PDA

View Full Version : NL MVP - Jimmy Rollins


manders_01
11-20-2007, 02:03 PM
:whiner: for Matty

Rocky Soprano
11-20-2007, 02:04 PM
:whiner: for Matty

Wow, how close was it? I though Matt was going to win it for sure.

MUsoxfan
11-20-2007, 02:05 PM
There's no question in my mind that Holliday deserved it

D. TODD
11-20-2007, 02:06 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with Holliday winning it , but Rollins was my choice, so good job NL voters.

PorkChopExpress
11-20-2007, 02:15 PM
Carlos Marmol was listed 10th on someone's ballot? He was a good reliever last year, but come on. That's just ridiculous. Oh well, congrats Rollins, tough luck MH.

balke
11-20-2007, 02:20 PM
I thought it was the right choice before the playoffs. They both had amazing seasons. Rollins playing SS may have pushed him over the top.

manders_01
11-20-2007, 02:26 PM
Wow, how close was it? I though Matt was going to win it for sure.

Rollins had 353 points (16 first), Matt had 336 (11 first).

goon
11-20-2007, 02:30 PM
:bandance:

Rollins was unbelievable this season.

PKalltheway
11-20-2007, 02:44 PM
:o:

Wow...I thought Holliday was definitely going to win it...congrats to Jimmy Rollins though....

cleanwsox
11-20-2007, 02:49 PM
First time since 1989 that the NL MVP has had an average under .300.

I think Holliday deserved it more, but ehh... whatever.

goon
11-20-2007, 02:56 PM
First time since 1989 that the NL MVP has had an average under .300.

I think Holliday deserved it more, but ehh... whatever.

That's an interesting fact, but Rollins did break the ML record of AB's in a season, I can't remember the number, but he had well over 700.

drewcifer
11-20-2007, 02:56 PM
First time since 1989 that the NL MVP has had an average under .300.
I think Holliday deserved it more, but ehh... whatever.

First time in 50 years that anyone in the NL had 20 SBs, 20 2Bs, 20 3Bs, and 20 HRs. And first time anyone ever had 716 ABs.

.296 BA is very acceptable for MVP under those conditions; especially as a lead-off.

Well deserved, IMO.

WhiteSoxJunkie
11-20-2007, 03:12 PM
This was a tough call as indicated by the voting. I think Holliday should've won but have no problem with Rollins winning instead.

cleanwsox
11-20-2007, 03:12 PM
First time in 50 years that anyone in the NL had 20 SBs, 20 2Bs, 20 3Bs, and 20 HRs. And first time anyone ever had 716 ABs.

.296 BA is very acceptable for MVP under those conditions; especially as a lead-off.

Well deserved, IMO.


80 more at bats than Holliday and 4 fewer hits.

Extra Base hits:
Rollins - 88
Holliday - 92

palehozenychicty
11-20-2007, 03:17 PM
Now that's who we should've traded for, since we always trade with the Phils. J. Rollins.

drewcifer
11-20-2007, 03:26 PM
80 more at bats than Holliday and 4 fewer hits.

Extra Base hits:
Rollins - 88
Holliday - 92

Again, Rollins is a lead-off. Holliday hits from a more protected position.

Plus, SS vs OFer, all 162 games played, 41 SBs, etc., etc, etc..

balke
11-20-2007, 03:32 PM
Again, Rollins is a lead-off. Holliday hits from a more protected position.

Plus, SS vs OFer, all 162 games played, 41 SBs, etc., etc, etc..

I was rooting for him to make it to .300 so there wouldn't be that controversy, but honestly .004 pts shouldn't make or break that vote. His team had injuries to top stars, and they made it in with Jimmy Rollins leading the way. He also played every game at SS which is pretty tough.

cleanwsox
11-20-2007, 03:59 PM
Again, Rollins is a lead-off. Holliday hits from a more protected position.

Plus, SS vs OFer, all 162 games played, 41 SBs, etc., etc, etc..

I understand all of that, but your first point about how many at bats he had shouldn't really matter at all in an MVP vote. He had a great year, but I think Holliday's was more impressive.

russ99
11-20-2007, 04:07 PM
Jimmy Rollins? Really?

He had really good numbers, but c'mon. This is like giving the Cy to a closer.

I can't think of the last time a non-power hitter won MVP in either league. Maybe it's anti-steroids backlash.

drewcifer
11-20-2007, 04:11 PM
Jimmy Rollins? Really?

He had really good numbers, but c'mon. This is like giving the Cy to a closer.

