Pujols (Should Be) NL MVP

that was an excellent read

you beat me to posting it. albert's just an amazing player, what else can you say?

Future Redbirds

by erik on Nov 20, 2007 2:15 PM EST reply actions

Pujols didn't get in the Top 5 this year

streak ends.

the BBWAA should lose their votes. Enough stupidity.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 20, 2007 2:21 PM EST reply actions

He was actually 9th

in the voting.

What a freaking disgrace.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 20, 2007 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

What hurt him as much as anything

was having an un-Albert-like season. He's set such a high standard that he's seen as having a poor season when he's simply mortal.

The Cards' pewtrid performance didn't help him either.

by chuckb on Nov 20, 2007 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

people who were

probably more valuable than jimmy rollins.

David wright

miggy cabrera

albert pujols

chipper jones

chase utley

me

prince fielder

matt holliday

carlos beltran

hanley ramirez

ryan howard

this should be called the joe morgan winner of the day award instead

"My cat's breath smells like cat food"

by Dave Barry on Nov 20, 2007 2:33 PM EST reply actions

Ridiculous

This is absurd. Rollins wasn't even the best player on his team, in my opinion. I think it should have gone to Holliday. But NO WAY Pujols was 9th (behind Jake Peavy, even).

by BigdJC on Nov 20, 2007 2:43 PM EST reply actions

AROD

Just give A-Rod the AL & NL MVP considering he lead all of baseball in about every offensive category.

by ICbirdfan on Nov 20, 2007 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

He was probably 3rd best on his own team

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Nov 20, 2007 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

Doesn't this happen...

every year? At some point you have stop caring about how the writers' vote...

Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Nov 20, 2007 2:54 PM EST reply actions

said, in 2005, I believe it was, concerning the MVP and Cy Young awards,(I'm paraphrasing here) "It's our award. We created it, and we'll vote how we want."
He's right. It is their award, and they have their reasons for voting the way they do. Does it always make sense? Of course not, but if you're looking for fair and balanced opinions here, you'll be sorely disappointed.

by cardsrul on Nov 20, 2007 3:06 PM EST reply actions

9th is a disgrace

i just have learned to not let it bother me anymore. there's tons of data to tell me who's the best, and i have my own subjectivity just as they do. i think the award is largely meaningless, we know who the best player is. sometimes the writers get it right, sometimes the whiff. it's happened before, it's happened now, and it'll happen again. i just don't like how they are so bent on hype versus substance.

i voted holliday in the sb awards, but after reading sheehan's argument for pujols i'd flip flop, even at the risk of looking like a total homer.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Nov 20, 2007 3:24 PM EST reply actions

Not to out myself as a total BP fanboy but . . .

. . . here's some additional analysis of the award, this time after the fact.

I think the point about Jimmy Rollins providing the writers (voters) with good copy is a good one.

by holden on Nov 20, 2007 3:34 PM EST reply actions

wow, joe sheehan

isn't holding anything back this year...

It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 20, 2007 3:40 PM EST up reply actions

It's hard to vote for an amazing player on a team

that goes nowhere.

by joeyart on Nov 20, 2007 3:35 PM EST reply actions

At last something I can agree with.

The people who think Rollins wasn't even the most valuable on his own team have obviously overdosed on sabremetrics and know nothing about the Phillies or the role of Rollins on the team. I predicted it would be Rollins and think he's an excellent choice, but then I only live in Philadelphia and watched him regularly, so what do I know? Pujols deserved to win in other years, especially last year, but definitely not this year. Perhaps I've been spoiled by his previous seasons, but something was definitely lacking in his play this year, perhaps due to his injuries or the uninspiring play and players surrounding him. At any rate, he did not deserve the MVP this year. Just because one Phillie (Howard) did not deserve to beat out Albert last year does not mean that another Phillie (Rollins) doesn't deserve to this year. He does, and sabremetrics be damned!

by MikeG on Nov 20, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions

I think

most of us are just saying Pujols should be higher than 9th. I can see why you don't vote him number one. His poor April is part of the reason we didn't make the playoffs.

As for Rollins. Great player but I still think Utley is better...and that's the point.

by Harknights on Nov 20, 2007 4:37 PM EST up reply actions

Whoa there!

if a Phillie deserved to win it, it was Utley, not Rollins. Rollins was very good but Utley was easily the best player on the team. And there's a good argument in Pujols' favor. The fact that the Cards didn't get anywhere near the playoffs is the big strike against him. But that doesn't justify the selection of Rollins.

