Most valuable losers

When Chase Utley hit his second home run in Game 5 of the World Series, giving him five against the Yankees, the discussion began about who had been named Series MVP from the losing team. Since the award was first given (in 1955 to Johnny Podres), only one player had ever earned the honor but not a championship ring: the Yankees' Bobby Richardson in the 1960 Fall Classic.

Of course, that's the year that Bill Mazeroski ended the Series at Forbes Field with the only Game 7 walk-off homer in history. Mazeroski's numbers in the seven games were decent: .320 batting average, two homers, five RBIs, two doubles, four runs. But Richardson's topped that: .367, one homer, 12 RBIs, two doubles, two triples, eight runs. In fact, Maz's somewhat pedestrian numbers were the best across the board on a Pittsburgh team that lost the Series in pretty much every category other than games won.

The Bombers outhit the Bucs, .338 to .256; outscored them 55-27; outhomered them 10-4; outslugged them 27 extra-base hits to 15; outpitched them 3.54-7.11 in ERA; and outWHIPped them 1.18 to 1.76. The Pirates won their four games by scores of 6-4 (Game 1), 3-2 (Game 4), 5-2 (Game 5), and 10-9 (Game 7). The Yankees' winning scores were 16-3 (Game 2), 10-0 (Game 3) and 12-0 (Game 6).

Mazeroski's five RBIs led the Pirates alongside Bill Virdon, but his five came with just a .241 average on seven hits. For New York, Richardson wasn't a one-man show, and if anyone in the press box kept track of the voting that year, I'd have to think that Mickey Mantle lost by one vote. Mantle hit .400 with three homers, 11 RBIs, a double, eight runs and eight walks. One way or another, the MVP of the 1960 World Series was going to a Yankee.

The Pirates' best candidate for MVP would have to be right-hander Vern Law, who started and won Games 1 and 4 and allowed one run in five innings after starting Game 7. In 18 1/3 innings, he allowed seven earned runs for a 3.44 ERA. The only other mark below 4.00 for Pittsburgh was Harvey Haddix's 2.45 (two earned runs in 7 1/3) that he accumulated by starting and winning Game 5 (6 1/3 innings, both runs) and pitching the ninth to win Game 7. (He came in with runners on first and second and no outs, gave up a single to Mantle that allowed Richardson to score and move Dale Long to third, then blew the save and allowed Long to score the tying run on a groundout to first by Yogi Berra.)

The most dominant pitcher in the Series was Whitey Ford, who won Games 3 and 6 by pitching 18 scoreless innings, allowing just 11 hits and two walks and striking out eight -- certainly MVP-worthy numbers. It makes you wonder why Casey Stengel, whose Yankees won the AL by eight games over the Orioles, pitched Ford for two innings in relief in the season finale on Oct. 2 and didn't use Ford until Game 3 on Oct. 8. Ford's last start had been on Sept. 28, five days before Game 1 of the Series on Oct. 3. For the season, Ford was 12-9 with a 3.08 ERA and an 85-65 K:BB ratio in 192 2/3 innings. Stengel's Game 1 and 2 starters were Art Ditmar (15-9, 3.06, 65-56 in 200 IP) and Bob Turley (9-3, 3.27, 87-87 in 173 1/3 IP). Had Ford started Games 1 and 4 and been available had it gone to seven, it may have been a different story.

In this year's Series, I think any chance Utley had of winning the award hinged on the Phillies forcing Game 7 -- especially if Utley played into a Game 6 victory in even the smallest sense. I think even to consider a player from the losing team, the Series has to go seven games. The most common simple way to evaluate whether a player is the valuable to his team may be to consider the team's fortunes were that player removed from the lineup. Take away Utley's solo homers in the third and sixth innings of Game 1, and it's scoreless into the eighth -- maybe Cliff Lee changes his approach in some situations in a scoreless game as opposed to having a 1-0 and 2-0 lead. And in Game 5, Utley's three-run shot in the first inning kept the crowd at its fever pitch from the start and pretty much gave Lee the freedom to pitch his game. (And, of course, Lee's performance in the Series would've earned him consideration for MVP as well, especially since he almost certainly would've had some role in a Game 7.)

