Prince Albert Pujols, he reigneth

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
...despite Steve Shasta's insinuations.

Jonah Keri from Prospectus:


If you’re looking for a counting stat to measure the first five years of a player’s career, BP’s Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP) stat does the trick. The WARP-3 stat allows us to further adjust performance so that all players are measured on the same level of per-162 games played. WARP takes into account defensive performance, something EqA does not. It can also be used to measure pitchers’ performance, thus opening up the list of possible Top-10 candidates. The leaders:

WARP3 in their first 5 years:

1. Ted Williams 61.7 (1939-42, 46)
2. Arky Vaughan 58.0
3. ALBERT PUJOLS 54.9
4. Joe DiMaggio 53.5
5. Jackie Robinson 53.3
6. Pete Alexander 52.6
7. Amos Rusie 49.9
8. Wade Boggs 49.6
9. Tom Seaver 49.3
10. Jeff Bagwell 48.8

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 May 2006 19:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Colour me ignorant, but I've never heard of Arky Vaughan!

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 5 May 2006 19:19 (twelve years ago) Permalink

My insinuation:

Nobody came close to Maris' record until McGwire, Sosa and Bonds... all of whom have been publically tried and sentenced for alleged PED abuse.

Pujols is currently on pace to demolish all of their marks, so why should he be free of any rumors/accusations?

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Friday, 5 May 2006 19:26 (twelve years ago) Permalink

1. Because unlike the triumvirate you mentioned, all of whom were formerly skinny before bulking up quite suddenly, Pujols has always just been a huge muscled person. (If I am wrong, please correct me.)

2. Because two of these people fell out of baseball very quickly (one to injuries, one to falling the eff off and being blackballed) and the third has had an entire book published detailing court transcripts about his (ALLEGED I KNOW) steroid usage. Pujols is still in the game, still strong, and hasn't tested positive for anything.

Haikunym (Haikunym), Friday, 5 May 2006 19:40 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Arky Vaughan was a Pittsburgh SS, named by Richard Nixon to his personal All-Time team in 1969.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 May 2006 20:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"Pujols is currently on pace to demolish all of their marks, so why should he be free of any rumors/accusations?"

Cuz he hasn't done it yet for one thing. Plenty of people have gotten off to ridiculously hot starts and cooled. And everyone suspects that at least part of this hot start is aided by juiced balls and a rather easy opening schedule for the Cards. Plus there is the added fact that Pujols is 26 and has always been pretty close to this ridiculously good unlike "I turn 38 and become absurdly better than I ever have been before" Bonds and "We don't look much like our rookie baseball cards no more" McMark and SaSosa. Just saying.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 5 May 2006 20:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Alex dont you know
that Pujols IS thirty-eight!
come on man catch up

Haikunym (Haikunym), Friday, 5 May 2006 20:42 (twelve years ago) Permalink

No offense to Steve Shasters but I trust Dayne Perry more than I trust him.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 5 May 2006 20:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

yeah no problem dude
trust FOX SPORTS over fair
and balanced shasta

Haikunym (Haikunym), Friday, 5 May 2006 20:51 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I'd like to see someone run those age comparisons (I guess PECOTA would be best for this, really) with his stated age and his rumored age (28) and see how much difference actually exists. If his body type and skill set lend themself to a long career into his 40s, those two years might be irrelevant no matter what the truth is. If his comparables are a bunch of big sluggers who dropped rapidly after age 32 (or 34, etc.), then two years is a big deal.

milo z (mlp), Friday, 5 May 2006 20:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Colour me ignorant, but I've never heard of Arky Vaughan!

After Honus Wagner (clearly the greatest shortstop ever), he's routinely cited as one of the top two or three shortstops ever, even though he isn't nearly as famous as a host of other guys. But I wouldn't have pegged Arky Vaughn for 2nd on that list.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vaughar01.shtml

Keep in mind that WARP3 measures performance relative to others at the same position. In that respect, Vaughn hit out of his mind for a shortstop (check out those Ruth/Williams-worthy OBPs), and the 30's were a weak decade for shortstops.

Pujols is currently on pace to demolish all of their marks, so why should he be free of any rumors/accusations?

I know that this question is somewhat rhetorical, and it feels like everyone is recycling their comments from other threads ... but anyway:

-- 20-year male athletes are skinny. All of you were probably skinny when you were 20. Athletes bulk up as they get older. This is normal. Athletes' bodies fill out throughout their 20's and 30's. This is normal. Looking like a beast when you're only 21 (Pujols' supposed age in his rookie year) is not normal.