If the numbers can't tell you that Rollins didn't deserve it, what can? The numbers tell you that Utley was better so if you insist on going w/ a hometown guy, select him. He'd have made a better choice.

by chuckb on Nov 20, 2007 5:52 PM EST up reply actions

I don't insist on a home-town guy

The award is not for best player; it's for most valuable. With regard to that, everyone in Philadelphia knows the award should belong to Rollins, and no one is arguing for Utley, who, it should be noted, missed a crucial month due to injury while Rollins never missed a game. As for your bland assertion that Utley is better, what exactly is that based on other than (I assume) some dubious sabermetric assumptions that have little or nothing to do with the games actually played. Does it reflect defensive skill, speed, or the ability to ignite rallies, in all of which Utley was notably inferior? Utley was a very good player last year; Rollins, however, was the whole package--power speed, defense, and leadership. That spells MVP in my book.

by MikeG on Nov 21, 2007 11:00 AM EST up reply actions

david wright had power speed defense

and leadership. so did matt holliday. so (sans speed) did albert pujols.

since you disdain the stat-heavy approach, what criterion would you propose to distinguish among rollins pujols holliday and wright, other than "i live in philly and everybody in philly knows who the mvp is?"

by lboros on Nov 21, 2007 11:12 AM EST up reply actions

no single criterion will do

It has to be based on a combination of factors (or criteria), such as the ones I listed in my last sentence above. One also has to take into account the success of the team (all other things being relatively equal, I tend not to favor giving the MVP to a good player on a bad club)and a direct comparison of the candidates' overall play during the season in question. Thus, I'm not terribly impressed by assertions like Utley is a better player than Rollins therefore if it has to go to a Phillie he should be the one it goes to. If so, maybe he'll win it next year, but we're talking about this year. I have nothing against statistics; they're usually illuminating and I'm fond of quoting them myself. But when you have a number of players with impressive statistics, you have to be prepared to go beyond the statistics and look also what for want of a better term is sometimes called the intangibles but might better be denominated the "not readily quantifiable," matters like hustle and leadership that aren't easily captured by statistics. Ultimately, I try to look at what I previously referred to as "the whole package." Obviously, there is a subjective element to this. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Philadelphia consensus, particularly when what is involved is the comparison of one Phillie to another. You are willing to credit the "community" view with respect to the relative merits of Cardinal players and farmhands; the least you can do is to allow that this might be capturing something important that is missed by the stats-only approach, which seems to have led you to project that Rollins was no better than the tenth best candidate for the MVP. I felt at the time that that was a ludicrous result, and I suggested then that you would have been more accurate if you had turned your list upside down. If the statistical approach is so at odds with what people are actually seeing, it may the statistical approach that needs some refinement.

by MikeG on Nov 21, 2007 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

As for speed, who gives a damn?

Defensive skill -- Utley's superior. (Stat warning ahead -- you won't like this as it's not based completely on someone's anecdotal view.)

Fielding +/- PMR
Utley +22 106
Rollins +7 103

Utley's a very good defender. As for "ability to ignite rallies" -- Utley's OBP was .410 to Rollins' .344. That's a huge disparity, though you may find a stat that measures one's ability to get on base as being "dubious." Still, OBP is pretty highly regarded throughout baseball and is a pretty good indicator of one's "ability to ignite rallies."

Additionally, Utley's VORP was 68.8 to Rollins' 66.1. His WARP1 was 9.3 to Rollins' 9.2. This means that Utley was better than Rollins DESPITE missing all that time due to injury. Let's face it, if you're not the best player on your team, and not the most productive even when playing a month more than the other guy, you're not the most valuable in the league.

Too bad you find stats to be bland. To each his own, I guess. But they're a much better criterion to use than some some beer league Philly blogger.

by chuckb on Nov 22, 2007 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

Do the other major sports...

have so much controversy when the MVP awards are handed out? Obviously there's always arguments that this player or that player should've won...but does it often happen that the winner is so obviously not the right choice?

by cardzfanbub on Nov 20, 2007 4:13 PM EST reply actions

It's a stats thing...

other sports aren't so stat-rich.

Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Nov 20, 2007 4:45 PM EST up reply actions

controversy

It was a close vote - but I don't think there is that much controversy. Check out all the major sports news sites - your standard MLB press release. There is alot of discussion here and probably at Purple Row (Rockies blog), but those of us coming to this site in the off season probably aren't the run-of-the mill fairweather fan.

Why don't the sabermetricians get together and actually GIVE THE AWARDS??? I realize they can't give the MVP - that is taken. The press, as quoted above, give their awards - why couldn't some other organization do the same? Find out which award is more respected in ten years.

by cdb on Nov 20, 2007 4:48 PM EST up reply actions

Makes me sad

because I find myself caring less and less about these things. MVP, Cy Young even the Hall of Fame. My apathy grows every year.

Pujols not the MVP. That's fine. I wasn't going to buy your paper anyway.

Mac not in the HOF. That's fine. I have no plans on visiting the Hall anytime soon.

So good job writers of voting for the fans who don't know what's going on and will only read the headlines of the sports section...before moving on to the Calendar section for that all important Hanna Montana concert review.

by Harknights on Nov 20, 2007 4:34 PM EST reply actions

That's the way I am

Pujols was screwed last year -- no doubt about it. But I was one of the few who didn't get all worked up when Yadi didn't win the Gold Glove. I know it matters for bonuses and stuff like that, but aside from Yadi, who really cares? They picked the wrong guy -- they usually screw it up. They screwed up the MVP in the NL the last 2 years and the AL MVP this year. Hell, 2 people thought Magglio Ordonez was more valuable than A-Rod this year. They always screw it up and I'm done getting worked up about it. Let's celebrate the fact that they got Peavy right!

by chuckb on Nov 20, 2007 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

Oops

I meant to say they screwed up the AL MVP last year -- horrendously, by picking Morneau. They, obviously, got it right this year -- the two "journalists" from Michigan notwithstanding.

by chuckb on Nov 20, 2007 8:20 PM EST up reply actions

last year's MVP award

Didn't Pujols say last year that the MVP award should go to someone on a playoff team? Could that comment have cost him some votes this year?

by juggler on Nov 20, 2007 4:57 PM EST reply actions

What I find amazing...

is the lack of interest in the "outs made" statistic. The fundamental objective of a hitter is to avoid making an out right?

Well, in 2007 Rollins made the third most outs of any hitter in the past 25 years. Number one was Juan Samuel in 1984 with 531 outs, then Jose Reyes in 2005 with 528, and third was Rollins with 527.

Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Nov 20, 2007 4:58 PM EST reply actions

He also had the most

plate appearances ever. Really.

That's largely a function of batting first for a good offense in a hitter's park, of course. Which is also part of the reason he got the chance to make so many outs.

It's easier to just look at his OBP and say that .344 is pretty freaking underwhelming for an MVP.

Depending on whether he's a plus defensive SS like a couple of metrics think he is, I don't think he's as an egregious choice as everyone is making him out to be, but the writers definitely got this one wrong.

Stop traffic.

by plh903 on Nov 21, 2007 10:13 AM EST up reply actions

"pretty underwhelming"

Totally agree. In fact, only 2 MVP's since 1970 have had worse OBP's than Rollins- Andre Dawson in 87, which I remember quite clearly because that was the year that Ozzy and Jack Clark split the STL vote, and Thurman Munson in '76. Since 1911 only 5 MVP's have had a worse OBP than Rollins '07, who is hitting in the spot where OBP is of maximum importance.

It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 21, 2007 1:50 PM EST up reply actions

My thoughts

Here's why AP didn't win the MVP.

He's AP. He had a "pedestrian" year by his standards. We, including the media, take him for granted - we do not know how good he is or was until he leaves and we are dealing with a Hee Sop Choi (curse him to hell) type replacement. He had a "pedestrian" year because he was unprotected for the most part in a less than intimidating lineup, where the leadoff hitter was neck and neck with catcher to see who could have the higher OBP. Also, his April wasn't the best and that didn't get him early headlines like last year.

And, although I love to see pitchers wet themselves when AP is up, he wasn't the MVP. The 2007 version of the BOB would have probably had the close to the same, record with an average 1st baseman. I don't think AP was the difference maker he was in the past because of the lack of protection - i.e., Rolen is now a singles hitter, JED was AWOL, and Dunc - well, he had that "sports hernia" (probably from doing the splits on the bar at Coyote Ugly :))

Last year, Pujols should have won. Hands down. And he should have hit in the all-star game.