So Utley fits the definition of a player most valuable to his team, but with just a six-game Series, it's hard to seriously consider someone from the losing side. For one thing, the Phillies never found themselves one win away from the title. And though they won Game 1 on the road, once the Yankees took Game 2, it was clear the momentum had shifted and remained on the Yankees' side through Game 4 and their 3-1 Series lead. The Phillies got it back to an extent in Game 5, but only for the first seven innings. After Utley's second home run of the game to lead off that inning and Raul Ibanez's shot three batters later, the Yankees fought back with three runs in the eighth and another in the ninth and had the tying run at the plate in the form of Mark Teixeira before falling, 8-6. In my mind, any shot the Phillies had of forcing Game 7 hinged on their jumping out to a moderately comfortable lead (in Yankee Stadium against these Bombers, that would have to be at least three runs) with Pedro Martinez starting Game 6 for them. It didn't happen -- Hideki Matsui's two-run homer in the second put the Yankees ahead for good, and though the Phillies got one back in the third, Matsui essentially put the game away (and earned his MVP) in the bottom of the third with a two-run single.

Since the MVP was introduced in 1955, a total of 59 players have won the award in the 55 Series that have been played. Those numbers account for three Dodgers -- Ron Cey, Pedro Guerrero and Steve Yeager -- and two Diamondbacks -- Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson -- sharing the award in 1981 and 2001, respectively; they also account for the absence of a Fall Classic in 1994. Out of those 59 players, 23 have been starting pitchers, or 40 percent. Of those 55 Series, 23 have gone seven games, and in seven-game Series, the MVP has been a starting pitcher 14 times, or 58 percent. (Three relief pitchers have won -- Rollie Fingers in 1974, John Wetteland in 1996 and Mariano Rivera in 1999 -- but none of those Series went seven games.) So when the Series goes the distance, giving starting pitchers a chance to have an effect on three games instead of just two, they seem to have a greater chance of winning the MVP award.

Here's the list MVPs from World Series that went seven games:

Year	Player	Pos	Team
1955	Johnny Podres	SP	BRK
1956	Don Larsen	SP	NYY
1957	Lew Burdette	SP	MIL
1958	Bob Turley	SP	NYY
1960	Richardson	2B	NYY
1962	Ralph Terry	SP	NYY
1964	Bob Gibson	SP	STL
1965	Sandy Koufax	SP	LAD
1967	Bob Gibson	SP	STL
1968	Mickey Lolich	SP	DET
1971	Roberto Clemente	OF	PIT
1972	Gene Tenace	C	OAK
1973	Reggie Jackson	OF	OAK
1975	Pete Rose	3B	CIN
1979	Willie Stargell	1B	PIT
1982	Darrell Porter	C	STL
1985	Bret Saberhagen	SP	KC
1986	Ray Knight	3B	NYM
1987	Frank Viola	SP	MIN
1991	Jack Morris	SP	MIN
1997	Livan Hernandez	SP	FLA
2001	Randy Johnson & Curt Schilling	SP	ARI
2002	Troy Glaus	3B	ANA

But I think the other obvious choice for an MVP on a losing team was another slugger, and one who played in the last seven-game Series, in 2002. Glaus won the award for hitting .385 (I'm using batting average because it's likely that most -- if not all -- of the voters in the press looked at that instead of OPS) with three home runs, eight RBIs, three doubles and six runs scored. He doubled in the tying and go-ahead runs in the bottom of the eighth of Game 6, when the Angels were down to their final six outs of the season. He then went 0-for-2 with two walks and two strikeouts in Game 7.