-- In light of the above comment, improvements in medicine and training, not to mention the tremendous amount of money to be made in pro sports now (compared to 10-20 years ago, even) have led to more athletes (in many sports) getting bigger at an earlier age. Lifting weights was strongly frowned upon by baseball players throughout the history of the game. It only started gaining acceptance in the 1990's. It doesn't matter who you believe was on the juice -- you still gotta lift weights when you're on steroids, and that wasn't part of the culture until very recently. So it's pointless to say that Bonds/Mac/Sosa/etc. looked different at the start of their careers because bulking up just wasn't done when they were coming up through the system. You can't argue "Bonds put on lots of weight and Pujols hasn't, therefore this 'proves' that Bonds juiced but Pujols didn't because it must be his natural body type." No, they grew up in different times.

So why isn't Pujols surrounded by steroid rumours? Like I've said before -- cleaning up the game is a distant priority for MLB. Their main concern is cleaning up the game's image. You can accomplish the latter by scapegoating a few big stars. The former task is a lot more difficult because you have to do a thorough investigation into the role that steroids played in the game, how widespread the problem was (or is), and what effect steroids had on what we saw happening on the field. Selig doesn't have the patience for that. The Bonds Witchunt is supposed to convince people that MLB is "dealing" with the problem (which they aren't -- they're only "dealing" with Bonds). Once enough people believe that, they can proclaim that the game is clean and return to wilful ignorance (and therefore Pujols couldn't possibly be using drugs, and if he was, Selig doesn't need to know about it).

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Saturday, 6 May 2006 01:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The craziest thing about that Arky Vaughn B-R page is the fact that he didn't get inducted into the HOF until 1985!?!?!

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Saturday, 6 May 2006 01:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I know this is going to come off as very controversial but I am of the opinion that weight training, with or without the benefit of PEDs, gives you *gulp* muscles. I may be a pariah for believing this, knowing all of you have achieved your svelte buffed figures via mere stagnation and well wishing, so feel free to mock me.

I'm also glad that all those strappingly cut "look nothing like their rookie card" minor league middle relievers that are getting busted every week for PEDs are built they way they are, otherwise how else would we know they were "obviously juicing"?

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Saturday, 6 May 2006 02:15 (twelve years ago) Permalink

well, Arky Vaughan dint play in NY (or for pennant winners).

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 6 May 2006 16:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

(aside from the swan song in Brooklyn obv)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 6 May 2006 17:12 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty much suspicious of everyone these days, Steve Shasta! Steroids policy is still a joke, considering all the things it cannot test for, so I am of the opinion that PEDs are still running rampant. Whole era is tainted to me, and I'll never be able to take any records from it seriously, pretty much.

ALLAH FROG (Mingus Dew), Saturday, 6 May 2006 22:41 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Arky Pwn. Also: ^ OTM ^

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 6 May 2006 23:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

So either PujLOLZ was abnormally large as a rookie and therefore on the juice or he was skinny as a rookie and then got on the juice.

bnw (bnw), Sunday, 7 May 2006 06:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

So it's pointless to say that Bonds/Mac/Sosa/etc. looked different at the start of their careers because bulking up just wasn't done when they were coming up through the system.

Problem is, aside from Roger Clemens, I can't think of many players who's bodies changed so dramatically during the "bulking up" craze.

bnw (bnw), Sunday, 7 May 2006 06:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Lots of athletes are
big and strong at 20 here
IN THE USA

Albert Pujols did
not look like a "beast" back then;
a large human, yes.

ALLAHFROG, if you
do not trust baseball at all,
then why do you care?

Haikunym (Haikunym), Sunday, 7 May 2006 12:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

If PEDs are running rampant, then everyone's on a level playing field and the records would be legit, no?

milo z (mlp), Sunday, 7 May 2006 15:10 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Problems (among many) with dismissing all records from this era:

Why should I not dismiss all pitching records before 1969 (before they lowered the mound)?

Why should I not dismiss the balk records set in 1988 (when it was widely known that the umps were going to call a lot of them, the rules were relaxed the very next season)?

Why should I not dismiss every home run record set after (or before, depending on your viewpoint) 1920, when the ball was known to be juiced? Or what about home runs hit in 1987 -- one of several years in which the ball was reportedly re-juiced?

Why should I not dismiss the HOF resumes of every hitter who reached his prime in the 1930's (a hitting era that puts the late 90's to shame)?

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 7 May 2006 16:48 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Because despite it all, I still love the game, Haiku. Milo, running rampant would not = 100%. Even a number like 10-20% I would consider a huge problem, and who knows what it really is? The only people who will be caught by the current testing are either those foolish enough to continue using those substances it can detect, or players unable to afford the designer stuff but willing to take the risk anyways. Vast majority of those that have been caught are minor leaguers that would fall into that second category. No surprise to me.

