Surprise! Pujols wins NL MVP

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"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...

 

Curse that Derrek Lee for not maintaining a 1.200 OPS all year long.

[K-Town]

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.

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and if I were a Cubs fan, I'd probably make the same argument.

 

Words like "productive" are pretty arbitrary, though. Which stat do you want to use? Pujols finished ahead of Lee in Win Shares. That's a stat. Should that be the end of the discussion?

 

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

There are lots of ways to look at it. Apparently the voters went beyond "best OPS" or "best VORP". You don't have to agree with it, that's for sure. Like I said, I wouldn't, if I were in your shoes.

[K-Town]

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.

 

Win Shares are out. Pujols had the most, with Lee a very close 2nd, and Andruw Jones WAY down the list.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

There are lots of ways to look at it. Apparently the voters went beyond "best OPS" or "best VORP". You don't have to agree with it, that's for sure. Like I said, I wouldn't, if I were in your shoes.

 

I really doubt the voters went beyond best OPS or VORP. In fact, I really doubt they made it to best OPS or VORP.

[K-Town]

There are lots of ways to look at it. Apparently the voters went beyond "best OPS" or "best VORP". You don't have to agree with it, that's for sure. Like I said, I wouldn't, if I were in your shoes.

 

I really doubt the voters went beyond best OPS or VORP. In fact, I really doubt they made it to best OPS or VORP.

 

By "beyond", I meant that they might have considered other things, besides two raw stats.

[treebird]

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

so pujols wins mvp because sometimes lee throws sunflower seeds at the pitcher, causing him to pitch badly? and lee loses mvp because sometimes the pitcher is on the mound and he gets sad or something and pujols comes over and tells him a joke and makes him happy?

 

wait, screw it, neifi should've won mvp, he talks to the pitchers more than anyone

[Transmogrified Tiger]

There are lots of ways to look at it. Apparently the voters went beyond "best OPS" or "best VORP". You don't have to agree with it, that's for sure. Like I said, I wouldn't, if I were in your shoes.

 

I really doubt the voters went beyond best OPS or VORP. In fact, I really doubt they made it to best OPS or VORP.

 

By "beyond", I meant that they might have considered other things, besides two raw stats.

 

Yes, and I'm saying I doubt many of them considered any statistics of meaning, nevermind OPS and VORP, which are two good metrics for total production.

[SouthSideRyan]

For examle, Nunez had a .704 OPS in 2005, but his OPS jumped to .885 when he batted in front of Pujols.

 

For example, Edmonds had a 1.061 OPS in '04 but his OPS dropped to .918 when batting after Pujols this year. Pujols musta slumped big time.

 

The MVP is not an individual stats award* in principle. It is about leading a team to a winning season

 

Care to reference the relevant parts of the rules for voting on it?

 

Do I personally think Jones is as good as Lee? Absolutely not.

 

So you might say Lee is more valuable to any given team?

 

*The exceptions usually come when the stats are so overwhelmingly undeniable and dominant over the nearest competitor. In

 

Doesn't that contradict what you said earlier? Let's say KC had a healthy Bonds all year and lead them to 70 wins with a standard Bondsian season (please keep the steroid debate somewhere else)

 

The team is still brutal, why is it okay, as you said being valuable is only about leading teams towards the playoffs. Nevermind that a player could far and away be the best player in the league, he didn't win!!

 

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.

 

Even assuming that's true for the entire first half, which is a ridiculously long time, doesn't Lee pretty much make up for it all in this hypothetical by having a 2nd half offense of him and either Ramirez or Nomar while Pujols's offense was somewhat major league caliber?

 

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.

 

You honestly believe any of that? You think luminaries like Neifi, Macias and Corey Patterson were seeing garbage because pitchers thought that scrub Lee won't be driving him in anyways??

[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.

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and if I were a Cubs fan, I'd probably make the same argument.

 

Words like "productive" are pretty arbitrary, though. Which stat do you want to use? Pujols finished ahead of Lee in Win Shares. That's a stat. Should that be the end of the discussion?

 

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

There are lots of ways to look at it. Apparently the voters went beyond "best OPS" or "best VORP". You don't have to agree with it, that's for sure. Like I said, I wouldn't, if I were in your shoes.

 

There are enough stats to formulate an opinion, Win Shares is just one of them. I'd look at XR, BaseRuns (since the production is at the higher end of the spectrum), BR, RC, EqA, VORP etc. defensively I'd use FRAA, RF, ZR and the new one by Pinto not that UZR is gone. I'd be able to find the best candidate from those and eliminate the choice of being able to pick and choose which stat supports the argument.