I can't think of the last time a non-power hitter won MVP in either league. Maybe it's anti-steroids backlash.

Ichiro

munchman33
11-20-2007, 04:42 PM
Jimmy Rollins? Really?

He had really good numbers, but c'mon. This is like giving the Cy to a closer.

I can't think of the last time a non-power hitter won MVP in either league. Maybe it's anti-steroids backlash.

Good numbers? Numbers-wise he had one of the best seasons for a shortstop ever. 20+ homers, doubles, and triples? C'mon! That's sick.

doublem23
11-20-2007, 04:44 PM
I can't think of the last time a non-power hitter won MVP in either league. Maybe it's anti-steroids backlash.

Maybe the Steroids Era has us all believing the only way to help your team is to hit a lot of homers? :?:

MVP of the 2005 White Sox...

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/apmegasports/hta13410270141.h2.jpg

RockyMtnSoxFan
11-20-2007, 04:58 PM
Well, there's your East Coast bias right there. For those of you that think Holliday's numbers are boosted by his park, check out Citizen's Bank. That place is tiny. Plus, Holliday is only the third guy in 40 years to lead his league in average and RBIs.

Another BS award. This is two now that Rollins has won that should have gone to Rockies players.

balke
11-20-2007, 05:05 PM
Well, there's your East Coast bias right there. For those of you that think Holliday's numbers are boosted by his park, check out Citizen's Bank. That place is tiny. Plus, Holliday is only the third guy in 40 years to lead his league in average and RBIs.

Another BS award. This is two now that Rollins has won that should have gone to Rockies players.

Haha, and no bias on your part I'll assume RockyMtnSoxFan! :D:

ChiSoxRowand
11-20-2007, 07:13 PM
LOL at all this Matt Holliday love. His OPS is 300 points lower away from Coors.

manders_01
11-20-2007, 08:51 PM
Haha, and no bias on your part I'll assume RockyMtnSoxFan! :D:

I've already acknowledged my Rox bias, but I agree with RMSF.

Although Holliday and Rollins stats were pretty evenly matched when using them as a mark for voting, IMO Matty was more valuable to his team than Rollins was. And Tulo had better defensive stats and was a rookie.

pmck003
11-20-2007, 08:59 PM
I was hoping that last game vs. the Padres would give Holliday the edge, but maybe that counts as the playoffs already.

fquaye149
11-20-2007, 09:00 PM
Maybe the Steroids Era has us all believing the only way to help your team is to hit a lot of homers? :?:

MVP of the 2005 White Sox...

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/apmegasports/hta13410270141.h2.jpg

Did you mean to post a picture of our four starting pitchers?

balke
11-20-2007, 09:31 PM
I've already acknowledged my Rox bias, but I agree with RMSF.

Although Holliday and Rollins stats were pretty evenly matched when using them as a mark for voting, IMO Matty was more valuable to his team than Rollins was. And Tulo had better defensive stats and was a rookie.

The Gold Glove hasn't been an award for the best defense for a long time, if ever. Rollins was a top defensive SS with top offensive #'s, thus gold glove. You should just get used to that, it happens every season.

I think they are about even MVP wise, and the voting seems to back that up. I can't argue one way or the other. I do like to see the award semi-cater to a new era of baseball where the most HR's and most RBI's don't guarantee you the award.

manders_01
11-20-2007, 10:32 PM
The Gold Glove hasn't been an award for the best defense for a long time, if ever. Rollins was a top defensive SS with top offensive #'s, thus gold glove. You should just get used to that, it happens every season.

I think they are about even MVP wise, and the voting seems to back that up. I can't argue one way or the other. I do like to see the award semi-cater to a new era of baseball where the most HR's and most RBI's don't guarantee you the award.

Oh I'm aware - I just don't like it. :D:

manders_01
11-20-2007, 10:35 PM
I was hoping that last game vs. the Padres would give Holliday the edge, but maybe that counts as the playoffs already.

An article I read a few weks back indicated that voting was still going on that day since it was technically regular season. But I don't remember when or where I read that so I can't really back my statement up. :tongue:

FedEx227
11-20-2007, 10:37 PM
Did you mean to post a picture of our four starting pitchers?

Hahaha... that's what I thought.

Wow Jon Garland, Mark Buehrle, Jose Contreras and Freddy Garcia look a lot like Scott Podsednik.

We didn't win in 05 because of our ability to "grind" or the speed. We had unbelievable starting pitching, almost unrivaled by any franchise in the past decade outside of the Atlanta Braves.

While all those other things helped the MVP certainly can't go to anyone besides those guys on the staff, maybe El Duque included.

