NL MVP

If its a phillie

Its gotta be Chase Utley in my opinion, that being said I think Rollins takes it

by Kanst42 on Oct 19, 2007 3:05 PM EDT reply actions

+1

It's not often that the best player on a playoff team isn't even seen on a National level as the second best. Utley is the man.

by elrey34 on Oct 20, 2007 3:04 AM EDT up reply actions

No

Matty Holl

It isn't even close how are you gunna say Rollins is most valuable..
Howard,Utley would get taken over him by 95% of Phillies fans..

Holliday has some good rookies, but there isn't anyone close to him on that team that i'd take over him.

Matt MVP

by Maine Man on Oct 19, 2007 4:12 PM EDT reply actions

Hanley

Hanley should get it, and it's not even that close.

Holliday will get it though.

by mdickson on Oct 19, 2007 4:31 PM EDT reply actions

Hanley

is a great offensive player but he is a very poor defensive player. Wright is just a step below him on offense and twice the defender.

by jparks77 on Oct 19, 2007 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Would Wright be better than Hanley at shortstop? I doubt it, but I don't know. Would Hanley be comparable to Wright defensively if they both played the same position? Most likely. And Hanley's offense is better.

by ajohnst1 on Oct 20, 2007 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions

That's a pretty big leap of judgement....

Third base and shortstop require slightly different skill sets. Shortstop is more athletic and rangy whereas third base is more about reaction time.

by Lunkwill Fook on Oct 20, 2007 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not sure.

I've seen David play a lot of games and I've seen Hanley in over 30 games. I can honestly say that Hanley is the worst fielding SS I have ever laid eyes on and It isn't close. That said, I could see wright being comparable to at least Jhonny Perlata, However they are different positions and require different skill sets.

by JD Sussman on Oct 20, 2007 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions

this is silly.

It doesn't matter whether one guy could do what the other one does. Fausto Carmona proved pretty conclusively that he wasn't much of a closer, but that doesn't mean Mariano Rivera should get more MVP votes than Fausto does. And Mariano for his part had a 5.51 ERA when he was a starter, but that doesn't mean he should get fewer MVP votes than Tim Wakefield does. Their value comes from how many runs they created/saved in the roles that they actually had.

If we consider Freddy Sanchez to be a 3B, would we give him more fielding credit than Brooks Robinson because Sanchez could play a better SS than the slow Robinson? It'd be crazy. Brooks played a much better 3B, which is what the two players were being asked to do.

I do understand the argument that a bad-fielding SS is still better than an average-fielding 3B. That's a tough question, and I don't know which way to fall on that one. But I do know that how good Wright would be if you moved him to SS is not the issue.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Oct 21, 2007 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions

What are you smoking?

Did you see how many runs the Florida Marlins gave up this year? I think having one of the all time worst defensive SS seasons is a big reason.

Holliday will win easily because he lead in 2 of 3 triple crown categories.

Wright is an excellent choice if you do a deep analysis, but the writers will only see the Mets collapse.

by elricsi on Oct 19, 2007 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Was it really one of the worst ever?

I know errors/chances isn't the best stat but there were certainly a few other SS with worse fielding percentages this year.

I think that he's not a good defensive SS but certainly not as bad as some on here are making it out to be...

by Dfarth on Oct 20, 2007 8:26 AM EDT up reply actions

In fact

Now that I look a little closer Wright had a worse fielding percentage than Hanley. Again, I know fielding percentage isn't a very good stat and I'm open to better stats that may show Hanley sucked defensively (I don't have a prospectus account), but I am having a hard time believing that Wright was a great defender and Hanley was terrible. They both look below average for their position...

by Dfarth on Oct 20, 2007 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions

Don't worry about BP's D stats.

They're the least reliable metrics because they never clearly explained how they work and it's a joke that you have to pay for them. It's like they're saying "Just trust us, it's the best, that's why you have to pay for it." When in fact, at the very best, they're just on par with the rest of them.

I've linked to this article on another post before, but Dave Cameron provided a great piece looking at all the defensive metrics. It's good for a 101 course if you're interested in learning more about them and their value.