 

If you enter a person into a distraction or lack of motivational scenario and I try to apply this to Lee, if I search for evidence that Lee was a distraction, I'll find nothing. This is another "what if" that has nothing to do with Lee.

Edited November 16, 2005 by UK

[K-Town]

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

so pujols wins mvp because sometimes lee throws sunflower seeds at the pitcher, causing him to pitch badly? and lee loses mvp because sometimes the pitcher is on the mound and he gets sad or something and pujols comes over and tells him a joke and makes him happy?

 

wait, screw it, neifi should've won mvp, he talks to the pitchers more than anyone

 

I don't know. Why do YOU think that Pujols won?

[treebird]

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

so pujols wins mvp because sometimes lee throws sunflower seeds at the pitcher, causing him to pitch badly? and lee loses mvp because sometimes the pitcher is on the mound and he gets sad or something and pujols comes over and tells him a joke and makes him happy?

 

wait, screw it, neifi should've won mvp, he talks to the pitchers more than anyone

 

I don't know. Why do YOU think that Pujols won?

 

because they only like to vote for guys who make the playoffs

 

im pretty sure that the bizarre cracker factory scenario makes no sense at all.

[K-Town]

For example, Edmonds had a 1.061 OPS in '04 but his OPS dropped to .918 when batting after Pujols this year. Pujols musta slumped big time.

 

Comparing 2004 Edmonds totals to 2005 Edmonds splits isn't really fair. I have no clue what you're getting at.

[SouthSideRyan]

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

so pujols wins mvp because sometimes lee throws sunflower seeds at the pitcher, causing him to pitch badly? and lee loses mvp because sometimes the pitcher is on the mound and he gets sad or something and pujols comes over and tells him a joke and makes him happy?

 

wait, screw it, neifi should've won mvp, he talks to the pitchers more than anyone

 

I don't know. Why do YOU think that Pujols won?

 

RBIs, a winning team, and losing to a guy the media hates the past couple years.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

For example, Edmonds had a 1.061 OPS in '04 but his OPS dropped to .918 when batting after Pujols this year. Pujols musta slumped big time.

 

Comparing 2004 Edmonds totals to 2005 Edmonds splits isn't really fair. I have no clue what you're getting at.

 

](*,)

[K-Town]

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

so pujols wins mvp because sometimes lee throws sunflower seeds at the pitcher, causing him to pitch badly? and lee loses mvp because sometimes the pitcher is on the mound and he gets sad or something and pujols comes over and tells him a joke and makes him happy?

 

wait, screw it, neifi should've won mvp, he talks to the pitchers more than anyone

 

I don't know. Why do YOU think that Pujols won?

 

because they only like to vote for guys who make the playoffs

 

im pretty sure that the bizarre cracker factory scenario makes no sense at all.

 

Well, if that's the standard for the award, then why shouldn't Pujols win? His team DID make the playoffs, and Lee's didn't.

 

Just because you don't agree with the standard for MVP, doesn't mean that Pujols didn't meet the established standard better than Lee did.

 

The MVP is about helping your team win. Pujols had the most Win Shares, and led his team to the playoffs. I'm not sure what's wrong with that argument.

[K-Town]

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

so pujols wins mvp because sometimes lee throws sunflower seeds at the pitcher, causing him to pitch badly? and lee loses mvp because sometimes the pitcher is on the mound and he gets sad or something and pujols comes over and tells him a joke and makes him happy?

 

wait, screw it, neifi should've won mvp, he talks to the pitchers more than anyone

 

I don't know. Why do YOU think that Pujols won?

 

RBIs, a winning team, and losing to a guy the media hates the past couple years.

 

The media hates Bonds??? Since when? I turn on ESPN, and Bonds is all I see. I open the paper, and Bonds is all I see.

 

If it was about winning baseball, and RBI's, then why didn't Andruw Jones win?

[SouthSideRyan]

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

so pujols wins mvp because sometimes lee throws sunflower seeds at the pitcher, causing him to pitch badly? and lee loses mvp because sometimes the pitcher is on the mound and he gets sad or something and pujols comes over and tells him a joke and makes him happy?

 

wait, screw it, neifi should've won mvp, he talks to the pitchers more than anyone

 

I don't know. Why do YOU think that Pujols won?

 

because they only like to vote for guys who make the playoffs

 

im pretty sure that the bizarre cracker factory scenario makes no sense at all.

 

Well, if that's the standard for the award, then why shouldn't Pujols win? His team DID make the playoffs, and Lee's didn't.

 

Just because you don't agree with the standard for MVP, doesn't mean that Pujols didn't meet the established standard better than Lee did.

