Uh, Holiday, hello?
he keeps hanging up...
I like the pick from the standpoint that he performed extremely well in all parts of a postion player's game. I'd also started to give credit to the voters based on the fact that they had to have factored good defense from a defensive postion into their selection process but then I realized how stupid I was for thinking such a thought.
Fielder was also impressive. In his second full season in the majors, the 23-year-old first baseman led the league with 50 homers -- becoming the youngest player to reach the plateau.
He ranked second in slugging percentage (.618) and batted .288 with 119 homers, but his MVP candidacy probably was hurt when the Brewers blew their NL Central lead and missed the playoffs.
He ranked second in slugging percentage (.618) and batted .288 with 119 homers, but his MVP candidacy probably was hurt when the Brewers blew their NL Central lead and missed the playoffs.
I just noticed a mistake in the ESPN article:
Prince was robbed! 119 homers! Wow...
wouldn't have been my choice (or in my top 3) but it was a close year ... no run away choice
I'm curious: what 3 others do you think were more qualified than Rollins?
I was hoping nobody would ask.
I was hoping nobody would ask.
Oh, I wasn't trying to be a smartass, I was just curious. I probably would have voted for Wright: he seemed to me to have the most consistent season, and .325/.416/.546 is pretty remarkable. I'm not exactly sure how he wound up with "only" 107 RBI with those numbers.
No-brainer, Holliday. If not for him the Rockies would have been watching the playoffs let alone the Series. Had Rollins not been a Phillie they'd still have done about what they did. Victorino, Utely, Howard, Rowand, Burrell > Tulo, Atkins, Helton, Kaz, Hawpe
IMO, Hanley Ramirez > Rollins.
No-brainer, Holliday. If not for him the Rockies would have been watching the playoffs let alone the Series. Had Rollins not been a Phillie they'd still have done about what they did. Victorino, Utely, Howard, Rowand, Burrell > Tulo, Atkins, Helton, Kaz, Hawpe
Split Avg OBP Slg 2B 3B HR R RBI BBAlso, I don't understand what their teammates have to do with the values of Holliday and Rollins. A $20 bill is worth $20 whether it's in a wallet full of $20s or a wallet full of $10s.
------------------------------------------------
Home .376 .435 .722 28 5 25 67 82 28
Away .301 .374 .485 22 1 11 53 55 35
True, but many people will give Rollins credit for playing on a contender.
to be given to the player in each league who "should prove himself as the most important and useful player to his club and to the league at large in point of deportment and value of services rendered." This was the first attempt to recognize a player for overall contributions to his team's success—hence the designation Most Valuable rather than "player of the year", a distinction which remains today.
And rightly so, since it is ingrained in the award itself.
Oh, I wasn't trying to be a smartass, I was just curious. I probably would have voted for Wright: he seemed to me to have the most consistent season, and .325/.416/.546 is pretty remarkable. I'm not exactly sure how he wound up with "only" 107 RBI with those numbers.
Who's more valuable?
1. A player on a bad team who contributes a huge proportion to the relatively few wins it obtains?
2. A player on a great team so loaded with talent that it would win a ton of games without him?
3. A player on a team just good enough to make the playoffs with him but not quite good enough to make the playoffs without him.
The way many people approach the MVP, player #3 is the favorite for the award if the three players are even remotely comparable. Which means you've giving an individual award to someone based on something more or less beyond his control, i.e., the quality of his team if he weren't even on it.
Edit: Rollins as MVP is a joke, he wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team. Utley, Howard, Holliday, and Fielder all would have been better choices.
True, but many people will give Rollins credit for playingon a contenderdefense.
IMO, Hanley Ramirez > Rollins.
The MVP voting is a fucking joke. Someone actually voted for Jose Valverde over Pujols. How is that possible.
NL MVP Voting
Jimmy Rollins became the second straight Phillies player to win the NL MVP award. Ryan Howard won the award in 2006.