Anyways, using the best one, UZR, Wright is just about average rated at -1, while Ramirez was at a god-awful -26.

If you're looking for something more subjective, Tom Tango just came out with the 2007 results for the Fan's Scouting Report. Check it out here. If you're not familiar with the system, fans rated how good a player was defensively tools-wise in their entirety, not compared to other players of their position. For example, Derek Jeter is a crappy shortstop, but he's rated higher than most players because good defensive first basemen are still poor defenders. So this fits very well for the whole Ramirez vs. Wright debate.

Hanley's rating by the fans was at 48/100. Wright was at 66.

In a couple months, the other metrics should be out with the 2007 data.

by elrey34 on Oct 21, 2007 2:12 AM EDT up reply actions

BP's defensive stats

they are explained, just not on the website. i think the 2001 annual has a pretty full exposition of how they work. if not 2001, some year around there. i'm too lazy to go look it up.

having said that, i don't really trust the BP stats either unless they agree with the other advanced metrics. then again, i don't really trust any single defensive metric unless it agrees with the other advanced metrics.

by jpahk on Oct 21, 2007 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Aha! So you have to pay for the explananation too!

Farkin' geniuses if you ask me. But yeah, defensive metrics aren't advanced to the point where you can look at one and make a decision. They all have their flaws for sure, and while they have value at this point, they have some serious progress to do. They'll get there though.

by elrey34 on Oct 21, 2007 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions

OK

Errors and fielding percentage are about the worst statistics to be looking at for fielding. They are a little helpful for reliability, but range maybe 10 times more important.

The 2 best freely available stats to look at are fielding win shares (on hardballtimes.com) and zone rating (which has several variations). I think it helps to look at both. If a player is good or bad at both stats then you know the story. Also, you can look at team defense (defensive effeciency, or the percentage of outs on balls in the park).

Hanley has one of the worst zone ratings I have ever seen, is way down the list on fielding win shares despite playing a full season, and Florida had the worst defensive effeciency rating in the entire league, despite having above average outfield range. Truly a season for the ages.

Now maybe he was hurt or will learn or something, but no team with a shortstop fielding like that will EVER win anything. If he moves to a position he can handle, then sure his future looks bright, but a big reason Florida finished last in the division (behind Washington!) is Hanley's D.

P.S. I'm not sure about Wright's D. I think he was bad in 2006, but was much better in 2007, probably above average.

by elricsi on Oct 20, 2007 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Fair Enough

I admitted I didn't really know about fielding stats. Still, Peralta had a worse RZR (I didn't see Win Shares at HBT) and they are on the doorstep of going to the WS. And, I'm sure that they would trade Peralta for Hanley in a second. So, I think it's a bit hyperbolic to say that no team with a SS fielding like that will ever win anything...

by Dfarth on Oct 20, 2007 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Worst. Shortstop. Ever.

Put him in center field and I'll reconsider. Or at least second base.

by elrey34 on Oct 20, 2007 3:07 AM EDT up reply actions

Ever?

Angel Berroa anyone?

by doublestix on Oct 21, 2007 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions

It's just an expression.

But he is horrific, yes?

by elrey34 on Oct 21, 2007 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Wright

Most win shares
2nd highest VORP (to Hanley, yes)

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Oct 19, 2007 4:33 PM EDT reply actions

In additoin.

VORP doesn't take defense into account, just defensive position, so Hanley's gotta take a big hit when you factor in his terrible defense, while Wright is at the least a decent 3B.

by abbreviatedman on Oct 19, 2007 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions

If you're going to make a decision based on

Metrics, at least use good ones. Win Shares are far outdated and VORP just plain suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

However, I do agree that Wright was the best player in the NL this year. However, due to politics and favoribility to the popular stats, I think it'll probably be Holliday.

by elrey34 on Oct 20, 2007 3:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Why did so many people vote for Fielder?

His hacking down the stretch so he could reach more HRs than his dad's 52 didn't cost the Brewers the season, but it certainly didn't help and it showed where his true mindset. Add in his terrible defense and I don't know why he would even get one vote let alone be in 3rd. At least Rollins team made the playoffs.

by FanBall on Oct 19, 2007 5:42 PM EDT reply actions

Cecil, is that you?

August: 1.028 OPS
September: 1.212 OPS

Yeah, all of that hacking down the stretch really hurt his performance. You sound like a bitter old man.

rotowire.com fantasy sports

by herb on Oct 21, 2007 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions

2 questions, 2 answers

who will win the MVP? matt holliday.
who was the most valuable NL player in 2007? david wright.

by jpahk on Oct 19, 2007 6:04 PM EDT reply actions

Holliday

All I know about Matt Holliday is this :

He's been the very definition of an MVP down the stretch
His head is exceptionally coney.

My picks, by the way?
MVP (writer's choice) : Jimmy Rollins
MVP (who it should be?): Holliday/Rollins, tie.

by GuyinNY on Oct 19, 2007 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Case for Rollins?

Can someone actually make a coherent case for Rollins's MVP candidacy? He scored a lot of runs and hit a bunch of triples. Terrific. He doesn't touch Wright, or Holliday or Utley.

He had a good season, sure, but he's only the third best player on his own team! Want to give him this year's David Eckstein heart/grit/hustle award? Be my guest--but he's no MVP.

by jasondg on Oct 19, 2007 7:24 PM EDT reply actions

Yes

He opened his mouth and "he" came through.

He and his 5th best OPS. On the Phillies.

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Oct 19, 2007 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions

very valuable

He had the second most extra base hits in baseball, he stole 41 bases at an 87% clip, he scored a boatload of runs. He was above average in the field. I think its pretty easy to make an MVP case for him. The fact that he was a shortstop that hit 30 homeruns is already a pretty good reason

by Kanst42 on Oct 20, 2007 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Remember...

This was voted on the last day of the season. Rollins will win. No question about it. I think the Most Valuable Player award goes to:

1.Holliday
2.Utley
3.Wright

If you remove Holliday from the Rockies they don't sniff the play-in game. Same can be said for the other two but I don't think they are as essential to their teams success as Holliday is to the Rockies.

by JD Sussman on Oct 19, 2007 7:37 PM EDT reply actions

Chipper Jones

I think its a shame that nobody ever even mentions Chipper Jones's name in this conversation. He finished atop the league in OPS and OPS+. Ultimately, what makes Wright more deserving than Chipper, that the mets finished 4 games ahead of the braves? I don't buy it. I know everyone likes the idea of awarding to players who make the postseason, but with so much parity, and so many teams still in the race on the last week of the season, I really think that approach needs to be reevaluated.

by The Origenist on Oct 20, 2007 2:01 AM EDT reply actions

Chipper may be the most underrated player

Of his generation. However, I think Wright surpasses him on being the best player in the league when you factor in their defensive and base running contributions. Chipper is a poor defender and doesn't do much on the bases, while Wright is a plus defender and may just be the most underrated base stealer in the Majors.

by elrey34 on Oct 20, 2007 3:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Na.

The poster blow who points out the disparity in games played is correct. Chipper was clearly more valuable than Wright on a per-game basis, but 26 games is 26 games.

Also, I like the notion that Chipper's the most underrated player of his generation.

And FWIW, he's probably already the third best switch hitter to ever play the game.

by mraver on Oct 20, 2007 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions

wright and chipper

no, i don't think what makes wright more deserving is that the mets finished 4 games ahead of the braves. i think its the games that chipper missed. there comes a point at which the fact of how many games a guy played in starts to speak to his value. wright played in 160 games, chipper played in 134. how much extra value did wright add in those 26 games? a lot is my guess.

by DavidWrightismyGod on Oct 20, 2007 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions

My Vote?

I like Wright as the MVP. But we all know that's not going to happen. I think, in reality, it's going to end like this:

Holliday
Rollins
Wright

It's a shame because if the Mets as a team hadn't collapsed, Wright gets it easy. Holliday just has this insane PR campaign following him in the media (not that he didn't have a great season).

by Lunkwill Fook on Oct 20, 2007 12:53 PM EDT reply actions