D-Lee MVP Odds

DivineBovine · September 1, 2005

Statistically he should, but I think the Cubs sucky performance will do him in.

I think Pujols gets it in the end.

vaball · September 1, 2005

I'm not sure who gets the MVP, but it should be either Pujols or Lee. I don't think that the voters who select Pujols can fairly be called idiots though. Lee and Pujols' stats are very close, especially in the triple crown categories. Lee leads Pujols in BA by ten points and SLG by sixty points. Pujols leads Lee in runs scored and RBI. Lee has one more win share than Pujols. Statiscally I don't think either one is especially more deserving than the other. You can't penalize Pujols because he hits in a better lineup or because he plays for a competant manager.

I don't think it's at all clear that the Cardinals would be in the playoffs without Pujols. This isn't like last season when Edmonds and Rolen were each having MVP caliber seasons. For most of this season Pujols' supporting cast has been the likes of Nunez and Taguchi who, while having great seasons for bench guys, hardly constitute a murderers row.

You can't blame voters for being influenced by a team's overall success, either, or for feeling that Pujols has been denied an MVP so far only because of Barroid. It sounds like some hear would like the decision to be made by a computer.

Derwood · September 1, 2005

Do any of you guys think that the people voting on the MVP have a clue what a winshare or RC is? They probably don't know how to calculate OPS or what WHIP stands for :cry:

ConstableRabbit · September 1, 2005

I'm not sure who gets the MVP, but it should be either Pujols or Lee. I don't think that the voters who select Pujols can fairly be called idiots though. Lee and Pujols' stats are very close, especially in the triple crown categories. Lee leads Pujols in BA by ten points and SLG by sixty points. Pujols leads Lee in runs scored and RBI. Lee has one more win share than Pujols. Statiscally I don't think either one is especially more deserving than the other. You can't penalize Pujols because he hits in a better lineup or because he plays for a competant manager.

I don't think it's at all clear that the Cardinals would be in the playoffs without Pujols. This isn't like last season when Edmonds and Rolen were each having MVP caliber seasons. For most of this season Pujols' supporting cast has been the likes of Nunez and Taguchi who, while having great seasons for bench guys, hardly constitute a murderers row.

You can't blame voters for being influenced by a team's overall success, either, or for feeling that Pujols has been denied an MVP so far only because of Barroid. It sounds like some hear would like the decision to be made by a computer.

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

vaball · September 1, 2005

I'm not sure who gets the MVP, but it should be either Pujols or Lee. I don't think that the voters who select Pujols can fairly be called idiots though. Lee and Pujols' stats are very close, especially in the triple crown categories. Lee leads Pujols in BA by ten points and SLG by sixty points. Pujols leads Lee in runs scored and RBI. Lee has one more win share than Pujols. Statiscally I don't think either one is especially more deserving than the other. You can't penalize Pujols because he hits in a better lineup or because he plays for a competant manager.

I don't think it's at all clear that the Cardinals would be in the playoffs without Pujols. This isn't like last season when Edmonds and Rolen were each having MVP caliber seasons. For most of this season Pujols' supporting cast has been the likes of Nunez and Taguchi who, while having great seasons for bench guys, hardly constitute a murderers row.

You can't blame voters for being influenced by a team's overall success, either, or for feeling that Pujols has been denied an MVP so far only because of Barroid. It sounds like some hear would like the decision to be made by a computer.

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

I don't dispute that for most of the season Lee has had fewer RBI opportunities than Pujols, but so what? When Lee was blowing Pujols away in every offensive category earlier in the season the MVP decision didn't seem like a tough one, but now their stats are close enough, Lee ahead in some, Pujols in others, that each has an equally compelling statistical case in my opinion.

When two players are close statistically I think the postseason fate of their teams can be taken into consideration. Without Lee the Cubs might have finished last, with him they'll finish fourth. How valuable does that make his contribution then? On the other hand, with Pujols the Cards will make the postseason with the best record in baseball, without him, well, who knows.

Tito Landrum · September 1, 2005

I'm not sure who gets the MVP, but it should be either Pujols or Lee. I don't think that the voters who select Pujols can fairly be called idiots though. Lee and Pujols' stats are very close, especially in the triple crown categories. Lee leads Pujols in BA by ten points and SLG by sixty points. Pujols leads Lee in runs scored and RBI. Lee has one more win share than Pujols. Statiscally I don't think either one is especially more deserving than the other. You can't penalize Pujols because he hits in a better lineup or because he plays for a competant manager.

I don't think it's at all clear that the Cardinals would be in the playoffs without Pujols. This isn't like last season when Edmonds and Rolen were each having MVP caliber seasons. For most of this season Pujols' supporting cast has been the likes of Nunez and Taguchi who, while having great seasons for bench guys, hardly constitute a murderers row.

You can't blame voters for being influenced by a team's overall success, either, or for feeling that Pujols has been denied an MVP so far only because of Barroid. It sounds like some hear would like the decision to be made by a computer.

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

I don't dispute that for most of the season Lee has had fewer RBI opportunities than Pujols, but so what? When Lee was blowing Pujols away in every offensive category earlier in the season the MVP decision didn't seem like a tough one, but now their stats are close enough, Lee ahead in some, Pujols in others, that each has an equally compelling statistical case in my opinion.

When two players are close statistically I think the postseason fate of their teams can be taken into consideration. Without Lee the Cubs might have finished last, with him they'll finish fourth. How valuable does that make his contribution then? On the other hand, with Pujols the Cards will make the postseason with the best record in baseball, without him, well, who knows.

