Rollins is the NL MVP, more proof that the BBWAA doesn't know baseball
WeekendHacker
Posts: 1,445 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Holliday was the MVP in the NL this year, hands down. Leage leader in BA and RBI, 4th in HR's and carried his team in September, winning 17 of the last 18 regular season games. What's next, the BBWAA voting in Mario Mendoza to the BBHOF just because there is a batting average named after him?
0
Comments
Player, Club 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Points
Jimmy Rollins, PHI 16 7 4 4 1 353
Matt Holliday, COL 11 18 1 1 1 336
Prince Fielder, MIL 5 6 17 3 1 284
David Wright, NYM 1 4 12 7 1 1 2 182
Ryan Howard, PHI 2 6 3 3 3 2 3 112
Chipper Jones, ATL 1 3 3 7 5 1 1 107
Jake Peavy, SD 2 5 5 4 1 4 1 97
What idiot put 5 players ahead of Holliday for the MVP? Rollins wasn't even in the top 10 in the NL in BA, HR's or RBI, yet he is the MVP? This is about as much of a joke as Palmeiro winning the gold glove award playing a whopping 30 games in the field. I'm no Matt Holliday fan, but he was clearly the MVP, this is such a farce!!
last month of the season.
JS
Holliday was clearly the MVP.
but JRoll won it!
Hee Haw
IMO Rollins was just as deserving. The writers got it right.
Steve
<< <i>Because of Holidays #'s away from Coors field i would've voted for Rollins or Fielder >>
I dont think Coors field is as much of an advantage as it once was, they keep the balls in a humidor now...
As far as the comparing Rollins and Ramirez - Rollins had a better supporting cast around him and plays in a hitters park while Ramirez plays in a pitchers park.
BA: Ramirez .332 to Rollins .296
Hits: both had 212 (Ramirez did it in 77 less at bats)
Runs: Rollins 139 to Ramirez 125
HR's: Rollins 30 to Ramirez 29 (in 77 less at bats)
RBI's: Rollins 94 to Ramirez 81
SB's Ramirez 51 to Rollins 41
OPS: Ramirez .948 to Rollins .875
I have nothing against Rollins, he's a really good player, my beef is with the BBWAA and this is just another example of them not getting it right.
Well stated and 100% correct.
Edit: Certainly true when you compare Wright with Rollins, maybe less so when you consider Holliday's case for the MVP, but I think many writers discount the stats for a player who plays 81 games at Coors Field.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Not only was Rollins not the best SS in the NL (compare Rollins and H. Ramirez numbers) but he wasn't even the MVP on his own team. Outside of Howard coming on slow to start the year, the Phillies aren't even a .500 team without Howard.
As far as the comparing Rollins and Ramirez - Rollins had a better supporting cast around him and plays in a hitters park while Ramirez plays in a pitchers park.
BA: Ramirez .332 to Rollins .296
Hits: both had 212 (Ramirez did it in 77 less at bats)
Runs: Rollins 139 to Ramirez 125
HR's: Rollins 30 to Ramirez 29 (in 77 less at bats)
RBI's: Rollins 94 to Ramirez 81
SB's Ramirez 51 to Rollins 41
OPS: Ramirez .948 to Rollins .875
I have nothing against Rollins, he's a really good player, my beef is with the BBWAA and this is just another example of them not getting it right. >>
While Rollins and Ramirez are similar offensively (Rollins had more triples as well), part of being an MVP is defensive play, where Rollins gets the nod, and team performance/leadership, where he also gets the nod.
Rollins made the bold prediction in the beginning of the year that the Phils were the team to beat in the NL East, and some how the team came through after a 14 year post-season drought. The Rockies came on very late and were not in the playoff conversation until really the last month and a half of the season.
Either candidate was deserving, but it is nice to see the award land in Philly for the second straight year. If we could only get some decent pitching, we could be onto something special this upcoming season (Myers back in the rotation should be a big help).
