Ortiz loses out on MVP Again

[ChrisLDuncan]

If Ryan Howard had great numbers and his team didn't make the play-offs and still won M.V.P, then why shouldn't papi be the M.V.P?

Because Howard's team was bounced from the playoffs in the last weekend of the season, whereas the Red Sox were bounced after the Boston Massacre and were no where near contention in September.

[Kdub Red Sox Fan 4Life]

Big Papi loses out to Morneau.

[SeaverGooden]

If there going to say that this player is about Value than I can understand Ortiz not winning because his team didn't make the Playoffs. But with Ryan Howard and the Phillies not making the Playoffs, how did he win over Pujlos? So if the award is going to be given away based on numbers, Ortiz definitley should have beaten out Morneau.

Morneau

.321 avg/34 hr/130 rbi/.934 ops

Ortiz

.287 avg/54 hr/137/1.049

Beside average, Ortiz destroyed Morneau in every category. They really need to come to a decision on what the boundaries for this award are. Is it most valuable to a playoff team? Is it the best overall hitter in the league? if it's the best overall hitter than David Ortiz should have won hands down.

[wigglestrue]

They need to stop letting sportswriters dictate these awards by themselves is what should happen. HOF voting, MVP voting...should all be done by a large committee of writers, players, ex-players, announcers, fans, and statisticians, among others. Writers have wayyyyyyyyyyy too much say right now. WAY TOO MUCH.

Not that Papi should've won the award necessarily, but come on.
Justin Morneau??????????????????????????????????????????? ????

Ridiculous.

[DoubleX]

As difficult as I believe it should be for a DH to win the MVP, I would have been much happier and understanding if Ortiz won than Morneau - this is truly a terrible, terrible selection.

[CoachMJ]

Put on a glove and take the field papi.

[KCGHOST]

I guess if you shouldn't win an award then it doesn't matter who you lose to.

[Charger567]

Jeter did not deserve to get second place..

[Sankhara-dukkha]

the only time I've ever noticed an MVP coming out of a non-playoff team, it was a-rod for the rangers and there really wasn't anything to compare to him. Not seeing ortiz win this one doesn't really hurt me too much.

It actually looks like they got it right all around this year. Morneau would be my number one because on top of the numbers, he had what I'm sure is a bigger impact on his team winning a playoff berth than Jeter did for the yankees. In spite of 54 home runs, Ortiz couldn't get the sox into the playoffs.

Now... Jeter's GG and Ortiz' snub last year are two different stories...

[PhilWings24]

Big Papi loses out to Morneau.

fine with it, i think its a shame papi didn't win, but after having 100% conceeded this to jeter, i'm just thrilled that morneau took it home.

papi would have been better, but i'm fine with this.

[Evangelion]

I'm surprised Ortiz finished ahead of Mauer.

Not too disappointed since I knew Ortiz wasn't going to win. Even with those numbers, people still harper him too much on being a DH. Also didn't help the Sox finished in third place, which matter to certain voters. Ortiz going to have a Bonds' type season to win or everyone else not be that good and no Travis Hafner. :laugh

[The Kid]

If Ryan Howard had great numbers and his team didn't make the play-offs and still won M.V.P, then why shouldn't papi be the M.V.P? Ortiz did exactly what Howard did, crushing everyone else in every offensive catagory exept batting average.:mad:

[wigglestrue]

Jeter was the most deserving candidate, guys. There are ways to poke holes in his case, but the holes for others are much bigger. This was his year. Even if it wasn't, though, it absolutely was NOT Morneau's. Ridiculous. Times have changed, take the ballots away from the sportswriters. Now, please.

[CoachMJ]

If Ryan Howard had great numbers and his team didn't make the play-offs and still won M.V.P, then why shouldn't papi be the M.V.P? Ortiz did exactly what Howard did, crushing everyone else in every offensive catagory exept batting average.:mad:


grab a glove and PLAY FIRST BASE!!!! ryan howard plays the field. yes ortiz has deserved one in the last two years but the guy doesnt play the field and thats half the game. how can you award an award a most valuable player award if you only play half the game? exacatly why clemens, eckersly and rollie fingers, or koufax or gibson should never have won them either. they have a cy young for them. and if ortiz wants an MVP and play half of a game... then he better start ptiching.