++

well stated

ConstableRabbit · September 1, 2005

I'm not sure who gets the MVP, but it should be either Pujols or Lee. I don't think that the voters who select Pujols can fairly be called idiots though. Lee and Pujols' stats are very close, especially in the triple crown categories. Lee leads Pujols in BA by ten points and SLG by sixty points. Pujols leads Lee in runs scored and RBI. Lee has one more win share than Pujols. Statiscally I don't think either one is especially more deserving than the other. You can't penalize Pujols because he hits in a better lineup or because he plays for a competant manager.

I don't think it's at all clear that the Cardinals would be in the playoffs without Pujols. This isn't like last season when Edmonds and Rolen were each having MVP caliber seasons. For most of this season Pujols' supporting cast has been the likes of Nunez and Taguchi who, while having great seasons for bench guys, hardly constitute a murderers row.

You can't blame voters for being influenced by a team's overall success, either, or for feeling that Pujols has been denied an MVP so far only because of Barroid. It sounds like some hear would like the decision to be made by a computer.

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

I don't dispute that for most of the season Lee has had fewer RBI opportunities than Pujols, but so what? When Lee was blowing Pujols away in every offensive category earlier in the season the MVP decision didn't seem like a tough one, but now their stats are close enough, Lee ahead in some, Pujols in others, that each has an equally compelling statistical case in my opinion.

When two players are close statistically I think the postseason fate of their teams can be taken into consideration. Without Lee the Cubs might have finished last, with him they'll finish fourth. How valuable does that make his contribution then? On the other hand, with Pujols the Cards will make the postseason with the best record in baseball, without him, well, who knows.

++

well stated

The rest of Pujols' team is better than the rest of Lee's team, something which must be taken into consideration. We're not talking about "places" in the division here, we're talking about the impact a player has on a team (at least, that's what I think the MVP should be based on). There have been MVP winners on last place teams before, (A-Rod was the most recent) because they didn't just have the best stats - they were the most valuable to their team. Lee is more valuable. Without him, the Cubs would, in my opinion, be one of the worst teams in the National League. The Cardinals, without Pujols would be in 3rd place at worst because they have the pitching to carry them.

You say that Pujols and Lee are so close statistically that we should use the postseason as a tiebreaker... not a new concept. But why not use defense, baserunning, baseball intelligence, etc. your tiebreaker? Look, Pujols is a stud, and I'm sure he's going to be a future hall of famer, but I cannot give him the MVP award when he's up against a guy beating him in Avg, Obp, Slg, and HR, and trailing him by 6 RBI when he's had significantly less chances. "This Guy" is also superior with the leather (Gold Glove this year), faster, and a better baserunner.... just because his team is going to the playoffs.

vaball · September 1, 2005

I'm not sure who gets the MVP, but it should be either Pujols or Lee. I don't think that the voters who select Pujols can fairly be called idiots though. Lee and Pujols' stats are very close, especially in the triple crown categories. Lee leads Pujols in BA by ten points and SLG by sixty points. Pujols leads Lee in runs scored and RBI. Lee has one more win share than Pujols. Statiscally I don't think either one is especially more deserving than the other. You can't penalize Pujols because he hits in a better lineup or because he plays for a competant manager.

I don't think it's at all clear that the Cardinals would be in the playoffs without Pujols. This isn't like last season when Edmonds and Rolen were each having MVP caliber seasons. For most of this season Pujols' supporting cast has been the likes of Nunez and Taguchi who, while having great seasons for bench guys, hardly constitute a murderers row.

You can't blame voters for being influenced by a team's overall success, either, or for feeling that Pujols has been denied an MVP so far only because of Barroid. It sounds like some hear would like the decision to be made by a computer.

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

I don't dispute that for most of the season Lee has had fewer RBI opportunities than Pujols, but so what? When Lee was blowing Pujols away in every offensive category earlier in the season the MVP decision didn't seem like a tough one, but now their stats are close enough, Lee ahead in some, Pujols in others, that each has an equally compelling statistical case in my opinion.

When two players are close statistically I think the postseason fate of their teams can be taken into consideration. Without Lee the Cubs might have finished last, with him they'll finish fourth. How valuable does that make his contribution then? On the other hand, with Pujols the Cards will make the postseason with the best record in baseball, without him, well, who knows.

++

well stated

The rest of Pujols' team is better than the rest of Lee's team, something which must be taken into consideration. We're not talking about "places" in the division here, we're talking about the impact a player has on a team (at least, that's what I think the MVP should be based on). There have been MVP winners on last place teams before, (A-Rod was the most recent) because they didn't just have the best stats - they were the most valuable to their team. Lee is more valuable. Without him, the Cubs would, in my opinion, be one of the worst teams in the National League. The Cardinals, without Pujols would be in 3rd place at worst because they have the pitching to carry them.

You say that Pujols and Lee are so close statistically that we should use the postseason as a tiebreaker... not a new concept. But why not use defense, baserunning, baseball intelligence, etc. your tiebreaker? Look, Pujols is a stud, and I'm sure he's going to be a future hall of famer, but I cannot give him the MVP award when he's up against a guy beating him in Avg, Obp, Slg, and HR, and trailing him by 6 RBI when he's had significantly less chances. "This Guy" is also superior with the leather (Gold Glove this year), faster, and a better baserunner.... just because his team is going to the playoffs.

Basically, you're agreeing with me that Lee's impact on the Cubs, in spite of having a season for the ages, amounts to the difference between the team being an also-ran and fininishing dead last. You say: "we're talking about the impact a player has on a team (at least, that's what I think the MVP should be based on)." Ultimately, what "value" did Lee add to the Cubs? The "value" of not finishing last? You concede that for the Cardinals, Pujols might be the difference between a postseason appearance (and thus a possible WS ring) and, "3rd place at worst." How does a player get anymore valuable than that?

