This first table is simply adding Dewan's numbers and each player's VORP. Dewan's numbers are in plays; each play is worth about 0.8 runs, thus the second column.
(I just used these six guys; the three who I think had the best years, and the three other leading candidates.)
Now, using adjusted WPA rather than VORP:
Either way, we get pretty similar results, although Wright and Utley switch places in the second table (I'm pretty sure this is because of Wright's 98 additional PAs; VORP is measured against replacement players, WPA vs. average players, so the month Utley missed hurts him more in terms of VORP).The award (which will be announced next Tuesday) is going to go to someone in the bottom half of these rankings, most likely Rollins. I understand the arguments against the guys who were actually more valuable; Pujols' team didn't make the playoffs, Wright's collapsed down the stretch, and Rollins played 30 more games than Utley.
Having said that, when it comes down to it, the NL MVP isn't going to be one of the three most valuable players in the league, and that's pretty ridiculous.
2 comments:
I've been saying for awhile that Utley was more deserving of the MVP than Rollins. Even taking into account his missing so much time Utley still managed 176 hits, 104 Runs, 48 doubles and 103 RBI all while hitting .332 with a .410 OBP and a .566 SLG.
Those are MVP-worthy numbers whether he played 132 games or 162.
Truth be told, in my opinion the only three truly deserving of any 1st place votes are Utley, Wright and Holliday.
Utley and Chipper Jones should be third and fourth. Then *maybe* Holliday slides in. It's a while until you hit Rollins, and a while longer until you hit Fielder.
Post a Comment