just for you from Bernies column this week:
Every time Matt Holliday has an 0-for game, a mini-slump or doesn't get a hit with runners in scoring position, the dip invariably invokes a noisy response from
the fan base. I've never understood the overreaction to Holliday. Well, maybe I do. I've said it before, so I'll repeat it: for some reason, at least a percentage of the fan base can't get past the psychological obstacle of Holliday's contract.
Because he signed a deal that averages $17 million a year, these folks inexplicably expected Holliday's performance to improve. It doesn't work like that. An increase in paycheck doesn't translate into an increase in power. Holliday is doing exactly what the Cardinals thought he would do when they signed him to the 7-year, $120 million deal.
Since signing the contract, this is where Holliday ranks among major-league left fielders: 2nd in homers, second in RBIs, 2nd in onbase percentage, 4th in slugging percentage, 2nd in extra-base hits, 4th in batting average, 2nd in runs created. Only one LF in the game has produced more than Holliday since the start of the 2010 season -- Milwaukee's Ryan Braun.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem here. Despite a high line-drive rate, Holliday started slowly in April. But in his last 96 plate appearances, he's batting .305 with a .406 OBP and a .524 SLG, and 4 homers and 19 RBIs. He's 9 for 29 with runners in scoring position, a .310 average.
If there's something wrong with that, I'd like you to explain what it is. But honestly, the problem isn't with Holliday. It's with the good folks that can't get past his contract, because they expected him to become a better player just because he signed a larger contract. It's just silly. I'm wondering what the reaction would be locally if the Cardinals were paying this kind of money to have Jayson Werth or Carl Crawford playing LF (or
not playing) instead of Holliday.
Holliday's production in 2010 and 2011 actually exceeded the value of his salary, based on the metric formula used by
FanGraphs.com You can chuckle at this if you'd like but baseball GMs and front offices look at these value ratings to evaluate the quality of an investment.
In 2010, Holliday's production and overall play was valued at $26.7 million. In 2011, Holliday's value was assessed at $22.7 million. The Cardinals paid Holliday $17 million in each of those seasons.
Holliday value of 6.7 wins above replacement level (WAR) in 2010 was the 10th best WAR in MLB. Last year, some injuries limited Holliday's ABs, but his WAR of 5.0 put him right there with Albert Pujols and Lance Berkman.
Critics carp about Holliday's low batting average (.158) in the 2011 World Series but leave out his walks, .385 onbase percentage and five runs scored. They'll leave out the the important play he made in Game 3 to throw Mike Napoli at the plate to snuff a Rangers' rally. (Napoli tried to tag up from third on a fly to LF.) And if you're going to rip Holliday's World Series, it might be fair to mention that he played a major role in getting the Cardinals to the World Series by batting .435 with a 1.152 OPS in the NLCS against Milwaukee.
Some fans, however, will never quite forgive Holliday for the dropped line drive in Game 2 against the Dodgers in the 2009 NLDS. And the perception persists that Holliday isn't a "clutch" player -- whatever that means. The numbers don't support that opinion; Holliday's numbers with RISP over the last 2+ years are .281 BA, .373 OBP, and .467 SLG. In Close & Late situations, Holliday since 2010 is batting .313 / .404 / .520.
I realize we'll continue to go around in circles on this; the people who think Holliday is overrated or overpaid aren't going to come off their position, evidence and facts be damned. And that's OK. But I'll do my best to explore these things, especially if I think a player is getting a bit of an unfair rap. Thanks.
Read more:
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colum...#ixzz1v50824wz