Others that I could find and their positions:
1. 1988 Kirk Gibson, OF
2. 1979 Willie Stargell, OF (co-MVP)
3. 1962 Maury Wills, SS
4. 1944 Marty Marion, SS
5. 1965 Zoilo Versailles, SS
6. 1928 Mickey Cochrane, C
7. 1925 Roger Peckinpaugh, SS
8. 1926 Bob O'Farrell, C
9. 1914 Johnny Evers, 2B
I would have guessed Matt Holliday would have won, especially with the Rockies great finish to the season. His stats are pretty eye popping.
Erik
<< <i>Wright was the most valuable player. Rollins and Holliday had more valuable teammates >>
True, and the way Wright took the Mets on his shoulders at the end of the season to prevent that all-time collapse was inspiring.
good call.
the games you would of known this. What is real impressive is that three Phillies were in the top 10 on the voting. A real waste
if you ask me.
The one question I want to ask is when Pujols will star crying about he didn't win it again?
JS
good call.
Yeah, the Sillies done good representing the NL East in the postseason this year.
Next year, order will be restored...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>True, and the way Wright took the Mets on his shoulders at the end of the season to prevent that all-time collapse was inspiring.
good call.
Yeah, the Sillies done good representing the NL East in the postseason this year.
Next year, order will be restored... >>
Ha! I see that Jerry is still in denial over his Mets monumental collapse. Mets will spend more money in the off season and choke again - the story has already been written.
-
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The vote was close, the voters have spoken. I as a Mets fan thought all along that the voting would end up like:
Rollins
Holliday
Wright
Fielder
I was correct as those 4 did end up in the top 4, with Fielder nudging Wright into 4th place on the flip flop.
Rollins deserved the MVP.
IMO
Steve
<< <i>Go Eagles!!!
NFL smack talk from a Jets fan?
Isn't that illegal?
Isn't that illegal?
Why, I was merely doing my part to exhort the mighty birds to victory this Sunday! Nothing more, nothing less.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>NFL smack talk from a Jets fan?
Isn't that illegal?
Why, I was merely doing my part to exhort the mighty birds to victory this Sunday! Nothing more, nothing less. >>
Well considering the Patriots are in your division and I doubt if you like them, then I'll have to believe your "friendly" comments about the Eagles whether you jest or not.
these voters got it wrong again!
<< <i>True, and the way Wright took the Mets on his shoulders at the end of the season to prevent that all-time collapse was inspiring.
good call.
Yeah, the Sillies done good representing the NL East in the postseason this year.
Next year, order will be restored... >>
nice to see you haven't changed
we'll see, it should be a good season, I hope the mets sign Garcia to replace Glavine !! MAUHAHAHAHAH
Rollins CARRIED his team when Howard was slumping (granted the team still had a poor record, but it could've been worse) and while Utley was on the DL. Lost in the stats are the day-in and day-out contributions Rollins made. Taking extra bases on offense, eliminating or reducing bases advanced on defense, and leading his team by example on the field make him far more valuable than any stat line will demonstrate.
Fielder, Wright, Pujols and even Chipper and Hanley had great seasons, but with all due respect, they were not the most valuable players in the league this season.
Had the vote gone to Holliday, I would've understood and accepted it, but I wouldn't have agreed. Holliday was the only possible choice over Rollins, but at the worst, they should've shared the award.
"The “Most Valuable Player” award continued its evolution into the “Most Valuable Copy Creator” award today as Jimmy Rollins was named the NL MVP by the Baseball Writers Association of America. While Rollins had an excellent season, playing in every Phillies game and accumulating large numbers of at-bats, hits, runs, extra-base hits and stolen bases, he also accumulated a large number of outs. Those outs, which left him with just a .344 on-base percentage, are the difference between being the “most” valuable player in the league and being just one of many valuable ones.
