albert Pujols gets 700 or whatever chances to try to create runs, Roy Oswalt gets that many to suppress them.

Batters face pitchers, it's kind of that pesky equal and opposite reaction thing...

[TRfromBR]

Derek Jeter, as all around player is phenomenal, a first ballot HOFer. I really like the guy, don't get it twisted because of my Mets avatar. However, when it comes down to the most important part of the game, David Ortiz is light years beyond Derek Jeter. I mean, the difference is enough to turn Pat Burrell into Vladimir Guererro...

So, being as this is the most VALUABLE player, and not the best or most skilled all around player, how a player contributes his value is not nearly as important as how much value he actually contributes.

I agree. Whoever provides the most value to their team, no matter how they provide it, should get the MVP. I would add that Jeter has made hugely valuable contributions to his team, beyond just his offensive and defensive play. He leads and motivates his team as much as any ballplayer I've ever seen. Plus, he has significantly enlarged and inspired the Yankees' fan base.

I think all these type of contributions should be factored in when deciding any ballplayer's value to his team. Some players, in contrast, detract from their value to the team through negative "intangibles."

[Brooklyn]

And BTW, to address the pitcher argument, which has also been touched upon, just about any starting pitcher with any reasonable MVP will have a virtually equal number of batters faced as an offensive player has ABs.

Take a second to process that.

Albert Pujols gets 700 or whatever chances to try to create runs, Roy Oswalt gets that many to suppress them.

Batters face pitchers, it's kind of that pesky equal and opposite reaction thing...


Thank you. I've been saying that for years. It even goes further - pitchers will face more ABs then hitters will have. The top pitchers will face upwards of 1,000 batters a year. They should definitely be inlcuded in the discussion.

This is essentially my argument against relievers winning the Cy Young, too. I wouldn't eliminate them, but they have to be awfully special to have pitched 1/3 of the innings of a starter and 1/3 of the batters faced to be more important than a starter

[Wade8813]

The ironic part of all that is that the more hits/walks a pitcher gives up in the same number of innings, the more batters he'll face.

[digglahhh]

The ironic part of all that is that the more hits/walks a pitcher gives up in the same number of innings, the more batters he'll face.

Yes, but there is a tipping point. At the fringes of top tier you may get some overlap (that is, Carlos Zambrano may face more batter than Oswalt). However, Sidney Ponson will not hang around in games long enough to face more batters than Roy Halladay. When a pitcher pitches poorly, he's yanked.

Even if you are left in to give up 6 runs over four, you'll face less batters than a guy who goes 8 strong.

Eliminating the BBs from this and focusing on ABs also helps.

[digglahhh]

I agree. Whoever provides the most value to their team, no matter how they provide it, should get the MVP. I would add that Jeter has made hugely valuable contributions to his team, beyond just his offensive and defensive play. He leads and motivates his team as much as any ballplayer I've ever seen. Plus, he has significantly enlarged and inspired the Yankees' fan base.

I think all these type of contributions should be factored in when deciding any ballplayer's value to his team. Some players, in contrast, detract from their value to the team through negative "intangibles."

Sure. I'm all for recognizing a player's contribution beyond the diamond. The main problem though is that it is hard to figure. I mean, not even to quantify statistically, but to even know at all. Maybe Jermaine Dye is a great clubhouse guy, I just don't really have any way of knowing.

FWIW, in this particular comparison, there are few clubhouse presences as gregarious and relaxing as David Ortiz. While Jeter is widely acclaimed as the best, Ortiz has no shortage of "intangibles," himself.

[538280]

I voted they should be considered just like any other player, but the voters should be aware that the player contributes absolutely nothing on defense. If his offense is still powerful enough that, despite no defensive value, he's still the most valuable in the league (and that is very possible), then I think he absolutely deserves the MVP.

[538280]

Thank you. I've been saying that for years. It even goes further - pitchers will face more ABs then hitters will have. The top pitchers will face upwards of 1,000 batters a year. They should definitely be inlcuded in the discussion.

This is essentially my argument against relievers winning the Cy Young, too. I wouldn't eliminate them, but they have to be awfully special to have pitched 1/3 of the innings of a starter and 1/3 of the batters faced to be more important than a starter

The problem with this argument, though (that pitchers should be considered higher than batters because they participate in more PAs), is 1. A hitter will have an impact on every game in the season, not as much of one as a pitcher will in his one game, but every single win or loss a position player had at least some impact on, those PAs he participates in are in different games, and 2. The pitcher, while he faces the hitter, isn't totally responsible for getting him out if he does, the defense behind him also factors into it.