Player 1st 2nd 3rd Total
Rollins, Phi 16 7 4 353
Matt Holliday, Col 11 18 1 336
Prince Fielder, Mil 5 6 17 284
Others receiving votes: David Wright, NY, 182; Ryan Howard, Phi, 112; Chipper Jones, Atl, 107; Jake Peavy, SD, 97; Chase Utley, Phi, 89; Albert Pujols, StL, 50; Hanley Ramirez, Fla, 49; Eric Byrnes, Ari, 43; Alfonso Soriano, Chi, 39; Aramis Ramirez, Chi, 36; Jose Valverde, Ari, 19; Miguel Cabrera, Fla, 18; Jose Reyes, NY, 16; Brandon Webb, Ari, 15; Troy Tulowitzki, 13; Carlos Lee, Hou, 7; Adrian Gonzalez, SD, 6; Carlos Beltran, NY, 6; Brandon Phillips, Cin, 3; Aaron Rowand, Phi, 3; Brad Hawpe, Col, 2; Ryan Braun, Mil, 2; Carlos Marmol, Chi, 1.
Offensively, yes, but not by a whole hell of a lot. Defensively, however, it's not even close. Ramirez is a butcher at SS.Consider defense when voting for an MVP?? ..that is just outlandish thinking.
I was hoping nobody would ask.Good lord if that response bugged you, you may have issues … I didn’t feel the need to go into the specifics on who I thought was the best player in the NL or why … Simply because Rollins wouldn’t have been top 3 on my ballot thats not to say he’s undeserving … I think there are a number of good candidates this season …
I'm curious: what 3 others do you think were more qualified than Rollins?Probably Holliday, Ramírez, Fielder
Holliday's splits:Split Avg OBP Slg 2B 3B HR R RBI BBAlso, I don't understand what their teammates have to do with the values of Holliday and Rollins. A $20 bill is worth $20 whether it's in a wallet full of $20s or a wallet full of $10s.
------------------------------------------------
Home .376 .435 .722 28 5 25 67 82 28
Away .301 .374 .485 22 1 11 53 55 35
Rollins has the lowest on-base ever for an mvp winner.
So that is your argument? That is the only reason you do not deem Rollins worthy of the MVP?
Oh no, all of Holliday's statistics and watching him carry the Rockies team all year with huge meaningful hits would be my main arguement, and of course is great game in the one game playoff to make the postseason. Honestly Utely and Howard can be credited a great deal for what Rollins has done, you gotta throw Rollins all the strikes you can so you don't have to face Utely and Howard with guys on base. Tell me, who suffers worse if you pull each guy off their team, Phils or Rox?
Is this a VORP argument? Replacing a top-notch offensive and defensive shortstop, and lead-off hitter, would be just as difficult as replacing a slugging left fielder.
Rollins became the first player in major league history to have at least 200 hits, 15 triples, 25 homers and 25 steals in the same year. He also became only the fourth player to collect at least 20 doubles, 20 triples, 20 home runs, and 20 stolen bases in one season.
He finished with 212 hits, 20 triples, 30 homers and 41 steals. He led the NL in games played, innings played, set major league records with 778 plate appearances and 716 at bats, led the NL in runs scored with 139, was second to Holliday in hits, was second in total bases (6 behind Holliday) with 380, led the NL with 20 triples, and became only the third shortstop to record a 30-30 season.
He was also awarded the Silver Slugger and Gold Glove for his work at shortstop.
Now, if you do not deem the above stats as MVP worthy, then I have nothing left to say.
I think its MVP worthy in any year Holliday doesn't play the way he did and do what he did for his team this year. I'm not slighting Rollins, just suggesting his numbers are severely aided by offensive juggernauts in Utley and Howard. I always judge MVPs more by what I see them do and I watched plenty of these two this year, Holliday had the biggest impact and had the highest value in the National League in 2007.
They have a best hitter trophy, the Hank Aaron Award, for those other types.
The value of a $20 bill doesn't change on a daily basis quite like baseball player's values do. Rollins has the lowest on-base ever for an mvp winner. Are you saying that if you took both guys off their respective teams then the Phillies suffer the worst blow? That's ludicrous.
