Author Topic: Your NL MVP (Read 15126 times)

Bench · « **on:** November 20, 2007, 01:20:10 pm »

Jimmy Rollins

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3120573

The right decision, IMO.

mihoba · « **Reply #1 on:** November 20, 2007, 01:28:30 pm »

I agree. good choice.

SaltyParker · « **Reply #2 on:** November 20, 2007, 01:29:07 pm »

My choice as well but I am surprised that he won it.

Rammer33 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 20, 2007, 02:38:09 pm »

wouldn't have been my choice (or in my top 3) but it was a close year ... no run away choice

Tralfaz · « **Reply #4 on:** November 20, 2007, 03:29:36 pm »

Uh, Holiday, hello?

mihoba · « **Reply #5 on:** November 20, 2007, 03:32:10 pm »

Quote from: Tralfaz on November 20, 2007, 03:29:36 pm

Uh, Holiday, hello?

he keeps hanging up...

jaklewein · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2007, 03:49:50 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 20, 2007, 03:32:10 pm

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.

mihoba · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2007, 04:07:45 pm »

Quote from: jaklewein on November 20, 2007, 03:49:50 pm

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.

And Tulo finished ahead of Braun in the MVP vote. Is the BWWAA doing a 180º regarding D?

mihoba · « **Reply #8 on:** November 20, 2007, 04:12:23 pm »

I just noticed a mistake in the ESPN article:

Quote

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.

Prince was robbed! 119 homers! Wow...

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2007, 04:39:51 pm »

Quote

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.

The typo aside, Fielder did his part to keep the Brewers in the race, batting .333/.478/.733 with 11 homers, 23 runs and 22 RBI in September.

NeilT · « **Reply #10 on:** November 20, 2007, 04:40:08 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 20, 2007, 04:12:23 pm

I just noticed a mistake in the ESPN article:

Prince was robbed! 119 homers! Wow...

That's the sort of thing that would result in a big head. Or result from a big head.

austro · « **Reply #11 on:** November 20, 2007, 04:43:18 pm »

Quote from: Rammer33 on November 20, 2007, 02:38:09 pm

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?

Bench · « **Reply #12 on:** November 20, 2007, 05:03:52 pm »

Quote from: austro on November 20, 2007, 04:43:18 pm

I'm curious: what 3 others do you think were more qualified than Rollins?

I was hoping nobody would ask.

mihoba · « **Reply #13 on:** November 20, 2007, 05:08:03 pm »

Quote from: Bench on November 20, 2007, 05:03:52 pm

I was hoping nobody would ask.

My thoughts exactly. I quoted that line from rammer twice to reply, but decided to leave it alone. I couldn't pull the trigger.

TheWizard · « **Reply #14 on:** November 20, 2007, 05:24:47 pm »

IMO, Hanley Ramirez > Rollins.

austro · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2007, 05:33:29 pm »

Quote from: Bench on November 20, 2007, 05:03:52 pm

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.

mihoba · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2007, 05:37:55 pm »

Quote from: austro on November 20, 2007, 05:33:29 pm

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.

Wright didn't show up until May. A forgettable, homerless April, not to mention the whole Mets missed the playoffs thing.

legs_of_eggs · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2007, 07:02:56 pm »

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

mihoba · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:31:07 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on November 20, 2007, 07:02:56 pm

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

No-brainer huh? What a load of bullshit. You can't see where Rollins and his historic season helped the Phillies to the NL East title?

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:31:39 pm »

Quote from: TheWizard on November 20, 2007, 05:24:47 pm

IMO, Hanley Ramirez > Rollins.

True, but many people will give Rollins credit for playing on a contender.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #20 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:35:28 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on November 20, 2007, 07:02:56 pm

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

Holliday's splits:

Split   Avg   OBP   Slg  2B  3B  HR   R  RBI  BB
------------------------------------------------
Home   .376  .435  .722  28   5  25  67   82  28
Away   .301  .374  .485  22   1  11  53   55  35

Also, 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.

mihoba · « **Reply #21 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:37:11 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 20, 2007, 10:31:39 pm

True, but many people will give Rollins credit for playing on a contender.

And rightly so, since it is ingrained in the award itself.

Quote

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.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #22 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:44:16 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 20, 2007, 10:37:11 pm

And rightly so, since it is ingrained in the award itself.

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.

Burzmali · « **Reply #23 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:49:29 pm »

Quote from: austro on November 20, 2007, 05:33:29 pm

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.