[CoachMJ]

Jeter was the most deserving candidate, guys. There are ways to poke holes in his case, but the holes for others are much bigger. This was his year. Even if it wasn't, though, it absolutely was NOT Morneau's. Ridiculous. Times have changed, take the ballots away from the sportswriters. Now, please.

Amen.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[EvanAparra]

grab a glove and PLAY FIRST BASE!!!! ryan howard plays the field. yes ortiz has deserved one in the last two years but the guy doesnt play the field and thats half the game. how can you award an award a most valuable player award if you only play half the game? exacatly why clemens, eckersly and rollie fingers, or koufax or gibson should never have won them either. they have a cy young for them. and if ortiz wants an MVP and play half of a game... then he better start ptiching.

Thats pretty ridiculous.... This MVP stuff has gotten way out of hand, since when does everybody care this much.

[DoubleX]

Even though I have argued many times against a DH winning, I will take a page from some of you who have rebutted me and point out that a 1Bman doesn't really have that much defensive value. If the offensive production between a 1Bman and a DH is close, I will give the nod to the 1Bman as being more valuable, but as good as Morneau was this year, Ortiz blew him out of the water and did enough, IMO, to overcome the defensive adjustment. That doesn't mean I think Ortiz should have won the MVP, but I think he would have been a much better choice than Morneau. I think the most justifiable choices this year were Jeter or Mauer, with Ortiz and Dye being slightly behind. Morneau is on the third tier, swimming with guys like Santana, Hafner, Ramirez, Thomas, Thome, and Guerrero. So at best, I see Morneau as the 5th most deserving in the AL.

[Evangelion]

All of sudden, people don't give a hoot about defense. I wonder if they know that only pay attention to defense, when a DH involved. Hafner and Ortiz will likely have to deal with this year and year out. Not saying they shouldn't, but when you're debating MVP in any year, regardless of a DH involved or not, then people should stress defense importance like they do when a DH involved in the MVP. Obviously, I hear nothing. Obviously, look what happen to Mauer, who played the toughest position of all.

I wonder why Santana not harm for not hitting? No, that's not a serious question.

[Dodgerfan1]

....a 1Bman doesn't really have that much defensive value.

Tell that to Bill Buckner and Red Sox Nation. :D

[Captain Cold Nose]

How much do you think the Red Sox falling from first to third like they did so late in the season played into Ortiz's finish? Numbers and clutch hits or not, that had to weight heavily on the voters' minds, just as the Twins ascent into the division title probably did.

[wigglestrue]

I think it made all the difference.
If the Sox win the AL East, Papi wins the MVP.

[DoubleX]

I think it made all the difference.
If the Sox win the AL East, Papi wins the MVP.

Given that Morneau won and not Jeter or Mauer, I think you're right.

[SoxSon]

I think it made all the difference.
If the Sox win the AL East, Papi wins the MVP.


Agreed. The division was the difference, as some of us said it would be.
I don't believe that Ortiz should have won it this year. And Jeter did have a better case...I think that's true. I try to maintain some separation between my heart and my head. :D

That being said, Ortiz should've had it before Morneau.

[The Kid]

I think it made all the difference.
If the Sox win the AL East, Papi wins the MVP.
Then why did Ryan Howard win it if the Phils didn't make the playoffs, hum?

[SoxSon]

Then why did Ryan Howard win it if the Phils didn't make the playoffs, hum?


Because the NL is, let's just say, a bit thinner overall.

[DoubleX]

Because the NL is, let's just say, a bit thinner overall.

Yup - that and the Phillies made a very surprising and serious run at a playoff spot in the second half as Howard led the way, while Ortiz's team faded down the stretch. Players like Vladimir Guerrero, Miguel Tejada, and Jason Giambi have won MVP awards in recent years thanks to surging down the stretch and getting their team into the playoff picture just like Howard this year.

