A little while ago, I did a post about bad MVP choices. In there I was not looking for questionable choices — an old editor used to tell me that everything is questionable, right? I was looking for egregious choices.
(Isn’t “egregious” a great word. Doesn’t get used enough, in my opinion).
For instance, in 1997, Larry Walker won the MVP award, and had I been voting I would have voted for Mike Piazza. To me there’s absolutely no question Piazza had the better year.
Piazza: .362/.431/.638, 40 homers, 124 RBIs, 104 runs, 185 OPS+
Walker: .366/.452/.720, 49 homers, 130 RBIs, 143 runs, 178 OPS+.
Remember that Piazza did his work as a catcher, and he did not play half his games in Coors Field (although — this is interesting — Walker actually slugged higher ON THE ROAD in 1997 … I wouldn’t have guessed that). I vote Piazza easy. Bill James gave Piazza 39 win shares that year and Walker 33, which is a sizeable difference. I think the voters fell in love with the insane Walker numbers and picked the wrong guy.
But that said, Walker was not in my opinion an egregious choice. There may have been a better choice, but I think Walker had an MVP type season as well. I mean, heck the guy did hit .366 with 49 homers, 46 doubles and (absurdly) 33 stolen bases. It was a Stan Musial kind of year, and just because I think Piazza’s earth-shattering season was better does not make Larry Walker’s season, as my mother might say, chopped liver.
This leads to my question: Was Jimmy Rollins an egregious MVP choice this year?
Many people seem to think so. In an era when we have so much better understanding of how runs are scored, it’s pretty hard to imagine how any player with a below league average on-base percentage (Rollins’ OBP was .344 — league OBP was .349) and a rather humdrum 118 OPS+ would be named most valuable player. Many people I respect a lot think Rollins was a terrible choice.
Still, I’m not sure it’s quite that clear cut.
I emailed Bill James and asked him what he thought about Rollins as MVP. As usual, he was able to express my feelings better than I had. He thinks Rollins is not an EGREGIOUS choice. He’s more of an UNUSUAL choice.
Look: Rollins set a Major League record for at-bats. He scored 139 runs. He hit 38 doubles, 20 triples, 30 home runs and he stole 41 bases. Nobody’s ever had a year quite like that. Now, I understand, that doesn’t necessarily make him MVP — but it does stand out.
He also won a Gold Glove at shortstop, and while I don’t think he deserved that — would have lovedto see Troy Tulowitzki rewarded for his great glovework — I do think he’s one of the better defensive shortstops in baseball. I mean, all in all, you can see how the guy won the award.
BILL CONLIN ASIDE: Not to pick on Bill Conlin again — I really do love the guy in a Your Uncle Walter’s Going On and On kind of way — but he recently wrote a column about Rollins, and for reasons that I cannot begin to fathom, he ripped my buddy Bill James. It was sort of baffling — Conlin seemed to be talking about how … well, maybe I should just print out the section here:
Despite (Rollins’) defensive contribution being backhanded by Red Sox front office stat man Bill James - baseball’s most influential cybergeek - the league’s managers and coaches awarded him a Gold Glove.
Apparently, James decided that a Range Factor based on successful chances (putouts plus assists) times nine innings, divided by number of defensive innings played is more important than the result - for example, a friggin’ out. Despite his No. 3 fielding percentage of .985 (behind Troy Tulowitzki’s .987 and Omar Vizquel’s .986) Rollins rated No. 15 in the James Range Factor. Fortunately, the baseball men who vote for the Gold Gloves depend on what they see, not laptop science. Jose Reyes, a nimble windshield wiper, ranked No. 25 in RF.
I’m not 100 percent sure where to begin, but I’ll start here:
1. Bill James ranked Rollins as the fifth-best defensive shortstop in baseball in our Fielding Bible Voting. Only one person on the panel ranked him higher (I ranked him fourth). True, Bill James invented Range Factor, but since Bill (James) obviously has respect for Rollins’ defense, I really don’t know understand the cheap shot.
