NL MVP: Jimmy Rollins Edges Matt Holliday for Back-to-Back Phillies MVPs | MLB | Philadelphia Phillies

2

CF shouldn't defense also come into consideration. I like Ryan am also a homer. Jimmy Rollins played in all 162 gold glove quality games at shortstop (all but 17 innings this season) Holliday plays Left Field which isn't nearly as demanding a position and isn't Holliday seen as kind of a liability out there? There's also this Rollins became the first player in history to collect at least 200 hits, 25 homers, 15 triples and 25 steals in a season. Jimmy Rollins is a leadoff man not a clean up hitter like Holliday so there's simply no way looking at solely Hr's and RBI's you can't accurately measure anyones value. Unlike Ryan I would have had him first on my ballot Holliday definitly second and Fielder third. If Chase Utley didn't get hurt he may have won it outright with little argument but alas things didn't work out that way.

11/20/07

kantwistaye

0

CriticalFanatic wrote:

To Holliday's credit, he was consistent all year. Most players play better at home, and the Coors Field influence isn't that much of a factor any more with the humidifier. Not to mention, Citizen's Bank Park is only slightly bigger than the little league fields I played on.

His (Holliday) 11 HR, 55 RBIs and .301 batting average on the road wasn't exactly horrible.

Obviously Holiday had a good year, but over the past 3 years Coors Field has been by far the best hitters park in all of baseball. To have as big a discrepency between home and away games just doesn't seem right to me. Obviously familiarity will make a difference, but not that much. While Citizen's Bank Park is a hitter's park (as well as Miller Park) its no where near to the extent that Coors is. Citizen's helps the numbers in terms of homers, but not inside the park hitting like Coors does.

That was a jumbled mess of thoughts, so I apologize if its confusing.

11/20/07

CriticalFanatic

0

Phillygenius82 wrote:

CF shouldn't defense also come into consideration. I like Ryan am also a homer. Jimmy Rollins played in all 162 gold glove quality games at shortstop (all but 17 innings this season) Holliday plays Left Field which isn't nearly as demanding a position and isn't Holliday seen as kind of a liability out there? There's also this Rollins became the first player in history to collect at least 200 hits, 25 homers, 15 triples and 25 steals in a season. Jimmy Rollins is a leadoff man not a clean up hitter like Holliday so there's simply no way looking at solely Hr's and RBI's you can't accurately measure anyones value. Unlike Ryan I would have had him first on my ballot Holliday definitly second and Fielder third. If Chase Utley didn't get hurt he may have won it outright with little argument but alas things didn't work out that way.

I agree, fielding should be a factor. Just a bit confused how it was a factor in the NL MVP but the NL ROY. I just like Holliday's numbers better compared to Rollins who batted in front of two other MVP candidates.

11/20/07

0

CriticalFanatic wrote:

I agree, fielding should be a factor. Just a bit confused how it was a factor in the NL MVP but the NL ROY. I just like Holliday's numbers better compared to Rollins who batted in front of two other MVP candidates.

I agree with you I think it should have been considered there too. Ryan Braun led the free world in errors but I guess the voters thought his offense cancelled that out. my fantasy team down the stretch begs to differ.

11/20/07

0	Honestly, without any homerism, the Phils could own the MVP award for a while. When you have Howard, Rollins and Utley....it could go any which way. Utley had the MVP locked up almost until he went down with injury. I think next year is his year.

11/20/07

2

Adam wrote:

Honestly, without any homerism, the Phils could own the MVP award for a while. When you have Howard, Rollins and Utley....it could go any which way. Utley had the MVP locked up almost until he went down with injury. I think next year is his year.

And this is exactly why Jimmy Rollins SHOULDN'T have been the MVP. By your own admission, he wasn't even the MVP of his own TEAM for a huge chunk of the season. So how could he possibly have been the MVP of the WHOLE LEAGUE?

11/20/07

0

Pat wrote:

And this is exactly why Jimmy Rollins SHOULDN'T have been the MVP. By your own admission, he wasn't even the MVP of his own TEAM for a huge chunk of the season. So how could he possibly have been the MVP of the WHOLE LEAGUE?

You're wrong. They were both in consideration for it at the time Utley went down the fear was was that they were going to split the vote. When Utley got hurt and Rollins kept plugging along that sealed it for him.

11/20/07

1

Phillygenius82 wrote:

You're wrong. They were both in consideration for it at the time Utley went down the fear was was that they were going to split the vote. When Utley got hurt and Rollins kept plugging along that sealed it for him.

