Is the DH Overpaid- Wall Street Journal

[Irwin Fletcher]

The author of the WSJ article kind of misses the point.

The article notes that DHs are lower on the WAR scale because they don't play defense, so the WAR for a DH is derived strictly from offensive contribution, which is really only half of the equation. The author's conclusion then is that DHs are overpaid because they make more money relative to their WAR than those players who play defense.

But what the author doesn't mention is that DHs never play defense, so their WAR will almost always be lower. So long as the DH spot exists, it's not really fair to compare the overall contributions of a player that plays defense to one who never plays defense. A more appropriate comparison between DHs and positions players would be Runs Created or something like that.

For example (and this is not backed up by looking at any actual numbers), if you had Mark Teixiera (sp?) at first base, he would have a high WAR because he is an excellent offensive and defensive player. In order to match his WAR total at DH based on offense alone, you'd probably have to have Albert Pujols at DH. And if you did, I doubt anyone would complain that Pujols at DH is overpaid.

It's just a fact of life in the AL that you have to pay position player salary to a guy who only hits.

[dstudeba]

Originally Posted by Irwin Fletcher

It's just a fact of life in the AL that you have to pay position player salary to a guy who only hits.

So how is this different from what the author is saying? Paying a position player salary to a guy who only hits is overpaying them. Just because it is done doesn't mean it makes sense or is a fact of life.