Today?

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Edgy DC wrote: Seaver.

Damn right. McCovey got Tom's MVP in 1969, and I'd say he was screwed out of two Cy Young Awards, too.

The story on MLB.com lists Wright as an honorable mention as it lists contenders.

We'll know in 11 minutes.

[metirish]

Some dissenting voices out there about the MVP.

By Joe Sheehan, BaseballProspectus


Rollins' career year still not deserving of NL MVP




Neyer.

] No rhyme or reason to MVP votingposted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 | Feedback | Print Entry It doesn't bother me that Jimmy Rollins won the NL MVP Award. He scored a million runs. He stole 41 bases. He hit 38 doubles, 20 triples and 30 home runs. He played 162 games. He's not a great defensive shortstop and didn't deserve his Gold Glove, but he's plenty good enough. What bothers me is the utter lack of consistency from year to year. In 2006, Ryan Howard's team finished three games out of the playoffs, and yet in the MVP balloting Howard outpointed Albert Pujols -- whose team did qualify for the playoffs. This, even though Pujols finished with a higher on-base percentage and a higher slugging percentage while playing his home games in a pitcher's park (Howard played his in a hitter's park). So if you don't have to play for a playoff team, what's wrong with David Wright, exactly? "When Wright's team really needed him in September, he let them down." That is not a rhetorical device. That is something people believe. There are only two problems with it: It's mostly irrelevant and it's completely wrong. First of all, the games in April through August count just as much as the games in September. Actually, they might count for just a little bit more. If you play well early in the season, and your team is winning, management might make a few extra moves with an eye toward winning more games in September and October. On balance, a home run in June might be worth just slightly more than a home run in September. And second, if there was one player who did not let the Mets down in September, it was David Wright. In September he batted .352. From Aug. 2 through the end of the season, he batted .377 and scored 48 runs in 54 games. The Mets lost 12 of their last 17 to blow the division race (with a little help from the Phillies). In those 17 games, Wright batted .397 and collected at least one hit in every game. That's right: The Mets' 17-game collapse also included Wright's 17-game hitting streak. So you can say what you want about him, and you can define "valuable" however you like. But unless you think Wright is responsible for his teammates' performance -- Wright, rather than the manager, and the coaches, and veterans like scrappy Paul Lo Duca -- I don't have any idea why the Mets' collapse would be held against him. Even a single iota. But maybe it's not the Mets' collapse that cost Wright so much as his lack of flash. The one statistical category in which he led the National League -- times on base (297) -- happens to be a category that no MVP voter has ever, in the long history of the award, ever looked at. But they do look at home runs, which I suppose is the only way to explain how Wright could actually finish behind Prince Fielder in the voting. Even if you ignore fielding and focus only on hitting, Wright was the better player. And it's not like Fielder's team was in the playoffs. Anyway I'm not sure the wrong man won the award. Rollins did guarantee before the season that the Phillies would finish in first place. If they had tanked, he would have been roundly criticized for his brashness. Instead, they finished in first place, and that counts for something. Also, according to the Bill James Handbook 2008, Rollins was one of the most effective baserunners in the majors, even aside from his 41 stolen bases; he was +32 bases by this measure, second in the league to only Jose Reyes (+34). (And while we're on that subject, Wright does not fare well by this measure: +3. But Matt Holliday does: +21.) One of the principles that Bill James has long espoused is a simple one: "Everything counts." When it comes to the award voting, it's not so much the product that bothers me; it's the process. Year after year, I just don't get the impression that the voters are counting everything. Rather, they tend to fixate on this salient fact or that one, and forget to count anything else.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm encouraged that there's a baserunning stat out there. Where can I learn more of ths?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm also curious about David Wright leading the NL in "times on base" with 297. I haven't yet done the math, but I assume it means H + BB + HBP? Or does it count reaching on a fielder's choice or on an error?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Damn it, Adam.

"Jimmy Rollins labeled the Phillies the 'team to beat' in the NL East, then backed it up," said voter Adam Rubin of the New York Daily News. "He particularly rose to the occasion in head-to-head matchups with the Mets, batting .346. That's what an MVP does."

David Wright may not have hit .346 against the Phils, but merely .325 overall, to Rollins' .296. But it's not like he tanked either. They're pretty comparable head-to-head:

Rollins 346 / .391 /.667 // 1.058
Wright .286 / .378 / .614 // .992

I'm OK with Rollins winning, but Neyer's right and it's frustrating how voters fixate on one factoid.

[seawolf17]

Rubin!?!? You backstabbing bastard.

[nymr83]

Rollins deserved the award, he might not have deserved a GG but i think its safe to say he had more defensive value than Wright, Fielder, or Holliday and his offense was right there with all of them.
Rubin's statement is stupid, if Rollins' had hit .400 against the Mets and .250 against the league is he the MVP?

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Edgy - "I'm encouraged that there's a baserunning stat out there. Where can I learn more of ths?"

Well any stat that scores Holliday +21 in baserunning, while Wright scores a mere +3 must be one messed up stat in my view. If the base path blunders I saw from Holliday during the playoffs are indicative of his skills on the base paths, then James needs to rethink his formula.

[Frayed Knot]

I suspect that a baserunning stat probably takes into consideration things like pct of time going from 1st-to-3rd on singles or 2nd-to-home. If so it's possible that playing in Coors Field with its bigger OF and therefore deeper OFers makes taking extra bases easier for the likes of Holliday.