Yet the most valuable player of that Series had to have been Barry Bonds. He hit .471 with four homers, six RBIs, eight runs and two doubles. Six of his eight hits were for extra bases (1.294 slugging percentage) and he was walked 13 times (vs. three strikeouts) for a .700 on-base percentage and a 1.994 OPS. He reached base via hit or walk in every game, and Game 4 was the only one in which he did not get a base hit. He went 0-for-1 with three walks, all intentional, and did not score in the game. The first two free passes worked; the Giants were held scoreless in those innings. But in the fifth, with the Angels leading 3-2 after two runs had scored in the frame, Mike Scioscia ordered John Lackey to walk Bonds with one out and Rich Aurilia on second. Benito Santiago then singled in Aurilia to tie the game. Anaheim got out of the inning, but San Francisco won, 4-3, with an unearned run in the eighth, an inning in which Bonds did not come to bat. (Bonds had batted in the seventh against Francisco Rodriguez and grounded out to first on a 2-2 count.)

That Series was at the height of Bonds' influence on how the game was played, evidenced by all of those walks -- he had an impact simply by forcing the opposing manager to take the bat out of his hands. Clearly, no one was more valuable. Had the Series ended in six games, he would've won the MVP (he went 1-for-3 with a walk, no runs or RBIs, in Game 7), and he probably should have anyway. No pitcher on either team was worthy.

We're overdue for a seven-game Series. There have been seven played since the last one went the distance, easily the longest drought in history. Compare that to 1955-1965, when eight of 11 Fall Classics went the distance. And maybe our next seven-game season finale will come with another MVP debate. Imagine the postgame trophy presentation on Fox if the winner played for the losing side.

Shea Goodbye: 78 to go

Couldn't watch this one because I was at my friend Dave's wedding rehearsal dinner -- this, the guy who planned his wedding for the same week as the Mets' home opener and thus couldn't go on Tuesday, snapping his streak at nine -- but we high-fived when I got the final score text message. Watching Baseball Tonight now, and though Aaron Heilman continued to struggle, it was nice to see the rest of the bullpen come through, especially Scott Schoeneweis against Chase Utley. That was a big out right there, and if we can trust him in key situations, that's a bonus.

Jose Reyes was the key, not just because he doubled with two outs in the 12th and made a deft slide to score the winning run on Angel Pagan's single that followed. (No, I don't know if he actually touched the plate, but I don't know that he didn't, either. And I don't know that he was tagged, so I can't say that the umpire had the call wrong.) But Reyes also stole his first base in 23 games, according to ESPN, and that's what the Mets need from him -- getting on base, creating runs, and stealing bags. As they say about power hitters when they step to the plate, that they're already in scoring position, so it goes with Reyes once he reaches: he's in scoring position. If he's on first base, he can score on a double. Or he can steal second to put himself in scoring position. His success is key to the Mets', so it's glad to see him coming around.

But what's with Steve Berthume on Baseball Tonight? During every highlight, he's mentioning any player who once donned a Mets uniform by prefacing his name with "former Mets great," no matter who the player is -- including Xavier Nady (less than a year in Queens) and Chad Bradford (a decent but nothing-special middle reliever). Was his year at SNY unpleasant?

Was Rollins even the Phillies' MVP?

This isn't me. I'm not whining here or spitting out sour grapes (or whatever that lame phrase is). Yeah, I thought Jimmy Rollins had an amazing year and seemed to be there in so many clutch situations for the Phillies down the stretch, but he's not even the MVP of the Phillies. That would be Chase Utley, in my mind. But Utley was overlooked because he didn't have the numbers, because he missed a month.

But for those of you into WARP and VORP, this might be interesting.

Personally, I think Rollins won because:

1.) He has a big mouth. He said in January the Phillies were the team to beat, and despite one of the NL's worst pitching staffs, they were.

2.) He plays shortstop.

3.) Voters might have filed their ballots before the final day of the season, and therefore missed Matt Holliday's central role in the Rockies' surge. True, they would've also missed the Mets' collapse, but I don't think Rollins' case was built around that as much. Ryan Howard won last year without the Phillies' reaching the postseason.

What the article also illuminates is the changing definition of "valuable," led by the new and innovative ways of looking at performance and statistics. Batting average and home runs (and wins and ERA) don't tell the whole story anymore, but so long as the voters are two sportswriters in each league city who have been on the baseball beat for two decades, those statistics are going to be the ones that carry the weight. They aren't going to look at VORP or WARP or ballpark factors (and I checked -- Holliday's and Rollins' numbers on the road were pretty similar; both were helped a bit by their home parks but also held up well in the gray unis).

