Jimmy Rollins plays a defense premium position and plays it competently.

Howard is also only 7th on the in team in WAR- a cumulative stat- despite leading the team in games played and at-bats; Rollins and Victorino have indeed missed some playing time, yet they still have significantly higher WARs than Howard.



It's simple: Jimmy Rollins plays a premium defensive position- the toughest on the entire field- and he plays it very well. Playing high caliber defense at shortstop is extremely valuable in and of itself, and obviously when you add on Jimmy's well above-average offense for his position, the value goes considerably higher. If Rollins (or any good shortstop for any team) injures himself and misses games, it's much, much more difficult for the Phillies (or whoever) to replace that production at shortstop than it would be to replace Howard's at first base. This is obviously because 1b is the easiest position on the field and consequently the most offense-"minded" position, i.e. big slow guys, old worn out guys, guys who probably couldn't play another position (save corner outfield sometimes) end up at first because their (usually elite) offensive skills demand they be somewhere on the field. Fuck the DH. Basically, Rollins is a more "elite" offensive player at his position than Howard is at his, and with the extreme advantages Rollins has over Howard in base-running and fielding, yeah, it pretty much makes Rollins a much more valuable player. You could also expand the definition of 'value' and weigh production against cost (contract), but considering Howard makes $12 million more than Rollins this year, that really only bolsters Rollins case even more.



edit goddamnit crx I swear I was typing that before you posted and didn't rip you off

Rollins is a great defensive player. I was talking about value in the lineup, though. The Phillies don't have any other big power hitter.



Jimmy is 5th in OPS for SS in the NL; Howard is 6th for 1B in the NL. The truth is both are in decline. It should be easier to replace Howard than Rollins and that might be true in the off season. But the Phillies don't have another 1B who can hit homeruns. At least Wilson Valdez plays really good defense and runs the bases well. His OB% is terrible, but the Phillies bat him 8th instead of 1st. Shane Victorino is a better leadoff hitter than Rollins right now, so Rollins's role is easier to replace.

Anyway, both are important. I just think you're underrating the value of Howard in the context of the Phillies lineup.




I'll agree with you as soon as Charlie Manuel starts playing him every day.

fWAR has Mayberry at 1.9, Howard at 1.7. bWAR has Howard at 2.7 (gives him more credit for defense), Mayberry at the same 1.9. Those are aggregate values, which don't take Mayberry's PA deficit into account. Mayberry is better now and he's almost certainly better going forward.

Going by OPS+ Victorino and Pence have both been substantially better hitters than Howard this year, and Mayberry has been exactly as good.

FYI Wilson Valdez's WAR is -0.4 (in both figures). Ibanez's bWAR is -0.6; fWAR is -1.5. Only Adam Dunn (-2.6) and Felix Pie (-2.1) have lower fWAR this year.

And to bring this back to my team for a bit: of the fifteen hitters with at least -1.0 fWAR, the Giants have had three, the most of any team: Aubrey Huff, Orlando Cabrera and Bill Hall (although Hall racked up most of his negative value with Houston, and is now unemployed).

I absolutely agree Victorino and Pence are better hitters than Howard and more important to the offense (although, Howard's HRs aren't replaced by either). I would also agree with you on Mayberry, but he's not playing every day. At first, they sat him against all righties. Now, it's against hard-throwing righties. As long as Mayberry is in a platoon, I can't elevate him.



Valdez is a lousy hitter. But I don't expect offense from him. However, I'm really excited about the moment when Rollins comes back. I think Victorino is a better #1 hitter, but I have seen the argument that your #2 hitter is more important than #1.

Btw, the last time the lineup was completely was Aug. 6th. Rollins led off, Victorino batted 2nd and Polanco was 7th (Mayberry didn't start). I don't think the Phillies have ever started Rollins, Victorino, Utley, Howard, Pence, Mayberry, Polanco and Ruiz.

stop talking about the Phillies, nobody cares about how crappy Wilson Valdez and Raul Ibanez are. Instead lets talk about how awesome Justin Verlander is. Verlander is on pace for 25 wins and 260+ strikeouts (again), this would be the most wins by a starter since Randy Johnson won 24 games in 2002. Verlander's WAR of 7.7 is 1.5 points higher than the next leader Roy Halladay. Verlander has a very strong case for both AL cy young and MVP, the last pitcher to win both the cy young and mvp award in the same year was Dennis Eckersley in 1992. Roger Clemens was the last starting pitcher to win the award when he won it in 1986 after winning 24 games. In 1986 Tigers pitcher Willie Hernandez won the award, the same year the Tigers won the world series.

Verlander probably won't win because of how much better Pedro's 1999 season was than his and people inevitably comparing it based on the fact that he didn't win.

Also because Jose Bautista is still hitting like Barry Bonds. If anything Halladay has a better chance since the NL's best position players (Kemp, Votto, Braun) aren't as dominant. But yeah it'll be tough for any pitcher to win the MVP again.

How is Kemp not as dominant? He's hitting like Barry Bonds also, and not the roided up Barry Bonds either. He's leading the league in WAR and is one pace for a 40/40 season while hitting well above .300, that hasn't been done since 1998. In my opinion Kemp is the only candidate even though Braun and Fielder should both get consideration (i'm a Brewers fan). And also forget about Jose Bautista, I hate this mentality that the homerun leader should instantly be entitled to the MVP award. MVP should be given to the player who is most valuable to his team, and there is no player in baseball who has been more valuable to his team than Verlander (Bautista's team won't even make the playoffs). We all know Bautista will most likely win AL MVP, (and if not him it will be Granderson, Cabrera or Ellsbury) but Verlander SHOULD be considered heavily.

He doesn't just hit home runs, though he does do that fairly well; he gets on base...a ton.

Batista might be hitting like Barry Bonds of the early 90s (still amazing, btw) he's nowhere near the level Bonds reached in the 2000s.

I wonder why...

you don't inject flaxseed oil

Bautista is far from just "the homerun leader." The dude was flirting with one of the 20 best adjusted offensive seasons of all time (the list of people who made it on the list consists of Ruth 8 times, Bonds 4, Williams 2, Hornsby 2, Gehrig 1, Foxx 1, Brett 1 and Bautista. I don't think he is there still but that's ridiculous company.