2. Don’t you hate it when people rip on statistics, rip on statistics, rip on statistics — oh these damed statistics, they lie, don’t you know, they lie and cheat, oh yes, they cheat, I hate those statistics, hate them — and then, to prove their point, they turn to STATISTICS. Apparently range factor is a terrible and convoluted statistic that only cybergeeks could appreciate. But Fielding Percentage, now THAT’S a statistic we can all get our arms around.
3. OK, this is the part that really kills me. Let’s say we follow the logic. Let’s say that Bill James’ Range Factor is not as important as a “friggin’ out.” Let’s say that fielding percentage is, in fact, the more perfect union of statistics. OK. Rollins, as you can see in the parentheses up there, finished THIRD IN FIELDING PERCENTAGE. BEHIND TWO NATIONAL LEAGUE SHORTSTOPS! HOW DOES HE DESERVE THE GOLD GLOVE WHEN HE’S THIRD IN THE STATISTIC YOU ARE CHOOSING? I AM BREAKING OUT THE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS HERE PEOPLE!
4. It has been a long time since I’ve heard a shortstop called a “nimble windshield wiper.” In fact, I’ve never heard it before. This is why I really do, deep down, love Bill Conlin.
OK, back to the regularly scheduled Rollins’ discussion.
So Rollins had an unusual year. And if you look closely you can see why he won. He was, by most accounts, the best choice on the comeback Phillies because Chase Utley got hurt (I still preferred Utley, but I’ll get back to that in a second). And, to be honest, there really wasn’t any obvious candidate in 2007.
Here were the 2007 NL leaders in Win Shares:
1. David Wright, 34
2. Albert Pujols, 32
3.. Miggy Cabrera, 29
4. Chase Utley, 28
5. Prince Fielder 27
(tie) Matt Holliday, 27
(tie) Hanley Ramirez, 27
(tie) JImmy Rollins, 27 (correction here — I had him at 28 by mistake)
9. Ryan Howard, 26
10. Adrian Gonzalez, 25
(tie) Carlos Beltran, 25
(tie) Chipper Jones, 25
David Wright probably had the best year — that’s the guy Bill James says he would have voted for. I think I probably would have voted Wright as well. But realistically, you know the voters were not going to pick someone from the New York Mets this year, not after the collapse. It may not be fair, but that’s life.
Albert Pujols has been so good that people tend to view his .327/.429/.568 as a disappointing year. Not fair. But the Cardinals had a lousy year and Pujols didn’t even play in the All-Star Game. It wasn’t going to be him.
Miggy? He got fewer votes than Jose Valverde. He can hit .320/.401/.565 all he wants — he’s the NL’s Manny Ramirez. He ain’t getting votes.
So that leaves us, realistically (I think) with four MVP candidates — Rollins, Utley, Prince Fielder and Matt Holliday.
You know the Rollins case. The complete stat sheet. And leadership. Oh yes. Leadership.
Utley, I think, was an MVP lock until he got hurt. Even missing 30 games, I think he was a legit MVP choice, maybe better than Rollins. He hit .332/.410/.566, scored and drove in 100+ runs, cracked 48 doubles, played excellent defense.
Fielder, I think, might have won the award had Milwaukee not completely folded. Again not his fault — but this is how it goes. Fact of life: Players from collapsing team generally don’t get MVP votes. Fielder was the youngest guy to ever hit 50 homers in a season. He was second in OPS, third in OPS+, he was among league leaders in VORP and Eqa, and all that. Plus the guy just mashed.
Then, there’s Matt Holliday. He would have been my alternate choice to Wright, but much more to the point, if you look at history, it’s pretty stunning that Holliday did not win. Holliday had all the MVP numbers — he led the league in average, hits, doubles, RBIs, extra base hits and, if you want to kick it old-school-Bill-James, runs created. Tough to imagine a guy who led the league in those MVP stats of batting average and RBIs not winning the MVP award …
(It’s tough to imagine because it hasn’t happened very often. In 1947, famously, Ted Williams won the Triple Crown but lost the MVP to Joe DiMaggio. In 1962, Tommy Davis hit .346 with 153 RBIs but finished third, behind his teammate Maury Willis who stole 104 bases. In 2000, Todd Helton hit .372 with 147 RBIs and finished fifth. We’ll get back to him).