[TigersFanB406]

grab a glove and PLAY FIRST BASE!!!! ryan howard plays the field. yes ortiz has deserved one in the last two years but the guy doesnt play the field and thats half the game. how can you award an award a most valuable player award if you only play half the game? exacatly why clemens, eckersly and rollie fingers, or koufax or gibson should never have won them either. they have a cy young for them. and if ortiz wants an MVP and play half of a game... then he better start ptiching.

Good point. Pitchers shouldn't win MVP because they have the Cy Young.

Likewise, DHs shouldn't win MVP. They need to make a new award and call it the David Ortiz award. And give it to him first, and every year until he retires.

[Edgartohof]

They need to make a new award and call it the David Ortiz award. And give it to him first, and every year until he retires.

Actually it's called the "Edgar Martinez Award"

[TigersFanB406]

My bad then. I thought Ortiz was better than Martinez but I guess not?

So...with an "Edgar Martinez" award, why don't they just give that to Oritz (or any DH) and leave the MVP award to guys who play in the field and don't just bat?

[EvanAparra]

My bad then. I thought Ortiz was better than Martinez but I guess not?

So...with an "Edgar Martinez" award, why don't they just give that to Oritz (or any DH) and leave the MVP award to guys who play in the field and don't just bat?

Because the MVP is for most valuable player award, not the "Most Valuable guy who plays the field" award.

[TigersFanB406]

Because the MVP is for most valuable player award, not the "Most Valuable guy who plays the field" award.

You sure do possess the capacity to be snotty. Just to let you know...so do I. Fortunately for you, this is a baseball board. What would be the point?

I am sorry you misunderstood my position on the matter. I'll try to clarify it for you. Anyone who only DHs is not a "player" in the full sense of the word. A "player" would have to play in the field as well. Ortiz is a "hitter" a few times a game. The cops who guard the dugouts between innings go on the field more often than Ortiz.

[Evangelion]

Let's not forget that Howard's team also had a better record than Pujols' Cardinals. If the Sox just got into the playoff, that might have been enough for the voters to give Ortiz the award since voters prefer the power hitters.

When you come down to it, the voters likely thought it was between Thomas and Monreau, the two power hitters in consideration for the teams in the playoff. It's quite obvious people like power if A-Rod could make it after the season he had. It's quite disappointing, but don't expect a player like Jeter or Mauer to win without having a record season or hit amazingly well, like 350. or 370. to make up for their lack of HR and RBI, which people consider the meat statistic. I wonder if they thought about the fact that without a player like Jeter and Mauer getting on base, that these power hitters won't have their RBI total or just simply be walked.

[SoxSon]

Let's not forget that Howard's team also had a better record than Pujols' Cardinals. If the Sox just got into the playoff, that might have been enough for the voters to give Ortiz the award since voters prefer the power hitters.


Yes, I think you're right, Evangelion. I think the voters would've done just that. A good point, too, about St. Louis. They aren't the typical World Series Champs in that regard, so comparisons using them might be lacking.

[EvanAparra]

You sure do possess the capacity to be snotty. Just to let you know...so do I. Fortunately for you, this is a baseball board. What would be the point?

I am sorry you misunderstood my position on the matter. I'll try to clarify it for you. Anyone who only DHs is not a "player" in the full sense of the word. A "player" would have to play in the field as well. Ortiz is a "hitter" a few times a game. The cops who guard the dugouts between innings go on the field more often than Ortiz.

Ok, you go ahead and tell David Ortiz, Edgar Martinez, and Travis Hafner that they are not players, because I wont. So if David Ortiz is traded to NL hes all of a sudden a "player?"

[TigersFanB406]

Hey I like Ortiz...as a hitter. Until he plays in the field, he's not a player. He's a hitter. This logic is consistent with football logic where place kickers are not really considered players...they are kickers.

So I guess it comes down to this. I'd tell them they're not players until they play in the field. Yes if Ortiz is traded to the NL he is all of a sudden "a player". this is my personal opinion. Whether or not anyone agrees with me will not change it.

p.s. Before you attempt to turn this on me and say "then pitchers aren't players either because they don't bat (in the AL)" I will defend my point. Pitchers are still players. They are still fielders. They are in the game more than a DH. Again, a DH is on the field for less time than a cop guarding the bullpen area between innings.

