KronicFatigue does not play baseball. He sucks at baseball, which is the kiss of death when it comes to winning a Most Valuable Player award. Maybe it is time to call this what is is: Discrimination.

Since the creation of the position in 1973, the closest any DH has come to copping the MVP was in 1979, when California Angels slugger Don Baylor won the honor.

That's pretty damn close.

Though Baylor is commonly considered the only MVP DH, he actually had more games and at-bats in left field (78 and 303) than at DH (65 and 252) that year, and only 40.6% of his plate appearances came as a DH.

However, he did hit far better as a DH than as a position player, posting a 349/427/633 from that position against a 296/371/530 overall line.

Since the creation of the position in 1973, the closest any DH has come to copping the MVP was in 1979, when California Angels slugger Don Baylor won the honor.

That's pretty damn close.

Ha!

Primey nod for KF in #1.

Baylor: 78 games in LF, 19 in RF, 1 at 1B, 65 at DH. And it was a pretty bad choice of award - Baylor won because he led the league in RBI and not for any better reason.

Are sportswriter assigned to write articles supporting the hometown guy for MVP? It's like Massaroti doesn't even believe his own argument. Ortiz isn't even the best hitter in the division.

At least the Boston Herald has the guts to insuate that something sleazy is going on for no particular reason.

Insinuate, damit!

Perhaps Ortiz should be awarded the Cy Young and Gold Glove, also. (And if you think you're clever when you bring up Rafael Palmeiro in response to this post, you're no more clever than I am in this post. Think about that.)

I don't believe that there's a significant downside to building a team around a dedicated DH who rakes (Edgar Martinez, Ortiz) rather than a part-time, league-average hitter who's frequently subbed to rest a starter.

There's probably even an upside to that model.

It sickens me to the bone to know that racist sports writers are clamoring to give the MVP to that preppy WASP from New England, Trent Alexander Rodriguezson VII. As if we need more Brahmin gloaters out there.

``What's the toughest thing to do in this game? Hit, right? [Voters] don't think about that. That's all I do. If I don't hit, I lose my job.''

How odd that Ortiz can do the toughest thing, but can't do any of the easier tasks in baseball, like pitch or play shortstop.

Though it the knee-jerk reaction of many of us to say that of course a 3B who hits 300/400/500 (or whatever) is more valuable than a DH with the same line, that's not necessarily the case.

How much more valuable defensively is a 3B compared to an "average" defensive player? Tango's research with UZR for 1999-2003 suggests that it's +1 over (I believe) 150 games.

I don't know where a DH would fit on that scale, but a full-time DH will contribute nothing defensively above or below average. If the defensive difference between a 3B and a DH is one run, of course a DH can make make that up with his bat.

That's likely not the difference, though, you'd probably have to figure out the value of a replacement-level defender. If an average 1B is -9 against a neutral average fielder, a replacement-level 1B would probably be, I don't know, -19 defensively? -15? A DH would be right around there, maybe a run or so below.

We might estimate that an average defensive 3B is about 15-20 runs more valuable, from a defensive perspective only, than a full-time DH, over the course of a full season. Actually, people like MGL and Tango probably know, I'm just guessing, but anyway ...

... so if a DH and 3B have an equal offensive contribution, the 3B would have to rank a -15 or -20 at UZR (or some similar concoction) to make them equal overall.

It's not terribly common, nor terribly unique, for a 3B to post numbers that poor. The ten worst 3B UZR seasons from 2000-2003:
Player Year UZR
Norton 2001 -17
Zeile 2002 -17
Fryman 2001 -20
Branyan 2001 -21
Glaus 2001 -21
Fryman 2002 -22
Aramis 2001 -22
Palmer 2000 -23
Wggtn 2003 -23
Aramis 2002 -26</pre>I doubt that Alex Rodriguez is at -15 or -20 defensively this year ... but his ZR does rank 18th out of 19th MLB qualifiers, and at .738 is well below the median (about .790). If that's accurate, he might be around 17 or 18 plays below average, which for a 3B is likely around 14 runs. And, FWIW, Davenport has him at -6 defensively, and Win Shares has him as 18th in the majors at Fielding Win Shares at 3B ...

