Surprise! Pujols wins NL MVP

[Careless]

These awards will always be lame until the voters understand stats better. Jones getting all those 1st place votes based on RBI was just stupid, and giving out Cy Youngs based on W-L is an absolute embarrassment to the sport

Hey, not just because of his rbi! he also hit a bunch of hr!

[Andy]

Like Andy Dolan said at Desipio today:

 

Lee wins the Silver Slugger award for being the best hitting 1B in the NL. Lee wins the Gold Glove award for being the best fielding 1B in the NL. Yet another NL first baseman wins the MVP award. Its a freakin sham.

Haha, I didn't even think about that, but it's a really good point.

[rocket]

Such a stud...

 

In a sport full of men who zigzag from hot streak to cold streak, Pujols is the single most dependable offensive force on the planet.

 

He batted .300 in every month but one (dipping to .287 in August), reached base 40 percent of the time in every month but one (slipping to .396 in April), and slugged .500 or better in every month, period.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2224952

 

Derrek Lee batted .300 in every month but 1, and slugged .600 or better in every month, period.

 

Not including the 6 at bats in October.

[Geech]

Baseball is so [expletive].

[TruffleShuffle]

Like Andy Dolan said at Desipio today:

 

Lee wins the Silver Slugger award for being the best hitting 1B in the NL. Lee wins the Gold Glove award for being the best fielding 1B in the NL. Yet another NL first baseman wins the MVP award. Its a freakin sham.

Haha, I didn't even think about that, but it's a really good point.

 

I don't really think it's a sham. The Cubs, unfortunately, were irrelevent this year. Lee was the best hitter in baseball, but Pujols was a very good hitter and played for a team for which his productivity actually helped to get into the playoffs. Just like McGwire had a better year than Sosa in '98, Lee had a better year than Pujols... but all his offense did was help the Cubs win a few more games that turned out to be meaningless.

[JGalt73]

By finishing third, Lee triggered a $750,000 increase in his next 2006 base salary to $8.75 million.

[Andy]

By finishing third, Lee triggered a $750,000 increase in his next 2006 base salary to $8.75 million.

About what we'll be paying Rafael Furcal next season.

 

Geez.

[Outshined_One]

I don't really think it's a sham. The Cubs, unfortunately, were irrelevent this year. Lee was the best hitter in baseball, but Pujols was a very good hitter and played for a team for which his productivity actually helped to get into the playoffs. Just like McGwire had a better year than Sosa in '98, Lee had a better year than Pujols... but all his offense did was help the Cubs win a few more games that turned out to be meaningless.

 

See, I'd be fine with this justification normally and all, but the fact that A-Rod won the MVP while with the Rangers in 2003 despite the Rangers doing squat kind of blows the irrelevancy argument up.

[Jehrico]

I don't really think it's a sham. The Cubs, unfortunately, were irrelevent this year. Lee was the best hitter in baseball, but Pujols was a very good hitter and played for a team for which his productivity actually helped to get into the playoffs. Just like McGwire had a better year than Sosa in '98, Lee had a better year than Pujols... but all his offense did was help the Cubs win a few more games that turned out to be meaningless.

 

See, I'd be fine with this justification normally and all, but the fact that A-Rod won the MVP while with the Rangers in 2003 despite the Rangers doing squat kind of blows the irrelevancy argument up.

 

Dawson in '87 anyone?

[adamb0719]

Like Andy Dolan said at Desipio today:

 

Lee wins the Silver Slugger award for being the best hitting 1B in the NL. Lee wins the Gold Glove award for being the best fielding 1B in the NL. Yet another NL first baseman wins the MVP award. Its a freakin sham.

Haha, I didn't even think about that, but it's a really good point.

 

I don't really think it's a sham. The Cubs, unfortunately, were irrelevent this year. Lee was the best hitter in baseball, but Pujols was a very good hitter and played for a team for which his productivity actually helped to get into the playoffs. Just like McGwire had a better year than Sosa in '98, Lee had a better year than Pujols... but all his offense did was help the Cubs win a few more games that turned out to be meaningless.

 

That is what bothers me about this award. Just because Pujols was on a better team, does that make him more valuable to his team? I just wish it were really an award for the most valuable player, period. What player is more valuable to their team than any other player. Even though Lee helped win meaningless games it should not be any less important in regards to this award. Gammons said this morning that had the Cubs been in the race at the end of the year Lee probably would have had a good chance of winning. Why does the Cubs standing at the end of th year matter? It doesn't take away from what Lee did, IMO.

 

That being said, congrats to Pujols.

[sweetpeteman]

Best flawed reason for Andruw to get the award over Pujols and Lee:

 

Centerfield is harder to play than Firstbase...