I also think that Rollins added value to a Phillies team from a leadership, enthusiasm point of view. But I don't think the writers know or care about that. Rollins is a great player, no doubt, but MVP? Naah.

To me, the most valuable player this year should have been the 10th man - the fans in each league. We're the ones who pay $8 for a beer, and $30 for seats that require oxygen. We put up with Kip Wells, Mike Maroth, and all the other stiffs because it's baseball. We're the ones who buy the hats, the jerseys, and the other crap that pays their salaries.

Can you tell that I think these awards are stupid?

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Nov 20, 2007 5:12 PM EST reply actions

..go figure!!!!!!

Albert also picked a "bad year" to have his typical numbers fall off, even tho they're numbers ANY MVP could win the award with, the writers would probably like to point to other reasons for APs decline.

Never mind that he didnt have Utley, Howard, Pat the Bat and Rowand in the lineup for protection. Or starting pitching for 2/3rds of the season. Never mind that his team DID win the WS in 06' when he was short haired.

The writers want to turn the awards into a "reality show" where the unexpected, unpredictable and more shock-worthy unfavored player is unearthed due to their great insight and informed genuis.

Then the sabermetrics blog sites appear to have less cred supporting other players for the awards.

No doubt Rollins had a very un-Rollins kinda year, but I figured 4 players in front of him prior to the vote, minimum of 3.

Improve the Cardinals team spirit, integrity and positive public image...sign Bonds for 08'!

by cardschinmusic on Nov 21, 2007 3:59 AM EST up reply actions

Rollins

What a great list by Dave above. Funny, rarely does an award go unjustly to someone in a small market. How can Holiday not win this thing? Ballpark bias...maybe, but aren't Cincy, Houston, and Philly just as hitter friendly these days as Coors?

Rollins was not the best shortstop. (Ramirez and Tulo were both better)
Rollins was not the best player on the Phillies (Utley was, and cases can be made for Rowand and Howard)
Rollins received a BS Gold Glove. (Jack Wilson or Tulowitski should have won.)

I am a Jimmy Rollins fan, however, much of his statistics that made his case came from a freakish number of at-bats and playing in a star-studded lineup in an extreme hitters' park. Good player yes, want him on my team, absofreakinlutely, but MVP???

Albert was pushed down the list thanks to these to the team missing the playoffs. (Why does this only count some years? (Sosa won over McGwire because the Cubs made the playoffs that year, but when Howard wins on a team that doesn't make the playoffs, it is OK???) I am sure that Rollins' team making the playoffs was a key to beating out Wright, Fielder, and Pujols.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Nov 20, 2007 5:17 PM EST reply actions

Coors Field vs. Citizens Bank Park

Coors is a better hitters park in all categories except HR per ESPN's ballpark factor.

I really do not get too worked up over post season awards. Are Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, and Barry Bonds the best hitters in the game with a few guys very close behind? Yes... Stuff happens and these guys don't win awards every year. I think Albert will be plenty of chances to get singled out as being a great ball player.

Ok lets say Rollins and Holliday are in the battle for MVP since both made the play-offs. I don't agree with this argument but it makes it easy at time.

In my opinion Jimmy Rollins excelled while playing a position 10 times harder than LF. Come on Jimmy Rollins is a good player, put up good numbers, and was definitely important to his team. Could the Philles have made the play-offs with Abraham Nunez playing 162 games at SS?

People need to step back and realize Rollis had a good year, and get over it.

by ICbirdfan on Nov 20, 2007 5:31 PM EST up reply actions

You're right

I forgot that we were talking about the "Good Year" award, not the "Most Valuable Player in the league" award. Since Rollins had a good year, the fact that he probably wasn't even one of the top FIVE most valuable players in the league, and also probably not the most valuable player on his team, shouldn't matter to us.

Anyway I am somewhat glad that holliday didn't win it; he's the most overrated player in the game, in my opinion, a product of his home park who would be a great, but not elite, player anywhere else. The rockies really need to trade him instead of extending him because he's not nearly as good as he is currently perceived as being.

Still, the consecutive victory streak that culminated in holliday knocking himself unconscious to score the run that put them in the playoffs was one of the most cinema-like baseball endings I have ever seen (it would have been even better if the ump had gotten the call right)...