And if you think you're clever when you bring up Rafael Palmeiro in response to this post, you're no more clever than I am in this post.

Only the little blue pill would bring up Rafael Palmeiro.

Big Papi is the Greatest Hero of All Time, or whatever, but I've pretty much conceded this year's MVP award to A-Rod. And I'm OK with that.

On an unrelated issue, what do folks make of today's odd remarks by Foulke?

At the least, there would seem to be some failure-to-communicate type issues going on.

his ZR does rank 18th out of 19th MLB qualifiers, and at .738 is well below the median (about .790). If that's accurate, he might be around 17 or 18 plays below average, which for a 3B is likely around 14 runs.

The Yankees, as I have pointed out before, position their left-side infielders differently than do other teams, shifting them toward the middle of the diamond, and for that reason "pure" Zone Rating will tend to undervalue their defensive contributions. The reason is simple. If ARod makes a play to his left that other 3Bs don't make, and misses a play to his right that other 3Bs do make, his ZR is .500 - but the play that he just made to his left doesn't count against the other 3Bs, because it's "out-of-zone", and thus other 3Bs will have a ZR of 1.000 on those two balls. UZR's got a similar problem, albeit less severe because the value given to making a play in UZR takes into consideration the probability that the particular fielder involved makes that play on average, and where ARod is making plays because of his positioning that most other 3Bs don't make, UZR gives him more credit for doing so than pure ZR does.

-- MWE

How much more valuable defensively is a 3B compared to an "average" defensive player? Tango's research with UZR for 1999-2003 suggests that it's +1 over (I believe) 150 games.

I don't know where a DH would fit on that scale, but a full-time DH will contribute nothing defensively above or below average. If the defensive difference between a 3B and a DH is one run, of course a DH can make make that up with his bat.

I couldn't disagree with this reasoning more. Playing even sub-average defense while providing MVP-caliber hitting is more valuable than playing no defense at all while providing MVP-caliber hitting. In fact, David Ortiz is the perfect illustration of why: the fact that the Sox MUST play him at DH -- that he simply cannot adequately play defense at any major league position and stay in the line-up -- means that they are hamstrung in being able to use Manny Ramirez as he should be used. Which is to say, as a DH.

If you're in the AL, and you've got a great hitter who can play a position, that means you have the opportunity to use someone else as your DH. That is, in and of itself, valuable. The fact that Ortiz cannot do so means he is less valuable.

In other words, A-rod is covering up for Jeter's lack of range, and that's hurting his defensive numbers because he's pulled too far off the bag.

The reason A-rod shades toward the shortstop hole has nothing to do with covering for jeter's supposed lack of range. This strategy dates back to Graig Nettles in the late 1970's who believed (rightly IMHO) that more balls were hit into the hole than down the line, and that it made sense to give up the occasional double to save multiple singles. The Yankees have maintained that strategy to this day (its worth noting that the Yankees brought in Nettles to tutor A-rod last year in spring training when he was making the transition to a new position).

Jeter makes the play in the hole just fine, as Jim Kaat, has noted on many occasions (to be fair, he is probably not as good on balls to his left). The Yankee positioning strategy is one of the factors that has led to the undervaluing of Derek Jeter. Its amazing by the way how all arguments involving the Yankees (Ortiz vs. A-rod for MVP, for example) seem to wind up focusing on Jeter's purported lack of range.

I couldn't disagree with this reasoning more. Playing even sub-average defense while providing MVP-caliber hitting is more valuable than playing no defense at all while providing MVP-caliber hitting. In fact, David Ortiz is the perfect illustration of why: the fact that the Sox MUST play him at DH -- that he simply cannot adequately play defense at any major league position and stay in the line-up -- means that they are hamstrung in being able to use Manny Ramirez as he should be used. Which is to say, as a DH.

I agree with this completely. The Sox have two great hitters who should be DHs because they are both probably -20-25 run defenders.

Because Manny happens to be the one to play the OF he gets stuck with the full -25 while Ortiz doesn't take any hit at all. It could just as easily be the other way around.