About relievers, all BF aren't created equal. Relief aces come into the games in the late innings when the game is close. A run saved by a relief ace has more value than that of a starting pitcher. I generally agree that a reliever is VERY, VERY rarely more valuable than the top SPs even taking that into account though.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

The correct answer is "No." A DH is not a baseball player, so therefore he is not eligible for the MVP award.

Oh wait, you mean he IS?!

Never mind ...

[rugbyfreak]

[QUOTE=Sankhara-dukkha;869797]We've discussed this one ad nauseum./QUOTE]

We have? I've been on bbf a year now, and I'm pretty regular on this forum and at least two others, and I've never participated in this discussion. Definitely, it comes up in various other threads as one of those inevitable sidetracks that always happen. But my goal when starting a thread--which I do relatively rarely--is always to start one that I'm not only interested in but that I believe has been rare, at least in the forseeable past. That's why I'm really tired of the Babe, Willie, Greatest This-, and Greatest That-type lists and rankings that are the true ad nauseum of bbf.

So, if I missed this poll recently, I apologize. But I figure there are always folks who can jump in who have not weighed in on the matter--like me, e.g.

I guess you can sit it out. If you're tired of the topic, I don't blame you. And no, I don't know where you stand on it, since I'm fairly sure we've never chatted. But it's nice to meet you.

[rugbyfreak]

Slight threadcrap here, but since the establishment of a Cy Young Award in each league 4 decades ago, IMO pitchers should be ineligible for MVP voting. The Cy Young IS the pitchers' MVP equivalent!

That was exactly the idea for creating the CYA in '56 (also the great Cy himself had died in '55): Baseball folks were a little concerned that, since the "modern" MVP came in '31, pitchers had won more than their fair share, they believed.

Ironically, it didn't quite have the desired effect. Here are the pitcher's MVP totals, by league, both pre- and post-CYA implementation (for the latter, I'll consider just the first 25 years, to match the pre- list number):

AL
Pre-CYA: (1931-'55): 5
Post-CYA (1956-'80): 2

NL
Pre-CYA: 6
Post-CYA: 3

So, they went down slightly, but clearly, voters still continued to hold the possibility that a premier hurler was still eligible...anyway...

[rugbyfreak]

I don't really understand the difference between the second and third option. Players are considered based upon their overall contribution to their team. So, DHes should be considered, but their value is only in half of the game, so they have to be above and beyond offensively.

Maybe, now you put it that way, there really is no difference. I guess I was trying to root out the guys who would consider the DH's in their annual pool, just like he would list all the other players; from those who would go into a voting situation, and only in very special years (a huge year by a DH) even bring a DH into the picture. Maybe, perhaps, once or twice a decade, at most.

Does that make sense?

[TRfromBR]

Sure. I'm all for recognizing a player's contribution beyond the diamond. The main problem though is that it is hard to figure. I mean, not even to quantify statistically, but to even know at all. Maybe Jermaine Dye is a great clubhouse guy, I just don't really have any way of knowing.

FWIW, in this particular comparison, there are few clubhouse presences as gregarious and relaxing as David Ortiz. While Jeter is widely acclaimed as the best, Ortiz has no shortage of "intangibles," himself.

That's great to know about Ortiz, digglahhh, 'cause the guy's a hell of a ballplayer.

[rugbyfreak]

I'm thinking there are two other questions that would have been interesting to ask you guys:

1.) Assuming you're one of the ones who feels a DH should never win MVP:

a.) Do you believe it should be written into the voting criteria as a rule for voters to follow (i.e. a DH cannot be considered)?

b.) Do you define yourself as primarily an NL fan?

Seems to me, with 1a, if you really believe it's wrong, why not have it a rule? Otherwise, the annual vote in which voters pretend to include DHs is nothing more than a useless dance. If it came to this, there should probably just be a DH of the Year.

Also, if you feel this way, where do you draw the line on a DH season? In '05, Ortiz played 10 games at 1B, Giambi has always played a fair number there (although that is dwindling), and many of the others have put in a few games somewhere. That number would have to be defined.

