National League MVP -- Final Answer?

But it doesn't change where a player hits. You generally throw your not so good hitters near the bottom of the line-up. To lead-off an inning, would you rather have Kaz Matsui and Troy Tulowitski batting ahead of you or Abraham Nunez and Greg Dobbs?

 

RBI are not misleading: Holliday has more.

But Rollins and Holliday play different roles in their respective lineups, and that makes it hard to compare them with the same statistics. That's why there are other statistics like RC or OPS+, which equalize the fact that players aren't being asked to do the same thing.

The fact is, Holliday's numbers are better than Rollins. Across the board, no matter how you look at it.

That doesn't necessarily mean he should be the MVP. But it's not misleading in any way: Holliday's numbers are better in almost every category.

 

I honestly am not afraid to say I changed my mind here, and that I was wrong before.

I initially dismissed Holliday based on the home/road splits. And I do think they will work against him, probably more than they should.

But looking at his second half numbers, his close and late splits and all the rest, I really think he's the pick.

That said, I wouldn't argue too strenuously if Rollins gets it.

 

Maybe I'm giving defense more weight than it deserves, but Rollins is in the running (with Tulo and Vizquel) for NL Gold Glove at his position. He played 162 games and was outstanding at the second-most demanding position on the field. ... I know Coors Field hurts Holliday because he has to play deeper, but he's got one of the worst range factors in the league. The stupid miscue he made last night was very rare for him, but he's not going to make a lot of great plays in the outfield, either.

Combine that with Rollins' all-around offensive season (where he was very good at all facets of the game, if not spectacular like Holliday), and I've got to give the edge to Rollins.

But like everyone else, I won't complain if the other guy wins it.

 

Baseball MVPs are the strangest award in sports. People identify their candidate and then shape their argument around him. The same people who voted for the slugging, no-field first baseman last year will vote for Rollins based on defense and some other bullshit they dress up as intangibles this year.

Here's the bottom line: Rollins is not the best player on his own team. He's not even the second-best player on his own team. It's not even close. Yes, Utley and Howard missed some time with injuries. But the Phils have FIVE players with an OPS+ of 120 or better. That team, by definition, can't have the league MVP. The fact they made the playoffs without Utley and Howard for a short stretch emphasizes their lineup depth.

 

Or it emphasizes the importance of the one guy who remained healthy and consistently productive all season -- Rollins.

 

Holliday is a purely mediocre outfielder who has Coors-jacked numbers.

If it ain't Rollins, well that would be sad.

 

But they can still have the league's best player, which is what many believe the MVP should be anyway (damning to hell whoever decided many years ago to use the word "valuable" in the award title).

Fixed.

 

Is his time up already?

And no, Holliday is not a mediocre player propped up by Coors Field. He is helped tremendously by it, though.

 

He is a mediocre outfielder.

Anyone who blows that play last night is... at best ... mediocre.

 

Barry Bonds once made a bad throw from left field in big game. I guess he sucks, too.

 

LOL...

Barry Bonds made ONE bad throw?

Regardless, inability to throw isn't in the same ballpark with inability to catch.