RBI isn't very effective compared to other stats for measuring a player's production.

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.

mihoba · « **Reply #24 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:50:53 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 20, 2007, 10:44:16 pm

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.

They have a best hitter trophy, the Hank Aaron Award, for those other types.

mihoba · « **Reply #25 on:** November 20, 2007, 11:04:53 pm »

Quote from: Burzmali on November 20, 2007, 10:49:29 pm

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.

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.

DVauthrin · « **Reply #26 on:** November 21, 2007, 01:04:53 am »

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.

Col. Sphinx Drummond · « **Reply #27 on:** November 21, 2007, 06:02:32 am »

I agree with choosing Rollins. I see it as a slim but firm margin over Holiday.

Outlawscotty · « **Reply #28 on:** November 21, 2007, 06:37:53 am »

The MVP should have been Pujols. Did you see what he did to Lidg...... oh..... [shots fired][man down].

MikeyBoy · « **Reply #29 on:** November 21, 2007, 07:14:24 am »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 20, 2007, 10:31:39 pm

True, but many people will give Rollins credit for playing ~~on a contender~~ defense.

FIFY

mrpink · « **Reply #30 on:** November 21, 2007, 07:27:36 am »

The MVP voting is a fucking joke. Someone actually voted for Jose Valverde over Pujols. How is that possible.

MikeyBoy · « **Reply #31 on:** November 21, 2007, 07:29:20 am »

Quote from: TheWizard on November 20, 2007, 05:24:47 pm

IMO, Hanley Ramirez > Rollins.

Offensively, yes, but not by a whole hell of a lot. Defensively, however, it's not even close. Ramirez is a butcher at SS.

mihoba · « **Reply #32 on:** November 21, 2007, 09:32:27 am »

Quote from: mrpink on November 21, 2007, 07:27:36 am

The MVP voting is a fucking joke. Someone actually voted for Jose Valverde over Pujols. How is that possible.

Think about it. Pujols = good season/no playoffs. Valverde = good season/saves leader/best record in the NL

Outlawscotty · « **Reply #33 on:** November 21, 2007, 10:02:57 am »

Who would be the Astros' team representative for rookie and MVP? Pence! and Lee? or Pence!²?

mihoba · « **Reply #34 on:** November 21, 2007, 10:25:50 am »

Quote

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.

I forgot the code to format this correctly, forgive me.

TheWizard · « **Reply #35 on:** November 21, 2007, 10:43:22 am »

Quote from: MikeyBoy on November 21, 2007, 07:29:20 am

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.

Rammer33 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 21, 2007, 01:40:58 pm »

Quote from: Bench on November 20, 2007, 05:03:52 pm

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 …

Rammer33 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 21, 2007, 01:47:54 pm »

Quote from: austro on November 20, 2007, 04:43:18 pm

I'm curious: what 3 others do you think were more qualified than Rollins?

Probably Holliday, Ramírez, Fielder

reasonable minds can differ ... Rollins had a great year

legs_of_eggs · « **Reply #38 on:** November 21, 2007, 02:13:37 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 20, 2007, 10:35:28 pm

Holliday's splits:
Split   Avg   OBP   Slg  2B  3B  HR   R  RBI  BB
------------------------------------------------
Home   .376  .435  .722  28   5  25  67   82  28
Away   .301  .374  .485  22   1  11  53   55  35
Also, 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.

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.

mihoba · « **Reply #39 on:** November 21, 2007, 02:41:56 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on November 21, 2007, 02:13:37 pm

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?

legs_of_eggs · « **Reply #40 on:** November 21, 2007, 02:45:45 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 21, 2007, 02:41:56 pm

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?

mihoba · « **Reply #41 on:** November 21, 2007, 02:53:36 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on November 21, 2007, 02:45:45 pm

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.

legs_of_eggs · « **Reply #42 on:** November 21, 2007, 03:09:40 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 21, 2007, 02:53:36 pm

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.

Jacksonian · « **Reply #43 on:** November 21, 2007, 03:13:36 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on November 21, 2007, 03:09:40 pm

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.

You don't understand defense and its effect on a team. If you did you'd understand why the Phillies would not have made the playoffs without Rollins. Rollins offensive and defensive contributions were greater than Holliday's offensive and defensive contributions.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #44 on:** November 21, 2007, 04:24:35 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 20, 2007, 10:50:53 pm

They have a best hitter trophy, the Hank Aaron Award, for those other types.