If the offensive baseline of DH was much higher than LF/1B, then this wouldn't be as big of a problem. As it is though, Ortiz gets an advantage over those players simply because his team is set up to preserve an artificial "0" defensively.

To a large extent, it would make more sense to take Manny's -25 and split it equally between Ramirez and Ortiz.

Jeter makes the play in the hole just fine, as Jim Kaat, has noted on many occasions (to be fair, he is probably not as good on balls to his left).

While taking no position on the substantive question of Jeter's range into the hole, I will say that citing a Yankee broadcaster as support for the proposition is kind of like citing Antonin Scalia as an authoritative voice on the jurisprudence of John Roberts.

Sam, has Scalia ever shouted "past a diving Roberts"?

In other words, A-rod is covering up for Jeter's lack of range, and that's hurting his defensive numbers because he's pulled too far off the bag.

The Yankees have had, since at least 1998, a right-side skew in their BIP pattern; they allow fewer balls down the LF line, and more balls hit middle-right and to the right side, than one would anticipate given the mix of hitters who hit against their pitchers. As a result, the Yankees pull their 3B off the line and shift Jeter toward the middle.

Because of this, though, both ARod and Jeter are playing on the edges of their "zones", as defined in ZR, rather than at or near the center. So for this reason, the plays that they don't make are almost always "in-zone" plays, which count against them in ZR. With other left-side infielders, a good percentage of plays that they don't make are "out-of-zone" plays, which do NOT count against them. Thus, to some extent, ZR is penalizing both ARod and Jeter for their positioning, even though given the BIP pattern against the Yankees they are typically positioned more optimally than if they were positioned at or near the center of the defined ZR zone for the position.

ARod is not covering for Jeter's lack of range (and I honestly don't think that he could, anyway); his positioning, and Jeter's, are derived based on the expected location of BIP against the Yankees.

-- MWE

I think most sabermetric measures fail to capture the negative value of a designated hitter.. I think that a player who doesn't play in the field (especially if he can't) hurt's a club's flexibility in a way that is impossible to calculate.

Playing even sub-average defense while providing MVP-caliber hitting is more valuable than playing no defense at all while providing MVP-caliber hitting.

I believe there is some breakeven point where a defender is so bad as to negate this advantage -- an advantage that is considerable. A defender who is below replacement is hurting his team to a significant degree. This holds true for comparisons across real positions -- a 1B may be more valuable overall than a SS of equal offensive contribution if he is a superb fielder and the SS is terrible.

The difficult part is trying to figure out what those breakeven points are.

Uh, post #18 was just an obligatory jab at Jetes. And # 22. And also this one.

This is the first time I read about the Yankees infield sh!t... eh, shift.

Great post (17) Sam.

primey for #22

(very good)

Because Manny happens to be the one to play the OF he gets stuck with the full -25 while Ortiz doesn't take any hit at all. It could just as easily be the other way around.

As bad as Manny is in left, I'd have to believe Ortiz would be at least 15 to 20 runs worse.

There has to be some way to quantify the negative impact of being a pure DH. It hurts flexibility tremendously, especially with regard to injured players.


Also, there are 4 pretty much fulltime DHs in the AL. 3 of them are some of the best hitters in the league. Perhaps being a DH helps offense.

ARod is not covering for Jeter's lack of range (and I honestly don't think that he could, anyway); his positioning, and Jeter's, are derived based on the expected location of BIP against the Yankees.

And yet, A-Rod also has among the worse range factors in the league -- despite a staff that is league average in strikeouts, and with 90% groundball pitchers.

By the way, I'm (obviously) a Yankee fan, but I would probably vote for Ortiz for MVP. The argument about his lack of fielding prowess keeping Manny in the field is a good one, but all those big hits and walk off homeruns seem to me to negate it. having said that, there are three weeks left to go and a lot that can happen. If A-rod somehow leads the Yankees past the Sox into the playoffs and the Sox don't make it, then A-rod is the winner. But if the Yankees fail to make the playoffs, then A-rod should probably not be the MVP.