So a guy who stayed consistent after his teammate went down deserves it over guys like Prince Fielder or Holliday who carried their team from wire to wire?

Sorry, but that's not what I consider "most valuable". If Rollins had gotten hurt instead of Utley, then Utley would have led the team while Rollins was gone, just like Rollins did. If Holliday or Fielder went down, their teams wouldn't even have been close to the playoff race.

11/20/07

2

Pat wrote:

So a guy who stayed consistent after his teammate went down deserves it over guys like Prince Fielder or Holliday who carried their team from wire to wire?

Sorry, but that's not what I consider "most valuable". If Rollins had gotten hurt instead of Utley, then Utley would have led the team while Rollins was gone, just like Rollins did. If Holliday or Fielder went down, their teams wouldn't even have been close to the playoff race.

Did your Crystal Ball give you this info? You're talking about what-ifs and not what actually happened.

11/20/07

ML31

1	I have no problem with Rollins winning the MVP. Even with the humidor, offensive numbers at Coors must be taken with a grain of salt. And I think Rollins had the overall better season and helped his team better than any of the others.

11/20/07

0

Phillygenius82 wrote:

Did your Crystal Ball give you this info? You're talking about what-ifs and not what actually happened.

Sure, I'm talking about what-ifs. But those what-ifs aren't too far fetched. Based on their actual production, you can't say that a healthy Rollins was really any better than a healthy Utley would have been. So how is Rollins any more valuable than Utley? In all reality, he's not. But without Utley, they made the playoffs. So it's reasonable to say that WITH Utley and without Rollins, they could have accomplished the same.

11/20/07

CriticalFanatic

1

ML31 wrote:

I have no problem with Rollins winning the MVP. Even with the humidor, offensive numbers at Coors must be taken with a grain of salt. And I think Rollins had the overall better season and helped his team better than any of the others.

The Coors Field effect needs to be thrown out the window, particularly when you consider how tiny Citizens Bank Park is. Why do we continue to ignore this?

11/20/07

0

(Edited by Phillygenius82)
Pat wrote:

Sure, I'm talking about what-ifs. But those what-ifs aren't too far fetched. Based on their actual production, you can't say that a healthy Rollins was really any better than a healthy Utley would have been. So how is Rollins any more valuable than Utley? In all reality, he's not. But without Utley, they made the playoffs. So it's reasonable to say that WITH Utley and without Rollins, they could have accomplished the same.

And Lou Gherig filling in for Wally Pipp wasn't too far fetched either. You don't know what could have happened. Using your argument how is Rollins any less valuable than any of the other guys. His SB's and his defense (combined with all of his other numbers) have to put him above Holliday and Fielder.

11/20/07

ML31

0

CriticalFanatic wrote:

The Coors Field effect needs to be thrown out the window, particularly when you consider how tiny Citizens Bank Park is. Why do we continue to ignore this?

Let's not go nuts. CB is hardly like Great American or other very offense oriented yards. Sure, it's not Pac Bell or Petco either but still...

A good case could be made for all the top finishers. Hence the close vote. If I were choosing I'd have gone Rollins, Fielder, Holliday myself. But that's just me.

11/20/07

0

Phillygenius82 wrote:

And Lou Gherig filling in for Wally Pipp wasn't too far fetched either. You don't know what could have happened. Using your argument how is Rollins any less valuable than any of the other guys. His SB's and his defense (combined with all of his other numbers) have to put him above Holliday and Fielder.

He's less valuable because it's quite a reasonable statement to say that they could have made the playoffs without him, just like they made it without Chase Utley.

At the All-Star break, I'm sure you would have said that Utley and Rollins were about the same. So the affect of one of them going down is about equal. Since Utley was out for an extended period and they still won the division, it's not unreasonable to say that the same could/would have happened if they were reversed.

Nothing I'm saying is even remotely a stretch here. I'm not sure why you're so against it. I realize you are a Phils fan, and you're happy about Rollins winning the MVP. As you should be. If Tom Brady or Randy Moss win the MVP, I'll be thrilled as well. But I honestly can't justify putting either of them #1 if I had an actual vote. Take one away, and the team is still great. Take away Brett Favre or Brian Westbrook and their teams are complete crap. Just like if you took away Fielder or Holliday.

11/20/07

0

Pat wrote:

So a guy who stayed consistent after his teammate went down deserves it over guys like Prince Fielder or Holliday who carried their team from wire to wire?