Nobody can say where the Cards would have finished without Pujols, but I don't think it is at all obvious, as many here assert, that the Cards would have made the playoffs without him. He has been the rock of this team all season. When the rest of the team was taking turns on the DL, Pujols was playing almost every game, playing with the consistency that makes him so remarkable. Rolen, Sanders, and Walker have missed a combined 46% of the team's games this season. That is huge.

The talents you list like "baserunning, baseball knowledge, etc." are not really quantifiable, and if they are I don't know where to find them, so they can't be used as criteria. But if your evidence is the personal obervations of scouts and commentators I think you will find just as many in the Pujols camp as you can find in the Lee camp.

IIRC when A-Rod won his MVP in 2003 for the last place Rangers, he had, by far, a better season than anyone else in the AL. I don't think the statistical difference is enough in this case to repeat that model.

CardsFanInChiTown · September 1, 2005

Seriously, is the official criteria for the mvp actually written down anywhere?

They are now tied with 32 win shares...

http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php?search=&linesToDisplay=100&sort=total&sort2=WSAB&limit1=Team&limit2=Position&leagueLimit=NL

DLee - .344/.427/.678

AP - .332/.426/ .618

I *think* DLee's stats are a little inflated compared to AP's stats because of park effects.

Backtobanks · September 1, 2005

Seriously, is the official criteria for the mvp actually written down anywhere?
They are now tied with 32 win shares...

http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php?search=&linesToDisplay=100&sort=total&sort2=WSAB&limit1=Team&limit2=Position&leagueLimit=NL

DLee - .344/.427/.678
AP - .332/.426/ .618

I *think* DLee's stats are a little inflated compared to AP's stats because of park effects.

No they're not written down anywhere and subject to each individual's interpretation of what MVP means. That's why I suggested 2 awards.....MVP and Player of the Year.

K-Town · September 1, 2005

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

A case can be made that Lee has had better lineup protection than Pujols .

Cubs' team OPS = .777

Cards' team OPS = .768

Pujols and Lee have both been good. Lee has a slighty better OPS and more home runs, while Lee has more RBI's and runs scored. Pujols has probably been the slightly better base-stealer, while Lee has been slightly better defensively (not much).

Win Shares are dead even, which tells me that it could go either way. It wouldn't be a crime if either player won, but I'm guessing that Pujols will win because he's leading his team to the playoffs, while Lee isn't.

Andruw Jones shouldn't even be in the conversation.

ConstableRabbit · September 2, 2005

I'm not sure who gets the MVP, but it should be either Pujols or Lee. I don't think that the voters who select Pujols can fairly be called idiots though. Lee and Pujols' stats are very close, especially in the triple crown categories. Lee leads Pujols in BA by ten points and SLG by sixty points. Pujols leads Lee in runs scored and RBI. Lee has one more win share than Pujols. Statiscally I don't think either one is especially more deserving than the other. You can't penalize Pujols because he hits in a better lineup or because he plays for a competant manager.

I don't think it's at all clear that the Cardinals would be in the playoffs without Pujols. This isn't like last season when Edmonds and Rolen were each having MVP caliber seasons. For most of this season Pujols' supporting cast has been the likes of Nunez and Taguchi who, while having great seasons for bench guys, hardly constitute a murderers row.

You can't blame voters for being influenced by a team's overall success, either, or for feeling that Pujols has been denied an MVP so far only because of Barroid. It sounds like some hear would like the decision to be made by a computer.

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

I don't dispute that for most of the season Lee has had fewer RBI opportunities than Pujols, but so what? When Lee was blowing Pujols away in every offensive category earlier in the season the MVP decision didn't seem like a tough one, but now their stats are close enough, Lee ahead in some, Pujols in others, that each has an equally compelling statistical case in my opinion.

When two players are close statistically I think the postseason fate of their teams can be taken into consideration. Without Lee the Cubs might have finished last, with him they'll finish fourth. How valuable does that make his contribution then? On the other hand, with Pujols the Cards will make the postseason with the best record in baseball, without him, well, who knows.

++

well stated

The rest of Pujols' team is better than the rest of Lee's team, something which must be taken into consideration. We're not talking about "places" in the division here, we're talking about the impact a player has on a team (at least, that's what I think the MVP should be based on). There have been MVP winners on last place teams before, (A-Rod was the most recent) because they didn't just have the best stats - they were the most valuable to their team. Lee is more valuable. Without him, the Cubs would, in my opinion, be one of the worst teams in the National League. The Cardinals, without Pujols would be in 3rd place at worst because they have the pitching to carry them.

You say that Pujols and Lee are so close statistically that we should use the postseason as a tiebreaker... not a new concept. But why not use defense, baserunning, baseball intelligence, etc. your tiebreaker? Look, Pujols is a stud, and I'm sure he's going to be a future hall of famer, but I cannot give him the MVP award when he's up against a guy beating him in Avg, Obp, Slg, and HR, and trailing him by 6 RBI when he's had significantly less chances. "This Guy" is also superior with the leather (Gold Glove this year), faster, and a better baserunner.... just because his team is going to the playoffs.

Basically, you're agreeing with me that Lee's impact on the Cubs, in spite of having a season for the ages, amounts to the difference between the team being an also-ran and fininishing dead last. You say: "we're talking about the impact a player has on a team (at least, that's what I think the MVP should be based on)." Ultimately, what "value" did Lee add to the Cubs? The "value" of not finishing last? You concede that for the Cardinals, Pujols might be the difference between a postseason appearance (and thus a possible WS ring) and, "3rd place at worst." How does a player get anymore valuable than that?

