National League MVP -- Final Answer?

Again, you missed the point. I never said he was a good defender. Just that your use of one incident to try to prove that was foolish.

Apparently you haven't been working on your reading comprehension while you were away.

But welcome back.

 

One butchery in left field absolutely can prove a guy's mediocrity.

 

Only in your mind, Simon. I guess Jake Peavy shouldn't get the Cy Young because he had one bad start, right?

This is baseball. Even the best players are humbled by the game on occasion. That's part of what makes the sport enjoyable to watch.

Anybody who judges any player in baseball on one play or who thinks just one play is evidence of anything has no clue what they are talking about.

 

The reason for that is because the middle of the order guys usually put up the best numbers because they are in a position to do so. Lead-off hitters rarely have the year that Rollins had. It is expected that Holliday puts up gaudy numbers in the three-hole in the Rockies' line-up. No one expects Rollins to hit 30 Hrs and drive in 96 leading off.

 

RBI is really the only stat that is really dependent on your spot in the lineup. So let's just ignore that Holliday had 40 more RBIs than Rollins because of their different lineup spots.

Holliday also hit more homers and had a higher batting average, a higher on base percentage and a higher slugging percentage.

 

Matt Holliday is 6'4, 235
Jimmy Rollins is 5'8 168

A 67 pound difference may lead to more HRs.

If we should ignore stats, then why not ignore that Rollins had 19 more runs and 30 more steals. Let's also ignore he was the fourth player to go 20-20-20-20.

Rollins hit .309 against divisional opponents and 17 of his HRs came against the NL East.

 

Well Mayfly, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Like I said, I see the case for Rollins and wouldn't mind if he won.

Forced to choose, I'd take Holliday. I don't begrudge those who take Rollins, though.

 

One more thought...

You see a lot of very good teams that have average or below average leadoff hitters, but you almost never see a good team without a big monster in the No. 3 or No. 4 spot. To me, that says it's more important to have good players in the middle of the order than a good leadoff hitter.

Four of the eight playoff teams had a collective OPS out of the leadoff spot that was lower than the league average. Only two of them were worse in the No. 3 spot, and only two were worse in the No. 4 spot. Interestingly, the two playoff teams that had the lowest collective leadoff OPS were the Yankees and Red Sox, and they scored a lot of runs because they had monsters in the middle.

The Phillies, Cubs and Indians were the only teams higher than the lg average at all three spots, which to me says they were the most balanced, therefore none of the individuals were as indispensible.

The Yankees, incidentally, were lower at leadoff and No. 3, which further illustrates why A-Rod is the AL MVP.

I'm going to look back at some past seasons and see how consistently this works out. I'll let you know.

 

One more...

You could easily replace the names in this debate with "Morneau" and "Jeter" and we know how that turned out. I'm not saying it's right, but that's how the voters vote.

 

Uhhh, no.

This year is a dead heat with at least two possible worthy candidates.

Jeter last year didn't come close to Morneau's numbers. Not close.

 

Exactly, Zeke.

You can't compare the two.

 

Only if you wantg to compare apples and oranges.

Jeter is not a lead-off hitter.