Best hitter isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about value. I think defining a player's value based on what is in essence the value of his teammates is erroneous.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #45 on:** November 21, 2007, 04:25:57 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on November 21, 2007, 02:13:37 pm

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.

I don't have a particular view on Rollins. I think looking at Holliday's statistics without considering the home/away splits leads to mistaken conclusions.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #46 on:** November 21, 2007, 04:27:46 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 20, 2007, 11:04:53 pm

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.

mihoba · « **Reply #47 on:** November 21, 2007, 05:08:43 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 21, 2007, 04:27:46 pm

Hanley Ramirez had a better season at the plate than Jimmy Rollins did. I don't know enough about their defense to compare them.

You could make an argument for Hanley as the Silver Slugger winner at shortstop, but not as the league MVP based on the criteria of the award. (contributing to the overall success of the team)

Burzmali · « **Reply #48 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:58:24 pm »

Quote from: DVauthrin on November 21, 2007, 01:04:53 am

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?

DVauthrin · « **Reply #49 on:** November 21, 2007, 09:18:21 pm »

Quote from: Burzmali on November 21, 2007, 08:58:24 pm

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.

Burzmali · « **Reply #50 on:** November 22, 2007, 04:32:58 am »

Quote from: DVauthrin on November 21, 2007, 09:18:21 pm

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 think it's a stretch to say Howard "sucked" until June. 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.

mihoba · « **Reply #51 on:** November 22, 2007, 11:35:54 am »

Quote from: Burzmali on November 22, 2007, 04:32:58 am

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.

Burzmali · « **Reply #52 on:** November 22, 2007, 01:54:50 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 22, 2007, 11:35:54 am

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.

That's so elitist man, honestly. You wouldn't talk like that to strangers in real life, so why do it here?

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #53 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:58:23 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 20, 2007, 11:04:53 pm

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 wholeheartedly agree with you and with the selection. Rollins was unbelievably good in all phases of the game. I really enjoy watching him play. He played hard during that period of time during which the Phils could have easily mailed it in. I respect that. It's a 27 out game, 162 game season-play that way.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #54 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:26:47 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 22, 2007, 11:35:54 am

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 don't agree that the critera of the award is necessarily what you are implying it to be.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #55 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:29:00 pm »

Quote from: DVauthrin on November 21, 2007, 09:18:21 pm

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.

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.

Mr. Happy · « **Reply #56 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:39:40 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 22, 2007, 06:26:47 pm

I don't agree that the critera of the award is necessarily what you are implying it to be.

What do you think the criteria should be? For me, its a combination of offensive and defensive contributions, together with leadership and other intangibles. From all I've seen and read, Rollins is a leader in the Phils clubhouse. His stats were exceptional. The problem with the MVP is that only one player can win it. There were several players who had MVP type years this year in the NL. In the AL, the selection in 2007 was simple.

DVauthrin · « **Reply #57 on:** November 22, 2007, 08:07:47 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 22, 2007, 06:29:00 pm

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.

He just asked me. So I answered. I agree with what you are saying.

SteveJRogers · « **Reply #58 on:** November 24, 2007, 10:05:57 pm »

Quote from: mihoba on November 20, 2007, 10:50:53 pm

They have a best hitter trophy, the Hank Aaron Award, for those other types.

That is also a fan participation thing, not something voted on by the BBWAA like the Cy Young Award, hence it doesn't have the same prestige yet that the CY or MVP have.

TheWizard · « **Reply #59 on:** November 25, 2007, 02:01:22 am »

If the Marlins had finished with a better record than the Phills, Ramirez would have had just as good a shot, if not a better one, at the MVP award because frankly his numbers at the plate were superior to Rollins', albeit not by much.

Honestly I haven't watched Ramirez enough to know if his defense is as bad as its toted as being. Not saying I don't believe info from others, just saying I don't know because I haven't watched enough. But let's be serious, since when has defense been a serious factor in MVP voting? Ryan Howard.. is he a hoover? 2004 Bariod Bonds on his creaky knees.. was he a defensive gem?

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of defense in any way, but I just think that MVP voters don't really take that into account. Its all about what you do at the plate and how successful your team is. 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.

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #60 on:** November 25, 2007, 09:58:54 am »

Quote from: Burzmali on November 22, 2007, 01:54:50 pm

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.

pravata · « **Reply #61 on:** November 25, 2007, 11:23:49 am »

Quote from: EasTexAstro on November 25, 2007, 09:58:54 am

Strangers who gathered together for the purpose of discussing baseball?

Yes. Yes, he would.