Regarding 1b, my guess is that an overwhelming number of the DH detractors here are NL fans. I have never considered myself a fan, particularly, of either league, although since as a kid I was a NYY fan, I guess I knew that league better, maybe favored it a bit early on, and have always rooted for the AL in the ASG (but not necessarily in the WS).

But naturally, like most AL fans, I came to accept the DH over time as a reality that was here to stay. Some of us came around quicker than others. I know that, as a kid (I was 14 in '73, when it started), my acceptance hinged less on the strictly baseball aspect of it (where most hard-core NLers hinge their argument: "It ain't real baseball!" they say) and focused immediately on how it was going to allow many of those stars of the '60s, whose primes I had missed, to remain in the game. Guys who had developed physical problems: Oliva, Tommy Davis, Cepeda, Frank Robby, etc. All I kept thinking was that, if it had come around a little sooner, I would have seen my hero Mantle play (I began watching BB in '69). He retired at age 36 (considered still in your prime today), which was very young, but he was too gimpy to even play 1B anymore.

For many years, I respected those NLers, because, under different circumstances (e.g. if I had grown up an NL fan), I would have been right there with them, since I'm basically old school at heart.

But folks, I hate to tell you, it's now 34 years later, and it may be time for you to face it and move on. Nearly every baseball league, up and down the age brackets, pro and amateur, use the DH. I believe one of the Japanese leagues is still a holdout, and one or two others here and there. But it's here, and I say that, not only is it time to get over it, but maybe also time for the NL to think about adopting it.

After all--not that the DH is a major reason--but NLers also have had to face the fact that, for many years now, the AL has been a way better league, top to bottom. Something to also think about...

[Padday]

I just wonder if the NL had changed to the DH around the same time the AL did, would this arguement still be going today. There probably would still be some traditionalist fans argueing it but I doubt the arguement would have the same magnitude as it does.

[digglahhh]

Good questions Rugbyfreak.

Another one I would add, is that is you believe that the DH should be made ineligible my matter of rule, should there be an award (albeit less prestigious) to recognize the best DH in the league?

If not, you are really just pretending they don't exist,which may help you sleep at night, but does nothing to contradict the simple fact that they do...


Padday,

I've wondered that myself. I also, more cynically, wonder if sometimes people hold on to these preferences just because it makes them feel more connected to the game, like they feel like they are more of a "true" fan if they resent the DH.

[TRfromBR]

Another one I would add, is that is you believe that the DH should be made ineligible my matter of rule, should there be an award (albeit less prestigious) to recognize the best DH in the league?




I think they should be eligible, too, digglahhh.* But, you present an intriguing question ... Which old timer do think the award should be named after? Ron Bloomberg? Dick Stuart? Minnie Minoso? Eddie Gaedel? George Will?

* However, it naturally goes without saying, digglahhh, that, in any discussion concerning the DH, we should not disregard the moral hazards of Rule 6.10, as so assiduously delineated by Goff, Shughart & Tollison, in Economic Inquiry, July 1997. This analytical masterpiece is a must read for all .

[Dodgerfan1]

...I also, more cynically, wonder if sometimes people hold on to these preferences just because it makes them feel more connected to the game, like they feel like they are more of a "true" fan if they resent the DH.

As a member of the "I hate the DH" club, I can honestly tell you that, no, I do not resent the DH rule, nor do I dislike it because it makes me feel more like a 'true' fan. I was a true baseball fan before the rule and will always be a true fan despite it. I certainly understand the concept of the DH rule, and I agree it adds more offense to games, something that people with shorter attention spans and those who would rather see 10-9 games than a classic pitching duel embraced back in '73. I get that there are two schools of thought here. I don't think just because someone doesn't like the DH rule they should automatically be labelled 'old school', although there may be validity to that in some cases.

'Old school' is not a negative connotation, as some may believe. It doesn't mean one is living in the past, afraid of new things, stubborn, or even necessarily an NL fan, for that matter, IMO. We probably all know (whether we realize it or not) NL fans who like the DH rule and AL fans who don't. I can certainly agree that most people who like the rule are most likely AL fans and vice versa, but disliking a rule that I honestly think is dumb does not make me 'feel more like a true fan.' Nor do I believe that anyone who likes the rule is 'dumb' themself or NOT a true fan, let me please make that distinction right now.