Unfuckingbelievable. While it is plain as day to me, I truly am shocked to see where others doubt that Jimmy Rollins had a historically significant season in 2007 and is not worthy of this award.
Hanley Ramirez had a better season at the plate than Jimmy Rollins did. I don't know enough about their defense to compare them.
Rollins was the right choice. He was the reason the phillies won that division. He always made big plays when needed. Holliday was the only other possibility, but they didn't have nearly the injury issues they had to overcome.
Anyone who thinks he wasn't the phillies best or most valuable player in 2007 needs to actually watch a game or two instead of just regurgitating stats. Saying Ryan Howard was better this year proves you never watched that team play. Rollins was the one constant that kept that team winning through howard's slump, utley's injury and hamels/myers injuries.
How many Phillies' games did you watch?
I saw him at MMP, and in games on TBS/WGN when they played the braves/cubs. Also they were on ESPN quite a bit and caught him there also. But of course that means 10-20 times out of 162 games. Still, he did it all this year, and he was the one constant for that team all year. I can't believe someone actually claimed howard was more important. Utley when he wasn't injured I can buy a bit, but not howard this year.
Rollins is what kept that team afloat despite howard's early season slump, and all their injuries. Utley injured. Howard sucked until like june/july. Hamels injured. Myers injured. Victorino injured. Without rollins the phillies don't even get the chance to capitalize on the mets choke job. He was the best player in the league this year, in a year devoid of one guy heads and shoulders above the rest.
It's far from a joke he won MVP.
He was just so substantially more productive than Rollins was over the course of the season, I'm not sure how you can reasonably say that Rollins was more valuable, at least definitively.
I'm not sure you actually understand the game of baseball, and I'm convinced you do not understand the criteria of the MVP award.
Unfuckingbelievable. While it is plain as day to me, I truly am shocked to see where others doubt that Jimmy Rollins had a historically significant season in 2007 and is not worthy of this award.
I'm not sure you actually understand the game of baseball, and I'm convinced you do not understand the criteria of the MVP award.
I saw him at MMP, and in games on TBS/WGN when they played the braves/cubs. Also they were on ESPN quite a bit and caught him there also. But of course that means 10-20 times out of 162 games. Still, he did it all this year, and he was the one constant for that team all year. I can't believe someone actually claimed howard was more important. Utley when he wasn't injured I can buy a bit, but not howard this year.
Rollins is what kept that team afloat despite howard's early season slump, and all their injuries. Utley injured. Howard sucked until like june/july. Hamels injured. Myers injured. Victorino injured. Without rollins the phillies don't even get the chance to capitalize on the mets choke job. He was the best player in the league this year, in a year devoid of one guy heads and shoulders above the rest.
It's far from a joke he won MVP.
I don't agree that the critera of the award is necessarily what you are implying it to be.
Does 10 or 20 games out of 162 make someone more qualified to judge a player's value over the course of the season? Do the MVP voters watch at least that many games for each team and thus all the players eligible for the award?
It seems like playing the ol' "how many games did you watch" card here isn't especially helpful.
They have a best hitter trophy, the Hank Aaron Award, for those other types.
That's so elitist man, honestly. You wouldn't talk like that to strangers in real life, so why do it here?
Strangers who gathered together for the purpose of discussing baseball?
Yes. Yes, he would.
I didn't see too much of Holliday except at the end of the year, but he struck me as a defensive liability, even in LF. I would hazard to guess that Rollins' defensive value is far greater than Holliday's defensive value. That said, and even with the Denver factor, Holliday had a hell of a year offensively. I don't have a problem with Rollins winning the award, but I could easily see Holliday getting it instead.
I think its MVP worthy in any year Holliday doesn't play the way he did and do what he did for his team this year. I'm not slighting Rollins, just suggesting his numbers are severely aided by offensive juggernauts in Utley and Howard. I always judge MVPs more by what I see them do and I watched plenty of these two this year, Holliday had the biggest impact and had the highest value in the National League in 2007.