At least with the MVP, "valuable" is part of the definition. The Cy Young Award carries no such caveat, so in some years, the wrong guy wins just because his team reached the postseason or his offense produced a lot of wins. And don't get me started on the Heisman, which has completely lost its luster and meaning and probably hasn't been the same award since they moved the ceremony from the Downtown Athletic Club to Midtown. The Heisman, by definition but not in name, is for the "most outstanding college football player." Not "the most outstanding or valuable player[you could even insert quarterback/running back here] on the best team." Troy Smith wasn't the most outstanding player last year; Darren McFadden was. The most outstanding player this year isn't necessarily a quarterback who throws for 3,000 yards and 30 TDs and leads his team to a BCS game; it's Tim Tebow, the first player IN HISTORY to score 20 TDs each passing and rushing. Or, as ESPN Magazine argued, it's perhaps LSU DT Glenn Dorsey. Sure, Tebow may be a product of Urban Meyer's system, but he still executes against some tough competition -- particularly some fast defenses. I wouldn't knock Colt Brennan (last year) for throwing 58 TDs because of the system (though I would question the competition).

Anyway, enough with the football. I got carried away there. It'll be interesting to see over the years if the baseball awards continue to be based on home runs and wins (Troy Tulowitzki was the most impressive NL rookie in 2007, because he played the field so much -- significantly so -- better than Ryan Braun, who had the worst fielding season for a third baseman in something like 80 years). Or will the new stats -- kind of like the "new math," whatever that was -- take hold and change the way we look at players. When you look at Rollins' OPS -- which seems to be the new stat most accepted into the mainstream -- he was way down at No. 22 in the NL. The top nine were legitimate MVP contenders: Chipper Jones, Prince Fielder, Holliday, Albert Pujols, Howard, Utley, Miguel Cabrera, David Wright and Hanley Ramirez. Ahead of Rollins were guys like Pat Burrell, Corey Hart and, even with him, Jeff Kent.

To end this on a more even note, when you use the question, "Where would [the team] have been without [the player]?" Rollins and Holliday come out pretty closely. Rollins started all 162 games and set a Major League record for plate appearances because the Phillies had no other shortstop. In a pinch, Abraham Nunez would've played there, but he's not much of a shortstop anymore. Rollins also set a Major League record for at-bats in a season because he doesn't walk enough and makes a lot of outs. So if you took him away from the Phillies, they had no shortstop, but you also only took away an .875 OPS.

But if you took Holliday away from the Rockies, you're taking away a 1.012 OPS, not to mention an NL-best 142.2 runs created (Rollins had 133.4, fifth in the league).

Still close, but Holliday seemed more valuable to me.

Tying them up in Philly

First Chase Utley and now Brett Myers. The Phillies are tying up their young stars with multi-year contracts and buying them out of their arbitration years. It's definitely a good move (when not applied to Pat Burrell, at least not with a no-trade clause), but it only makes you wonder ...

If Utley can get $85 million for seven years and Myers nets almost $26 million for three, what is Ryan Howard going to get? The slugging first baseman has played roughly 1 3/4 seasons and won the National League Rookie of the Year and MVP after them. Howard, who still has a couple of years before he's eligible for arbitration, let alone free agency, is at least worth $100 million over seven years, and how he performs this season and next -- depending on when he gets a deal -- will determine whether he loses or adds years and/or money.

The Phillies are doing what the Indians have been known to do over the years: Locking up their young stars early, before they come close to sniffing their value on the open market. It's a good move for both team and players. The team gets them without having to get into any bidding wars, and the players get their money guaranteed while they're at the height of their youth and energy. Sure, they may be leaving some dollars on the table in the event they surpass what they've done to this point, but that's what the incentive clauses are for -- All-Star appearances and postseason awards often bring in bonus money, with additional bonuses for multiple honors, such as what Barry Zito got should he win -- try to contain your laughter -- several Cy Young Awards for the Giants. (He'll get $500,000 for the first, $750,000 for the second and $1 million for a third. He even gets solid bonuses for finshing anywhere in the top five.)

