M-V-Lee
Hey Everybody, just digging through my closet for my winter clothing and thinking about pitchers and catchers reporting in 3 months.
I knew Derrek Lee didn't have a prayer at winning the NL MVP, but I would have voted for him. And while I'm certainly biased (I won't pretend I'm not), in this case, his NUMBERS were better than Pujols' were. Derrek Lee was the best player in Major League Baseball in 2005. My definition of MVP is "the best player." And the Cubs' first baseman was that guy, in spite of his team's record. Now, having said that, I don't want to make it sound like it's a "crime" that Derrek didn't win it. Albert Pujols had a great year as well, one in the same ballpark as Lee. And while Lee's overall numbers were slightly better than Pujols, the fact that Pujols played on a division winner gives him the edge in the voters' minds. Again, for me personally, I don't think the "team" part of it matters that much because baseball is a sport in which we can pull out an individual's performance fairly easily from the rest of his team through rate stats and determine just how good that player is statistically.
I know, I know, you're thinking, "But Len, there are intangibles too!" Well, maybe true, BUT if it comes down to, for instance, how well liked a guy is in his clubhouse or how much of a "leader" he is, how is it that Barry Bonds has won more MVPs than anyone? It doesn't seem to be a secret that Bonds has never been the most popular guy in his own clubhouse, that he does his own thing, etc. Yet, the writers have determined many times that he has been the MVP because of his sick offensive stats. Along those lines, can anyone PROVE that Albert Pujols brought more intangibles to the table than Derrek Lee did? I doubt it.
So, if the "intangibles" wash out, the numbers have to carry a lot of the weight, no? The other thing, again, that affects the voting is where your team finishes in the standings. But I have a problem with that because what you're then asking is this--if you put Albert Pujols on the Cubs and Derrek Lee on the Cardinals, what would have happened? The Cardinals would have won the division and the Cubs would have finished about where they did. Would anyone argue with that? So, the bottom line is, one guy benefits from having BETTER TEAMMATES than the other guy. Does that logically make sense? Apparently to most voters, it does because Derrek Lee received just 1 first-place vote.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox. In the end, I won't lose sleep over the final voting because it played out pretty much how everybody thought it would--Pujols and Andruw Jones in a tight vote and Lee a distant third. Oh, and on Andruw Jones? Excellent year for him but if he had won it, it would have been an injustice to BOTH Pujols and Lee. He led in HR and RBIs, but nothing else. And we all know RBIs are a function, by and large, of opportunity. Derrek Lee should have easily led the league in RBIs, but we know why he didn't, right?
If I had voted, I would have gone Lee, Pujols, Jones.
How would you have voted?
Len