ALLAH FROG (Mingus Dew), Sunday, 7 May 2006 17:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i'm surprised no one's mentioned (or maybe they have and i haven't seen it) mlb's big cocaine crackdown in the 80s. i remember seeing dale berra, dave parker and keith hernandez on the news when they testified in fed court.

we tend to remember only doc gooden, the straw man and steve howe...maybe lamar hoyt, but the investigations and suspensions were pretty wide ranging. and i also remember a lot of guys being accused of using coke, though nothing was ever proven (eric davis is the biggest name i can think of).

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Sunday, 7 May 2006 17:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Why should I not dismiss every home run record set after (or before, depending on your viewpoint) 1920, when the ball was known to be juiced
I don't know if you're referring specifically to 1920 here or not, but it's actually a myth that the ball changed between the deadball era and the live-ball era.

I'd have to look through my books for the citation, but I read that with some interest just a couple of weeks ago. They did analyses of balls from both eras and found no real differences to account for the HR discrepancies. It comes down to hitting styles, park changes, the loss of specialty pitches (shineball, spitball, etc. being phased out as players retired) and on down the line.

milo z (mlp), Sunday, 7 May 2006 18:19 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Interesting ... I thought that c.1920 was the only *admitted* change in the ball in the game's history (despite several other rumoured changes), but I'm definitely intrigued by this article you read. To add to your list: after 1920 or so, they stopped using only 3-4 balls/game.

But my main point still stands -- comparing post-1920 offense (particularly 1920-1940) with 1900-1920 offense is nearly impossible. There was an offensive explosion after 1920, but we don't view the live ball era as "tainted" in any way. It was just a different style of play.

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 7 May 2006 19:15 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I found more information stating that the new cork center (the live ball) was introduced in 1910 and there were attendant jumps in offense, though not HRs in 1911 before pitchers learned gimmick deliveries/pitches and brought offense back down until after the Great War.

But, yeah, your point is certainly correct - and that leaves out the biggest trump card of all time - Babe Ruth never had to play against Martin Dihigo or John Donaldson and without the color line we could very well be talking about Josh Gibson as the greatest hitter in baseball history.

milo z (mlp), Sunday, 7 May 2006 19:25 (twelve years ago) Permalink

17/34*162 = 81

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 15:21 (twelve years ago) Permalink

without the color line we could very well be talking about Josh Gibson as the greatest hitter in baseball history.

Couldn't it just as easily have been someone from Japan or Cuba or wherever else? Babe Ruth is the greatest hitter in the history of Major League Baseball, whether you compare him to his era OR whether you take his stats alone. Josh Gibson never played Major League Baseball, and neither did, say, Saduhara Oh. Saduhara Oh played against allegedly watered down players, but so did Josh Gibson. If Gibson played in the major leagues, there's no way to know whether he would have hit 400 home runs for his career or 800.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 15:36 (twelve years ago) Permalink

omg you forgetting black playas >>>> white players!!

c(''c) (Leee), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:27 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"Saduhara Oh played against allegedly watered down players, but so did Josh Gibson. If Gibson played in the major leagues, there's no way to know whether he would have hit 400 home runs for his career or 800."

The point is that Ruth PLAYED against watered-down players too though! And I find the argument that Gibson would have hit only 400 home runs in the ML pretty suspect esp. considering how a lot of the Negro Leaguers stars performed in the ML when they finally got there. Would Gibson have been as good as Babe Ruth in an integrated ML? Probably not. But would Ruth have been as good as Ruth in an integrated ML? Also probably not.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:43 (twelve years ago) Permalink

In what year did the ground rule double stop being counted as a homerun?

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:48 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Would Gibson have been as good as Babe Ruth in an integrated ML? Probably not. But would Ruth have been as good as Ruth in an integrated ML? Also probably not.

I don't know about that. I mean, to this day, there are very few good African American pitchers. I mean, who is to say that Barry Bonds would have 700+ hr if he had to hit against great pitchers such as, say, Donovan McNabb, Michael Jordan, or Jarome Iginla? While there were a core of excellent pitchers in the Negro Leagues, there were also a ton of guys who wouldn't have made a roster, and Ruth, Bonds, Gibson, et al. have always done most of their work against the worst pitchers in the league, not against the Satchel Paiges and Bob Gibsons of the world.

In fact, you could probably make the case that an integrated league would equate to lowered offensive production across the board.

