Comments on: Why David Wright should win the MVP (but probably won’t)

By: redstripeandchronic

redstripeandchronic — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:22:33 +0000

Just googled David Wright + MVP in order to find some statistically minded rational arguments, and came across this. Good article, but the real genius on this page is reading the comments. The contrast in maturity and intelligence displayed between Cox and the Phillie fan is high entertainment.

Cox: David Wright is better at baseball than Jimmy Rollins, here is why and how.

PhillieFan: David Wright is a fuckin pussy.

Cox: That is untrue and irrelevant…I refer you back to the following statistics (minus some defensive metrics that would probably only serve to bolster your argument).

PhillieFan: Yea but Jimmy Rollins has ENERGY! Fuckin energy man, knahmsayin.

Mr. Johnadig, you are clearly suffering from some sort of brain hemmhorage or have Fragile X or something (meaning you are retarded). I am truly shocked that you know how to turn on a computer, let alone use the internet.

Mets fans tend not only to watch the games, but to use intelligence when thinking about baseball. Phillies fans, as a friend of mine says, “are just too drunk and stupid to realize they’re not watching an Eagles game.”

And Chase Utley is a homo. Maybe you can understand that.

By: Joeadig

Joeadig — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:06:22 +0000

gotta say, Cox, you beat the crap out of John here.

By: Chris Wilcox

Chris Wilcox — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:28:19 +0000

Wrote the whole thing on Sunday – probably about 6 hours or so to gather the information and write everything up, plus time to figure out how to set up tables in WordPress (which, as you can see, I didn’t really get down perfect).

By: tjv101

tjv101 — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:56:39 +0000

Also, how long did it take you to write that?

By: tjv101

tjv101 — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:55:39 +0000

This may be the best piece of American writing I have ever read. You are a gifted writer and scholar. I would give you a standing ovation for your impartial article, but since people might wonder why a man in uniform is giving a computer in front of him a standing ovation with no one else in the room, I shall pass. Anyhow, I thoroughly enjoyed you stomping on Rollins. Forget the first 200-20-20-20-20 crap. No one cares. Thats not even a legit category. 30-30 or 40-40 yes not 200-20-20-20 x 1 million. Also, Wright may not have a big mouth like Rollins but he certainly is a leader of this team. Plain and simple in a few weeks when the baseball writers association casts their ballot for NL MVP, it will be a true injustice that Rollins will win it just because his team slid into a division crown on the last day of the season because another team had a meltdown. If the Phillies finished second to the Mets, we wouldn’t be having this discussion either.

By: Chris Wilcox

Chris Wilcox — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:18:15 +0000

Who’s being close-minded here, me or the person who sticks his fingers in his ears and refuses to acknowledge the facts? I watch plenty of baseball. Please don’t give me the “you never watch the games” crap. I remember at one point in this argument, you told me that I “needed to look at the stats.” You challenged me, I provided. The stats are overwhelmingly for Wright, so now all I’m hearing is “David Wright is not a leader” or whatever other way you’re trying to spin the J-Roll argument. I still haven’t seen a real argument for Rollins as MVP other than “he looks like an MVP.” That’s not an argument for Rollins. That doesn’t mean anything to me. I can easily say “Wright looks like an MVP” and you’ll disagree, and I’ll disagree, and we just wind up yelling back and forth at each other and nothing is decided. I’ve given you plenty of tangible evidence that Wright is the better player. Give me something tangible for Rollins. Stuff like “He looks like an MVP” does not fly here and it should not fly in the MVP voting. Just admit that you have nothing, that there is no real argument for Rollins as MVP, and we can be done here. Thanks.

By: johnadig

johnadig — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:04:40 +0000

next year cox, try WATCHING baseball, not sitting up all night studying stats. someone as closed minded as you deserves to have his blog. ciao.

By: Chris Wilcox

Chris Wilcox — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:07:54 +0000

What does this mean, “play like a leader”? It sounds like it’s a bunch of subjective crap being used to make an MVP case for a player who lacks the on-field qualifications for the award. I have never seen this “scared baby” look that you seem to be imagining as a way to impugn David Wright’s legitimate MVP credentials. “Playing with a certain energy” is not an MVP qualification, or else Darin Erstad would be a multi-time reigning MVP. “He plays like an MVP” just means nothing to me, because he doesn’t hit like an MVP. Wright does.

Seriously, Bonds and Kent are notorious assholes whose clubhouses HATED them both. Barry Bonds doesn’t play like a leader, he plays like the best hitter in baseball, chemically-enhanced or not (and everybody was chemically-enhanced during his days, so I’ve always felt this to be moot). Albert Pujols is a brooding loner. I can go on and on and mention the lousy human beings who don’t play with fire and energy but who won the MVP because they were great hitters. David Wright is not an asshole, but he’s not being considered for the MVP strongly because of other factors.