It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 20, 2007 5:46 PM EST up reply actions

Pujols

I think based on what was show Albert deserved to win but we know that is not how it works.

I agree that Holliday should not have won. See everyone on here was saying how Rollins was a bad choice, so I got the idea people like Holliday better. My point is Rollins plays a way more challenging postion as LF is basically the position anyone can play. Also it must be noted that Holliday was the 25th best LF in baseball and he is behind some butchers.

I think Holliday may be a bit overrated as well. Good time for him to sign a contract!!!

by ICbirdfan on Nov 20, 2007 6:02 PM EST up reply actions

Coors Field

scares the writers. They don't know what it does exactly, or how in God's name to figure it out, so they just avoid the discussion.

by plh903 on Nov 21, 2007 10:15 AM EST up reply actions

Pujols

How valuable was he? Without him, the Cardinals would have finished last in the Pacific Coast League. (AAA) Most of the Cards better performers this past year were called up from AAA's worst team, so it makes sense.

Congratulations to Rollins! If the writers keep voting the way they have the last two years, all MVP's will come from hitter friendly ballparks and all Cy Youngs will come from pitcher friendly parks. At least it should be a while before a team has both again.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Nov 20, 2007 5:24 PM EST reply actions

CY Young

At least STL doesn't have to worry about arguing about one of their pitchers winning the CY Young award! It will save some of us time arguing that award.

by ICbirdfan on Nov 20, 2007 5:35 PM EST up reply actions

Holliday?

Rollins: .296 avg, .344 OBP, .531 SLG, .875 OPS
Holliday: .340 avg, .405 OBP, .607 SLG, .1.012 OPS

Hollidays avg was almost as high as Rollins OBP. Hell, one could argue that Rollins wasn't even the best shortstop in his division (Ramirez). He seems like a nice guy though.....

by Crentist on Nov 20, 2007 5:26 PM EST reply actions

Matt Holliday

Holliday is the 25th best LF in baseball. I don't think you want to see guys ahead of him on the list. Holliday has a lot of holes in his "MVP" quest as well. I don't think Holliday is tons better than Rollins like you seem to think.

by ICbirdfan on Nov 20, 2007 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

how about this line

0.291 0.359 0.479
OPS 0.838

And this from a gold glove caliber shortstop (though he didn't win it - he probably should have).

This being rookie shortstop Tulowitski. If defense is important, he has a strong a claim as anyone for NL MVP. Short stop is probably defensively the most demanding position.

by cdb on Nov 20, 2007 6:54 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, it's interesting

that defense counts for Pujols--some here even think that's why he deserves the MVP nod--but not for Rollins. At any rate, here's another Philadelphia perspective from Beerleaguer.com blogger Jason Weitzel:

"So we ask again - who's the greater statistical standout, Holliday - a superb-hitting left fielder - or the player setting new offensive precedents at the most demanding position on the field? My vote - the majority vote - goes to the player who's asked to lead on both sides of the ball.

Defensively, 2007 was J-Roll at his very best. Flashing an arm that was better than ever, Jimmy took the field in all 162 games, backing up his pre-season boast that the Phillies, not the Mets, were the team to beat. And he made sure the Mets remembered it. He smoked the Mets. Smoked 'em.

Here's another argument that holds little water: "Rollins has better players around him." They gutted out the loss of Chase Utley, they overcame Ryan Howard's trip to the DL, they endured through the worst pitching staff in the league, yet there's no doubt they would have been sitting home in October if Jimmy had missed even a single, solitary game.

This was Jimmy's team."

Posted by J. Weitzel

by MikeG on Nov 20, 2007 6:20 PM EST reply actions

Nobody

said defense didn't count for Rollins. Rollins was a good defender this year according to Sheehan's article, saving 7 or 8 runs above an average SS. Pujols was so far ahead of everyone else it's laughable.

by TICY on Nov 20, 2007 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

"or the player setting new...

...offensive precedents at the most demanding position on the field"

Hanley Ramirez? oh.

It's easier not to make the mistake than to make the mistake and try to fix it. -Mo

by SleepyCA on Nov 20, 2007 7:21 PM EST up reply actions

Really, it's fun to make things up

I don't have a problem with Rollins winning the MVP but I do have a problem when people are loose with the facts or make arguments that are based on, well, nothing. (And I'm aware that this isn't your writing MikeG but you seem to support it.)

