Vote for Lee. Pujols will certainly be placed on the team by Larusa. Reward Lee for a career year.

I think they should both be there, but voted in reverse order to Mark...I think Larusa will bring Lee if he isn't voted in and that Pujols, having established himself over far more than just half a year, deserves the right to the vote. A great 1/2 season just isn't enough to merit the vote-in for starting the game...all this begs the question: how many 1/2 season pan-flashes have been made all-stars? Anyone have any good examples that come to mind?

The half-season/better career argument seems like a wash to me. I've been voting for Lee, with defense as a tie breaker. I'm not all torn up about it, I assume Pujols is going anyway, and he may even start at DH.

How about Ron Coomer in 1999? He wasn't even good.

it's the fans' game; people should vote for whoever they want to see. either player would be legit. as for which player la russa will play . . . . it's said he is very worked up about the game because it will determine home field for the series, and the cardinals were famously irked at having to start the series on the road last yr. don't look for all 28 nl all-stars to appear . . . . .

if you're not voting for someone based on the half-year they're having, what are the criteria? does that mean palmeiro gets in automatically from now until retirement because of his career stats? lee's having an all-star year. make him an all-star.

I'd much rather watch Pujols hit against the best the AL has to offer (Santana). You should vote for who you'd like to see in the game and the other stars will make it as reserves. If Bonds were healthy enough, I'd love to see him start at DH.

At a minimum, the time that has elapsed since the last all-star game should be considered (that is, include the second half of last season and the playoffs). Beyond that, pick the guy you like best. It probably means more to Lee than Pujols. Lee is having a great year, but Pujols is on a career path enjoyed by few others in the history of the game.

Being a Cardinal fan and realizing the Cards have a very good chance of going to World Series again, I want to player starting (i.e. playing the most) to be the one that gives the NL the best chance to win the game.

Clearly Pujols gives the team the best chance to win. Hopefully he starts.

Greg Olsen, I think his first year with the Braves-- he wasn't even having a great year, just had a BA around .300 while every other catcher inthe NL was stinkin' out the joint...

On the flip side Fernando was the only Dodger pitcher chosen one year-- with the worst ERA on the staff at the time! (of course the staff ERA that week was about 2.30...)

I don't see anything wrong with fans wanting to see a guy one more time-- nobody's outstanding in the NL this year, why not vote for Piazza? I don't, but I don't get all wrapped up in my virtue at folks who do...

Lee is having a triple crown/mvp type year; if you won't vote for him this year what more can he do? What if he's just starting a run of five years at this level? Will you still vote for Pujols because you expect Lee's hot streak to end? If you'd rather see Pujols vote for him-- I voted for Lee... youre not wrong, I'm not wrong...

This is the classic sphere in which consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds...

To me it's simple. Albert Pujols is the best first-baseman in the NL, so he gets my vote. I couldn't care less who's doing better in the first two months of the season. Pujols is the best 1B, so he gets my vote. End of story.

I agree with most that All-Star voting isn't worth getting upset about at all...it's enjoyable, and it's a great means to have a good dialogue about players. Personally, I like to look at performance from the last All-Star break on, with virtual ties going to the guy with a more established career. But really, it's hard to get too worked up over anyone who wants to vote for Lee with the kind of year he's having.

"This is the classic sphere in which consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds..."

AND WHERE INCONSISTENCY IS THE COP-OUT OF THE WEAK WILL!!!

J.K.

SERIOUSLY, I THINK YOU HIT IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD - WHAT MORE COULD LEE DO???!!! BECAUSE HE LIKELY WON'T KEEP THIS RATE UP, NEXT YEAR WON'T BE A "REWARD" MOTIVATED VOTE BY THE THINKING FAN (I.E. THOSE *NOT* VOTING FOR TINO MARTINEZ) BECAUSE WE'LL ALL GET SMUG AND SAY - "SEE IT WAS A STATISTICAL ANOMALY"...

SO GOSH, I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR LEE!!!! (AND BECAUSE AS SOMEONE STATED BEFORE, IT'S NOT LIKE ALBERT ISN'T GOING TO GET P.A.S)

What more can Lee do? Well, if he keeps it up all year, and then is still doing it at this time next year, I'll gladly vote him for the 2006 AS game. But until he's proven that he's better than Pujols, I'm not voting for him.

My general view is, if the guy who's clearly the best player at the position - and a Hall of Famer in his prime - is having his usual year, give him the nod. Pujols is probably the best player in baseball right now; that's not an All-Star? Whereas I'm voting for Brian Roberts because there's no such dominant 2B in the Al.