Can the argument also be made that Ortiz has had the benefit of playing an entire season w/o the bumps and bruises that come from playing the field? or the counter to that argument: that he has a more difficult time mentally "staying in the game" b/c he sits on the bench all the time?

I think that a player who doesn't play in the field (especially if he can't) hurt's a club's flexibility in a way that is impossible to calculate.

I'd say only if he can't. Otherwise it would follow that any DH, even if he can play the field, limits his team's flexibility. At that point you're pretty much saying that the DH rule hurts a club's flexibility. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Of course, it's possible you meant that a player that isn't any good in the field hurts his team's flexibility, in which case I agree. But in the case of most can't-field DH's, I suspect they add more with the bat than the team loses in flexibility.

Supporter, is A-rod a true Yankee?

Also, there are 4 pretty much fulltime DHs in the AL. 3 of them are some of the best hitters in the league. Perhaps being a DH helps offense.

Or, rather, one must be one of the best hitters in the league to have enough offensive value to overcome the defensive (more like flexibility) negative associated with being a full time DH. And, without crunching any numbers, the teams have figured this out.

Actually, I suppose it is possible the Red Sox have crunched the numbers.

And yet, A-Rod also has among the worse range factors in the league -- despite a staff that is league average in strikeouts, and with 90% groundball pitchers.

Part of this is the right-side skew to which I alluded earlier; the Yankees don't allow that many balls to be hit to the left side. The Yankees are not overly extreme in G/F ratio; they're only slightly above the midpoint, largely because Mussina and the Unit are flyball pitchers and they've started giving more innings to guys like Leiter, Small, and Chacon, who are also flyballers.

-- MWE

We measure shortstops against the pool of players capable of playing the position. Well, EVERYONE is capable of sitting on the bench between innings. So perhaps Ortiz's offense shouldn't be measured against the position, but rather the #15 hitter in the AL, which is essentially DH replacement-level.

I'm pro-discrimination in these things. One has to be discriminating in life or why bother?

Generally, aren't balls hit up the middle more likely to be hits?

By the way, I'm (obviously) a Yankee fan, but I would probably vote for Ortiz for MVP.

I'm a Red Sox fan, and I'd vote for A-Rod. Not by much, but I would.

But it's nice to know that the Red Sox have someone who is good enough to generate debate on the subject, at a fraction of the cost.

largely because Mussina and the Unit are flyball pitchers and they've started giving more innings to guys like Leiter, Small, and Chacon, who are also flyballers.

Which helps explain Bernie's continuous presence in CF.

I think a problem with "penalizing" a DH for being one is that you're essentially just charging a guy for the opportunity cost -- and that opportunity cost is different for every team.

The existence of David Ortiz, who theoretically cannot play 1B at all, means the Red Sox have to play Manny in LF instead of DH. (This is all theoretical, for all I know Manny will refuse to play if made a full-time DH.) If Ortiz did not exist (or could play a position), the Sox could play Manny at DH and have someone else in LF. So the opportunity cost of having Ortiz as a DH is the loss of a LF. So perhaps the "penalty" assessed should be the difference between Manny in LF and a replacement-level LF. I don't know; this is speculation off the top of my head.

But not every DH is in an analogous situation. When the Angels DH Casey Kotchman or RubenJuan Rivera, it's not because they can't play defense, but because the manager insists on playing lesser defensive players (Steve Finley instead of Erstad in CF, Garret Anderson in LF) in the field. Is it fair to assign that negative impact to Kotch and Ruben?

I agree with Sam here. I think clearly the best way to evaluate the difference between a DH and (say) a 3B is to evaluate the difference between

Papi + replacement level 3B

and

replacement level DH + Arod.

The problem with LAWBH's analysis is that it doesn't take into account the difference in hitting between a replacement level 3B and a replacement level DH.

BP claims that AL 3B average .266/.329/.424 and AL DH average .260/.339/.440 this year. Over 700 PA that is a difference in RC of about 3. So it doesn't matter much. Depending on your definition of replacement level, the difference could be even smaller.