In addition, Holliday was the clear cut MVP choice on the surprising Rockies (while Rollins should have split votes with Utley and even Ryan Howard). So he had that going for him as well.
So why didn’t Holliday win it? My opinion: It was Coors Field fault.
Remember how for a while there, all these quarterbacks who were putting up all those crazy numbers were winning the Heisman. There was Ty Detmer and Andre Ware and later all those mediocre quarterbacks from Florida — Toretta and Wuerffel and Ward and all those guys.
Well, after a while, everybody got sick of it. And suddenly those quarterbacks who throw for 7 million yards — like the Texas Tech guy or the quarterback at Hawaii– are no longer viewed as viable Heisman candidates.
I think the same is true of Coors Field. Larry Walker won that MVP, and everybody from Eric Young to Eric Young put up obscene numbers (one year Eric Young hit .412 at Coors, .219 on the road), and everybody got sick of it. Todd Helton put up those ludicrous numbers in 2000, but nobody believed in it.
The ironic thing is the voters decided to give Holliday the Coors treatment just as Coors Field is becoming a more normal park. I mean, it’s still a good hitters park, but it’s not the putt-putt course of old.This year, Fenway and Wrigley were better run-scoring parks. Coors is the best batting average park in the NL — probably because of the giant outfield — but again it ranks below Fenway. There are numerous better home run parks, including Philadelphia.
But everybody has already made up their mind about Coors Field. In other words, I think if Holliday had put up those same numbers in a different park — even a BETTER hitting park like Wrigley — he would have won.
OK, so finally we come to a conclusion on Rollins (dammit! I did that “we” thing again). I do not think I would have voted for him. I think Wright, Holliday and perhaps Utley were all more valuable to their teams. But I don’t think he’s as bad a choice as a lot of other people apparently do. He had a unique year, and as Bill James says, something you just want reward uniqueness.
Loading ...
23 Comments, Comment or Ping
Brian
I still don’t understand why Wright is penalized for being on a team that collapsed (but only missed the playoffs by 1 game), but just last year Ryan Howard won playing for a team that was never realistically in the race.
Nov 28th, 2007
Joe
Well, here is my take on it. Let me first say, Rollins had a great year and I can not fault his selection. We are in an era that goes ga-ga over shortstops. We are in love with guys who make diving plays up the middle and mash the ball. It all started with Cal Ripken, Jr. The offensive and defensive star that did things that nobody else had done before at shortstop. Now we have plenty of highly offesive shortstops that will make the diving play up the middle. Jeter, A-Rod(because he started there), Rollins, Tulowitzki, Reyes, Hanley Ramierez, Tejada, Michael Young. They are all offensive shortstops that will make the Sportcenter highlights with some flashes of defense. When you have some tremendous talent surges at a given “skill” position, people tend to give that position higher “status”. Now is the time of the shortstop and Rollins was the right guy at the right time.
Nov 28th, 2007
Paul White
Nothing wrong with that shortstop argument, other than the fact that Rollins’ arguably wasn’t even the best shortstop in his division, let alone the NL. Hanley Ramirez had just as fine a season as Rollins, but since he had worse teammates he wasn’t in the MVP discussion at all. Hell, just now Joe didn’t mention the guy even to dismiss him. The fact is that Rollins won the MVP because his GM put a better team around him than Ramirez had in Florida. Business as usual for the writers.
Nov 28th, 2007
TC
Paul White - Hanley’s definitely a better hitter, but he’s one of the worst (if not the worst) defenders in the NL. I could be mistaken, but I’d bet that Rollins plus glove makes up pretty significantly for Hanley’s superior bat.
Nov 28th, 2007
Aaron
This year’s vote probably does one of the best jobs of exposing the serious flaws in the BBWAA’s voting habits. To get down to Rollins, you have to exclude half a dozen superior players for “The voters don’t vote for this kind of player” reasons. That is so wrong on so many levels.
Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a guy that is arguably the third best player on his own TEAM can be considered a legitimate MVP candidate. I mean, Chase Utley posted better offensive numbers, plays above average defense, and the guy missed a month of time with a freak injury. Rollins counting numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt considering he set the all time record for plate appearances while playing half his games in one of the best hitters parks in baseball.