On the positive side, if I were a manager, I'd like the DH rule. It would make my job much easier and would likely blur the distinctions between managers of the two leagues. Instead of having to actually MANAGE when the pitcher's batting slot comes up late in a game, I could just sit back and watch my DH walk up to the plate. No wondering whether I should bunt, pinch hit, etc. To me, comparing managers in the AL to managers in the NL is comparing apples to oranges. They approach games differently because of the rule, and the distinction should probably be made when choosing Manager of the Year, but I seriously doubt it is.

DF1

[M'sfan4ever]

Calling people that don't agree with you an idiot tells me a lot about you.



I have a very strict policy when writing on these message boards ( I write on a couple) I never call fellow posters names. I would never intentially call anyone an idiot, but I can see where that impression might have come across, so for that I apologise. My intention was to call the people who determine who is on the ballot for MVP "idiots" for their, IMHO, poor selection criteria. I am certainly not opposed to people disagreeing with me, and enjoy the give and take of a good debate. Once again, if I offended anyone, I apologise, it was most certainly not directed at anyone here. I will try to be much more careful about my choice of words in the future.

Dean :)

[natsnsoxfan]

Of course they should be. You know, its funny that A-Rod won it over Papi in '05 because of his "defense" and then he gos out in '06 and is a horrendous defender.

The idea that DH's should get docked for not playing the field is prepostrous. By that logic a guy that hits 20 HR's with 80RBI and plays untouchable on defense is a legitimate MVP candidate.

[Brooklyn]

I have a very strict policy when writing on these message boards ( I write on a couple) I never call fellow posters names. I would never intentially call anyone an idiot, but I can see where that impression might have come across, so for that I apologise. My intention was to call the people who determine who is on the ballot for MVP "idiots" for their, IMHO, poor selection criteria. I am certainly not opposed to people disagreeing with me, and enjoy the give and take of a good debate. Once again, if I offended anyone, I apologise, it was most certainly not directed at anyone here. I will try to be much more careful about my choice of words in the future.

Dean :)

Fair enough, no harm done.

[rugbyfreak]

'Old school' is not a negative connotation, as some may believe. It doesn't mean one is living in the past, afraid of new things, stubborn, or even necessarily an NL fan, for that matter, IMO. We probably all know (whether we realize it or not) NL fans who like the DH rule and AL fans who don't.

On the positive side, if I were a manager, I'd like the DH rule. It would make my job much easier and would likely blur the distinctions between managers of the two leagues. Instead of having to actually MANAGE when the pitcher's batting slot comes up late in a game, I could just sit back and watch my DH walk up to the plate.

I agree that old school can be a very good thing--provided it entails holding onto positive, eternal values that will never change over time (always hustling out "routine" flies and grounders, because you never know, etc...) and not clinging to "unwritten" rules just for the sake of it (first batter after a HR goes down...). Although I'm a DH supporter, I'm definitely old school and it comes out in my HS coaching, and in my playing (still play men's softball).

So, far be it from me to judge whether supporting or not supporting the DH makes one "dumb" or "old school." To me, it's simply a matter of accepting what's here to stay, and embracing it. I have to laugh when I hear NLers say that, in a non-DH game (like some WS games), they have the advantage because their pitchers bat all year long...well, OK, so their pitchers are .180 hitters, while the AL's are .140, or whatever. I'm not sure if I consider that a significant advantage.

Here's what I do get tired of from the NL camp: That their managers do more "real" managing simply because of the numerous situations where the pitcher comes up, and he has to decide who should hit (and then, if he pinch-hits, who should pitch next). Whereas the AL manager never faces that decision.

Well, very true. But here is a situation that the NL skipper never faces. There are many times where pinch-hitting for that pitcher is a no-brainer, a must. That means that the duration of that pitcher's appearance has been decided by a criteria having nothing to do with pitching.

The AL manager, meanwhile, is constantly faced with the decision of how long to leave his pitchers in a game, and the decision is always a pitching decision, never one made for him due to the batting order. So, AL managers make many more pure pitching decisions than an NL manager--it simply figures. Therefore, AL managers are always more pitch-count-conscious than an NL mgr., who often removes a hurler simply because he has to.

Point is, adding the DH did not remove an element of managing from the game, nor make it easier. It merely removed one set of problems, and replaced them with others. Make sense?

[Dev518]

A DH should have to do alot better than any other fielding players, especially if other top MVP canditates are exceptional fielders. Another reason would be that a DH only hits so he gets less fatigued.