A minor issue I know, but it is annoying to those of us who care about the postseason awards voting.
The value of + plays at 1B needs to be decreased in the formula for determining MVP candidates. Routinely I am seeing excellent candidates bumped off the list because they have a few - plays in LF or RF while above average hitters who could play corner OF are playing 1B, racking up tons of + plays, and make it on the list.

I hear that a lot but I guess it depends on how you view + plays in forming your opinion.

At worst, a + play prevents an extra base.
At best, a + play turns a hit into an out.

If you add 30 bases to a hitter's numbers, his slugging goes up .060 based on 500 AB.    In my mind, that's pretty significant.   If you consider them hits, you've turned a .300 hitter into a .360 hitter with the appropriate increases in OBP/SLG.    In turn, take hits/total bases away from those COF and they're not quite the same either.   I won't even bother to get into the effect +/- have on a pitching staff.

I understand the value of +/- plays as I typically have fielding teams in the upper third of my leagues or better. It's just that the game mechanics make it so easy for anyone not meant to be a C or DH to rack up a ton of + plays at 1B. That fact makes them feel much cheaper when evaluating someone to be the MVP of a league.

Do you really want + plays at 1B to be harder to get?    That's what I'm reading.

No, refer to the topic of this thread. They should be worth much less than + plays at more difficult fielding positions in the formula that generates the list of MVP candidates.

OK, which part of this do you disagree with?

At worst, a + play prevents an extra base.
At best, a + play turns a hit into an out.

Assuming neither, do you then think preventing a hit or extra base at SS is more valuable to a team than if a 1B prevents one?