Rollins has the lowest on-base ever for an mvp winner.No he doesn't.
Strangers shouldn't make assumptions about what strangers will say in real life. Honestly.
If this is directed at me, then I apologize. I did not mean to imply an association with mihoba that is not there. What little I know of him, he just does not seem to be the type of gentleman that will lie to keep from hurting someone's feelings. I did not mean to say he would pick a fight for the fun of it, just that he isn't quick to talk to hear himself talk, he says what he means to say.
I'll shut up again now.
A few games here or there in the Phillies case could have meant the difference bewteen post season or not. Arguments can be made for Holliday or Fielder. But in the end Rollins deserved the award he got.
Just a simple switcharoo, putting Ramirez on the Phills and Rollins on the Marlins.. does anyone subjectively think that would have drastically altered either team's final record? Maybe by a few games here or there, but not to a large degree IMO. Of course we'll never know, all speculation.
But to me, Rollins' team won more often, so he's an MVP candidate, and Ramirez's team is in the dumps rebuilding, or whatever it is they are calling it, and he's just a really good SS on a crappy team.
Consider defense when voting for an MVP?? ..that is just outlandish thinking.
That's so elitist man, honestly. You wouldn't talk like that to strangers in real life, so why do it here?
That's so elitist man, honestly. You wouldn't talk like that to strangers in real life, so why do it here?
This isn't real life? Why wasn't I told?Because we are all too busy enjoying this groovy virtual reality world.
Because we are all too busy enjoying this groovy virtual reality world.
I have a character in Second Life. He is also called Limey and also spends far too much time in a baseball-related chatroom. The only difference is that Second Life Limey can fly.
I have a character in Second Life. He is also called Limey and also spends far too much time in a baseball-related chatroom. The only difference is that Second Life Limey can fly.I guess this must be a sign of my age, but I don't get Second Life. I mean, I waste too much of my time as it is. If I had a Second Life, too, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to sleep.
I guess this must be a sign of my age, but I don't get Second Life. I mean, I waste too much of my time as it is. If I had a Second Life, too, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to sleep.Was that a lecture?
If you want to improve your life, try doing it in the real world, rather than creating a virtual "Second Life" and doing it there.
Was that a lecture?
Dwight: Second Life is not a game. It is a multi-user virtual environment. It doesn’t have points or scores. It doesn’t have winners or losers.
Jim: Oh, it has losers.
huh?I think he might be quoting a different Jim.
I didn't see too much of Holliday except at the end of the year, but he struck me as a defensive liability, even in LF. I would hazard to guess that Rollins' defensive value is far greater than Holliday's defensive value. That said, and even with the Denver factor, Holliday had a hell of a year offensively. I don't have a problem with Rollins winning the award, but I could easily see Holliday getting it instead.
This isn't real life? Why wasn't I told?
As for Rollins' defensive value, how do you compare him to his teammates, Chase Utley or Aaron Rowand, who also play key defensive positions? Or Hanley Ramirez, who plays the same position but apparently is unfit for the MVP award due to his teammates?I am a very long way from being qualified to answer the defensive question. As far as H. Ramirez, and the larger issue of how much team success should factor into MVP voting, personally, I think it's one of many factors; i.e. if two guys had similar years, give it to the guy whose team finished 1st, not 4th. But if somebody absolutely dominated the league (like A-Rod in 2003) I think they deserve the MVP, even if their team was bad. I think one of the worst things voters can do is give it to a guy who has a great last couple weeks of the season, over someone who had clearly superior numbers for the year.(eta: by "numbers" I of course mean "value" or whatever.
The best argument for Rollins is that if you layer enough criteria on top of each other, he turns out to be the top candidate. Rollins is certainly not the worst selection in the history of MVP voting, not by a long shot, but it is not as painfully obvious as is being discussed here.I agree. It was an extremely close vote, and I think it's easy to see why.