Nobody can say where the Cards would have finished without Pujols, but I don't think it is at all obvious, as many here assert, that the Cards would have made the playoffs without him. He has been the rock of this team all season. When the rest of the team was taking turns on the DL, Pujols was playing almost every game, playing with the consistency that makes him so remarkable. Rolen, Sanders, and Walker have missed a combined 46% of the team's games this season. That is huge.

The talents you list like "baserunning, baseball knowledge, etc." are not really quantifiable, and if they are I don't know where to find them, so they can't be used as criteria. But if your evidence is the personal obervations of scouts and commentators I think you will find just as many in the Pujols camp as you can find in the Lee camp.

IIRC when A-Rod won his MVP in 2003 for the last place Rangers, he had, by far, a better season than anyone else in the AL. I don't think the statistical difference is enough in this case to repeat that model.

We are talking about "value" to one's team. I mean, I guess we're on different pages with the definition of the word. Lee is more important to his team's record than Pujols. And even without Walker, Rolen, and Sanders, the Cards have a better offense than the Cubs have had this year. It's not even close. Even less of a comparison is the pitching of the two teams. I'm willing to believe that the Cards could make a race to win the division without Pujols based on their staff. Don't believe me? Look at Houston and how their pitching has been able to carry them despite their lack of offensive production. If it was the Cardinals with a staff ERA of 4.37, you wouldnt be telling me that Pujols' value was meaningless because the team wasn't going to the playoffs, you'd be saying that without him, the team would be much, much worse off.

I hope that we can all agree that the MVP award is not just about who is more important to their team's offense, it's about who is more important to one's team in general. The Cardinals have a better supporting cast and a better pitching staff than the Cubs do. Without Pujols, they wouldn't be in bad shape. Granted, the Cubs aren't in great shape, but I shudder to think where they would be without Lee. The rest of their offense, minus Ramizez (who was injured for patches of the season) is absolute garbage. Add in Lee's defense, which took several errors away from the Cubs infield (Ramirez...) and several hits away from opposing batters. Add in Lee's speed, although not blazing, which effects the mentality of the pitcher while on the mound. And while you can't quantify baserunning and baseball intelligence, as someone who (I'm assuming) watches both Cubs and Cardinals games, can you honestly tell me that Pujols is a better baserunner or smarter on defense?

ConstableRabbit · September 2, 2005

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

A case can be made that Lee has had better lineup protection than Pujols .

Cubs' team OPS = .777
Cards' team OPS = .768

Pujols and Lee have both been good. Lee has a slighty better OPS and more home runs, while Lee has more RBI's and runs scored. Pujols has probably been the slightly better base-stealer, while Lee has been slightly better defensively (not much).

Win Shares are dead even, which tells me that it could go either way. It wouldn't be a crime if either player won, but I'm guessing that Pujols will win because he's leading his team to the playoffs, while Lee isn't.

Andruw Jones shouldn't even be in the conversation.

The Cubs also have a better team BA I believe.

But the bottom line is RUNS, and the Cubs have not scored them.

The Cardinals have.

Also, what is your basis for Lee being "not much" better than Pujols defensively this year? Just curious.

vaball · September 2, 2005

We are talking about "value" to one's team. I mean, I guess we're on different pages with the definition of the word. Lee is more important to his team's record than Pujols. And even without Walker, Rolen, and Sanders, the Cards have a better offense than the Cubs have had this year. It's not even close. Even less of a comparison is the pitching of the two teams. I'm willing to believe that the Cards could make a race to win the division without Pujols based on their staff. Don't believe me? Look at Houston and how their pitching has been able to carry them despite their lack of offensive production. If it was the Cardinals with a staff ERA of 4.37, you wouldnt be telling me that Pujols' value was meaningless because the team wasn't going to the playoffs, you'd be saying that without him, the team would be much, much worse off.

I hope that we can all agree that the MVP award is not just about who is more important to their team's offense, it's about who is more important to one's team in general. The Cardinals have a better supporting cast and a better pitching staff than the Cubs do. Without Pujols, they wouldn't be in bad shape. Granted, the Cubs aren't in great shape, but I shudder to think where they would be without Lee. The rest of their offense, minus Ramizez (who was injured for patches of the season) is absolute garbage. Add in Lee's defense, which took several errors away from the Cubs infield (Ramirez...) and several hits away from opposing batters. Add in Lee's speed, although not blazing, which effects the mentality of the pitcher while on the mound. And while you can't quantify baserunning and baseball intelligence, as someone who (I'm assuming) watches both Cubs and Cardinals games, can you honestly tell me that Pujols is a better baserunner or smarter on defense?

Well they are now tied in win shares, so now we have a mathematical formula showing us that their respective impacts on winning games, at this point, are the same. In light of that wouldn't you have to say that because the Cardinals will be in the playoffs that, Pujols' win shares have yielded more value than Lee's? And despite what comes across has a much superior offense, which it is because of the disparity in runs scored, how can you say that Pujols has a much better supporting cast when the Cubs have a higher team OPS?

I don't watch Lee play enough to know what kind of baserunner he is and what his defensive smarts are. My impression is that he is great in both those categories. I do watch enough of Pujols to know that he is an excellent baserunner, in spite of not having Lee's speed. His defensive smarts are just as good as Lee's I would say. I think Lee's superior defense comes from a superior skill set, reach, hands, etc., not from better defensive knowledge.