Sutcliffe, on last Fridays game, that he couldn't vote for a DH as MVP & that he would give this years award to Jeter. With Interleague play & playing WS road games, managers have some tough decisions to make. Travis Hafner was relegated to pinch hitting duty when the Indians visited Cincy back in May.

MVP discussions are always fun. Larkin's win in '95, the year before going 30-30 was awesome for Reds fans and I'd like to know if Kirk Gibson's win in '88 infuriated non-Dodgers fans. I picked these 2 players because neither had spectacular hr/rbi numbers. Comparing the 2 of them, Larkins .394 obp and 51-57 stolen bases, and .319 avg were more impressive than Gibsons rather pedestrian numbers. Piazza or Maddux should have won in '95 & I would have gone with Cone or Hershiser in '88. Gibson didn't face very tough competition, as Kevin Freaking McReynolds finished 3rd in the voting.

I agree completely with #42. The Red Sox are not a typical team in this regard . Most teams play semi-injured or utility players at DH, which means having a full time player like Ortiz would be a huge improvement without any opportunity cost.

The problem with LAWBH's analysis is that it doesn't take into account the difference in hitting between a replacement level 3B and a replacement level DH.

Well, I personally believe that positional adjustments should only apply to defense, not offense.

I think a problem with "penalizing" a DH for being one is that you're essentially just charging a guy for the opportunity cost -- and that opportunity cost is different for every team.

When evaluating these situations you shouldn't be applying "general" factors for anything. Everything is different for every team. Its no surprise that the value of a DH would be different, considering the value of everything is different.

Having 4 great relievers on a team that’s starters averaged 8 innings a game would have a lot less value than having the same 4 relievers on a team whose starters average 5 innings. Players don't play in vacuums they play in contexts.

Now figuring how to quantify those contexts and you'll have accomplished something.

Sutcliffe, on last Fridays game, that he couldn't vote for a DH as MVP & that he would give this years award to Jeter.

God, Sutcliffe is dumb.

I think a problem with "penalizing" a DH for being one is that you're essentially just charging a guy for the opportunity cost -- and that opportunity cost is different for every team.

I don't see how giving Ortiz zero credit for defense, while giving others credit for their defense, is "penalizing" him. Saying that Ortiz played average defense, just because his manager was smart enough to let him go nowhere near leather, is nutty. A-Rod has made hundreds and hundreds of plays this year that Ortiz did not. That has a lot of value.

I agree that I wouldn't penalize Ortiz for the awfulness of Manny Ramirez in left field; that's not his fault.

I'd like to know if Kirk Gibson's win in '88 infuriated non-Dodgers fans.

Well, since Kirk Gibson wasn't half the player Darryl Strawberry was in 1988, I can certainly say it infuriated me. Not half so much as the outcome of the NLCS did, however.

The Yankees are not overly extreme in G/F ratio; they're only slightly above the midpoint, largely because Mussina and the Unit are flyball pitchers

Is that true in 2005? The median G/F ratio in the AL this year is between 1.10 and 1.20 (depending on who you count).

Chacon (0.91) and Small (1.05) are below median, but Mussina (1.14) and Johnson (1.20) are right about at the median for G/F ratio in the AL.

Against that, you've got Wang (2.57), Rivera (1.92), Brown (1.69), Pavano (1.60), Gordon (1.52), Wright (1.39), Sturtze (1.24), and Leiter (1.22).

This strikes me as a relatively extreme "ground ball" staff.

So perhaps the "penalty" assessed should be the difference between Manny in LF and a replacement-level LF. I don't know; this is speculation off the top of my head.

And that penalty is more than enough to support (probably compel) the conclusion that David Ortiz is not the most valuable player in the American League this season.

(I'd actually make it the difference between Manny and an average LFer, because the Red Sox have the resources and the smarts to acquire a LFer at least that good if the spot were open.)

Ok, I hate the DH. But the position is here to stay, it's been a part of AL baseball now for over 30 years, and it's not going away no matter what I (or other fans) think of it.

We can't ignore excellence in that position. If the best hitter in the league is the DH, and his contribution is strong enough to discount the fact that he doesn't play in the field, so be it.