 

 

I bet that he wouldnt have nearly half the numbers he put up because he would be worn out from running his butt all over the field and giving up runs and commiting errors. Anyone can play first, but only one person plays center that greatly, and his name is Andruw Jones

 

 

http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=ml-braves&msg=61873.1&ctx=0

[TruffleShuffle]

Best flawed reason for Andruw to get the award over Pujols and Lee:

 

Centerfield is harder to play than Firstbase...

 

 

I bet that he wouldnt have nearly half the numbers he put up because he would be worn out from running his butt all over the field and giving up runs and commiting errors. Anyone can play first, but only one person plays center that greatly, and his name is Andruw Jones

 

 

http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=ml-braves&msg=61873.1&ctx=0

 

Actually, the CF versus 1B argument is not invalid, although the stupid reasoning behind it was. Problem is, VORP takes position into account, and Jones was 19th, while Pujols was 2nd and Lee was first.

 

Pujols' VORP was 99.7 versus 106.0 of Lee

Pujols' OPS+ was 167 versus 177 of Lee

 

Those are close... considering that Pujols played on a more relevent team I have no problem with him winning the award. If Lee's numbers were, say, 130 VORP and 200 OPS+, then he is so far better than Pujols that it makes it harder to give it to Pujols.

[indifferent]

Best flawed reason for Andruw to get the award over Pujols and Lee:

 

Centerfield is harder to play than Firstbase...

 

 

I bet that he wouldnt have nearly half the numbers he put up because he would be worn out from running his butt all over the field and giving up runs and commiting errors. Anyone can play first, but only one person plays center that greatly, and his name is Andruw Jones

 

 

http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=ml-braves&msg=61873.1&ctx=0

 

Actually, the CF versus 1B argument is not invalid, although the stupid reasoning behind it was. Problem is, VORP takes position into account, and Jones was 19th, while Pujols was 2nd and Lee was first.

 

Pujols' VORP was 99.7 versus 106.0 of Lee

Pujols' OPS+ was 167 versus 177 of Lee

 

Those are close... considering that Pujols played on a more relevent team I have no problem with him winning the award. If Lee's numbers were, say, 130 VORP and 200 OPS+, then he is so far better than Pujols that it makes it harder to give it to Pujols.

 

Truffle, I will remember this post forever. Thanks for being oh-so-more eloquent about this than I could ever be.

[Careless]

I don't really think it's a sham. The Cubs, unfortunately, were irrelevent this year. Lee was the best hitter in baseball, but Pujols was a very good hitter and played for a team for which his productivity actually helped to get into the playoffs. Just like McGwire had a better year than Sosa in '98, Lee had a better year than Pujols... but all his offense did was help the Cubs win a few more games that turned out to be meaningless.

 

See, I'd be fine with this justification normally and all, but the fact that A-Rod won the MVP while with the Rangers in 2003 despite the Rangers doing squat kind of blows the irrelevancy argument up.

 

Dawson in '87 anyone?

18 years ago vs 2

[K-Town]

"Best stats" vs. "MVP" is always fun, isn't it? :lol:

 

The OPS+ numbers are almost a wash (Lee's was slightly better). Win Shares was almost a wash (Pujols was slightly better). Pujols was better in some stats, Lee in others.

 

The difference is that I think a case can be made that Pujols made the rest of his lineup better, moreso than Lee.

 

For the first half of the year, most pitchers were pitching aggressivley to Lee, because he wasn't considered to be the threat that Pujols was (history told us, and the NL pitchers, that he shouldn't be). Therefore, I think that Lee was probably seeing much more hittable pitches than Pujols was.

 

Also, it's not out of the question that the players around Pujols were seeing some very good pitches, because of the fear of having to face Pujols with runners on base. Meanwhile, the players around Lee might have been seeing garbage, because most NL pitchers weren't as concerned about facing Lee with runners on base. In that regard, I think a case can be made that Pujols was helping his team, more than Lee, simply because of his reputation.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

"Best stats" vs. "MVP" is always fun, isn't it? :lol:

 

The OPS+ numbers are almost a wash (Lee's was slightly better). Win Shares was almost a wash (Pujols was slightly better). Pujols was better in some stats, Lee in others.

 

The difference is that I think a case can be made that Pujols made the rest of his lineup better, moreso than Lee.

 

For the first half of the year, most pitchers were pitching aggressivley to Lee, because he wasn't considered to be the threat that Pujols was (history told us, and the NL pitchers, that he shouldn't be). Therefore, I think that Lee was probably seeing much more hittable pitches than Pujols was.

