In response to ThefourBs' comment:
In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
Also If you discount the fact that Ortiz doesn't play defense and just focus on his offensive numbers then you are being unfair to every single player that has put up as good numbers or even close to as good numbers and added a lot of value to their team on defense.
Lets say David Oritz finishes the year with .300/.400/.500 line with 35 HR's and 120 RBI's
now lets say another player finishes the year with a .290/.385/.480 line with 32 HR's and 105 RBI's but that person wins the Gold Glove and has multiple plays that prevented runs from scoring, with some of those plays effecting the outcome of the game. That second player is adding much more value to the team and having a larger impact on the team winning and wins the MVP every time. and they should.
When it comes down to it, I'm not trying to say David Ortiz or a DH shouldn't be able to win an MVP, but I am saying I don't think they every would. Because there will always be at least 1 player who has offensive numbers at least close to a DH's with superior value added on defense.
The other player absolutely wins the MVP in that example.
What if the .290 hitter is an absolute butcher at his position and has to be replaced late in the game for defensive purposes?
Does that add to his value, over someone that doesn't play a position?
Obviously someone who is a butcher can be a defensive liability, but it's also all in perspective as well. The worst defensive player in the game still makes several hundred defensive plays more than you average DH. He is still contributing something on defense (at least more than a DH) Yes you can make the argument that inferiour defense should reduce a players value (and I would agree with that argument) BUT that is all relative to every other player out their in the field. All I'm trying to say here is that Both Offense and both Defense add to the outcome of the game, and when you combine them both there is ALWAYS going to be some players out there who are putting up the superior offensive numbers and play some pretty good D as well. And while I don't want to discount ANYONE from consideration I just don't see a guy who only plays half the game as adding enough "value" to win the award.
Think of Dustin Pedrioa and the year he had when he won the MVP. His defense was GG that year, would you say that a player who put up the exact identical numbers but was a butcher in the field would be less valuable? Of course you would, so that player that puts up the numbers and the defense is surely to always be there.