The problem is, this year the field seems a bit more wide open without a single player with much significantly better stats than the other. David Wright played on the Mets, who carry the stigma of having suffered one of the worst collapses in history. Nobody wants to give it to a Mets player under those circumstances, so the talk goes to the top players from playoff teams. There are no obvious Cubs or Diamondbacks (although Eric Byrnes is starting to get some buzz for some reason). Prince Fielder is out because the Brewers had a mini-collapse of their own. The rest of the NL stunk, and while players like Albert Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, and Hanley Ramirez had great seasons, (well, Cabrera and Ramirez at the plate at least) none had the kind of blowaway years at the plate you would need to consider giving the MVP to a player from a losing team.

This leaves the Phillies and Rockies among playoff teams. The Rockies have Matt Holliday, a legitimate MVP candidate, who is ultimately flawed because MVP voters will always hold a Rockies player’s numbers against him because of Coors Field (and in fairness, he has major home/away splits, even worse than Rollins). That leaves the Phillies. Utley and Howard both missed a chunk of time this year, so they can’t be candidates. That leaves Jimmy Rollins as the MVP front-runner for the following reasons:

1) Because his home/away splits aren’t as drastic as Holliday’s
2) Because the other playoff teams do not have anybody who stood out in particular
3) Because nobody on the non-Mets non-playoff teams had amazing, blowaway seasons to justify giving it to a player from a non-playoff team
4) Because the two best players on his own team missed 20+ games each
And the big one,
5) Because nobody wants to give the MVP to a player who played on a team that suffered an epic collapse down the stretch, even if the collapse was totally not his fault and his numbers were awesome.

That’s the reason Rollins is going to win. If Utley had played a full year, he would probably be the front-runner, and to be honest, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. His numbers were excellent and he would deserve it. You would have seen no argument from me for Utley for MVP. I would probably be writing something else right now, or I would be doing this pile of work I am letting accumulate as I write this.

All this crap of “Rollins plays like an MVP,” beyond being a subjective argument that cannot be proven, is bogus, because that’s not why he’s winning it. It has nothing to do with his energy, his spirit, or any of that crap. Most of the writers in the NL don’t even see that regularly enough to consider that as part of his MVP candidacy. He’s winning it because of process of elimination. If all things were equal, David Wright would be the MVP this season, but they’re not, and he won’t win. I’m not saying Rollins should give the award back, but the numbers just don’t bear it out.

By: johnadig

johnadig — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:48:48 +0000

You may not care what wright looks like when he plays, but it seems that many people do. If we’re only comparing wright and rollins, rollins plays like an mvp, wright is a great player no doubt, but the fact remains he doesn’t play like a leader. like it or not, thats how it is. take all the stats you want that show wright had the better year, but rollins’ stats are pretty damn good. he is the only 200-20-20-20-20 player ever, he started every single game this year, led the league in runs scored (i know that is irrelevant, but humor me), plays the second most demanding position and plays it well, and acts and projects like an mvp should. Now if you watched more than 5 phillies games this year, you would see that he plays the game with an energy that is contagious. I can’t explain it, but any true fan of the game who has seen him play knows what i’m talking about. even if you just saw how he played against your mets, you know what i’m talking about.

I know all about Ty Cobb and have heard that story, and ya know what, i love Ty Cobb! probably because he always reminded me of my grandfather (Art of course, Joe). And I love Jeff Kent too. They were (are) professionals and view the game as a job and liken it to war. Bonds is just a spoiled, ignorant, douch bag.

By: Chris Wilcox

Chris Wilcox — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:57:41 +0000

1 – This has been established as being David Wright beyond any reasonable doubt.

2 – Jimmy Rollins played in two more games than David Wright. Why is this relevent?

3 – This is completely subjective. Jimmy Rollins could have blown off an interview request by a member of the BBWAA and thus he won’t vote for him as a result. David Wright may have taken time to sign a game ball for a reporter and got his. Who cares? Why should this matter more than one’s accomplishments on the field? Well, it really doesn’t – the top qualification is play on the field. I assume that if the stats were close between Wright and Rollins, this might matter. They’re not.

Barry Bonds has won seven MVPs. Jeff Kent has won an MVP. Why? Not because they’re assholes, although they are, but because their play on the field is so great, they have to be acknowledged as such. Also, I still don’t know exactly what Jimmy Rollins does that gives him the edge in this award over Wright. Does he lead any better or worse than Ryan Howard? Chase Utley? Hell, even Greg Dobbs? Was Ryan Howard a real clubhouse leader last year when he won the award, but now takes a back seat to Rollins this year? Make his case, and don’t make his case by saying “Well, Wright looks scared crapless even when he’s hitting the cover off the ball!”

4 and 5 are irrelevant.

I go back to the #1 qualification – who had the greatest impact on the field. That’s David Wright. There’s no question of this. There’s a reason that’s the first qualification you read, because it’s the most important. I assume the #3 qualification was added to keep Ty Cobb-types from winning it when 90% of the league hated him (seriously, check out Ty Cobb’s Wikipedia page sometime. People think Barry Bonds was hated? How many managers have ever conspired to help a player from the OPPOSING TEAM win a batting title on the last day of the season because they hated the front-runner? This happened with Ty Cobb.)