 

The MVP is about helping your team win. Pujols had the most Win Shares, and led his team to the playoffs. I'm not sure what's wrong with that argument.

 

The established standard is whatever sportswriters vote for becuase they're the ones who vote....so essentially whoever they vote for is always right. In the past 2 legs of the triple crown was a pretty good sign you were taking the MVP. These guys aren't the pope, they're not infallible. They're morons.

[SouthSideRyan]

I have 3 workers. One is on 1st shift, one is on 2nd shift, and one is on 3rd shift. The first shift worker is SLIGHTLY more productive than the other two, but tends to be a distraction to those around him, which makes them LESS productive than the folks working around the 2nd and 3rd shift employees (the 2nd and 3rd shift workers have motivational personalities, and the overall production on their shifts is better). So which employee would you rather keep? Simplisticly, you'd keep the first shift (slightly more productive) worker. When you look at the big picture, you might be better off keeping the other two.

 

so pujols wins mvp because sometimes lee throws sunflower seeds at the pitcher, causing him to pitch badly? and lee loses mvp because sometimes the pitcher is on the mound and he gets sad or something and pujols comes over and tells him a joke and makes him happy?

 

wait, screw it, neifi should've won mvp, he talks to the pitchers more than anyone

 

I don't know. Why do YOU think that Pujols won?

 

RBIs, a winning team, and losing to a guy the media hates the past couple years.

 

The media hates Bonds??? Since when? I turn on ESPN, and Bonds is all I see. I open the paper, and Bonds is all I see.

 

If it was about winning baseball, and RBI's, then why didn't Andruw Jones win?

 

The third reason. You're going to deny that those play a big part of it when Jones came so close to winning it?

 

Sportswriters hate Bonds. It's just hard to deny coverage to the best player in baseball when healthy.

[K-Town]

The established standard is whatever sportswriters vote for becuase they're the ones who vote....so essentially whoever they vote for is always right. In the past 2 legs of the triple crown was a pretty good sign you were taking the MVP. These guys aren't the pope, they're not infallible. They're morons.

 

Nor is anybody on this board infallible. In the opinions of most people outside of Chicago, apparently Pujols was more valuable. Like I said, if I were you, I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.

 

In the grand scheme, I'd be happier if Pujols had led the Cardinals to a world championship, and not won the MVP award, and you'd probably be happier if Lee had led the Cubs to the playoffs, and not won the MVP award. It's pretty irrelevant, mostly.

[1908]

In the opinions of most people outside of Chicago, apparently Pujols was more valuable.

Don't you mean the majority of people who had an MVP vote?

[daske17]

In the opinions of most people outside of Chicago, apparently Pujols was more valuable.

Don't you mean the majority of people who had an MVP vote?

 

While it's hardly indicative of true fan support, ESPN did an online poll which mapped out by state who people thought was the MVP. D-Lee didn't even carry Illinois!

 

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?pollId=33531

[Chief_Cardinal]

Doesn't anyone think that the reason that Jones got so many votes was due to the media blitz in his favor the past month of the regular season. I'm not into the whole ESPN bias thing necessarly but they were pushing Jones pretty hard near the end of the season and then Fox seemed to pick it up at the end as well. To me if you keep hearing that Jones should be MVP, then maybe your more willing to vote him higher than he actually deserved.

 

As for Lee/Pujols. IF I had a vote I would of voted for Lee for MVP. But to me its like the All Star Game Who should start argument. You can't go wrong with either choice. Both are deserving and neither should be insulted to be chosen over by the other.

[SouthSideRyan]

The majority has been wrong many many times in the past. It'd shock me if Lee had any significant vote total in an online poll, cause you barely heard his name mentioned in the past month because as previously stated, those in the media, not so smart.

 

The majority of America in both that online vote and the MVP vote also said Jones was better than Lee, should we accept that as well?

[K-Town]

The majority has been wrong many many times in the past. It'd shock me if Lee had any significant vote total in an online poll, cause you barely heard his name mentioned in the past month because as previously stated, those in the media, not so smart.

 

The majority of America in both that online vote and the MVP vote also said Jones was better than Lee, should we accept that as well?

 

So basically, Cubs fans are right, and the rest of America is wrong?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The majority has been wrong many many times in the past. It'd shock me if Lee had any significant vote total in an online poll, cause you barely heard his name mentioned in the past month because as previously stated, those in the media, not so smart.

 

The majority of America in both that online vote and the MVP vote also said Jones was better than Lee, should we accept that as well?

 

So basically, Cubs fans are right, and the rest of America is wrong?

 

Didn't BP do a feature a while back touting Lee for MVP?