I liked Joe Sheehan’s take on it as well: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=681
Nov 28th, 2007
Oddibe
Chase Utley will never will an MVP in my book after his horrible and embarrassing antics in the World Baseball Classic. Anyone remember how he threw down his bat, thrust his arms in the air, and did a celebratory jig upon hitting a fly out to centerfield? It was a classic example of arrogance and hubris. He thought he’d hit an easy home run and ended up making a simple out. The guy came across as a pompous jerk. Its one thing if he does that for the Phillies, but its another entirely when he does it as a member of Team USA. Did he ever explain his actions or apologize for them?
Nov 28th, 2007
D.B. Cooper
Nobody else remembers that, Oddibe.
You might want to get over it. It’s not like he’s Bill Conlin. Or “Mussolini.”
Nov 28th, 2007
ToyCannon
Prince Fielder may not have been an MVP but he does have the most home runs ever for a 23 year old.
http://www.truebluela.com/story/2007/11/8/131816/132
Nov 28th, 2007
Paul White
Well, TC, you just lost that bet. Look no further than the Win Shares cited by Joe. Ramirez and Rollins were of equal overall value, yet one is supposedly the best player in the NL and the other isn’t even in the discussion.
Nov 28th, 2007
Andy
Dear Royals,
GET MIGUEL CABRERA!!!!!!!! Please.
Nov 28th, 2007
Brian Gunn
Some of you probably caught this, but a blogger who writes a Phillies fan site called Crashburn Alley emailed Bill Conlin about the article that Joe referred to earlier. Crashburn respectfully disagreed with Conlin’s argument for Rollins, and emailed him to let him know. Conlin responded bitterly, and the two sent a series of emails back and forth that culminated in this doozy from Conlin:
“The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth - I’m sure he would have eliminated all bloggers.”
Wow. Tell us how you really feel, Bill.
The best argument I’ve heard on Rollins’ behalf comes from Tom Tango, the brilliant math whiz who wrote The Book (as in the baseball Book, not, you know, the Holy Bible). Tom leans on Wins Probability Added in sizing up Rollins, which is a good way to go about it, but I can’t get around the fact that Rollins finished only 15th in WPA, between Derrek Lee and Pat Burrell. Yes, you also have to give him credit for playing short (whereas Lee is a first baseman and Burrell is perhaps the worst leftfielder in baseball), but there are guys with higher WPA totals who apparently saved even more runs than Rollins (starting with Albert Pujols…).
Nov 28th, 2007
Brian Gunn
I should never post comments before reading all of Joe’s posts… Just caught his next item, about Conlin invoking Hitler. Sorry for passing along the old news…
Nov 28th, 2007
Currey
Brian, I accept your apology, but I think you should make it up to the readers here by restarting your blog. I bought your book- I watched Slither (all the Gunns are the same to me). You owe me. Tell me why Mo is going to be a great GM.
Nov 28th, 2007
Walter
Is this a short post? I can’t figure it out. I mean, it’s short for Joe. However, far from short in comparison to most blogs.
Either way, it is great reading. So glad you picked up the blogging habit again!
Nov 28th, 2007
Biff
If you look at two things, fielding, and runs produced per plate appearance, I think Troy Tulowitzki comes out slightly ahead of Rollins in both categories. If Tulo played on the east coast, he’d have been ROY and gold glove. It’s absolutely true that writers penalized Holliday for playing in Coors Field, base upon their outdated recollections of how the ball used to move, pre-humidor. How long will it take to change those perceptions?
Nov 28th, 2007
Brian Gunn
Thanks, Currey, for the kind words. I don’t know if Mo is going to be a GREAT general manager, but I can tell you that Bill Dewitt did not consider him a second-rate second choice for GM when he hired him. He’s been very big on Mozeliak for years, possibly even bigger on him than he was on Antonetti (which is not how it was reported in the mainstream press). I can’t tell you how I know that, but it’s fairly reliable.
Nov 29th, 2007
Brian Disco Snell
“Rollins set a Major League record for at-bats.”