Now, with the Day by Day Database, we can look at the last year as a straight comparison. 6/21/04 through 6/20/05, Pujols is batting .343/.649/.424, 45 HR, 133 RBI, 131 R. Lee is batting .312/.580/.393, 42 HR, 112 RBI, 108 R. To me, that answers the question.

But again, I don't think it comes down to what's happened in other seasons. Like GR's point on Palmiero. Lee is having the best year so far, statistically. And he's doing it with a much weaker lineup around him. While no one can reasonably pitch around Pujols, it's easier to hand Lee an IBB. To me, Lee is much more dominant than Pujols because of their situations. Sure, Pujols is great, but who isn't on that team? Lee is single-handedly giving the Cubs an extra 10 wins this year. Pujols? Maybe only 5.

I feel that the Allstar game is about who is an Allstar in that particular year. In this case we can say that both are having Allstar seasons so they both belong. As for the starter, I would go with Lee because his numbers this year are better at this point. Players like Brian Roberts deserve to be in this year based on his terrific start. He could bat .150 after the break and he still would have been an Allstar at this point in the season. The only time I think it is necessary to take past performances into account is a situation where a player has produced at an Allstar level yet never made the Allstar team. Such as Tim Salmon a few years back.

The reason that's stupid, Rich, is because it doesn't reward players for having all-star seasons. If rewards players for having all-star first halves. What about a player that has an all-star second half?

A player that starts out red-hot and then fades into oblivion is an all-star, yet a player that starts out cold and finishes in the top five isn't? How does that make sense?

Vote for the best player. Vote for the player you would most want on your team if you were building a franchise. The 2005 season should be taken into account, but it shouldn't be the be-all and end-all.

Interesting thoughts, all.

It seems to me that an All-Star Vote should be for that year... the consistent players tend to be there anyways based on name recognition. If a player's stats are so good in a single year that people actually consider them over someone of Pujols' caliber, they deserve a vote.

On the other hand, I do think there's a legitimate case to be made that Pujols has been getting a raw deal for years on the MVP... if it were my call, I'd vote Lee for All-Star at 1B and Pujols for MVP. It sounds inconsistent, I suppose, but I'm sorta assuming that Lee and Pujols' numbers will be fairly close by the end of the year, and in that scenario consistency seems to me a legitimate factor.

after looking at the stats, i just changed my vote. lee is batting .392????? if that's not an all-star, the whole concept is meaningless.

I wouldn't vote for Lee simply because he has better numbers than Pujols this year. But I would vote for him because he has clearly outperformed every other hitter in major league baseball!

I just want to announce my basic tenet, which is to be completely inconsistent and ad hoc, in order to justify my vote for whoever I want to. The competing principles I believe in in play here are:

1) I don't think hot play for a couple of months is the best criteria for selecting an all star, and think it ridiculous to ignore completely more than a half of a season each time you select an all star. I also think career stats are relevant; and

2) I like to recognize players having career years who aren't perennial all stars, for the sake of variety and because it is nice to recognize the many good but not great players for whom selection to the all star game would be more meaningful.

This year my vote has gone to Lee (and no matter what both will go) but I certainly don't think someone voting the other way is unjustified in doing so.

I use a simple system;

1. Great players having great years (Tejada, A-Fraud)
2. Great players having good years (Pujols, Kent)
3. Good players having great years (Lee)

Doing it this way avoids the Scott Cooper, Greg Olson, Ron Commer type picks. Not that Lee is that bad, he's going no matter what and deservedly so, but as a fighter needs to knock out the champ to win the title, so too does an All-Star. Lee's problem hasn't been that he hasn't been good enough, it's that Pujols has been phenomenal as well. Incidentally, from what I see, Pujols isn't that much of a slide, if at all defensively from Lee either.

1. It's the *2005* All-Star Game, not the 1999-2004 1/2 All-Star Game. Let's put Giambi in there then.

2. Many of the less-than-stellar names brought up as All-Stars, like Lance Carter, are due to the one-player-from-each-team rule, and has nothing to do with the vote. The gripe is with that, and not in selecting Lee for the *2005* All-Star Game based upon a great *2005*.

Pujols! He's the NL's best 1st baseman since the last All Star game.

I'm also curious if Ben really thinks that Pujols deserved the MVP more than Bonds, or does he think that Pujols has just been unlucky to be in the same league as Bonds?

I don't think some of you are getting the point people are trying to make. Nobody is saying a player who was very good for many years but is having a terrible 2005 should go. They are saying that players who have consistently put up great numbers and proven themselves to be the best at their position, and are continuing to do so this year (Pujols OPS is 1.023), should be given the nod over someone who has put up great numbers for 2 months. As previously mentioned, that rewatds the players that are truly the best at their position.

Yes, Sacki, it's the *2005* all-star game, not the *first half of 2005* all-star game. By your method you ignore second-half players, and that's silly.