Nellie_Fox
11-21-2007, 01:07 AM
I was hoping that last game vs. the Padres would give Holliday the edge, but maybe that counts as the playoffs already.

An article I read a few weks back indicated that voting was still going on that day since it was technically regular season. But I don't remember when or where I read that so I can't really back my statement up. :tongue:I heard on MLB Homeplate on XM that the MVP ballots had to be in before Colorado made the playoffs.

goon
11-21-2007, 01:10 AM
I heard on MLB Homeplate on XM that the MVP ballots had to be in before Colorado made the playoffs.

Rollins led the Phillies to the playoffs, too so it isn't like his value to his team was any less than Holliday's. The Phillies pitching didn't stand a chance against the Rox lineup.

Jerome
11-21-2007, 01:33 AM
Did you mean to post a picture of our four starting pitchers?

Correct. The MVP of 05 was the pitching.

RockyMtnSoxFan
11-21-2007, 01:41 AM
LOL at all this Matt Holliday love. His OPS is 300 points lower away from Coors.

Since the humidor was put in, Coors hasn't been the same launching pad. Granted, offense is still higher there than the average park, but I would argue that it is because breaking pitches don't break as much. While that is a definite advantage for the Rockies at home, it is a disadvantage on the road, because they have to learn to adjust to more movement. Thus, the greater discrepancy between home/away splits.

Plus, it's not like Rollins plays in a pitcher's park. Citizens Bank has smaller dimensions and gives up more HR than Coors.

ChiSoxRowand
11-21-2007, 01:44 AM
Since the humidor was put in, Coors hasn't been the same launching pad. Granted, offense is still higher there than the average park, but I would argue that it is because breaking pitches don't break as much. While that is a definite advantage for the Rockies at home, it is a disadvantage on the road, because they have to learn to adjust to more movement. Thus, the greater discrepancy between home/away splits.

Plus, it's not like Rollins plays in a pitcher's park. Citizens Bank has smaller dimensions and gives up more HR than Coors.

It's still the best hitters park in baseball. Not just home runs, but just a great hitters park because of how big it is.

Holliday hit 70 points higher at home.

wassagstdu
11-21-2007, 08:10 AM
Wow Jon Garland, Mark Buehrle, Jose Contreras and Freddy Garcia look a lot like Scott Podsednik.

We didn't win in 05 because of our ability to "grind" or the speed. We had unbelievable starting pitching, almost unrivaled by any franchise in the past decade outside of the Atlanta Braves.

While all those other things helped the MVP certainly can't go to anyone besides those guys on the staff, maybe El Duque included.

MVP, not Cy Young. The Sox won in 2005 because they scored first in their first 37 games or something like that and helped their pitchers (especially Garland). No doubt in my mind that Scott Podsednik was Sox MVP in 2005, or maybe Podsednikiguchi. When Podsednik went down at mid-season the Sox played most of the second half living off the lead they built from the healthy Pods in the first half.

Oblong
11-21-2007, 09:21 AM
The Big Five in 2005 pitched 69% of the team's innings. Two guys started 33 games, two started 32 games, and Hernandez started 22, with McCarthy starting the other 10 to even it out. I don't know how other team's historically rank but that is amazing. 6 starting pitchers all year. Unbelievable consistency. And they were great in the innings they pitched. Now was the bullpen as good as their numbers or were they helped by the great starting pitching, meaning they didn't have to work as much and could be more effective without having to come into the games all the time in the fifth or sixth inning?

balke
11-21-2007, 11:10 AM
Correct. The MVP of 05 was the pitching.

I agree...

But to get technical, its pretty easy to say Pods was the biggest single offensive factor to spark that team towards a championship. That team was scoring first, and scoring consistantly because of Pods getting on base, and getting in the opposing pitcher's heads.

I wish he would've continued to do that. That's difficult to find outside of drafting.

Ziggy S
11-21-2007, 01:27 PM
The Big Five in 2005 pitched 69% of the team's innings. Two guys started 33 games, two started 32 games, and Hernandez started 22, with McCarthy starting the other 10 to even it out. I don't know how other team's historically rank but that is amazing. 6 starting pitchers all year. Unbelievable consistency. And they were great in the innings they pitched. Now was the bullpen as good as their numbers or were they helped by the great starting pitching, meaning they didn't have to work as much and could be more effective without having to come into the games all the time in the fifth or sixth inning?

Well, considering Hermanson and Politte didn't log any time in the majors and Cotts was demoted to AAA last season, I think we know the answer to that one.