"Defensively, 2007 was J-Roll at his very best."

he's been better defensively in the past according to RZR, but I forgot that you don't like statistics. Let's just follow our gut reaction over the course of a players entire career. Certainly we can know when he's having his best year without any data points.

"backing up his pre-season boast that the Phillies, not the Mets, were the team to beat."

This might be my favorite quote because up until the last day of the season, it seemed like the Mets were the team to beat. The Phillies beat them but they were in the rearview mirror for a long time.

"they endured through the worst pitching staff in the league

Wrong. Factually incorrect. Fourth worst by ERA in the NL; Washington beats them out in FIP.

"there's no doubt they would have been sitting home in October if Jimmy had missed even a single, solitary game"

No evidence or even clear conjecture as to why Rollins playing everyday is the difference. When your team wins the division by 1 game, there are a myriad of reasons why they could have lost it all. But what the hell, let's just assign this random unprovable postulate to support our debatable opinion. Sure thing.

"So we ask again - who's the greater statistical standout, Holliday - a superb-hitting left fielder - or the player setting new offensive precedents at the most demanding position on the field?"

I take it back, he starts off with the best. Let's ask who is the greater statistical standout and then not use any statistics to validate our conclusion. We can quote some esoteric combination of stats that Rollins did for the first time in history but there's no attempt to evaluate either on a statistical level. Whether this is ignorance on the part of the writer or just pandering to the base or being lazy, there's no follow through on this question. It's disingenuous to ask that question and conclude with Rollins being deserving without ever really making an attempt to connect the two.

Not only is this writing a poor reason to validate your opinion that Rollins was an MVP but it's an incoherent mess when it comes to the writing itself. There's no comparison between players. There's no real analysis. There's just a laundry list of things that Rollins did and then the conclusion that he's the best.

by azruavatar on Nov 20, 2007 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

Makes you wonder

if he had never made that pre-season boast, would he have won the MVP? A lot of people have mentioned that today, as if it really means anything. Maybe David Wright should have announced that he'd be responsible for more wins this year than anyone except Pujols. Would he then be the MVP? How about if he had boasted that his team's relief pitching will cost the team a division title DESPITE his own stellar play, both throughout the year or down the stretch?

Maybe Albert should have boasted, as soon as Carpenter was hurt, that the Cards would remain competitive (in the weak NL Central) well into September and win 5-7 more games than they should considering the aging, injury-prone, mediocre talent that exists on his team because he'll lead the NL in WARP and all defensive metrics, and finish in the top 6 in VORP, WPA, and RC/27. Maybe that boast alone would have ushered him to a 2nd MVP!

by chuckb on Nov 20, 2007 8:33 PM EST up reply actions

All that dude

needs now is to quantify it to show he's not just making up vague reasons to support his homer gut-eyes-feel-good claim.

Tell him to stop by and I'll tell him the positional adjustments.

by plh903 on Nov 21, 2007 10:19 AM EST up reply actions

I think

If the writers are going to spew their unimaginably vast lack of knowledge it should not be by secret ballot. If they were held accountable maybe they wouldn't do such stupid shit.

They all try to "be the guy" that's one step a head...the guy that sees something no one else sees...when nobody else sees it because it doesn't exist.

The moron writers that voted for Ordonez in the most lopsided AL MVP vote in history and didn't put Pujols higher than 3 need start at the job that best serves their skill sets....serving my kids happy meals.

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Nov 20, 2007 6:33 PM EST reply actions

It's not a secret ballot

or if it is, the 2 writers who inexplicably chose Ordonez have unmasked themselves. They're both from Michigan. They should have their voting privileges suspended until the Tigers have another 43 win team or whatever it was a few years ago.

by chuckb on Nov 20, 2007 8:25 PM EST up reply actions

Philadelphia perspective

This is all in good fun, so don't freak out.

Ah yes, the people who boo Santa Claus and throw batteries at opposing players. They actually have a judge and jail in the stadium...no kidding! A city that believes the world revolves around Cheesesteaks. (Although, they may be right about the Cheesesteak thing...Mmmmm...revolving Cheesesteaks.)

There are some definite Philly points made in here.

Extra points for being a prophet: He made a bold prediction and it held up. (about beating out the Mets) OK, only thing is that athletes in the northeast corridor are so full of BS predictions that I am sure you can find 15 guys on the Mets who made the same prediction about their team and I doubt Rollins predicted Philly's snappy playoff demise.
Jimmy "flashed an arm that was better than ever" Wow, that statement is so full of substance that I can't begin to break it down.