Of course, what mattered wasn’t Rollins’ statistics, but that his teammates played well enough to help win 89 games, while David Wright’s teammates played only well enough for his team to win 88. What mattered was that Rollins, in January, called his Phillies “the team to beat” in the NL East, then went out had a career year. What mattered was that the Phillies made up a seven-game deficit with 17 games to play, and never mind that relief pitching and Chase Utley and the Mets’ bullpen woes had as much to do with that as Rollins did.
This vote reflects the storyline, not the performance. All of the measures of performance that we have, from Value Over Replacement Player to Wins Above Replacement Player to…well, pick your favorite stat…yield roughly the same conclusion: that Jimmy Rollins was somewhere between the fifth- and eighth-best player in the NL this year, with overall value comparable to his double-play partner, Utley, who would himself have run away with this award if not for taking a John Lannan fastball off of his hand July 26. Even missing 28 games with the injury, Utley was as productive as Rollins was in a full season, a testament to the power of 66 points of on-base percentage.
Rollins wasn’t even the best of the “storyline” candidates, the players who rose to the top of the discussion as the season drew to a close. Matt Holliday, who was the fourth-best player in the league by both VORP and WARP, was considered the co-favorite along with Rollins at the end of the regular season, a regular season that ended with Holliday face down in the dirt behind home plate at Coors Field, having just scored the run that clinched the wild card for the Rockies. Holliday, like a number of others, had better offensive (75.0 VORP to Rollins’ 66.1, .318 EqA to Rollins’ .290, 63.3 Runs Above Replacement to Rollins’ 55.0) and defensive (10 Fielding Runs Above Average versus eight for Rollins, +9 in John Dewan’s Plus/Minus system to Rollins’ +7) statistics than Rollins did. All of those numbers account for position and park—Rollins’ being a shortstop and not playing home games in Coors Field are in those formulae.
As expected, the electorate completely missed the most valuable players in the league, because those players didn’t have good enough teammates. Albert Pujols combined his typically great offense with a Gold Glove-caliber defensive season to produce the highest WARP total in the NL (11.3). David Wright, who did everything but pitch for the Mets in September, was second in the league in WARP (10.7) thanks to being its second-best offensive player and playing above-average defense at third base. Jake Peavy was not just the best pitcher in the league, but he was arguably its best player, also posting a 10.7 WARP.
The three best players in the league finished fourth (Wright), seventh (Peavy) and ninth (Pujols) in the MVP balloting, not because their performance was lacking, but because their teammates were.
In a close race, there’s nothing wrong with considering factors such as September performance, clutch performance (preferably with a statistical tool such as Win Probability Added, rather than anecdotes) and whether a team’s game were played in a pennant race. This wasn’t a close race, though; the gap between Pujols, Wright and Peavy and the rest of the league was more than one win, which is an enormous number in an MVP race. That they did so poorly in the voting doesn’t mean the statistics missed something; it means the voters couldn’t resist the temptation, yet again, to reward the players who produced the best stories, rather than the best seasons.
Jimmy Rollins is a great baseball player who had the best year of his career and was part of a division winner after making an offseason boast that he would be just that. Those things make him valuable, exciting and one of the best stories of 2007.
He just wasn’t the most valuable player in the National League."
-Joe Sheehan, Baseball Prospectus
OtWcards, some of the stuff you mention, like carrying a team when Howard was slumping etc...is pretty much hogwash. What about when Howard was hot? Was he then carrying Rollins, thus negating your point?
A Holliday fan will come back and say, "Holliday carried the Rockies to the best finish in the history of baseball with a 1.236 September OPS". The thing is, each fan who watches their favorite star will say the same thing. On Holliday's baseball reference page the sponsor of that page says it is a joke MVP and that they shoud "check the intangibles!" So are his intangibles correct, or yours?
What they contributed in creating runs, and saving them is the key, and it is measured to a very high degree. Maybe in little league an attitude can have a profound affect on others...but it just doesn't happen with any regularity at the MLB level.
