For all the people who think the DH should not win the MVP award, would you consider giving it to someone like Ortiz if he played 162 games at first but was mediocre to average in the field? Does he have to be a great fielder as well as a great hitter? If so, then most first basemen shouldn't be considered worthy of an MVP (see Jason Giambi in 2000)
2007-03-26 04:52:55 · 15 answers · asked by pemmican 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
My point about Giambi is that he is a poor fielding first baseman. Just because he does play in the field doesn't mean he is helping the team.
2007-03-26 19:09:54 · update #1
All I know is that it is kind of a joke that David Ortiz hasn't won an MVP with his ricockulous numbeer of clutch hits and game winners. It's hard to imagine that he isn't the most valuable player around!
2007-03-26 06:16:22 · answer #1 · answered by Eho 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The MVP should be the player that is most valuable to the team. If that player goes down, how badly is his team affected in wins vs. losses.
Just how A-Rod was able to win one with the Texas Rangers a couple years back. The Rangers would've been trying to find 40 wins without A-Rod that season.
DH's take more of a dip in voting because they're not playing the whole game, so their offensive stats in a way aren't realistic. They're not going through the pains of being in the field for the other half of the game playing defense.
If we had 2 identical David Ortiz's on Boston's team, and one played 1st base, and one played DH, you'd see the DH version with better stats, because he wasn't as drained physically from playing defense.
So a DH is going to have to break some major records to win the MVP over an everyday player.
Same goes for a pitcher. You don't see pitchers gobbling up MVP awards. If that were the case, then Johan Santana should've taken it last year BEFORE Ortiz.
2007-03-26 07:21:46 · answer #2 · answered by Roger K 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The DH should without a doubt be able to win the MVP. The MVP is the most valuable player to his team, not the most valuable player in the field. Also, the DH is a player, if the DH is not eligible for the MVP then do away with it all together. Ortiz should have won a couple by now. He has had a more game winning hits then anyone else in the league over the past few years, there have been so many games that the Red Sox would never have had the chance of winning if it werent for him. He is THE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER to his team by far. The voters who will not vote for him due to the fact that he is a DH should have their vote taken away.
2007-03-26 07:13:35 · answer #3 · answered by Chris 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he has to be a great fielder to be considered for the MVP. Look at A-Rod at 3rd, he has not been playing well since he became a 3rd basemen but he won it over Ortiz a couple of years ago because he played defense. I do think Ortiz should play 1st anyway because he is actually a good fielder, in the minors leagues with the Twins Organization he was named 1997 Midwest League’s best defensive first baseman by Baseball America.
2007-03-26 07:12:11 · answer #4 · answered by redsox20041 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Winning games by hitting home runs is still winning. Ortiz is clutch and without him the Sox would score 100+ runs less a season. Thats value.
2007-03-27 07:17:15 · answer #5 · answered by The Rooster 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The same argument also may relate to Rafeal Palmerio winning a gold glove at firstbase, when he rarely played that position in 1999. I agree that a full-time designated (pinch)-hitter should not be allowed to win the Kenesaw Mountain Landis Award. I can see a pitcher being awarded the MVP, but not a DH.
2007-03-26 11:18:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
David Ortiz pulled off most of his clutch hits last season against KC and Cleveland; and the Sox finished 3rd in the AL East. He didn't serve the MVP last season, but maybe this season will be the year.
2007-03-26 06:35:39 · answer #7 · answered by StanleyCupNJ 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I was amazed Ortiz didnt win it. He lead the league in R.B.I.'S and HR and he was one of the best with walks. MVP's in my opinion are won by people who lead the league in Homers and RBIS. THATS what fans vote for. Ortiz was the best player in the game that year. I think he should have won hands down.
2007-03-26 12:30:32 · answer #8 · answered by Fred The Sock Puppet 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think to win the MVP you should be able to play the field not only hit and Giambi can play the field.
2007-03-26 11:38:07 · answer #9 · answered by metsgurl716 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
MVP stands for most valuable player, not most valuable hitter. Not even that, but how many game winning RBIs did Ortiz have that year? I don't think A-Rod should have gotten it either, because Texas would have been in last place with or without him.
2007-03-26 15:10:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