ConstableRabbit · September 2, 2005

We are talking about "value" to one's team. I mean, I guess we're on different pages with the definition of the word. Lee is more important to his team's record than Pujols. And even without Walker, Rolen, and Sanders, the Cards have a better offense than the Cubs have had this year. It's not even close. Even less of a comparison is the pitching of the two teams. I'm willing to believe that the Cards could make a race to win the division without Pujols based on their staff. Don't believe me? Look at Houston and how their pitching has been able to carry them despite their lack of offensive production. If it was the Cardinals with a staff ERA of 4.37, you wouldnt be telling me that Pujols' value was meaningless because the team wasn't going to the playoffs, you'd be saying that without him, the team would be much, much worse off.

I hope that we can all agree that the MVP award is not just about who is more important to their team's offense, it's about who is more important to one's team in general. The Cardinals have a better supporting cast and a better pitching staff than the Cubs do. Without Pujols, they wouldn't be in bad shape. Granted, the Cubs aren't in great shape, but I shudder to think where they would be without Lee. The rest of their offense, minus Ramizez (who was injured for patches of the season) is absolute garbage. Add in Lee's defense, which took several errors away from the Cubs infield (Ramirez...) and several hits away from opposing batters. Add in Lee's speed, although not blazing, which effects the mentality of the pitcher while on the mound. And while you can't quantify baserunning and baseball intelligence, as someone who (I'm assuming) watches both Cubs and Cardinals games, can you honestly tell me that Pujols is a better baserunner or smarter on defense?

Well they are now tied in win shares, so now we have a mathematical formula showing us that their respective impacts on winning games, at this point, are the same. In light of that wouldn't you have to say that because the Cardinals will be in the playoffs that, Pujols' win shares have yielded more value than Lee's? And despite what comes across has a much superior offense, which it is because of the disparity in runs scored, how can you say that Pujols has a much better supporting cast when the Cubs have a higher team OPS?

I don't watch Lee play enough to know what kind of baserunner he is and what his defensive smarts are. My impression is that he is great in both those categories. I do watch enough of Pujols to know that he is an excellent baserunner, in spite of not having Lee's speed. His defensive smarts are just as good as Lee's I would say. I think Lee's superior defense comes from a superior skill set, reach, hands, etc., not from better defensive knowledge.

...because Pujols (barely) leads lee in RBI and Runs, yet the Cardinals lead the Cubs in RS 566 to 492.

You know, win shares are great most of the time, but many use them as a failproof way of determining player value, when, in fact, the stat does have a large flaw which most overlook:

Players who play for teams that win more games than expected, (found by using the Pythagorean expectation), will receive more win shares than players whose team wins fewer games than expected. Beacuse a team going over or falling short of its Pythagorean expectation comes to such a conclusion by chance (according to Bill James anyway), you cant give out credit based on wins. (and no, I'm not just making this up, you can read into it)

Sure enough, when calculating the Pythagorean expectation for Stl, the winning % is .629, lower than their actual % of .634. They are winning more (albeit a bit more) than expected due to chance.

but that's not all...

The Cubs have a much greater difference from expectation to reality, and of course, they've got the short end of the stick.

Pythagorean expectation for the Cubs: .491

Actual winning % for the Cubs : .474

The Cubs are losing more than expected, due to chance, and are doing so by a much larger margin than the Cardinals are winning due to chance.

So...

Pujols is getting more win shares than he deserves, and Lee is getting less than he deserves, due to chance, and not value.

I wouldn't have mentioned it if everyone wasn't making such a big deal over winshares and how the two were tied. Winshares are usually great, but in this case, they're flawed, and in reality, Lee has the advantage.

*Edited 20 sec later because I mistakenly had half of the post in italics :)

EastonBlues22 · September 2, 2005

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib).

Pujols has had 118 ABs (58 RBI) with RISP, Lee has had 111 (60 RBI)...that's not a very significant difference (~6%) even without the total number of ABs are factored in. If you compare the rates of ABs with RISP to total ABs, then the rates are even closer...Pujols sees a RISP with 23.7% in his 497 total ABs, Lee at 22.6% in his 491 total ABs. That's a difference of 1.1%

Pujols has had significantly more ABs (~14%) with runners aboard...227 (82 RBI) to Lee's 195 (70 RBI). If Lee was projected with that production to 227 ABs...he would have 81.49 RBIs. Again, if the actual rates are compared instead of just the raw numbers, you have Pujols batting with a runner aboard in 45.7% of his 497 total ABs and Lee having a runner aboard in 39.7% or his 491 total ABs. That's a difference of 6%.

So, it appears to me anyway, that it's not the rates that runners are getting into scoring position ahead of Lee that's been his biggest problem...those are actually very comparable to Pujols'. It seems, looking at those percentages, that the overall team OBP is more influential to Lee's stats than the ability of runners to get into RISP ahead of him. The Cards have a .341 OBP, the Cubs a .328 OBP...that's a 4% difference that factors directly into the raw number of ABs, and thus RBI chances, that Lee will have this year.

Lee currently has a 6% deficit in the RBI department, but enjoys a 10% advantage in HRs and a 9% advantage in overall slugging over Pujols. You would think that would add up to more RBIs for Lee, but it hasn't since they are slugging almost identicall with runners aboard (.615 for Lee and .617 for Pujols). Anyway, it's interesting stuff...and enough to make your head spin if you're looking for definitive absolutes.

On a different note, something that nobody seems to be mentioning is the protection that Lee has enjoyed from his #4 hitter this year. Compare Lee's protection with Pujols':

CHI #4 batters: 31 HR, 276 total bases, 89 RBI, .287 BA, .538 SLG

STL #4 batters: 23 HR, 242 total bases, 83 RBI, .278 BA, .494 SLG

For perspective, those are about 26%, 12%, 7%, 3%, and 8% advantages, respectively.