As to what Wright did on the paths to drag his excellent SB% down to the point where his running was considered a virtual wash, well I'm stumped. I don't remember seeing blunders and/or extreme conservatism on his part.

[Guest Edgy DC]

As I read Neyer, that stat was measured apart from stolen base stats --- based on something like extra bases beyond the batter, minus baserunning outs times two, or something.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Phillies watcher hates on the Rollins selection:

The Underground Insight 11.26.07: Worst. MVP. Ever.

Posted by JD Koziarski on 11.26.2007

The title may be slight hyperbole: Jimmy Rollins may not actually be the worst MVP winner ever, but he�s pretty close. He�s certainly one of the most undeserving; he wasn�t the MVP of his own team and wasn�t even the best player at his own position.

Two months ago the rumbling began. At first I thought it was just one or two slightly off TV talking heads. After all, I had seen most of the Phillies games this year and I knew better. I knew why they were on the verge of making an incredible comeback to win the NL East. It was Ryan Howard and Chase Utley, Pat Burrell and Aaron Rowand. And yes, a little Jimmy Rollins, too.

Rollins is one of those players who is impossible to dislike. He's pretty good at just about everything. He can hit, run, play some defense. He doesn't take a walk, but he still puts up a decent enough battings average and some nice power � for a #3 or #5 hitter. But the Most Valuable Player in the National League? The guy who did more for his team than any other player over the course of an entire season?

The question that seems to be posed is this: If you take Rollins off the Phillies (and, I assume, replace him with a league average shortstop), would they have won the NL East? The answer is quite obviously no. They won the division by one game. The same could be said for the aforementioned Howard and Utley, Burrell and Rowand. Heck, you can even add the Flyin' Hawaiian, Shane Victorino to the list of guys who were the difference between the Phillies and the Mets in the playoffs.

Quite clearly, that question is flawed.

Equally flawed are some of the arguments in favor of Rollins. He led the world in at bats (716). He is the only guy to ever have 20 doubles, triples, home runs, stolen bases, walks, strikeouts, dollars, Philly Phanatics, and who knows what else in a season. He had 94 RBIs from the leadoff spot. He's a "spark" at the top of the lineup.

Rollins had a bajillion at bats because he doesn't walk, he bats leadoff (usually), he played every game, and he had one of the best lineups in baseball turning it over to him. None of those are actually a product of him being good, with the exception of being good (and healthy) enough to play everyday.

So what that he had 20 of everything? Why is 20 a measure of success in this case? Ryan Howard only had 26 doubles, 47 home runs, and no triples. But he did that in 130 fewer plate appearances. He also walked more than twice as many times as Rollins.

I don't know what 94 RBIs from the leadoff spot really means other than almost 1/3 of those (30) were Rollins knocking himself in. Well, Howard did that 47 times, Burrell 30, Rowand 27, and Utley 22. For what it's worth, Prince Fielder, Adam Dunn, Matt Holliday, Lance Berkman, Ryan Braun, and Miguel Cabrera all drove themselves in more than Rollins, too.

The other thing Rollins' RBIs are a product of is the ability of his teammates to get on base. The Phillies tied for the National League lead in OBP (.354), so even as a leadoff hitter, Rollins came to bat with guys on base. A lot. Oh, and lots of guys had more runs batted in than Rollins.

Will somebody please explain to me what a "spark" entails? To me, a guy who sparks the offense at the top of the lineup is one who gets on base 40% of the time. It's a guy who works the count, has 10-pitch at bats, and ultimately gets on base. But Rollins doesn't do that. His .344 OBP is fine, but not for a leadoff hitter. And his power numbers are wasted at the top of the order. When you have Utley, Howard, Burrell, and Rowand hitting doubles (145) and homers (126) behind the leadoff guy, he doesn't need to get those extra-base hits. He needs to get on base, and the fact is that Rollins did that significantly less than many other players with many more chances.

So far, I've proven my argument without any of the sabermetric tools that the dinosaurs hate. But those support me, too. Jimmy Rollins' 2007 VORP � Value Over Replacement Player � was 66.1. For those who don't know, VORP is a counting stat. Basically, the more you play, unless you're completely inept, you're going to become more valuable. We've already established that Jimmy Rollins had 82 trillion at bats this year, yet his VORP was good for 9th in the NL.

Number one wasn't Howard or Fielder. It wasn't Holliday or Wright or Pujols. The most valuable offensive player in the National League in 2007 was another shortstop. It was another shortstop in Rollins' own division. It wasn't Jose Reyes or Edgar Renteria, either.

Months ago I said how awesome Hanley Ramirez was, and he didn't disappoint. Ramirez didn't have 20-20-20-20, but he did have 48 doubles and 29 home runs and 51 stolen bases. He finished tenth in the MVP voting. And I'm not buying that Rollins won because of his outstanding glove because we all know that nobody weights defense that heavily.

In 2007, Jimmy Rollins made more outs than anybody else who has won an MVP award. He also did a lot of very good things for the NL East Champions. But MVP? He was, at best, the fifth most valuable player on the Phillies. And that's not counting the other guys with claims: Fielder, Holliday, Wright, and, yes, the real best shortstop in the National League, Hanley Ramirez.