[EvanAparra]

this is my personal opinion. Whether or not anyone agrees with me will not change it.

Im not trying to.


They are in the game more than a DH. Again, a DH is on the field for less time than a cop guarding the bullpen area between innings.

So a relief pitcher that comes in for 2/3 of an inning is more of a player than someone who comes to bat 5 times in a game?

[TigersFanB406]

So a relief pitcher that comes in for 2/3 of an inning is more of a player than someone who comes to bat 5 times in a game?

I guess so. Because for that 2/3 of an inning they are fielding as well. And the pitcher has the advantage over the batter. And that relief pitcher who pitches 2/3 of an inning may spend more time on the field than those cops who guard the bullpen between innings too.

I'll admit it though, your question poses a challenge to my opinion. I still feel the way I do but you made a point. Now, if you can quit coming across as snotty like in the first post I'm sure we'll get along. I'm not interested in seeing who can do better at it...

[Evangelion]

So, Ortiz should play 1B poorly and we should bench Youkillis? I'm not quite sure why people feel the need to penalize a player and calling him less of a player, because he's a DH. The objective of the game would be to win. Since the option to have a DH there, you'll use it. Ortiz a bad 1B, he's aware of that and accept that, unlike Giambi did during 05 season and prefer playing 1B, despite being terrible at being at 1B.

I'm ok with the arguement for MVP since a player on the field will have being a fielder as positive for him while a DH can't since they simply don't play the field. They're not being penalized, but merely can't have credit for that part of the game.

But, to consider a DH a less of player come off snobbish since your views on the DH are negative. I'm ok with people opposing the idea of the DH, but when people start bashing the players that are DH, like Ortiz and Hafner, that's just not cool in my book.

[TigersFanB406]

Actually, I like the DH. I prefer the American League style of play. I just don't consider a DH a player on the level of a 1B man or any other fielder. I just look at it differently. You can consider me snobbish if you'd like. But remember, I do like the DH. I never said otherwise.

[PhilWings24]

grab a glove and PLAY FIRST BASE!!!! ryan howard plays the field..

his team would be better off if they could let him DH. how hurting your team in the field is better than not playing in the field i still cannot understand.


yes ortiz has deserved one in the last two years but the guy doesnt play the field and thats half the game.

no it's not. the best defensive 1b in baseball is not worth as much as the best offensive 1b in baseball, all other things being remotely equal. defense isn't close to half the game.


how can you award an award a most valuable player award if you only play half the game?

if his offensive contributions are worth more than any other players offensive and defensive contributions combined.


exacatly why clemens, eckersly and rollie fingers, or koufax or gibson should never have won them either. they have a cy young for them. and if ortiz wants an MVP and play half of a game... then he better start ptiching.

nothing here i haven't already adressed.

papi should not have won it this year. no way he should've, there is no signle bias that owuld give him the award, aside from the "clutch" bias.

i'm just tired of people saying this same stuff over and over again about how a guy who hurts his team by playing the field and is worse offensively is more valuable than a guy who just doesn't help his team and is better offensively. and that is not a jab at jeter particularly, he helped is team out a good deal defensively by playing barely-above-average defense at short, and his team did much better than papi's. i don't think he should've won the award, but i would've placed him 2 spots ahead of papi, about.

i just wish peoplewould realize that if a guy's defense costs his team 20 runs, then he should not get ANY props for playing the field (in a case that extreme, it should hurt his value alot actually).

i've said this countless times, and it always confuses people, but i'll keep my fingers crossed you folks can stick with me here lol. it'd be one thing if he said "no, i don't want to paly the field. it messes with me at the plate." cus then we could say "who cares, suck it up and try you lazy jerk. if it really kills you at the bat, we'll put you back on the bench, but do what's best for the team." then he would clearly be lacking the team mentality an MVP is supposed to have. But Papi puts on a glove and takes groundballs before every single game . Every year in spring training, there's a quiet incident where he says he'd like to play the field this year, and worked in the offseason to try and prove himself with the glove. That said, he'll do whatever the team wants. Each year they've told him he's most valuable as a DH, and he's politely sat on the bench against his wishes and played. So the reason he's sitting is cus the team does not want him to, they think they have a better alternative. And he is not this absolute liability defensively, either. he's far from graceful, he'd likely be one of the 10 worst defensive 1b in baseball, but he wouldn't be much worse than ryan howard at all (and i have watched both of them play alot, phillies are my #2 team). anyone who watched the 04 world series or 06 all star game knows that he is far from an embarassment, although he is further from a stud (just to prove my point further; BP has him rated as a 97 overall, where 100 is average. that means that they say he'd cost his team 3 runs over 100 games. this year, ryan howard's rating was a 90).