How much would Pujols have benefitted from the protection that Lee has gotten in the lineup? Can anyone project how much that would add to Pujols' stats? Sure it's nice having people on base (notice I said on base, which implies that the runner is on first, as we've already established that the amount of opportunities with RISP has been very similar), but if nobody will throw you a decent pitch because the guy hitting behind you is much less of a threat, how much of an advantage do really have...if any...at driving in that extra runner on first (the one that can only be driven in with an extra base hit)?

Since you're more likely to get extra base hits when the pitcher can't nibble at the strike zone while pitching around you (Pujols has more IBBs, and BBs, than Lee with RISP), it would seem that the extra protection that Lee enjoys tends to naturally offset the advantage in people on first that Pujols gets. Simply restated, Pujols is more likely to see a man on first when he hits, be he's less likely to get a pitch good enough to hit for an extra base hit to knock that runner in. Lee will see less runners on first when he hits, but he's more likely to see a pitch good enough to get that man home with the protection he enjoys behind him.

It's obvious that both extra runners on and better protection are advantages that can help a hitter's stats...so both Pujols and Lee enjoy advantages that the other one doesn't.

I'm not trying to argue a case either for Pujols or for Lee... I just wanted to add my two cents to the argument that "Lee has significantly less RBI opportunities than Pujols" and bring up another point that I would like to see discussed if anyone feels they can add to it.

*EDIT: edited the second time to say that my first edit was used to add rate information to the original raw number information; edited a third time to correct wording for clarity; edited a fourth for no particular reason whatsoever

Edited September 2, 2005 by EastonBlues22

SouthSideRyan · September 2, 2005

Seriously, is the official criteria for the mvp actually written down anywhere?
They are now tied with 32 win shares...

http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php?search=&linesToDisplay=100&sort=total&sort2=WSAB&limit1=Team&limit2=Position&leagueLimit=NL

DLee - .344/.427/.678
AP - .332/.426/ .618

I *think* DLee's stats are a little inflated compared to AP's stats because of park effects.

No they're not written down anywhere and subject to each individual's interpretation of what MVP means. That's why I suggested 2 awards.....MVP and Player of the Year.

And just like I scream at the TV every [expletive] time Joe [expletive] Morgan brings it up, the award ALREADY EXISTS. IT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE OF EVERY TEAM'S WEBSITE.

Careless · September 2, 2005

Lee has had significantly less opportunities for RBI than Pujols, mostly because OBP disasters Corey and Neifi (sometimes Macias) were hitting 1-2 for the majority of the first half, which makes up for his RBI defecit (I think there was a post somewhere on the boards regarding this... there was also something in the Trib). Also, I don't really buy into factoring in Runs scored as a Pujols advantage when their walks and OBP are nearly identical, and Lee has more SB... I think it's attributed to the Cardinals offense being better than the Cubs offense. Ramirez was there for a good portion of the season, but was also hurt for a good portion, and how many times did we see Lee get a leadoff single or double only to wind up stranded? Even with all of their injuries, Stl still has a better offense, and despite all this Pujols has a miniscule 5 R lead over Lee.

A case can be made that Lee has had better lineup protection than Pujols .

Cubs' team OPS = .777
Cards' team OPS = .768
.

lol

erm

what % of the difference between those 2 OPS is Lee beating pujols?

answer: 7 of the 9 thousandths of OPS

Yeah, a 770 team will have a ton of protection for a batter compared to a 768 team

Edit: and I'm sure that the pitchers on the cubs, who are the difference in the team OPS, are giving lee a TON of protection. Take away the pitchers and the cards would have a sizable OPS lead (the cubs 3 starters have OPS higher than any starter on the cards, zambrano by 200 points+)

second edit: wow, I missed marquis. Monster season hitting by a pitcher.

vance_the_cubs_fan · September 2, 2005

Let's look at the numbers as of today.

BA

Lee: 334

Pujols: 332

Edge: Lee

RBI

Lee: 94

Pujols: 100

Edge: Pujols

HR

Lee: 39

Pujols: 35

Edge: Lee

OBP

Lee:427

Pujols: 426

Edge Lee, but a draw for all purposes.

SLG

Lee: 678

Pujols 618

Edge: Lee

OPS

Lee: 1105

Pujols: 1044

Edge: Lee

SB

Lee: 15

Pujols: 13

Edge: Lee

Doubles

Lee 43

Pujols: 33

Edge: Lee

XBH

Lee: 84

Pujols 70

Edge: Lee

IsoP

Lee: 334

Pujols: 286

Edge: Lee

While Pujols isn't a slouch in the field, I doubt there is a debate that Lee is also the better fielder. While the gap in numbers have closed since mid summer, Lee has maintained his lead in nearly all statistical categories. The only stat other than RBI that Pujols can currently lay claim to is team wins. So if the success of your team mates plays into the MVP, then I guess Pujols gets it. However if the most deserving player should be MVP, it's still hands-down belongs to Lee.

SouthSideRyan · September 2, 2005

We are talking about "value" to one's team. I mean, I guess we're on different pages with the definition of the word. Lee is more important to his team's record than Pujols. And even without Walker, Rolen, and Sanders, the Cards have a better offense than the Cubs have had this year. It's not even close. Even less of a comparison is the pitching of the two teams. I'm willing to believe that the Cards could make a race to win the division without Pujols based on their staff. Don't believe me? Look at Houston and how their pitching has been able to carry them despite their lack of offensive production. If it was the Cardinals with a staff ERA of 4.37, you wouldnt be telling me that Pujols' value was meaningless because the team wasn't going to the playoffs, you'd be saying that without him, the team would be much, much worse off.