Strangers shouldn't make assumptions about what strangers will say in real life. Honestly.

Reuben · « **Reply #62 on:** November 25, 2007, 01:09:56 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on November 21, 2007, 03:09:40 pm

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.

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.

Reuben · « **Reply #63 on:** November 25, 2007, 01:43:25 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on November 21, 2007, 02:13:37 pm

Rollins has the lowest on-base ever for an mvp winner.

No he doesn't.
Rollins, 2007: .344 OBP
Andre Dawson, 1987: .328 OBP
Steve Garvey, 1974: .342 OBP
Z. Versalles, 1965: .319 OBP
Elston Howard, 1963: .342 OBP
Marty Marion, 1944: .324 OBP
The Link

not to mention all of the pitchers who've won the award (yes, theoretically some of them may have had higher OBP's).

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #64 on:** November 25, 2007, 02:14:12 pm »

Quote from: pravata on November 25, 2007, 11:23:49 am

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.

pravata · « **Reply #65 on:** November 25, 2007, 04:25:21 pm »

Quote from: EasTexAstro on November 25, 2007, 02:14:12 pm

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.

Not at you at all. Mihoba aint shy.

Jose Cruz III · « **Reply #66 on:** November 25, 2007, 05:59:13 pm »

Quote from: TheWizard on November 25, 2007, 02:01:22 am

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.

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.

Limey · « **Reply #67 on:** November 25, 2007, 06:11:22 pm »

Quote from: TheWizard on November 21, 2007, 10:43:22 am

Consider defense when voting for an MVP?? ..that is just outlandish thinking.

They have been known to overlook defense when awarding Gold Gloves!!!

Limey · « **Reply #68 on:** November 25, 2007, 06:14:27 pm »

Quote from: Burzmali on November 22, 2007, 01:54:50 pm

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?

JimR · « **Reply #69 on:** November 26, 2007, 08:51:22 am »

Quote from: Burzmali on November 22, 2007, 01:54:50 pm

That's so elitist man, honestly. You wouldn't talk like that to strangers in real life, so why do it here?

here we go with the elitist crap. fuck off.

TheWizard · « **Reply #70 on:** November 26, 2007, 01:44:39 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 25, 2007, 06:14:27 pm

This isn't real life? Why wasn't I told?

Because we are all too busy enjoying this groovy virtual reality world.

Limey · « **Reply #71 on:** November 26, 2007, 01:46:40 pm »

Quote from: TheWizard on November 26, 2007, 01:44:39 pm

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.

MusicMan · « **Reply #72 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:15:50 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 26, 2007, 01:46:40 pm

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.

Interesting. Mine is a guitar-carrying sportswriter for the Chron.

Froback · « **Reply #73 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:16:44 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 26, 2007, 01:46:40 pm

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.

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.

Jose Cruz III · « **Reply #74 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:26:59 pm »

Quote from: Froback on November 26, 2007, 02:16:44 pm

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.

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?

Limey · « **Reply #75 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:30:17 pm »

Quote from: Jose Cruz III on November 26, 2007, 02:26:59 pm

Was that a lecture?

It was a text book definition of "sarchasm".

Lurch · « **Reply #76 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:33:00 pm »

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.

JimR · « **Reply #77 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:35:27 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on November 26, 2007, 02:33:00 pm

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?

Froback · « **Reply #78 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:39:07 pm »

Quote from: JimR on November 26, 2007, 02:35:27 pm

huh?

I think he might be quoting a different Jim.

S.P. Rodriguez · « **Reply #79 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:50:10 pm »

Correct. That is a reference to The Office (U.S. version...).

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #80 on:** November 26, 2007, 02:53:22 pm »

Quote from: Reuben on November 25, 2007, 01:09:56 pm

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.

Holliday was 18th in the league in road batting average, 17th in road OBP and 28th in road slugging percentage. He was first in the league in home batting average, fifth in home OBP and first in home slugging percentage. Holliday had a nice season, but without playing half his games at Coors Field, he would not have been a factor in the MVP voting.

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?

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.

Gizzmonic · « **Reply #81 on:** November 26, 2007, 03:49:47 pm »

Quote from: Limey on November 25, 2007, 06:14:27 pm

This isn't real life? Why wasn't I told?

"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case I definitely overpaid for my carpet." Woody Allen

Reuben · « **Reply #82 on:** November 26, 2007, 08:05:23 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 26, 2007, 02:53:22 pm

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.

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on November 26, 2007, 02:53:22 pm

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.