so basically, people are gonna hold it against him that he is fine with helping the team by letting a better defensive player take over 1st. this is like blaming manny for not insisting on playing a more important OF position like CF (though granted, i'm sure he wants to stay as uninvolved as possible lol).

[wigglestrue]

Right, his defensive value as DH is 0. A poor fielder's defensive value is -5 to -20 or so. We can't assume Ortiz would be a poor fielder. If the Sox have better defensive options for 1B, it's their prerogative to use them, which they have, and use Ortiz as the DH, which is a legitimate position in the AL. Punishing Ortiz for that, would be like punishing Morneau for not being able to play C. The Twins have a better defensive option at C, and it's not Morneau's fault that they do.

[DoubleX]

Right, his defensive value as DH is 0. A poor fielder's defensive value is -5 to -20 or so. We can't assume Ortiz would be a poor fielder. If the Sox have better defensive options for 1B, it's their prerogative to use them, which they have, and use Ortiz as the DH, which is a legitimate position in the AL. Punishing Ortiz for that, would be like punishing Morneau for not being able to play C. The Twins have a better defensive option at C, and it's not Morneau's fault that they do.

This is why win shares is a good stat for measuring a player's overall contribution to their team winning because it reflects their defensive value.

[wigglestrue]

And win shares take into account the team's positional context? How a team having a better defensive option at a more valuable position does not necessarily mean the lesser option is a bad defender? For example, again: If the Twins were using some replacement scrub at catcher, then it reinforces Morneau's defensive value as merely a 1B. But they have Mauer, so Morneau has to be used at 1B. And if they had a better defensive option for 1B, the Twins might have to use Morneau at DH. I think I'm getting my point across, but let me know if I'm not -- I'm shaky on my knowledge of win shares and defensive metrics.

[Sliding Billy]

Right, his defensive value as DH is 0. A poor fielder's defensive value is -5 to -20 or so. We can't assume Ortiz would be a poor fielder. If the Sox have better defensive options for 1B, it's their prerogative to use them, which they have, and use Ortiz as the DH, which is a legitimate position in the AL. Punishing Ortiz for that, would be like punishing Morneau for not being able to play C. The Twins have a better defensive option at C, and it's not Morneau's fault that they do.
The absence of a DH's defensive value isn't an issue of punishing the player or considering the reasons why the player is not in the field.

A player whose defensive value is actually negative does not play in the field very long. Below average isn't negative: An average defender has quite a bit of defensive value, and so do most below-average ones. Defensive value is skewed to the right; the majority of players are below the mean defensively. Just as it's hard to put average hitters into every slot in the lineup, few teams have average defensive players at every position. Those below-average players still contribute to team wins in the field.

If I understand the allocation of defensive win shares correctly, it goes something like this: A team gets 3 win shares for every win, divided equally between offense and defense. Of the defensive win shares, 2/3 go to pitching, 1/3 for field defense. So an average player at an average position on an average team who played a full season would get 1/9*1/3*1/2*243 = about 4.5 win shares for defense. With MVP's typically getting 30+ win shares, that makes it tough for a DH to get over the hump.

While no one thinks defensive win shares are the last word, they can serve as a ballpark estimation for defensive value, especially at first base, where the spread is not that great: A typically good-hitting first baseman's defensive win shares are about 8-10% of his total. Keith Hernandez's split is 89% offense, 11% defense. Johnny Mize's was 92/8. According to The Hardball Times, David Ortiz had 29 win shares this season, Morneau had 27, and Jeter 33.