I hope that we can all agree that the MVP award is not just about who is more important to their team's offense, it's about who is more important to one's team in general. The Cardinals have a better supporting cast and a better pitching staff than the Cubs do. Without Pujols, they wouldn't be in bad shape. Granted, the Cubs aren't in great shape, but I shudder to think where they would be without Lee. The rest of their offense, minus Ramizez (who was injured for patches of the season) is absolute garbage. Add in Lee's defense, which took several errors away from the Cubs infield (Ramirez...) and several hits away from opposing batters. Add in Lee's speed, although not blazing, which effects the mentality of the pitcher while on the mound. And while you can't quantify baserunning and baseball intelligence, as someone who (I'm assuming) watches both Cubs and Cardinals games, can you honestly tell me that Pujols is a better baserunner or smarter on defense?

Well they are now tied in win shares, so now we have a mathematical formula showing us that their respective impacts on winning games, at this point, are the same. In light of that wouldn't you have to say that because the Cardinals will be in the playoffs that, Pujols' win shares have yielded more value than Lee's?

No, the fact that the Cardinals have more wins is already built into win shares as there are more win shares for Cardinals than there are for Cubs.

And Vance, you're double counting a lot with some of those stats.

ManEatingTarp · September 2, 2005

Vance-

#1 It's good to see you posting on the board. I don't know what it's like in your hometown, but I wanted you to know I thought about you while all the Katrina stuff has been going on. I hope all your friends and family are OK.

On the MVP. Pujols should be the favorite imo because he is the dominant player on the league's most dominant team. His #s are very close to Lee's, but with the Cubs in 4th or 5th place, how valuable can you really say he has been. I would have no problem with Lee getting the Player of the Year award if he finishes strong. Andruw Jones is making a case for MVP in a big way. While his #s aren't on par with Lee or Pujols (except HRs) I think he may sneak in a get the MVP if he is "Mr. Clutch" in Sept. Much like Tejada a couple years ago.

CardsFanInChiTown · September 2, 2005

Let's look at the numbers as of today.

BA
Lee: 334
Pujols: 332
Edge: Lee

RBI
Lee: 94
Pujols: 100
Edge: Pujols

HR
Lee: 39
Pujols: 35
Edge: Lee

OBP
Lee:427
Pujols: 426
Edge Lee, but a draw for all purposes.

SLG
Lee: 678
Pujols 618
Edge: Lee

OPS
Lee: 1105
Pujols: 1044
Edge: Lee

SB
Lee: 15
Pujols: 13
Edge: Lee

Doubles
Lee 43
Pujols: 33
Edge: Lee

XBH
Lee: 84
Pujols 70
Edge: Lee

IsoP
Lee: 334
Pujols: 286
Edge: Lee

While Pujols isn't a slouch in the field, I doubt there is a debate that Lee is also the better fielder. While the gap in numbers have closed since mid summer, Lee has maintained his lead in nearly all statistical categories. The only stat other than RBI that Pujols can currently lay claim to is team wins. So if the success of your team mates plays into the MVP, then I guess Pujols gets it. However if the most deserving player should be MVP, it's still hands-down belongs to Lee.

One thing worth noting, Wrigley Field is more of a hitter's park then Busch. I think you have to take that in to account.

ESPN's Rob Neyer made some comments about this earlier this year

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/allstar05/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2105528

In that last column, HRPF stands for Home Run Park Factor. In the case of Derrek Lee, "137" tells us that from 2002 through 2004, it was 37 percent easier for a right-handed hitter to hit a home run in Wrigley Field than in other National League parks.

Actually, that's a ridiculously simplistic explanation of what the 137 tells us. But the numbers are simply derived from simple data, and they do tell us something. The higher the number, the "easier" it was, theoretically at least, for this particular hitter to hit home runs. More than 100 means it was easier than average, lower than 100 means harder than average.

And in fact, of the 47 home runs Lee has hit since the 2004 All-Star break, 26 have come in Wrigley. On the other hand, of the 40 home runs hit by Lee's teammate Aramis Ramirez in the last 12 months, only 17 were in (or, if you prefer, out of) the Friendly Confines? Does this mean Ramirez hasn't benefited from Wrigley Field? Perhaps. Or it might just mean he'd have hit fewer home runs if he'd been playing his home games somewhere else (and it's worth mentioning that 22 of Ramirez's 36 homers in 2004 did come at home). Either way, I think it's worth at least noticing the ballparks our contestants call home.

AP had an 80 vs DLee's 137

XZero771679666304 · September 2, 2005

Let's look at the numbers as of today.

BA
Lee: 334
Pujols: 332
Edge: Lee

RBI
Lee: 94
Pujols: 100
Edge: Pujols

HR
Lee: 39
Pujols: 35
Edge: Lee

OBP
Lee:427
Pujols: 426
Edge Lee, but a draw for all purposes.

SLG
Lee: 678
Pujols 618
Edge: Lee

OPS
Lee: 1105
Pujols: 1044
Edge: Lee

SB
Lee: 15
Pujols: 13
Edge: Lee

Doubles
Lee 43
Pujols: 33
Edge: Lee

XBH
Lee: 84
Pujols 70
Edge: Lee

IsoP
Lee: 334
Pujols: 286
Edge: Lee

While Pujols isn't a slouch in the field, I doubt there is a debate that Lee is also the better fielder. While the gap in numbers have closed since mid summer, Lee has maintained his lead in nearly all statistical categories. The only stat other than RBI that Pujols can currently lay claim to is team wins. So if the success of your team mates plays into the MVP, then I guess Pujols gets it. However if the most deserving player should be MVP, it's still hands-down belongs to Lee.

One thing worth noting, Wrigley Field is more of a hitter's park then Busch. I think you have to take that in to account.