Philly had the worst pitching in the league???? Did this person see Mike Maroth pitch this year. Not even in that ballpark is that a true claim.

Here's an argument that holds water. Rollins' supporting cast's games played: Howard 144, Utley 132, Rowand 161, Burrell 155. (Oh, and I think if you check out the numbers on these other 4, you will find that they were kind of good this year.)I hate to tell you, but Philly didn't suffer much DL time compared to other teams in the league. By the way, after Pujols, Aaron Miles was second in games played with 133 on the Cards. The Cards next 4 best run producers: Rolen 112, Edmonds 117, Encarnacion 78, Duncan 127. And several of these "games" on these guys were pinch-hitting appearances and games played while severly injured.

If Rollins missed one game, they wouldn't have made the playoffs...seriously? Didn't this guy make something like 527 outs during the season? And they lost alot of the games he played in??? HMMM, I guess if he sat out during some of those losses it would have damaged the team during some of their other wins.

Rant over...time for a nap.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Nov 20, 2007 7:13 PM EST reply actions

Sorry

A couple more items before I start my nap. Rollins "smoked" the Mets? I am pretty sure that Moises Alou is on the banned substances list probably Carlos Delgado too. With this Mitchell thing going on, he should keep his smoking quiet. Smoked em! Mets didn't choke, they were busy getting smoked. Smoked.

This was Jimmy's team? Like Shaq's team or Kobe's team? Whose team was it last year? Everybody said it was Howard's team last year. Did he sell it to Jimmy? Whose team will it be next year? I thought it was Chase's team, but I wasn't in on the paperwork.

Anyway, fun stuff. Congrats to Jimmy Rollins. I wish he was on the Cardinals. And note to Jimmy, lay off the Mets, I hear they cause cancer in laboratory rats.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Nov 20, 2007 7:23 PM EST reply actions

LOL

by cardsgirl95 on Nov 20, 2007 7:50 PM EST up reply actions

i'm just shocked Albert

keeps getting dissed year after year after year. how sad is it that all the end of the year awards have become such a joke?

good thing Albert doesn't really care about personal awards. otherwise he'd demand a trade to the east coast so the writers would stop ignoring his greatness.

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Nov 21, 2007 1:42 AM EST reply actions

I think Albert does care about personal awards

that is why he questioned the choice of Howard last year because the Cards made the playoffs and the Phillies did not.

Not that I mind at all, I like his pursuit of such things because it benefits the team, but Albert is a Type-A hyper competitive guy. To say he is all about team success and is not about personal glory would be wrong.

The hot stove is burning...

by cardzfan24 on Nov 21, 2007 10:53 AM EST up reply actions

I think he's

smart enough to know that in baseball that's the same difference.

by plh903 on Nov 21, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions

JRoll

I think the writers just wing it when they're coming up with their MVP's these days. They just come up with a guy who they want to vote for and then come up with reasons for why they're going to vote for him.

Rollins is the third best player on his team behind Utley and Howard. Utley is a pretty damn good 2nd baseman and a great hitter, and would have won this award IMO if he hadn't have had the bad luck of getting hurt (which should factor in to the equation, even if it isn't the players fault).

Ramirez had a much better year at the dish than Rollins, so he wasn't the best hitting SS. And Tulo was one of the best defensive players in baseball all season, so Rollins isn't the best defensive SS either. So if he isn't the best SS offensively or defensively, then how the hell is he the most valuable overall? Makes no damn sense.

Honestly, this year there were so many guys who had decent cases pockmarked with holes that they might as well have burned the damn thing, or perhaps split it 26 ways or something. I mean the leaders in all the stats are so freaking scattered that who the hell knows. Chipper was first in OPS and RC/27, Fielder was first in home runs and first among qualifiers in SLG., Pujols was the best defender according to several sources(at the easist position, but still a remarkable feat). Then you get into the subjective stuff saying that Holliday was the bat behind the Rock's massive surge, but DWright was a monster too in the late part of the season even though his pitching staff went in the tank. For the first time in forever I honestly have no damn idea who should have won! All I know is is that I can think of about 8 guys just off the top of my head who were more deserving than Rollins, despite his fantastic season.

by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 21, 2007 1:47 AM EST reply actions