posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:39 PM
I believe that Dh's should be allowed to be mvp's beacuse of a few reasons. First off, a pitcher is completely accepted as being the MVP if they are
of such value to their team, and they dominate the league
ONLY USING NL FOR EXAMPLE
In the NL- Bob Gibson won in 1968 (others won dont have time to list
that season he was 22-9, pitched 300 innings, had 28 complete games and 13 shutouts, his era was an insane 1.12 (era+ was 258!) 268 K'S
AND A WHIP OF .85.
thE person that finished 2nd in the voting being .13 shares below gibson was pete rose, batting 335 with a 391 obp...
the 68 reds were 83-79, and the cards were 96-66, and got to the world series
Clearly Gibson was of more value.
Now pitchers dont have to hit, in the nl they do but they arent expected to.
So why cant they same rule apply with dh's?
They're job is to help their respective teams score runs and if they do that, and extremely well, they should be allowed a taste of the MVP.
For example- A DH has a 345 avg, 467 obp, 754 slg, 56 homers, 154 rbis, scored 131 runs. and contributed for 46% of his teams runs getting them to the
A 2b has a 301 avg, 405 obp, 654 slg, 50 homers, and 141 rbis with 140 runs scored, but had a fielding pct 995, contributing to
40% of his teams runs and didnt make the playoffs, who would you choose
Sure, fielding helps a team win, but that doesnt mean that a player that doesnt field should be punished for it. If a DH creates runs, and
contributes alot to his team, shuld deserve an mvp.
If Pitchers that just pitch can do it...why cant hitters that hit do it?
So if david ortiz was awarded the mvp this year, i would say yea he deserved it, he helped his team make the playoffs.