ESPN's Rob Neyer made some comments about this earlier this year

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/allstar05/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2105528

In that last column, HRPF stands for Home Run Park Factor. In the case of Derrek Lee, "137" tells us that from 2002 through 2004, it was 37 percent easier for a right-handed hitter to hit a home run in Wrigley Field than in other National League parks.

Actually, that's a ridiculously simplistic explanation of what the 137 tells us. But the numbers are simply derived from simple data, and they do tell us something. The higher the number, the "easier" it was, theoretically at least, for this particular hitter to hit home runs. More than 100 means it was easier than average, lower than 100 means harder than average.

And in fact, of the 47 home runs Lee has hit since the 2004 All-Star break, 26 have come in Wrigley. On the other hand, of the 40 home runs hit by Lee's teammate Aramis Ramirez in the last 12 months, only 17 were in (or, if you prefer, out of) the Friendly Confines? Does this mean Ramirez hasn't benefited from Wrigley Field? Perhaps. Or it might just mean he'd have hit fewer home runs if he'd been playing his home games somewhere else (and it's worth mentioning that 22 of Ramirez's 36 homers in 2004 did come at home). Either way, I think it's worth at least noticing the ballparks our contestants call home.

AP had an 80 vs DLee's 137

Derrek has a higher OPS (by 100 points), AVG, SLG, OBP on the road. He has one more HR at Wrigley than on the road, and the RBI are dead even.

I posted this back in July when someone else said something similar to what you posted. In fact they referenced the same Neyer article.

I think the whole park factor thing is overrated, for the most part. You looked at home runs, but a better overall indicator is that Lee has a 1.189 OPS at home and a 1.183 OPS on the road. Those are for all intents and purposes, identical. I also think the popular perception of Sammy Sosa was that he benefitted from Wrigley, though his overall and HR totals were just about dead even in his prime years. You already see that Aramis does not benefit much from Wrigley. And IIRC, several of the Marlins coaches said that Pro Player killed Derrek, and predicted 40+ HR from him outside of there. This makes sense since Lee's power is from alley to alley, and that is no man's land in Miami. In parks like that, only dead pull hitters will put up big numbers, and Derrek is not a dead pull hitter.

The whole notion that Wrigley is a hitters paradise is really not accurate at all. It favors the hitters slightly, but not nearly as much as some think. The reason for this, IMO, is that it is a park of extremes. I say that because while eveyone knows about the days the wind is howling out and homers are easy to come by, more often the wind is blowing stright in, and in about a third of the games (rough estimation based on watching for 20 years), you may as well be trying to hit a ball out of the Grand Canyon.

Some hitters have benefitted from the cozy alleys, but the 355 down the lines are no easy pokes. The bottom line is that while Wrigley will give you a lot of homers, it will take away a lot of them, also. Any players that do benefit are probably hitters with marginal power who plays there enough to mold his game to the field. Players who are great hitters with genuine power generally rise above the limitations or enhancements that a given field gives them

Now there are players who benefit from their home parks greatly. Take Morgan Ensberg, for example. While Morgan oocasionally gets XBH to other fields, he is an extreme pull hitter. This is a huge advantage in MMP.
Over the past three years, Ensberg's OPS has been nearly 300 points lower on the road. This year has been better, but there is still a 150+ point differential. His power numbers are also better than Pujols this year, but his you can attribute to park factors, unlike Lee.

Here's another indicator. I looked at the number of parks played in this year, and how each player fared OPS-wise overall. Since a 1.000 OPS is the mark of excellence, so to speak, I wanted to see how many parks Lee, Pujols and Ensberg managed to reach that number in, and which ones.

Pujols has played in 14 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in eight of them. He fared the best in Turner, Coors, Miller and Citizens Bank.

Lee has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 10 of them. He has performed the best in Pro Player, Busch, Great American, Miller, BOB and Dodger Stadium.

Ensberg has played in 13 parks this year, and topped 1.000 in 3 of them. He has fared well at MMP, Coors and Great American. Also, 17 of his 24 HR have been hit between those three hitters parks, and nowhere else has he hit more than 1.

This is based on only this year, but the three year splits bear out around the same level of consistancy for Lee and Pujols. and inconsistancy for Ensberg. Statistically speaking Lee is actually the most consistant of the three, independent of park, though not the most productive. Ensberg I used to illustrate a player who has their stats inflated by ballpark. Lee does not fall into this category at all. In fact, if you rate his performance by park over the past three years, Wrigley sits right in the middle of the 23 parks he has played in over that time The same can be said of Pujols and Busch, right in the middle, 11th of 20.

So from a relative performance standpoint, Pujols is no more consistant than Lee, and Lee is no more dependent on his home park than Albert.

ManEatingTarp · September 2, 2005

I'll go back to my last statement.

If a team finishes under .500 and 20ish games out of the division, how valuable can a player have been?

I know the stats are there. I know he's a great player. Player of the Year= Yes. MVP= No. I think the MVP should play on a playoff team unless the #s are so overwhealming you have to pick them. Lee/Pujols/Jones are all very close. Jones and Pujols will be in the playoffs. Lee won't. It's a 2 horse race at this point.

vance_the_cubs_fan · September 2, 2005

And Vance, you're double counting a lot with some of those stats.

I'm aware of that. I know for example that doubles and homeruns account for the XBH stat. I simply included the volume to show that with the exception of RBI, Lee still leads in whatever category you choose to look at.

Like I said, if you think the MVP should take into account the ability and performance of someone's team mates, then by all means, Pujols is the winner.

If the MVP award should be independent of the performance of one's team mates, then it's still a no-brainer for Lee.

D-Lee MVP Odds

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs