The Underground Insight 11.26.07: Worst. MVP. Ever.
Posted by JD Koziarski on 11.26.2007
The title may be slight hyperbole: Jimmy Rollins may not actually be the worst MVP winner ever, but he’s pretty close. He’s certainly one of the most undeserving; he wasn’t the MVP of his own team and wasn’t even the best player at his own position.
Two months ago the rumbling began. At first I thought it was just one or two slightly off TV talking heads. After all, I had seen most of the Phillies games this year and I knew better. I knew why they were on the verge of making an incredible comeback to win the NL East. It was Ryan Howard and Chase Utley, Pat Burrell and Aaron Rowand. And yes, a little Jimmy Rollins, too.
Rollins is one of those players who is impossible to dislike. He's pretty good at just about everything. He can hit, run, play some defense. He doesn't take a walk, but he still puts up a decent enough battings average and some nice power – for a #3 or #5 hitter. But the Most Valuable Player in the National League? The guy who did more for his team than any other player over the course of an entire season?
The question that seems to be posed is this: If you take Rollins off the Phillies (and, I assume, replace him with a league average shortstop), would they have won the NL East? The answer is quite obviously no. They won the division by one game. The same could be said for the aforementioned Howard and Utley, Burrell and Rowand. Heck, you can even add the Flyin' Hawaiian, Shane Victorino to the list of guys who were the difference between the Phillies and the Mets in the playoffs.
Quite clearly, that question is flawed.
Equally flawed are some of the arguments in favor of Rollins. He led the world in at bats (716). He is the only guy to ever have 20 doubles, triples, home runs, stolen bases, walks, strikeouts, dollars, Philly Phanatics, and who knows what else in a season. He had 94 RBIs from the leadoff spot. He's a "spark" at the top of the lineup.
Rollins had a bajillion at bats because he doesn't walk, he bats leadoff (usually), he played every game, and he had one of the best lineups in baseball turning it over to him. None of those are actually a product of him being good, with the exception of being good (and healthy) enough to play everyday.
So what that he had 20 of everything? Why is 20 a measure of success in this case? Ryan Howard only had 26 doubles, 47 home runs, and no triples. But he did that in 130 fewer plate appearances. He also walked more than twice as many times as Rollins.
I don't know what 94 RBIs from the leadoff spot really means other than almost 1/3 of those (30) were Rollins knocking himself in. Well, Howard did that 47 times, Burrell 30, Rowand 27, and Utley 22. For what it's worth, Prince Fielder, Adam Dunn, Matt Holliday, Lance Berkman, Ryan Braun, and Miguel Cabrera all drove themselves in more than Rollins, too.
The other thing Rollins' RBIs are a product of is the ability of his teammates to get on base. The Phillies tied for the National League lead in OBP (.354), so even as a leadoff hitter, Rollins came to bat with guys on base. A lot. Oh, and lots of guys had more runs batted in than Rollins.
Will somebody please explain to me what a "spark" entails? To me, a guy who sparks the offense at the top of the lineup is one who gets on base 40% of the time. It's a guy who works the count, has 10-pitch at bats, and ultimately gets on base. But Rollins doesn't do that. His .344 OBP is fine, but not for a leadoff hitter. And his power numbers are wasted at the top of the order. When you have Utley, Howard, Burrell, and Rowand hitting doubles (145) and homers (126) behind the leadoff guy, he doesn't need to get those extra-base hits. He needs to get on base, and the fact is that Rollins did that significantly less than many other players with many more chances.
So far, I've proven my argument without any of the sabermetric tools that the dinosaurs hate. But those support me, too. Jimmy Rollins' 2007 VORP – Value Over Replacement Player – was 66.1. For those who don't know, VORP is a counting stat. Basically, the more you play, unless you're completely inept, you're going to become more valuable. We've already established that Jimmy Rollins had 82 trillion at bats this year, yet his VORP was good for 9th in the NL.
Number one wasn't Howard or Fielder. It wasn't Holliday or Wright or Pujols. The most valuable offensive player in the National League in 2007 was another shortstop. It was another shortstop in Rollins' own division. It wasn't Jose Reyes or Edgar Renteria, either.
Months ago I said how awesome Hanley Ramirez was, and he didn't disappoint. Ramirez didn't have 20-20-20-20, but he did have 48 doubles and 29 home runs and 51 stolen bases. He finished tenth in the MVP voting. And I'm not buying that Rollins won because of his outstanding glove because we all know that nobody weights defense that heavily.
In 2007, Jimmy Rollins made more outs than anybody else who has won an MVP award. He also did a lot of very good things for the NL East Champions. But MVP? He was, at best, the fifth most valuable player on the Phillies. And that's not counting the other guys with claims: Fielder, Holliday, Wright, and, yes, the real best shortstop in the National League, Hanley Ramirez.