Sorry, but that's not what I consider "most valuable". If Rollins had gotten hurt instead of Utley, then Utley would have led the team while Rollins was gone, just like Rollins did. If Holliday or Fielder went down, their teams wouldn't even have been close to the playoff race.

I'm pretty sure its the most valuable player award. Not the guy who picked up his team and carried them on his back. That basicly is saying that you feel if someone plays for the Orioles, they should get higher consideration then someone who plays for the Red Sox. Just because Rollins had bats behind him to bring in the runs doesn't mean he should get special consideration over the other guy.

11/20/07

0

Adam wrote:

I'm pretty sure its the most valuable player award. Not the guy who picked up his team and carried them on his back. That basicly is saying that you feel if someone plays for the Orioles, they should get higher consideration then someone who plays for the Red Sox. Just because Rollins had bats behind him to bring in the runs doesn't mean he should get special consideration over the other guy.

Once again...if a guy arguably isn't even the most valuable player on his own team, how could he be the MVP of the entire league?

11/20/07

0

(Edited by Adam)
Pat wrote:

Once again...if a guy arguably isn't even the most valuable player on his own team, how could he be the MVP of the entire league?

And whose saying he wasn't the mvp of his own team? He played in every single game, put up amazing numbers, and played good defense. The time when Utley went down, yes I would have said Utley led J-roll in mvp votes, because Utley was hitting way over .300, whereas Rollins was barely hitting .300. But when Utley went down J roll helped pick up the team and take them under his wing. He had two amazing months to cap off the season, and helped the team win the division. If Utley went down, which you seem to like to create these if situations, things would be nowhere near the same. Thats for sure. We wouldn't have anyone who can fill in at SS besides Nunez, who cant hit a melon to save his life. Tad Igutchi took over for Utley and played fantastic. The fans loved him, and wanted him back so bad. Rollins then became the mvp of the team and of the NL itself. Just because nobody compares to Hollidays stats or equality on his team doesn't mean he gets any special standards in the voting.

11/20/07

1

CriticalFanatic wrote:

The Coors Field effect needs to be thrown out the window, particularly when you consider how tiny Citizens Bank Park is. Why do we continue to ignore this?

I agree with you, but here's an unnoticed stat. Holliday batted .376 at home, .301 away, a .75 swing. Rollins batted .300 at home, .293 away. I'm not saying it was the ballparks making a difference or anything, but a .75 swing is alot. Not surely when your hitting .376 one way it looks good, but the ballparks should really play NO factor in voting.

11/21/07

1

I still disagree. I think that both Holliday AND Fielder are more valuable to their team than Jimmy Rollins. I understand how Phillies homers can disagree, but I simply think that if you took away Rollins, the Phillies are still a pretty good team, possibly a playoff team. Take away Fielder or Holliday, and the Rockies and Brewers wouldn't have even been in the race. To me, that makes Fielder and Holliday more valuable.

11/21/07

ML31

1

Pat wrote:

I still disagree. I think that both Holliday AND Fielder are more valuable to their team than Jimmy Rollins. I understand how Phillies homers can disagree, but I simply think that if you took away Rollins, the Phillies are still a pretty good team, possibly a playoff team. Take away Fielder or Holliday, and the Rockies and Brewers wouldn't have even been in the race. To me, that makes Fielder and Holliday more valuable.

This seems to be coming down to that age old disagreement about what the MVP is. Is it the guy who had the best year, or the guy who best helped his team? One could argue they are one in the same or that circumstances on each team make them not the same at all.

So this just depends on how each person views the MVP. I think usually voters go for the guy who had the big season on a winning or contending team. If they go for someone else, it is usually because someone on a non contending team had such a monster season that it cannot be overlooked.

11/21/07

0	"This seems to be coming down to that age old disagreement about what the MVP is. Is it the guy who had the best year, or the guy who best helped his team?" See...I don't think Rollins fits the bill for either of those categories.

11/21/07

bayareabeast21

1

I have no problem with Rollins taking the trophy. It was either him or Holliday, and while Hollidays numbers may be better, Rollins was a dependable catalyst at the top of that lineup all year, creating all kinds of problems for the opposition, and was clutch all year. This was just a case you tip your cap to the winner of the award, and acknowledge sometimes it just sucks there can only be one winner.

