K-Town

The Astros and Dodgers should have been scared in 2004, when the Cards averaged over 5 runs per game in the playoffs against them. The Padres should have been scared in 2005, when the Cards averaged 7 runs per game against them in the playoffs. To say "they don't scare anybody" is just foolish.

So the Cards are lousy at managing their pitching staff, because they didn't win the World Series? Interesting theory.

If you believe that both players have a case, I don't understand why you keep arguing against Lee. There's nothing wrong with an honest argument, but just arguing's for arguing sake gets old in a hurry. I'm not arguing against Lee so much as I'm arguing FOR Pujols. I said that it was close enough to make a case either way. I don't think that Pujols was far and away the more deserving player, and I'm not convinced yet that Lee should have won, but there have been some good points made for him. Obviously I'm a Cardinals fan, so if I can make a case for Pujols, then I don't consider it to be "arguing just for arguing sake".

Ramirez took a big step back defensively in 2005. He was much better in 2004. Really? Well, I didn't see him alot. Maybe I just saw him on his good days, but I was surprised at some of the plays that he made look easy.

From what I saw of him in 2005, he made gigantic strides defensively, also. I wouldn't be surprised to see him have a monster year, if he can stay healthy.

Do you not remember your own posts from about 2 hours ago?? This one? Why are you still arguing this point, K-Town? Were you just being magnanimous at the start of this thread? Or do you just like arguing with Cubs fans? No, I think that it was close enough that Pujols or Lee could have had a case. In fact, I've already said that if I were a Cubs fan, I'd be making a case for Lee. As fans, there's nothing stopping us from being a little biased toward our team's players. To answer your other question, yes, it's fun arguing with Cubs fans, as long as they remain civil (which most of the folks here do). Seems harmless enough........ It would be a boring world if we all agreed, and we would need chat boards, just pages and pages of stats to stare at.

That's not an arbitrary stance to make, though. The world isn't flat. That's a fact. That stance has been proven to be false. The MVP is simply people's perspective. There is no right or wrong answer. Most people believe that Pujols was more valuable than Lee, all the sailors in the world can't prove otherwise. The Cubs have had their share of MVP's....... some worthy, and some not. Maybe Lee will get one someday. More power to him. Lord knows that Pujols had to wait for his. It's not a big deal.

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? As did Dayn Parry for Fox Sports. As did you. So what? Two guys like Derrek Lee. Do you want me to show you the links that say that Pujols should be the MVP? You insinuated only Cubs fans thought DLee should've won it. they proved you wrong. I think that was the point there. Obviously I was making an exaggerated point when I said "the rest of America". I guess I should clarify. The vast majority of America, outside of Cubville, believes that Pujols was the most valuable player in the National League this year.

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? As did Dayn Parry for Fox Sports. As did you. So what? Two guys like Derrek Lee. Do you want me to show you the links that say that Pujols should be the MVP? Nah, my idiot list is long enough already. Apparently so.

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? As did Dayn Parry for Fox Sports. As did you. So what? Two guys like Derrek Lee. Do you want me to show you the links that say that Pujols should be the MVP?

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Go ahead and make that argument for me, if you don't mind. I'm DYING to hear it.

Bonds vs. Pujols wasn't that close. Bonds was CLEARLY better, and deserved to win it the previous two years. This year was close enough that either Pujols or Lee could have had a legitimate case.