 

Also, it's not out of the question that the players around Pujols were seeing some very good pitches, because of the fear of having to face Pujols with runners on base. Meanwhile, the players around Lee might have been seeing garbage, because most NL pitchers weren't as concerned about facing Lee with runners on base. In that regard, I think a case can be made that Pujols was helping his team, more than Lee, simply because of his reputation.

 

I really disagree with you on each points of this post. First, the secret was out pretty fast with DLee. Second, you are overvaluing the impact pitches a player sees because of another player in the lineup.

Edited November 16, 2005 by CardsFanInChiTown

[UK1679666180]

"What if" scenarios cannot overshadow actual production.

[TheDude]

Jones was more important to his team than Lee to the Cubs. Jones was arguably more important to his team than Pujols.

 

How do you justify that statement?

 

It's not complicated. Where do the Braves finish without Jones playing everyday? Where do the Cubs finish without Lee playing everyday? The Cubs stunk. The Braves were pretty good. And the difference between making the playoffs and missing them is far more important to the MVP award than the difference sucking and Royals-ly sucking.

 

The MVP is not an individual stats award* in principle. It is about leading a team to a winning season and whether people like it or not, a team's win percentage and ability to make the playoffs factors heavily into this award because the voters make it so. It is what it is. From the voters' perspectives, an MVP must be be the leader that carries the team to the playoffs.

 

Do I personally think Jones is as good as Lee? Absolutely not. I'd take Lee every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays in a pick-up or fantasy game. Lee wins the Fantasy Player of the Year. There's no doubt about that.

 

*The exceptions usually come when the stats are so overwhelmingly undeniable and dominant over the nearest competitor. In Lee's case, his numbers don't dominate Pujols and he was perceived to lead an injury-riddled team to the playoffs (just like Jones).

[K-Town]

"What if" scenarios cannot overshadow actual production.

 

No, it doesn't change the idividual players production, but if you consider the impact that his production has on the other players around him, then his the individual player's actual "value" could be higher or lower.

 

Otherwise, it would just be a matter of giving the MVP to the player with the highest Win Shares, or the highest VORP, or the highest OPS+, but then you're going to have the same 12-page controversy over which stat(s) should be used. Some would favor that (I know you're one of them). That doesn't make it right or wrong.

[K-Town]

Jones was more important to his team than Lee to the Cubs. Jones was arguably more important to his team than Pujols.

 

How do you justify that statement?

 

It's not complicated. Where do the Braves finish without Jones playing everyday? Where do the Cubs finish without Lee playing everyday? The Cubs stunk. The Braves were pretty good. And the difference between making the playoffs and missing them is far more important to the MVP award than the difference sucking and Royals-ly sucking.

 

The MVP is not an individual stats award* in principle. It is about leading a team to a winning season and whether people like it or not, a team's win percentage and ability to make the playoffs factors heavily into this award because the voters make it so. It is what it is. From the voters' perspectives, an MVP must be be the leader that carries the team to the playoffs.

 

Do I personally think Jones is as good as Lee? Absolutely not. I'd take Lee every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays in a pick-up or fantasy game. Lee wins the Fantasy Player of the Year. There's no doubt about that.

 

*The exceptions usually come when the stats are so overwhelmingly undeniable and dominant over the nearest competitor. In Lee's case, his numbers don't dominate Pujols and he was perceived to lead an injury-riddled team to the playoffs (just like Jones).

 

Almost every stat is overwhelmingly in favor of Pujols or Lee over Andruw Jones. Some stats show that Jones wasn't even the best player on his team. Some might say that Furcal or Giles led the Braves the the playoffs.

[K-Town]

"Best stats" vs. "MVP" is always fun, isn't it? :lol:

 

The OPS+ numbers are almost a wash (Lee's was slightly better). Win Shares was almost a wash (Pujols was slightly better). Pujols was better in some stats, Lee in others.

 

The difference is that I think a case can be made that Pujols made the rest of his lineup better, moreso than Lee.

 

For the first half of the year, most pitchers were pitching aggressivley to Lee, because he wasn't considered to be the threat that Pujols was (history told us, and the NL pitchers, that he shouldn't be). Therefore, I think that Lee was probably seeing much more hittable pitches than Pujols was.

 

Also, it's not out of the question that the players around Pujols were seeing some very good pitches, because of the fear of having to face Pujols with runners on base. Meanwhile, the players around Lee might have been seeing garbage, because most NL pitchers weren't as concerned about facing Lee with runners on base. In that regard, I think a case can be made that Pujols was helping his team, more than Lee, simply because of his reputation.