Maybe I’m slow, but I fail to see how this qualifies as an argument for MVP. Isn’t a player’s # of at-bats due almost entirely to the performance of his teammates? It’s not like Rollins was using superhuman effort to will himself more at-bats (as his below league-average OBA shows). You come up once every nine times, period. And that’s determined by a) your manager choosing to put you in the lineup everyday b) not getting injured and c) how well your teammates avoid making outs. None of those factors, it seems to me, are defining factors of an MVP.
Rollins set the all-time single season record for at-bats because he hit lead-off in front of the team that lead the league in runs scored and walks drawn. Had he hit with the exact same rates in front of the eight other batters from the Nationals or the Pirates, he would have come nowhere near the record. Heck, it’s more of an MVP argument for Utley or Howard than it is for Rollins!
Nov 29th, 2007
denopac
Just a couple of things: Joe P, I’m no fan of JRo as MVP but the NL league OBP this year was .334, not .349. And Joe (commenter #2) Jeter has made plenty of highlight films, but probably not too often making the diving play up the middle. More likely that ball is *just* out of his reach.
Nov 29th, 2007
tangotiger
FWIW, Rollins was a defensible choice as MVP. *Anyone* who gets a Silver Slugger and Gold Glove in the same year is defensible.
Seeing that John Dewan’s Plus/Minus has Rollins as extremely high in fielding from 05-07, it’s easy to see why voters think he deserved high praise for his fielding.
Nov 29th, 2007
Currey
I have some confidence in Mo, but I don’t see that there’s much he can do right now. Do you think the Cards are going to do anything interesting this off-season? I just don’t see enough in the free agent market to make a difference with this team. I suppose it’s going to be a rebuilding year, then see if Rasmus, Anderson, etc are ready. Also, trading Rolen right now would be a big mistake- don’t sell when his value is at it’s lowest, if his shoulder is better he’s worth his pay.
Nov 29th, 2007
Peter
As a Mets fam it is difficult for me to agree with Rollins as MVP. But when compared to the other choices, he rises above the rest. Aaron wrote “To get down to Rollins, you have to exclude half a dozen superior players for “The voters don’t vote for this kind of player” reasons. That is so wrong on so many levels.” But that is exactly what should be done.
Fielder’s and Wright’s teams failed to make the playoffs and neither had amazing numbers. Albert Pujols, Miggy Cabrera, and Hanley Ramirez played for teams that weren’t in the hunt, so how could any of those be the Most Valuable Player in the league.
Utley missed 30 games. Howard finished behind Rollins in Win Shares. Rollins played in every game. He is Philadelphia’s MVP.
This leaves Matt Holliday. Holliday gets the Coor’s Field bias because his splits were ridiculous. He hit 75 points higher at Coors, hit 25 of 36 HR at home, and his slugging percentage was 236 points higher at Coors.
That’s why I (begrudgingly) pick Rollins.
Nov 29th, 2007
Duncan
“Fielder’s and Wright’s teams failed to make the playoffs and neither had amazing numbers. Albert Pujols, Miggy Cabrera, and Hanley Ramirez played for teams that weren’t in the hunt, so how could any of those be the Most Valuable Player in the league.”
That makes no sense whatsoever. I’m a Mets fan too, and you’re just making us look bad Pete. Rollins team finished a game ahead of the Mets, due mostly to a collapse in Met pitching and that therefore eliminates Wright? Rollins made 504 outs! That is the most ever for an MVP, I believe.
How does being surrounded by weak players make a player less valuable? This isn’t freakin basketball, where a great player can actually make those around him better. Baseball is inherently an individualistic sport, where one’s personal successes may help a team, but will not raise the level of other players.
Utley is also clearly the best Phillie, but ok he missed some time. But then you use WS to say Rollins was the MVP of the Phillies over Howard, while conveniently ignoring the fact that 4 players (including Utley!) surpassed Rollins in WS. And three others tied him, including another SS in his own division.
The choice of Rollins was EGREGIOUS, imo.
Nov 30th, 2007
jonathan w.
But J-Rol made The Prediction (cue the booming hip-hop muzac- sorry. guess i’ve watched too much sportscenter)
Nov 30th, 2007
Reply to “Was Rollins an Egregious Choice?”