As I just said, though, I don't always agree with him, and this is one of those times. From a recent column of his, he asked David Wright directly about the MVP:
Told that some of the stat folks favored him, Wright responded, "It's flattering people think that way. But it's tough to name an MVP from the team that had the type of collapse we had, and from a team that played as poorly as we played down the stretch.So is David Wright saying that it's his fault that the Mets collapsed and failed to win their division?
"Jimmy's team won the National League East, and he led his team. I think he deserves it. I agree 100 percent that the MVP shouldn't come from a team that doesn't win its division or make the playoffs. I've said all along that it should go to a guy who helps his team get to the playoffs. Jimmy led his team into the playoffs. And we failed miserably.
Hypothetically speaking (obviously), what if someone hit .350 with 99 home runs and 200 RBI but played for a last place team, would they not be the MVP? Of life? To me, the player that is most valuable to their team should be MVP, no matter where the team finishes. Apparently, David Wright was worth more to the Mets than Jimmy Rollins was to the Phillies (looking at everything from win shares to VORP to EqA to simple OPS+), even though the Phillies finished ahead of the Mets. Ergo, Wright was the "Wright-ful" MVP. HAHAHA but seriously he probably should have been the MVP.
If you want to argue that Rollins was more helpful to his team down the stretch, then I can kind of buy that argument, although all games count equally, so you expect production all year. The #1 thing you should not do, besides go to 2Girls1Cup.com, is ask an athlete what they think, even one as seemingly put together as Wright. These are guys who make $12 million a year and wind up bankrupt. They're not exactly intelligent. In fact, one may go as far as to call these jocks...dumb.