Jeff hit the nail on the head. Nobody is saying Giambi and Palmeiro should make it based on their past, but players that have dominated for years and continue to dominate should make it over some guy that's dominated for 2 months.

It's not a difficult concept.

So, not to be a brat, but to be bratlike-- if Lee holds this level of play for the rest of 2005, wins the triple crown and MVP, then reverts to his previous level for the first half of 2006, he shouldn't be an all star this year because his second half last year wasn't good enough, and he shouldn't be an all star next year because his first half won't be good enough... So his failure will be in having both halves of his mvp year in the same season? ;-)

And secondly, since no other catcher in the NL has any gravitas at all, Piazza should get our votes?

Folks, its not science and its not major ethics-- the idea is the fans get to choose who they want to see. There may be silly answers, but there aren't any wrong answers; it certainly makes sense to explain your reasoning, but not much to attack someone elses...

This whole conversation seems to be based on the assumption that everyone who votes for players actually pays attention to who is actually best at a position. A lot of fans just vote for their favorite players (which is why David Eckstein is getting a lot of votes from here in Anaheim). Many people don't necessarily pay attention to what kind of year someone is having - which is why I sometimes think it should be called the "Fan Favorites" game instead of the "All-Star" Game

Because it is a half-way point game, the guy who has a monster April and May is gonna get votes -- that's just the way it is. Still, Ken Griffey Jr. was among the outfield leaders for awhile, based on his past greatness.

I've cast two of my 25 alloted on-line ballots. The first time, I had no problem picking Pujols. The second time, I really had to hesitate, because DLee has kept it going. There is no doubt that Berticus Maximus is on a HOF path. But it was tough to not reward DLee for his great first half.

I think the way it should end up is that Albert wins the fan vote, Lee comes in 2nd and La Russa puts Lee on the team. That's the way I'd script it, if I was in charge of rigging the vote. :-) If by some chance TLR leaves Lee off, then fans will undoubtedly have the chance to pick Lee as the 30th or 32nd or 38th or whatever man we get to pick this year.

It was discussed earlier but not really fleshed out, I dont' think... This term "All Star."

When you look at a player's career numbers, their All Star appearances are always noted, as in "Mike Schmidt, 12-time All Star." Now, does this mean Schmidt merely had 12 good first halfs? Of course not. It does mean that he was THE National League third baseman for about a decade and a half. I'm not going to do the research, but I bet more than of few of those selections were without complete merit and were based on the fact that he was Mike Schmidt and no other NL thirdbaseman was Mike Schmidt.

The same thing goes for many, many, other players and I am totally fine with that. The beauty of it is that the term "All Star" can be applied to all three categories of players Capybara correctly set forth. Lee AND Pujols will go, and should go. Piazza will go and he should go. People understand what it's all about.

VOTE DERREK LEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why? Derrek has 102 hits to Pujols' 92. 25 Doubles to Pujols' 18. 2 more homers than Pujols does. 2 more RBIs. 23 more total bases. 2 more walks. 4 more stolen bases. 52 points on Pujols in OBP. 122 points on Pujols in SLG. Derrek is hitting .389!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure, Pujols' .332 Average is very, very good, but Pujols does this every year, so why not let Derrek let him have his fun? This is year. Barring injury or setback, he has the best shot of any player in baseball to win the MVP award. The first two letters in MVP stand for MOST VALUABLE, so where would the Cubs be without Lee? Third or fourth place. He's kept this club above water waiting for the returns of Prior, Wood, and Garciaparra(will he even play this year?). In the NL, Lee is second in runs scored, 1st in hits, 2nd in doubles, tied for 2nd in home runs, 2nd in RBIs, 1st in total bases, 12th in walks, 11th in steals, 1st in OBP (among players with necessary playing time), 1st in Slugging (same as before), 1st in average, 11th is sac flies, 22nd in hit by pitches, 4th in number of pitches seen (a testement to his discipline and ability to foul off bad pitches to get to the good ones), 1st in extra base hits,and 1st in OPS (obp+slg). If that's not enough, I don't know what is.

Gentlemen, the game style and grace, it's all about the numbers and although both men are good.....only one of them has the numbers at this point. I vote Lee. no matter what. "You go Lee, and be you"...make it do what it do.... :)

Gentlemen, its not style & grace. It's all in the numbers. Although both men are good, only one of them have the numbers at this point.
I vote LEE. (no matter what). "you go LEE, be you and make it do what it do" :)

I personally believe Pujols is the best player in both leagues. Lee is having a tremendous season and Pujols will DH if he doesn't win the starting nod. It will work itself out anyway, plus Lee will probably break his leg chasing a foul ball in the stands and the 1908 curse will live on.