(Yes, I know that I'm rambling and not really making a cohesive argument. I'm sick, give me a break.)

polyphonic (polyphonic), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:51 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Herr Shasta, it was 1930 or so. However, of Ruth's 714 HRs, exactly 0 of them were of the bounced-over-the-fence variety. [From last night's post-game Giants wrap.]

c(''c) (Leee), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Another titbit: back then, if the winning run was on base in the ninth and you homered, you would only get credit for a single. This happened to Ruth exactly 1 time(s).

c(''c) (Leee), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Okay I don't know how many quality pitchers there were in the Negro Leagues, but even it just amounted to each team being able to replace their weakest starter with an average or above average starter (and I think that's pretty conservative estimate since there were only 16 or so teams) that's still 100 or so at bats not against the weakest pitchers in the league. I have to believe that would suppress Ruth's offense some.

I think league wide the offense would probably have gone up though. Most of the most famous Negro Leaguers were hitters and I imagine the difference in their value over the players they were replacing would be higher than the pitchers (although who knows once you calculate defense blah blah.)

Also the reasons why there are so few African-American pitchers (and PLAYERS) now has a lot to do with a number of recent changes in the way youth talent is developed (and how that relates to race/economics) and most (if not all) of those changes are relatively recent.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:09 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I thought it was the other way around, i.e. runner on 2nd in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game, batter hits the ball over the fence but it only counts as a double and the home team wins by one run. I think Ruth lost two or three home runs this way.

xpost

The spread in ability between the best and worst players in baseball has decreased significantly since the days of Ruth and Cobb. In other words, the best players don't dominate the competition to the same degree that they did in the 1920's (Barry Bonds is a freakish exception, as you all know). I'm sure that the segregation of the game was a big reason for this ... larger pool of talent -> pitching AND hitting ability both increase -> less room for stragglers on the lower extreme of the talent distribution curve.

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:09 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Ruth never hit a ground-rule double in his entire career????

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:31 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Lee, I'd like to see that data you've got!

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:34 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Meanwhile back on topic:

18/34.5*162 = 85

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:41 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I got all this from last night's Giants post-game! So if you don't believe the word of a couple ex-jocks, then I don't see any hope for this world anymore. (I think Jon Miller referred to a booky book last night with these sorts of stats about Ruth, don't remember the title, though.)

Krukow surmised that Ruth's lack of automatic doubles was because stadiums had not warning tracks; instead, the balls had to bounce off of grass. Then the play-by-play guy who went to Stanford (STATHEAD OMG) deep-sixed this theory, because plenty of other chumps were hitting ground-rule homers.

c(''c) (Leee), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:48 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Ruth's lack of ground rule doubles probably had a lot to do with his being a left-handed hitter in a stadium with a ridiculously short LF porch and an even more ridiculously expansive CF with virtually no fence for a ball to bounce over.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:51 (twelve years ago) Permalink

RF porch, ahem.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 17:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Keith Olbermann said yesterday that Ruth lost one home-run with the walk-off triple rule, but could have lost upwards of 80 from the way foul balls used to be called - if it left the fences fair but wound up fall, it was called foul by the umpire (deadly for a pull hitter like Ruth, who was taking advantage of that RF porch). He got that from one of the SABR researchers.

Couldn't it just as easily have been someone from Japan or Cuba or wherever else? Babe Ruth is the greatest hitter in the history of Major League Baseball, whether you compare him to his era OR whether you take his stats alone.
Yes, it was rhetorical. Martin Dihigo was a Cuban player who played all eight field positions at a high rate and was a slightly-below-great pitcher as well. Pop Lloyd, Oscar Charleston, etc. etc. etc. - there

Josh Gibson never played Major League Baseball, and neither did, say, Saduhara Oh. Saduhara Oh played against allegedly watered down players, but so did Josh Gibson. If Gibson played in the major leagues, there's no way to know whether he would have hit 400 home runs for his career or 800.
That's why I said we 'could be'. What we do know is that the talent pool for both players was more questionable than the one facing Pujols or Bonds (and, I mean, there are questions about whether the stars of the 1920s could even get on the field with modern athletes).

Another thing to remember is that Negro League players were often playing in leftover deadball era parks, and none of them played in parks that were tailor-made to their abilities (ala Ruth's porch in Yankee Stadium, the Red Sox pulling in left field 10-15 feet to benefit Ted Williams).

Japanese records are significantly more detailed than Negro League (or even older MLB) records, so we do have a fairly competent way to translate Sadahuru Oh and other players' stats. From what I've read, Oh would certainly be a Hall of Fame hitter, but nowhere near the greatest ever. Shigeo Nagashima is less famous but equally respected by Japanese players/fans/historians.

milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 19:22 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Nagashima is more respected because he's Japanese!!! (unlike Oh, which is a sad, sad story).