(By this metric, Jeter was actually under-rated in the MVP balloting. Oh well, what goes around comes around.)

Had Ortiz played first, he would probably have had around 32 win shares, making him and Jeter a virtual toss-up, with the Sox third-place finish and Ortiz's gamers thrown into the mix. The three missing defensive win shares just put numbers on the consensus that a DH has to have a season of near-historic dimensions at the plate to win.

Of course win shares are not the only way of measuring performance value, MVP awards aren't even supposed to be based on performance value alone, and in reality the most valuable player is often not the Most Valuable Player.

[TigersFanB406]

I got what you're saying Phil.

As for 1B being not so important defensively, I would think it is. You know how many baserunners get an extra base if the 1Bman doesn't catch a throw from another infielder? Do you know how many batters get doubles if a ball gets by the 1Bman?

[EvanAparra]

I got what you're saying Phil.

As for 1B being not so important defensively, I would think it is. You know how many baserunners get an extra base if the 1Bman doesn't catch a throw from another infielder? Do you know how many batters get doubles if a ball gets by the 1Bman?

Why then, are (usually) the worst fielders on the team put there?

[TigersFanB406]

Are you sure it's the worst fielders? Or the guys who don't have the arm or the range to play elsewhere? I'd go with the latter.

Again...if the 1Bman can't catch the ball there will be a lot of baserunners getting a free extra base. That's something to be avoided.

[EvanAparra]

Are you sure it's the worst fielders? Or the guys who don't have the arm or the range to play elsewhere? I'd go with the latter.

Again...if the 1Bman can't catch the ball there will be a lot of baserunners getting a free extra base. That's something to be avoided.

Aren't the worst fielders the guys who don't have the arm or the range to play any of the harder positions? Whats the difference between what you said and what I said?

Of course if a 1B cant catch that baserunners will be getting free bases, but digging out bad throws is a skill that some like Mietkewicz can do very well, but most just average.... whil merely catching a regular throw to first is something anyone can do.

[TigersFanB406]

Because when I'm talking about fielder I'm talking about the guy's glove. I have a mind blank right now. I can't for the life of me get across what I was trying to say.

[DoubleX]

And win shares take into account the team's positional context? How a team having a better defensive option at a more valuable position does not necessarily mean the lesser option is a bad defender? For example, again: If the Twins were using some replacement scrub at catcher, then it reinforces Morneau's defensive value as merely a 1B. But they have Mauer, so Morneau has to be used at 1B. And if they had a better defensive option for 1B, the Twins might have to use Morneau at DH. I think I'm getting my point across, but let me know if I'm not -- I'm shaky on my knowledge of win shares and defensive metrics.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but defensive win shares do take into account positional context (from my understanding of what you're saying) in that they make adjustments based on position and reflect what was actually done on the field. However, if someone is playing DH, win shares won't reflect why they're playing DH, but only reflect what they did as a DH. Catchers are typically in position to earn the most defensive win shares and 1Bman the least - DHs don't receive any if they never play the field. On the flipside, catchers typically earn fewer offensive win shares while 1Bman, DHs, and corner OFers are typically in position to earn the most - not because of some bias against them, it's just how things tend to happen on the field. So with a DH, because they do not earn defensive win shares, it will show whether their offense alone is valuable enough to make up the fact that they aren't playing in the field.

In David Ortiz's case, win shares show that despite not playing in the field, he was still more valuable than all 1Bman in the league (including Morneau) because his offense was just that good. In total win shares, Ortiz was third in the league in total win shares, trailing just Derek Jeter and Joe Mauer - that's pretty impressive because it's based almost entirely on offense for Ortiz (he earned just 0.1 defensive win shares). This is why I think Ortiz would have been a much better selection than Morneau, but I still feel that Jeter and Mauer were the two most viable choices. Last year is a totally different story, however, as Ortiz was pretty far behind Alex Rodriguez in total win shares and was 5th in the league with his own teammate Manny Ramirez even being ahead of him (Manny probably would have been ahead this year as well if he didn't sit out the last month).

