I know gut feeling is to think of Lee as far and away a better defensive first baseman. All I can say is look at the numbers. Defensive stats are usually deceptive. All I can say is watch them play. Lee is just better, it has nothing to do with gut feeling. Also Lee has an advantage over Pujols: sheer size. He can pick and stretch for balls that Albert can't and never will be able to get to. Derreks combination of size and quickness is something that Albert can never match. That's not to denegrate Pujols, but unless he turns into Stretch Armstrong, that's just the way it will always be. Back to the stats; they tell us that Rafael Palmeiro and Paul Konerko have more range than Todd Helton and Derrek Lee, wich is ludicrous. They also tell us that Eric Hinske and Phil Nevin, who are statuesque at best, have a higher ZR than Pujols. Or how about this one: Jim Edmonds is 11th in ZR and 13th in RF. Do you buy what that says? And Rolen is waaaaaaay down the list in all three defensive percentage stats, even though he is the best defensive 3B there is. Even in 2004 and 2003 Rolen trailed many inferior defenders in all three categories. Did you know Aramis had more range in 2003 (his worst defensive season) than Rolen? That what the stats say. And that Andruw Jones, who has more range in CF than anyone on earth, is 14th in RF? I could do this all day. I think the implication is crystal clear, though. The stats are completely unreliable. Quantifying defensive prowess statistically has yet to be done with any kind of accuracy. You don't need a slide rule and calculator to know that Lee is a better defender than Pujols, just the same as you know Rolen is better than those many ahead of him statistically. Well argued. I must concede the point. Pujols is still a much better defender than people give him credit for, though.