I think it's only between 3 players: Pujols, D.Lee, and Andruw. Cabrera's had a solid season and if Florida gets in the post-season, then maybe we can throw him in the hat. But right now, I think Pujols is likely the front-runner. He's hitting .329/35/99 and on the best team in the league. But my vote would go to (with slight bias) Andruw Jones despite his .270 batting average. The power numbers are there and no one's carried a team like he has. Derek Lee's had an amazing season and still in the hunt for a triple crown, but being on the Cubs will likely ruin his MVP chances. Are there any darkhorses I'm missing? Could Clemens or Carpenter get some votes? (Is there an NL Cy Young thread? Those two should likely split the voting.)

I David Wright keeps playing the way he's been since the all-star break, he might just get a few votes too. Right now I'd go with Pujols though.

I dont think Andruw has carried the Braves.

Chase Utley

Seriously? I'd say Andruw has had Tejada-like shoulders this season, especially when the Braves were beat up and starting 7 rookies. Perhaps one could argue that Smoltz was a big factor in the Braves' success as well, but there's no question in my mind that Andruw was the catalyst for this team at a time when they really could have slid in the standings.

If Lee wins the Triple Crown, it should go to him.

What does MVP mean? Most valuable player to his particular team, or best player in the league? If it's the former, I can't say that Jones will win it. Therefore, it comes down to Pujols and Lee.

I am pretty sure it's the League.

he has nice numbers, but he hasnt carried the team. if he was injured, the braves would still be doing alright.

I understand that, but how do you define it? How can a player be valuable to the league? People interpret it differently, but I always thought it meant most valuable to his respective team -- which is different than best player in the league.

pujols... his team has been injured all year, and he has them sitting at the top with the best record in baseball... carpenter has been the man too, and either him or roger will win the cy... i'd give it to pujols over lee due to the team's success... especially after 98 when mcgwire had better numbers than sammy but didnt receive mvp due to the cubs making the playoffs

You do realize that everything you write is completely tainted by your unwaivering bias, don't you?

the best player is always the most valuable.

it's pujols.

What if it's a pitcher? Or better yet, a closer?

i'm not sure what you're saying. if the best player is a pitcher he should win the mvp.

It goes back to my original question. If MVP means most valuable to a respective team, how can you argue that that player is the best all around player? For instance, how can you argue Clemens was the best player on the Red Sox when he won it, when he didn't even hit or run? My question is, is the award measured by the best player in the league (like A-Rod two years ago) or a player that is the most valuable to his team? There's a difference. For instance, Lee may be the best player in the league this year, but he's not as valuable to the Cubs as Pujols is to the Cardinals.

how do you define best player other than value?

Well, if Pujols played for the Royals and put up the same numbers, but the Royals were still 30 games back, I wouldn't necessarily say he's more valuable to the Royals than if he played for the Cardinals, where the argument can be made that they wouldn't have won the division without him. Value to a team is measured largely by the position it would be in without that particular player.

If the Cubs were leading the wild card right now, would you still vote for Pujols? I know a lot of people wouldn't.

i haven't looked at the numbers. i'm mostly projecting to the end of the year and i don't think lee will have been as good over the course of the year.

but, no, pujols would be no less valuable if he was a royal. that doesn't make any sense. the quality of teammates doesn't affect a player's value.