Outside of win shares there is also the question of whether Ortiz would have been the offensive force he was if he played the field everyday and wasn't able to concentrate 100% on hitting. I suppose it could be argued that win shares reflect this in a way in that he receives no defensive win shares, but has an edge to receive more offensive win shares, and if he played the field he'd have less offensive win shares but make up for that in defensive win shares, so it kind of balances in a way.

I like win shares and I don't. When we're talking about a player's value, I think they are a pretty good stat. When we're talking about how good a player is at certain facets, they are useful, but other things such as OPS+ can be more handy, IMO.

[DoubleX]

And win shares take into account the team's positional context? How a team having a better defensive option at a more valuable position does not necessarily mean the lesser option is a bad defender? For example, again: If the Twins were using some replacement scrub at catcher, then it reinforces Morneau's defensive value as merely a 1B. But they have Mauer, so Morneau has to be used at 1B. And if they had a better defensive option for 1B, the Twins might have to use Morneau at DH. I think I'm getting my point across, but let me know if I'm not -- I'm shaky on my knowledge of win shares and defensive metrics.

Sorry for the second reply, I just wanted to add a short summary type statement...

I'm not against the DH winning the MVP, but I think the cards are stacked against them because they do nothing but focus and rest for hitting and have an inherent advantage to be more productive hitters. This is why win shares can be very useful here. For a DH, the question is was their hitting good enough to overcome the fact that they have no other value? For David Ortiz, win shares show that his hitting was good enough to make him the third most valuable player in the league, and more valuable than all 1Bman, and that's pretty impressive considering he has no defensive value going into the equation. It also goes in line with my belief that for a DH to win, his hitting really has to be something special - like Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Bonds, Foxx, good. If a player's hitting is so good as to make them more valuable than any other player without defense being factored, than win shares will reflect this.

So in sum, for a DH, win shares will show just how valuable their hitting was and how much they were hurt by not playing in the field. In Ortiz's case, playing the field regularly probably would have only netted him an additional 1-2 win shares because even the best fielding 1Bmen typically don't earn more than 3 defensive win shares; but the additional 1 or 2 win shares for Ortiz would have really narrowed the gap between Ortiz and Mauer and Jeter, to the point where any of the three would have been a very viable choice, IMO.

[wigglestrue]

Great replies, DoubleX, thank you for them.

[Sliding Billy]

Aren't the worst fielders the guys who don't have the arm or the range to play any of the harder positions? Whats the difference between what you said and what I said?

Of course if a 1B cant catch that baserunners will be getting free bases, but digging out bad throws is a skill that some like Mietkewicz can do very well, but most just average.... whil merely catching a regular throw to first is something anyone can do.
It's an interesting question--How valuable is a slick-fielding first baseman? How much does it hurt to have a poor fielder at first? When Keith Hernandez went from St. Louis to New York, he replaced Dave Kingman and was replaced by George Hendrick, who could catch what was thrown at him. The Mets went from 175 errors in 82 to 151 in 83, while the Cards went from 124 to 152.

In both cases, the other infielders did considerably better, from what I can tell, when Hernandez was there. However, Hernandez only played half a season in NY, and the New York shortstop and second base changed hands. Hubie Brooks's fielding average did go from .930 to .950. I'd love to see the season split halves for that year, because it would be as close to laboratory conditions as you could get on the issue.

Incidentally, I wonder if Kingman played more in the outfield than at first not so much because of his arm, but because his manager would much rather have a ball go near his glove twice a game than 8 times.

[Sliding Billy]

In Ortiz's case, playing the field regularly probably would have only netted him an additional 1-2 win shares because even the best fielding 1Bmen typically don't earn more than 3 defensive win shares; but the additional 1 or 2 win shares for Ortiz would have really narrowed the gap between Ortiz and Mauer and Jeter, to the point where any of the three would have been a very viable choice, IMO.
You are right; I overestimated Ortiz's possible gain in defensive win shares.

[PhilWings24]

I got what you're saying Phil.

