Batista. They're about equivalent pitchers, but Batista's salary is sunk cost whereas Lilly's is optional. I'd rather the money was spend on a bat.

And I'd prefer Bush and Chacin to either of Batista or Lilly.

With Lilly, you sometimes catch lightning in a bottle.

With Batista, you're just praying he doesn't implode.

I think Binnister's impression is the common one and the reason why Lilly is out-polling Batista, but I think it's rooted in frustration with Batista as closer rather than solid logic. Over the past 3 seasons, Lilly has worked 502 innings with a 102 ERA+, while Batista has tossed 467 with a 115 ERA+. Granted, Batista's ERA+ advantage is primarily due to the oldest data here (2003), but at the same time Lilly's disadvantage is primarily due to the most recent season. Is there reason to believe that Lilly's injuries were the sole cause of his ineffectiveness in 2005, and is there reason to believe those injuries don't portend future injuries or ineffectiveness?

I voted Batista. The best justification I can think of for voting Lilly is that he's 5 years younger. Some might prefer Lilly for salary reasons, but I can't see Ted coming in under $4M, as compared to Miguel's $4.75M. Not enough of a gap that it should matter to this team.

Lilly is 44-45. Batista is 57-71. Go with the kids.

I voted Batista - I'd rather have Bush or Chacin than either - and Miguel gets my vote because I'd rather have him on the staff. He can be effective in a number of roles.