 

I really disagree with you on each points of this post. First, the secret was out pretty fast with DLee. Second, you are overvaluing the impact pitches a player sees because of another player in the lineup.

 

I don't think the secret was out very quickly on Lee. I think that everybody expected him to come back to earth for the first two months of the year, and maybe started taking him more seriously after that. I think the fact that his OPS dropped by 225 points after the All Star break is evident of that, to some degree.

 

I don't think I'm overvaluing the impact that a player like Pujols or Lee can have on other players in the lineup. For examle, Nunez had a .704 OPS in 2005, but his OPS jumped to .885 when he batted in front of Pujols.

[UK1679666180]

You're introducing more "what if" scenarios, I ignore them, b/c they go both ways and can't be proved wrong and more importantly unlike production, can't be proven right.

 

I'd rather see the award and discussions based on which stats are the most accurate rather than which had the better teammates, that's the only reason why you'd give it Pujols over Lee, despite Lee being more productive.

 

The award to me is about production, not playing for the best team, they might as well give it to the best player on the best team in each league and limit it to those 25 guys. Lee was more productive, Pujols played for the better team.

 

Baseball writers get too romatic with awards that are based on production, most attach themselves to the past and refuse to look forward. Basing the CY on wins and the MVP on the team wins, further proves my point. Players and former athletes are just as guilty more time than not.

[TheDude]

Almost every stat is overwhelmingly in favor of Pujols or Lee over Andruw Jones. Some stats show that Jones wasn't even the best player on his team. Some might say that Furcal or Giles led the Braves the the playoffs.

 

The best stat for this scenario would be win-shares, but those don't come out for season end until after the votes are in. So it's still not about stats. It's about voters opinions which are easily swayed by media and hype.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Jones was more important to his team than Lee to the Cubs. Jones was arguably more important to his team than Pujols.

 

How do you justify that statement?

 

It's not complicated. Where do the Braves finish without Jones playing everyday? Where do the Cubs finish without Lee playing everyday? The Cubs stunk. The Braves were pretty good. And the difference between making the playoffs and missing them is far more important to the MVP award than the difference sucking and Royals-ly sucking.

 

The MVP is not an individual stats award* in principle. It is about leading a team to a winning season and whether people like it or not, a team's win percentage and ability to make the playoffs factors heavily into this award because the voters make it so. It is what it is. From the voters' perspectives, an MVP must be be the leader that carries the team to the playoffs.

 

Do I personally think Jones is as good as Lee? Absolutely not. I'd take Lee every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays in a pick-up or fantasy game. Lee wins the Fantasy Player of the Year. There's no doubt about that.

 

*The exceptions usually come when the stats are so overwhelmingly undeniable and dominant over the nearest competitor. In Lee's case, his numbers don't dominate Pujols and he was perceived to lead an injury-riddled team to the playoffs (just like Jones).

 

Lee clearly produced much much more than Jones. It's not remotely close. Lee did so with a crappy supporting cast. Jones did so with a good supporting cast. Therefore, Lee was more valuable to his team than Jones.

[Andy]

"Best stats" vs. "MVP" is always fun, isn't it? :lol:

 

The OPS+ numbers are almost a wash (Lee's was slightly better). Win Shares was almost a wash (Pujols was slightly better). Pujols was better in some stats, Lee in others.

 

The difference is that I think a case can be made that Pujols made the rest of his lineup better, moreso than Lee.

 

For the first half of the year, most pitchers were pitching aggressivley to Lee, because he wasn't considered to be the threat that Pujols was (history told us, and the NL pitchers, that he shouldn't be). Therefore, I think that Lee was probably seeing much more hittable pitches than Pujols was.

 

Also, it's not out of the question that the players around Pujols were seeing some very good pitches, because of the fear of having to face Pujols with runners on base. Meanwhile, the players around Lee might have been seeing garbage, because most NL pitchers weren't as concerned about facing Lee with runners on base. In that regard, I think a case can be made that Pujols was helping his team, more than Lee, simply because of his reputation.

 

I really disagree with you on each points of this post. First, the secret was out pretty fast with DLee. Second, you are overvaluing the impact pitches a player sees because of another player in the lineup.

 

I don't think the secret was out very quickly on Lee. I think that everybody expected him to come back to earth for the first two months of the year, and maybe started taking him more seriously after that. I think the fact that his OPS dropped by 225 points after the All Star break is evident of that, to some degree.

 

I don't think I'm overvaluing the impact that a player like Pujols or Lee can have on other players in the lineup. For examle, Nunez had a .704 OPS in 2005, but his OPS jumped to .885 when he batted in front of Pujols.

It might also have been because hardly anyone can maintain that level of inhuman production for an entire season...