The biggest problem with the MVP is the guidelines are too loose. What does "Valuable" mean? The best hitter? The best hitter on a winning team? The best all-around-player? The best clutch-performer? Papi would win hands-down on the last one.

If it sounds like I would vote for Papi for MVP, I'd likely put him second on my ballot, after A-Rod (and as a Sox fan, that hurts).

Perhaps the best thing to do is try to give the award for the best hitter (is that the Hank Aaron Award?) the same gravitas as the MVP and the Cy Young Awards. The you could treat the MVP as the award for the best all-around athlete, pitchers and DH's need not apply.

Levski, I'm not really big on the true Yankee thing. I will say that A-rod has performed more like my idea of a Yankee this year than he did last year. And I'll also say that with the money on the line I'd prefer to see Sheffield, Giambi,Jeter or Matsui at bat than A-rod. Not to mention Ortiz.

And I'll also say that with the money on the line I'd prefer to see Sheffield, Giambi,Jeter or Matsui at bat than A-rod. Not to mention Ortiz.

At least you didn't say Tony Womack.

Gotcha. So A-ros is NOT a true Yankee...

A-ros... LOL. He definitely ain't a true Yankee.

Bernie didn't make the clutch list?! Wow.

Jeter's been so clutch this year. That's for sure.

Oh, and I'm glad the DH is here to stay.

Craig, I agree with you that giving him average defense credit doesn't make sense. But it also don't make sense to give A-Rod credit for making all of the "hundreds of plays". After all, the choice wasn't A-Rod or nobody--the position was going to be filled by someone or something.

In 1988, I would have given the MVP to Orel--Cone wasn't really that close in value. In 1995, probably Maddux, Larkin and Bonds both beat Piazza in VORP.

A-rod is certainly a Yankee. If "true" Yankees are those who came up through the farm system like ernie or Jeter, than you'll have to explain the presence of Giambi and Sheffield on my list. I think A-rod gets a bit nervous in big spots, that is all.

Although, I'll admit that having Bernie up there wouldn't bother me either.

In 1988, I would have given it to Strawberry or McReynolds, but then again, I was a Met fan at the time.

Jeter has not been up to his normal standard this year in late inning pressure situations. I take that as a normal statistical fluctuation, though. And there are still three weeks to go with the spots getting bigger each day. Plus the playoffs, of course.

From the Hardball Times' team stats:

The Yankees' G/F ratio as a staff this year is 1.33, which ranks as the 3rd highest(tied with Toronto). Average in the AL is 1.24.

In 1995, probably Maddux, Larkin and Bonds both beat Piazza in VORP.

Piazza had the greatest season ever at the bat for a catcher not named Josh Gibson. That's MVP in my book.

Yeah, but John, Josh Gibson had the greatest years by a catcher named Josh Gibson and he never won anything...

<>

From the Hardball Times' team stats:

The Yankees' G/F ratio as a staff this year is 1.33, which ranks as the 3rd highest(tied with Toronto). Average in the AL is 1.24.

Well, that's certainly easier than scanning the player stats . . .

Actually, it looks like tied for second (with Toronto and Detroit), after Baltimore.

No, wait. Missed Texas. Three way tie for third.

I just don't get this:

Nonetheless, we voting members of the BBWAA love to point out how much we know about baseball, so we discriminate with defense. That is a big reason Baltimore Orioles third baseman Brooks Robinson (16 Gold Gloves) won the AL award in 1964 and St. Louis Cardinals shortstop Ozzie Smith (13 Gold Gloves) finished as the NL runner-up in 1987.

What a crock. Robinson's MVP was the only one of his career and came during a season in which he established career bests in batting average, home runs and RBI. Smith's silver medal came under nearly identical circumstances – he had career bests in average, RBI and runs scored – and he never again finished higher than 13th in the voting.

Nice message, eh?

You're a great fielder, but it means jack unless you hit.

Yeah, but John, Josh Gibson had the greatest years by a catcher named Josh Gibson and he never won anything...

The funny thing is, Eraser-X, is that I could see someone seriously argue that point.

Piazza had the greatest season ever at the bat for a catcher not named Josh Gibson. That's MVP in my book.

Is it possible you're confusing the seasons? Piazza was awesome in '95, but '97 was his best season.

Piazza had only 475 PAs in '95 (even after adjusting for the strike, that's not as many as '96 or '97). His rate stats were similar in '96 and even better in '97.

"Gotcha. So A-ros is NOT a true Yankee..."

Of course not; he's an Indian through and through.

A-ros should be the Lounge's favorite player. His nickname was Flip.

Is there a way to look at whether or not our current evaluation systems consistently undervalue catchers? I've had this feeling for awhile, and I guess I ought to do the work to try to confirm it, but it frankly seems that we do. I say this purely in relation to offense, and not as to whether we undervalue catchers because we can't measure their defense.

Saber-wise, was Ozzie actually as good a fielder as his anecdotal reputation? I'm lazy and don't know.

Saber-wise, was Ozzie actually as good a fielder as his anecdotal reputation? I'm lazy and don't know.

I think so. It is true, however, that the Cards' pitching staffs had very low K rates for his career, and were GB heavy IIRC, so some of his stats were influenced by these trends.

The existence of David Ortiz, who theoretically cannot play 1B at all (#42)

Ortiz, incidentally, not only cannot play a theoretical 1B, but he can never, absolutely, play 3B (or SS/2B/C) at all, because he throws left-handed. Unless he could pitch, his defensive value was limited from birth. (Yet another discrimination!)

but he can never, absolutely, play 3B

Don Mattingly, he is not.

Don't forget about Will Clark in 1988. Led the league in RCAP, was a very close second to Hershiser in VORP.

Rodriguez has created more runs than Ortiz at the plate.

Even without taking positional scarcity and defense into account, I vote for ARod and I don't look back.

129.7 RC for Arod
122.8 RC for Ortiz

Is it possible you're confusing the seasons? Piazza was awesome in '95, but '97 was his best season.

You're right, Vinay. My bad.

Is there a way to look at whether or not our current evaluation systems consistently undervalue catchers? I've had this feeling for awhile, and I guess I ought to do the work to try to confirm it, but it frankly seems that we do. I say this purely in relation to offense, and not as to whether we undervalue catchers because we can't measure their defense.

I have noticed that VORP seems to consistently rank catchers lower than I would expect; a stat like RCAP that uses an average baseline rather than replacement-level always ranks catchers much higher than VORP does. I don't know if it's because VORP sets replacement level too high, or just that catchers don't play as much as other starters, and a stat with a replacement-level baseline will give more weight to playing time.

We can't ignore excellence in that position. If the best hitter in the league is the DH, and his contribution is strong enough to discount the fact that he doesn't play in the field, so be it.

The thing is, this really hasn't happened that often. I would say there have only been two seasons where a DH was clearly the top offensive player in the league: Frank Thomas in 1991 and Edgar Martinez in 1995. In 1991, Ripken was obviously the MVP once defense was considered, so I think that 1995 was really the only year that voting for a DH could have been justified (and Albert Belle's case was just as strong). I don't know that there's really been discrimination against DH--there just have been very few DHs who had any sort of case for winning the award.

I agree. The problem with Ortiz as AL MVP isn't that he's a DH. It is that he's not the best player in the league. If he was 2-3 warp better, then he could be MVP even though he is DH. But right now Arod is the MVP and it would take a pretty huge final 18-odd games of Arod playing really poorly and Ortiz playing really well to make up the ~1.5 win difference between the players.

FWIW, I live in a fan-neutral area and the sports radio talking heads were siding with Ortiz in the MVP race.

To me it boils down to the intangibles Ortiz provides versus A-Rod's defensive value.

I always side with the guy with the defensive rep in a close race, which is why I think Andruw should get it in the NL but I wouldn't be bothered at all if they picked Big Papi.

In fact, David Ortiz is the perfect illustration of why: the fact that the Sox MUST play him at DH -- that he simply cannot adequately play defense at any major league position and stay in the line-up -- means that they are hamstrung in being able to use Manny Ramirez as he should be used. Which is to say, as a DH.

Actually, though, this isn't quite true. Ortiz isn't all that bad at first. He has pretty good hands and throws OK. He has no range.

But they play Millar there and Millar is no great shakes either.

The main reason Ortiz DH's is so that he can stay healthy.

The flip side to "flexibility" is that, if you are
going to use the Sparky Anderson model (Sparky with
the Tigers typically used the DH to rest regulars,
not as a spot for a defensively-challenged slugger)
is that you are basically putting the likes of
Doug Baker and Tom Brookens into the lineup 60-80
times a year when you rest the regular in the DH
slot. Few teams have a deep enough bench to gain
an advantage using this model, vs. the full-time
star slugger model.

To confuse the issue, players tend to hit better when they're playing the field as opposed to when they are only dhing. It may be harder psychologically to "stay in the game" as a dh.

Whether we should take this into account is something I'm conflicted about.

kevin- You do know that ARod is a better hitter, right? It's not a close race until you give Ortiz "intangibles" credit. Then it's between ARod's defense vs. Ortiz's, I dunno, beard.

ESPN has had an hardon for Ortiz since he joined the Red Sox, so I wouldn't be shocked to see him win, but it'll be another in a long string of mistakes.

None of the 4 fulltime DHs are DHs because they are that horrible of a fielder(a la Martinez), but if Ortiz could play first Ramirez could stay in the lineup if he hypothetically had a hamstring problem that hurt his fielding more than his hitting.

rdfc- Those numbers are skewed by position players DHing when they are hurt.

kevin- You do know that ARod is a better hitter, right?

No. As a matter of fact, I don't.

Edgar wasn't really that bad of a fielder. It was always more about injuries than him being incapable of fielding. As the years went on, he was definitely bad in the sense that the M's were freaked out about him hurting himself on the rare occasions he played the field, so they insisted that he not strain himself at all.

But the guy wasn't half bad at third base his first few years.

That said, I know that doesn't change the point you were making. Regardless of the details, he wasn't capable of playing another position, and that's all you were trying to say.

No. As a matter of fact, I don't.

Because you haven't checked the numbers or because you disagree?

I disagree.

Their numbers are pretty close but Big Papi has had more dramatic, gamebreaking blows.

The award doesn't necessarily go to the best player but the player who most contributes to his team winning.

Ortiz has been the most clutch player in baseball, IMO. At least with the stick.

kevin- You do know that ARod is a better hitter, right?

Is? Or, has been prior to this year? If it's the latter, then you're right. The former is a pretty close race.

It's not a close race until you give Ortiz "intangibles" credit. Then it's between ARod's defense vs. Ortiz's, I dunno, beard.

With RISP, 2005:

That's some beard. It allows Ortiz the ability to maintain his OPS when runners are in scoring position, whereas The Show Pony sees his drop close to 200 points.

Ahhh, so it's the clutch argument. See, I prefer...you know, the guy that gives you better value. And it's not close. A-Rod has better overall numbers while Ortiz plays in a better hitters park. Factor in his defense and it's not even close.

And as shown in the Verducci article, A-Rod has done very well in close and late situations as well. Not as good on slugging as Ortiz, but better at avoiding outs.

Going by your guy's standards Sheff should have won the MVP last year...

Add another 2 RBI for Ortiz.

Going by your guy's standards Sheff should have won the MVP last year...


I think Sheff was a damn good candidate last year. For all intents and purposes, he is the guy that you worry about beating you, and he is the guy carrying the load for the Yanks.

Sheff is a very underrated baseball player.

I hope one of Big Papi's fans can explain this to me.

RankNameTeamTotal WSBattingPitchingFielding
1RodriguezNYY2926.702.5
2SheffieldNYY2926.601.9
3RamirezBOS2724.802.3
4OrtizBOS2625.600.1

I think Sheff was a damn good candidate last year. For all intents and purposes, he is the guy that you worry about beating you, and he is the guy carrying the load for the Yanks.

Sheff is a very underrated baseball player.

He was a good candidate, but even I knew that Vlad, and probably even Ramirez, deserved it more than him.

Like Ortiz this year, however, there were better hitters and overall players than him.