As for 1B being not so important defensively, I would think it is. You know how many baserunners get an extra base if the 1Bman doesn't catch a throw from another infielder? Do you know how many batters get doubles if a ball gets by the 1Bman?

while i can't tell you exactly, i know that i have witnessed it first hand having watched doug mientewicz (i know i spelled that wrong, i'm proud i got as close as i think i did lol) do wonders for the whole sox infield in 2004.

that said, i feel very confident in saying that it saves fewer bases than albert pujols' 451 total bases+walks.

also, in regards to the post about defensive value, i get that the defensive value of an average defender is not 0, whereas the defensive value of a full time dh is. i get that saying playing 1-run-better-than-average defense is only worth 1 run is like saying that 1-home-run-better-than-average homeruns is only worth 1 home run. but by baseball prospectus' MLV formula (their runs above average), papi was 62.2 runs above average. jeter was 44.5 runs above average. now that we're comparing both of them to their value compared to average, was jeter's defense really worth 7.7 runs above average? maybe it was, i don't know, and with the work being done by guys like billy beane and theo epstein (or at least the work being doen by the guys working for them), we'll probably know in a couple years. but we don't right now, and my gut would tell me that jeter wasn't all that close to a +7.7 run shortstop.

the one argument in a case like jeter's, although this is entirely irrelevant to the point of this conversation, is the fact that he plays at a typically weak offensive position. the thing is though, there isn't a single position-adjustment i trust. cus they don't take into account the things we don't know, and we don't know what players might have a real knack for playing a position other than the one they are currently occupying. they don't adjust for the fact that a-rod could play short, possibly better than jeter, if needed, or that brandon inge can catch or that any shortstop in the league could play second if need be. basically there's way too much they can't account for for me to put too much stock in them, but that is the one argument that could give a middle infielder or catcher some real extra value, in my opinion.

[EvanAparra]

Because Howard's team was bounced from the playoffs in the last weekend of the season, whereas the Red Sox were bounced after the Boston Massacre and were no where near contention in September.

Oh, so now its not just that you have to get to the playoffs, but as long as you were in contention later in the season? What about if you're in contention 2 weeks before the end of the season? What about 3? What about 4? Where do you draw the line? Fact of the matter is that Howard and Ortiz were both sitting at home in October -- doesn't matter how they lost.

[DoubleX]

Oh, so now its not just that you have to get to the playoffs, but as long as you were in contention later in the season? What about if you're in contention 2 weeks before the end of the season? What about 3? What about 4? Where do you draw the line? Fact of the matter is that Howard and Ortiz were both sitting at home in October -- doesn't matter how they lost.

I think in this respect, a difference between Howard and Ortiz is that Howard's team surged down the stretch, at a time when no one expected they would, while Ortiz's team faded. That doesn't change the fact that all games count equally and that a win in April counts just as much as a win in September and it's just a matter of when a team got hot, but there is something to be said about a team rising up near the end - I suppose there is more adversity to conquer by that point.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Oh, so now its not just that you have to get to the playoffs, but as long as you were in contention later in the season? What about if you're in contention 2 weeks before the end of the season? What about 3? What about 4? Where do you draw the line? Fact of the matter is that Howard and Ortiz were both sitting at home in October -- doesn't matter how they lost.

Well if your team is a contender in September and you're an important piece of that team I'd say that's a candidate. I would say that how they lost matters, for example lets say that a team is in fourth place, surely any player no matter how good they were isn't really "valuable" because with out that player they're still in fourth place. However let's take the Phillies of 2006, with out Howard they are no where near the playoffs in late September. Whereas if you take away Papi from the Red Sox they're still in third place.

[EvanAparra]

However let's take the Phillies of 2006, with out Howard they are no where near the playoffs in late September. Whereas if you take away Papi from the Red Sox they're still in third place.

This doesn't make sense. Take Papi away from the Sox and they're still in 3rd place? Huh? Why/How does that matter?

[Evangelion]

This doesn't make sense. Take Papi away from the Sox and they're still in 3rd place? Huh? Why/How does that matter?
It makes sense. He's saying Howard's value greater than Ortiz, because if Howard gone, the team decline much more than if Ortiz removed from the Sox. Remember those people that voted for Monreau? They're the people that say remove Jeter from the team and they're still a playoff team even though they voted for all three Twins in the top 10.

Though, I don't agree with that logic.