11/21/07

metsfan1225

0

I'm a Mets fan, and to all of you people saying, oh Holliday this and Holliday that, have you ever actually watched Rollins play? Now that being said, I'm a Mets fan, and aside from stolen bases, I'd take him on my team over Reyes any day. Another interesting thing to throw out there, I guarentee you that Holliday couldn't come to Shea Stadium and put up numbers like he did in Coors Field, but Rollins sure seems to do it. I watched a lot of Phillies games this year because I have to pay close attention to the rivals, and that guy is just explosive. You take RBI's into account too much. He is the reason that Howard gets 136 RBI's in a season. He may not be the best player on the Phillies, but he is the guy in the clubhouse the team looks up to, and he's the guy that gets the rest of the team going. These are just some of my opinions AS A METS FAN. Oh yeah, forgot to mention this one last thing...Yes, the Mets had a huge collapse, but David Wright still played great baseball down the stretch. He just got picked on because of the rest of the team's collapse. He's my pick for MVP this year, but since he didn't get it, I'd have to say Rollins.

11/21/07

metsfan1225

0

Oh yeah, one last thing to mention about this post. The only reason Rollins only had 41 bases was because he was too busy landing on 2nd and 3rd to get more stolen bases. Also, Manuel was nervous to let Rollins, Victorino, and Bourn run at the beginning of the season, which is just really stupid. If I was the coach of the Phillies, anytime one of those 3 got on base they'd be going after 2nd, just like Reyes does for the Mets.

11/24/07

bobbyc3

0

Pat wrote:

I still disagree. I think that both Holliday AND Fielder are more valuable to their team than Jimmy Rollins. I understand how Phillies homers can disagree, but I simply think that if you took away Rollins, the Phillies are still a pretty good team, possibly a playoff team. Take away Fielder or Holliday, and the Rockies and Brewers wouldn't have even been in the race. To me, that makes Fielder and Holliday more valuable.

Using this analogy the NL MVP should be Adam LaRoche. Without him the Pirates are a 110 loss team not a 94 loss team.

11/24/07

0

bobbyc3 wrote:

Using this analogy the NL MVP should be Adam LaRoche. Without him the Pirates are a 110 loss team not a 94 loss team.

Not even remotely correct. Apparently, in your zeal to defend J-Rolls' honor, you completely missed the point.

Taking a team from being a last place team to a slightly better last place team is meaningless. But taking a team from an average team to a playoff team/playoff contender is MVP worthy. Fielder and Holliday did that. Rollins did too, but there's no indication that Utley wouldn't have done the same.

The crazy thing is, before Utley went down, EVERY Phillies fan would have said that he is at least as valuable as Rollins. So by YOUR logic, Phils fans, if Rollins went down instead of Utley, Chase would have led them to the playoffs. To me, that makes Rollins and Utley basically interchangeable, not "Most Valuable". Take out Fielder or Holliday, and there's no one to fill in the gap there. Period.

Perhaps my perspective is skewed a bit. I have the luxury of rooting for the team who happened to win the World Series, so I am a lot less concerned with paltry individual awards.

11/24/07

bobbyc3

0

Pat wrote:

Not even remotely correct. Apparently, in your zeal to defend J-Rolls' honor, you completely missed the point.

Taking a team from being a last place team to a slightly better last place team is meaningless. But taking a team from an average team to a playoff team/playoff contender is MVP worthy. Fielder and Holliday did that. Rollins did too, but there's no indication that Utley wouldn't have done the same.

The crazy thing is, before Utley went down, EVERY Phillies fan would have said that he is at least as valuable as Rollins. So by YOUR logic, Phils fans, if Rollins went down instead of Utley, Chase would have led them to the playoffs. To me, that makes Rollins and Utley basically interchangeable, not "Most Valuable". Take out Fielder or Holliday, and there's no one to fill in the gap there. Period.

Perhaps my perspective is skewed a bit. I have the luxury of rooting for the team who happened to win the World Series, so I am a lot less concerned with paltry individual awards.

I wouldn't say Utley would "replace" Rollins and be there to lead the team on. Holliday had plenty of support in Colorado and I don't see how people don't see that. If Rollins goes down and is replaced with Abraham "No-hit" Nunez how does that make the Phillies look? Victorino could have hit leadoff but he was gone a fair bit of the season as well. If Holliday goes down there was a mulitude of corner OFers that could have fit in. Fielder on the other hand is more "valuable" if "valuable" means unreplaceable but the Brew Crew blew it. I think saying that Holliday has no one to fill in the gap discredits the other Rockies just a bit.

11/24/07