The MVP is basically a meaningless award when it is issued under the common criteria of "giving it to the player who's team needs his presence the most." As stated in the article above, that is more a measurement of teammates than the player at question. So Rollins producing the same leadership and performance on the Devil Rays and they finish in last still, then makes him less valuable? That is dumb. That type of thinking would be far more indicitive of his teammates, rather than him....yet that is the thinking most commonly used in MVP voting. It thus renders it a novelty award.
TO BASEBALL PROSPECTUS!
You cite Holliday's VORP lead of 75 to 66 over Rollins, and 63 to 55 in Runs above replacement over Rollins, and then later on you mention that it is o.k. to use 'clutch' stats. Well?
Rollins had OPS of .852 with nobody on, and .914 with men on.
Hlday had OPS of 1.039 with nobody on, and .984 with men on.
What that means, is that in those figures used to create their value, it figure performance based on the average value of each offesnive event. Looking ath those figures, Holliday did more of his hitting with nobody on(when it doesn't mean as much), and Rollins the opposite. That right there is enough for appx 5-7 runs in runs above replacement.
Rollins had OPS of .795 in blowouts, and .808 in late and close.
Hlday had OPS of 1.092 in blowouts, and .935 in late and close.
So in this case, Rollins also had a higher percentage of his overall averaged performance occur in more meaningful situations, while Holliday had more of his damage in blowouts, thus lower the value of his overall performance as measued by Baseball prospectus.
This, and the men on facet, look to be enough to even the score between Rollins and Holiday based on the baseballprospectus method.
Any ss that puts up those #'s is pretty good, and he's not bad fielding wise either.
1. I'm not disagreeing with anyone who objects to Rollins winning - he was neither the best nor the most valuable player in the league.
2. Rollins MVP is nowhere near the worst ever pick; by historical standards, it's not even an especially bad one and may even be better than average.
3. Any time the award is given to somebody besides the RBI leader, that is a good thing in and of itself. Not that the RBI leader doesn't sometimes deserve the award, just that when you look at the absolutely most horrendous MVP picks ever made they almost always go to the RBI leader: Dawson in 1987, Gonzalez in 1998, Boyer in 1964, etc. When voters are willing to look beyond HR and RBI it means they are using their brains: we may still disagree with the result, but they won't make the historically laughable mistakes of the past as long as they continue using their brains. (They may have only been using the part of their brains that read headlines, but that's still better than none at all.)
4. A relief pitcher didn't win it - that's also a good thing. No relief pitcher has ever (nor will a relief pitcher ever in the future) be among the 20 most valuable players in a league; when they have won the MVP it has ALWAYS been a travesty. As long as the aforementioned brains are in use, a relief pitcher will never win the award again.
5. If the MVP award always went to the actual most valuable player in the league, it would go to outfielders and first or third basemen virtually every year. For example, I believe Johnny Bench in 1970 is the only catcher to win the MVP who was actually the best player in the league. Yogi Berra "should" have lost all three of his awards to either Mantle or Williams; Pudge should never have won, Campy should never have won, ditto for Lombardi and Hartnett. Part of how we determine who was the best player is by comparing him to his hypothetical "replacement", or to an average player. But that process assumes - although not explicitly - that a good shortstop can be replaced with an outfielder who hits better. While it is true that getting a better bat in the lineup will win a team more games on paper, I think a team with Big Papi at short would find out that he was not actually a viable "replacement" for their shortstop.
In short, every team that expects to win games has to have at least one competent shortstop, but the skills and quickness it takes to be a competent shortstop make it virtually impossible for the player who possesses them to compete for the title of best overall player since power hitting is the single most "valuable" skill a player can possess. I think it is not unreasonable - and not terribly bothersome - that catchers and shortstops win the occasional MVP Award.
6. This year was as good as any other to give the MVP to a shortstop.