As the Phillies stand now, three-fourths of their infield and two-thirds of their outfield are homegrown. With Chris Roberson and Michael Bourn on the way up, should Aaron Rowand get traded, the entire outfield could be covered by players who passed through Reading and Scranton on their way to Philadelphia. The infield has only third baseman Wes Helms as the hired "gun," while catcher could be manned by the developed Carlos Ruiz or the free-agent signee Rod Barajas.

On the mound, only two of the six starters came up through the system, though Adam Eaton was initially drafted by the Phillies before being dealt away. The bullpen includes a balance of farmhands -- Ryan Madson, Geoff Geary, Eude Brito -- and others brought in via free agency. As of this writing, the 40-man roster contains at least 21 homegrown players (based on a quick count, without much in-depth fact-checking), though at least 11-13 of the 25-man roster should be players the Phillies developed themselves (with five or six of eight position players among those).

That's some good drafting, international scouting and player development.

Best infield in the National League?

So here's a question:

Can an infield that includes Wes Helms be considered the best in the National League?

That's the claim made by Jimmy Rollins (either on his own or through prompting by a reporter) on Tuesday.

Look, I won't deny the talents of Ryan Howard and Chase Utley, who clearly make up the best right side of any infield in baseball. But Wes Helms? I'll reserve judgment on this claim until the season's been played -- and Helms has been a full-time starter in a pennant race -- and follow Rollins' logic on his more reasonable claim that the Phillies are the team to beat in the NL East in 2007: "But that's all on paper. You have to go out and do it on the field."

Let's see Helms do it on the field.

However, I guess only the Dodgers and Mets can challenge the Phils for best NL infield, and they've got weaknesses. Los Angeles has Wilson Betemit at third base and the Mets have Jose Valentin at second -- and neither of them was a regular starter in '06, either. If these teams are the top three around the horn in the NL, the Dodgers are clearly third because of the years Nomar Garciaparra and Jeff Kent have on them, while the Phillies' senior infielder is Rollins, who is 28, and the Mets' older players -- Valentin and Carlos Delgado -- don't have the injury issues or the apparent decline (yet) that Kent and Nomar have shown.

As for the Mets and Phillies, New York clearly gets the advantage on the left side of the infield with David Wright and Jose Reyes, who is a better leadoff hitter -- and probably a better hitter, not to mention five years younger -- than Rollins. So the question of who has the best infield in the league comes down to which player is better: Wes Helms or Jose Valentin?

It's a question that will have to be answered in 2007, but for now, on paper, perhaps we'll give Philly a slight edge. Below is a comparison of Valentin's and Helms' 2006 stats (in black). Valentin had 384 at-bats, while Helms compiled 240. The shaded numbers are what each player, at the same rate of production, would have put up with 600 at-bats last season. Valentin hit .271/.330/.490; Helms .329/.390/.575.

	Hits		Runs		2B		HR		RBI		BB		SO
Valentin	104	162	56	87	24	37	18	28	62	96	37	58	71	111
Helms	79	197	30	75	19	47	10	25	47	117	21	52	55	137

Helms' numbers are skewed, though, because he's on a new team with a different lineup and vastly different ballpark. Chances are, he'll hit fewer doubles and more home runs with Citizens Bank Park as his home field rather than Dolphin Stadium. His runs probably won't go up too much, because he'll be hitting low in the Phillies' order and won't necessarily have the studs coming up while he's on base. In any case, the expectation would seem to favor Helms, who is also seven years younger.

However, not only did Valentin put up his numbers over a longer period of time -- meaning he was (and is, on account of a longer career) more accustomed to performing with a regular starting gig. The big question for Helms will be whether he can maintain his pace in August when he's already started 100 games.

It will be interesting to see this NL East race play out. In 2006, the Mets had the division wrapped up in June. The only thing that should be decided this June is that the Nationals will bring up the rear.

Everything else should be determined in September.