Both will have done a great job, but any team can get a boost from a new manager, which is why so many of the teams in trouble have changed their manager over the last few months. I know Pulls has taken that initial boost and gone way beyond that and deserves great credit, as does the team, but to win the league takes a lot without throwing hundreds of millions at a team over a very short time. It is no coincidence that Chel$ki and Cit€h have only won the league other than Utd in recent years. I know Liverpool have not been paupers in spending money, but they have been spending lots of money for decades and only come close once or twice.
I think the value of Chel$ki and Cit€h's squad were twice the value of Liverpool's last week.

To be competing with them this far into the season is an amazing job. To win the league you have to have the best team over a season, to avoid relegation you need to get your team to at least the 17th worst team. Yes, Pulls will have done an amazing job, and taken them much higher than 17th, and deserves all the kudos he is getting, but to take a team to a title without spending a huge amount of money in a short space of time would deserve to be manager of the year because it is so hard to do, recent history shows that.
If Magath saves Fulham, considering their season, and the position they were in when he arrived, will he have done a better job than Pulls or Rodgers? Or will he have he just have got his team playing slightly more consistently than the teams about them while still possibly losing games?
The season Liverpool are having has been breaking records, and that is also breaking records in Liverpool's long illustrious history, not just the Premier League era.

And we have had some good team's in the past. To do that from finishing 7th the previous year without spending hundreds of millions in between deserves huge credit imho.
