Comments on: 2007 Awards

By: JC

JC — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:56:24 +0000

Numbers do make me feel, so no there is no qualitative reason.

Rollins was neither the best at his position nor the best player on his team. I would not have voted for Rollins. That is all I meant.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:40:17 +0000

Since you used “feel” in your response, there must be some qualitative reason, outside of what the data indicates, as to why Rollins was the wrong selection. Please elaborate.

By: JC

JC — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:24:36 +0000

Utley (8) and Howard (10, and just barely) ranked higher than Rollins (11). They were all close, but I do feel that Rollins was a bad choice.

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:50:46 +0000

Wow, so the Braves scored the third most runs in the NL AND had two of the top five most valuable starting pitchers and still failed to make the playoffs. I guess that show just how bad the back of the rotation truly was last year.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:06:58 +0000

And now that I take another second to look at the list, the NL MVP race also has the smallest variation between spots 1 and 5 on your list and was also the closest vote for the actual awards too. Hum.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:04:14 +0000

Curious that only in the NL MVP race did the top two vote-getters not appear at all in your list.

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:55:29 +0000

Conspicuous in their absence from this list are Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard and Cole Hamels. I am not afraid to admit that I funnel the Phillies Kool-Aid but am curious to see as how close they were too the top five in each of their respective categories. By the way, I see these numbers support your man-crush on Aaron Harang. I still haven’t figured that one out.

Happy Thanksgiving,
Ed

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:09:27 +0000

First off, I’m new to your site, enjoy it a lot, and my knowledge of economics is limited.

That said, Joe Blanton’s name is a surprising one on this list. Is the MRP a function, therefore, of cheap labor as it relates to output/performance? If so, it seems that some expensive players still perform well enough to overcome that cost, while inexpensive players offer more revenue without the cost(?).