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 19:36 (twelve years ago) Permalink

is the talent pool THAT suspect?

i mean sports are serious business now and conditioning is superior and just general societal lifestyle things make a difference, but wasn't baseball pretty much the only true major league sport in the days of the babe?

look at at all the competition baseball faces now from football, hoops, soccer and to some extent, hockey and lax (to the extent that there are thousands of kids who may never play baseball b/c lax season conflicts).

i'm not saying that the talent pool is weak now, but baseball had pretty free range over things for a while.

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 19:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think the talent level in all those sports has increased, in part because of desegregation, but also because of globalization, industrialization and the rise of television/superstar athlete (far more people grow up wanting to be a star baseball player now--even with the rise of those other sports--than did a hundred or even seventy-five years ago.) Anyway I am pretty sure if you look at the statistics the range between the best players and the weakest (and even the median) players between then and now is much greater.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

re: Negro Leagues -- stats from all games, even exhibition games, were also included in career totals.

c(''c) (Leee), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 22:34 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Polyp and others,

I will enthrall and delight all of you with my fascinating observations in a week or so. I am leaving the keys to the ILB office with Barry and Felicity. Be easy on them!

Steve Shasta
East Coast Wakeboarding Representative

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 23:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

there was an EW podcast recently where they concluded he will make a graceful exit in mid-2019.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 December 2017 02:56 (one year ago) Permalink

even if he continues to be awful, though, i can see him sticking around in an attempt to reach 700 HRs or some other round number counting stat.

Karl Malone, Friday, 8 December 2017 02:58 (one year ago) Permalink

hey, he had an 100 RBI year

k3vin k., Friday, 8 December 2017 03:11 (one year ago) Permalink

one month passes...

happy 38th

only four years and $114m to go

mookieproof, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 16:55 (one year ago) Permalink

three months pass...

if he finishes this season with the same number of ABs and BA as last season, his career BA will go from .304 to .301

that HOF plaque won't look as good with a .290/.361/.520 slash.

omar little, Thursday, 3 May 2018 17:49 (nine months ago) Permalink

double in the 2nd puts him at 2999

the ignatius rock of ignorance (Dr Morbius), Friday, 4 May 2018 03:01 (nine months ago) Permalink

On the chart in Kevin's link, Beltre probably would've ranked second if not for the injury last year.

clemenza, Friday, 4 May 2018 03:20 (nine months ago) Permalink

Just realised Joey Votto is only 3 years younger than Pujols.

Van Horn Street, Saturday, 5 May 2018 02:08 (nine months ago) Permalink

well, i guess he finally did it.

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Saturday, 5 May 2018 06:01 (nine months ago) Permalink

Just realised Joey Votto is only 3 years younger than Pujols.

― Van Horn Street, Friday, May 4, 2018 10:08 PM (yesterday)

5 years*

k3vin k., Saturday, 5 May 2018 18:25 (nine months ago) Permalink

Seems apropos that 3,000 was a broken-bat single.

clemenza, Sunday, 6 May 2018 17:57 (nine months ago) Permalink

on the road, in SEA, who then immediately started booing ohtani

the whole thing was kind of sad

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Sunday, 6 May 2018 17:59 (nine months ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Breaking fantasy news: Albert Pujols finally drives in a run.

tbh it seems like a very good time for him to hang it up, if the Angels make the postseason he’ll be an albatross. His WAR continues to creep down.

omar little, Thursday, 24 May 2018 00:30 (eight months ago) Permalink

he could suck ass for the rest of the season...or pick up the rest of his $24 million for the year. he'll get to make the same decision every year through 2021

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Thursday, 24 May 2018 01:40 (eight months ago) Permalink

he has some stiff competition for worst player this year, though. He's at -0.4 fWAR, but chris davis is somehow already at -1.4 fWAR! ian desmond and dexter fowler have both been godawful, too, and seem likely to continue getting lots of playing time

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Thursday, 24 May 2018 01:49 (eight months ago) Permalink

wonder if mike scioscia will be able to sit pujols more often, in general, now that he's reached 3000 (unless we're all supposed to care about reaching 700 or 714 home runs, too)

obviously DLC (Karl Malone), Thursday, 24 May 2018 01:51 (eight months ago) Permalink

how about not batting him 4th

k3vin k., Thursday, 24 May 2018 02:07 (eight months ago) Permalink

two months pass...

Prince Albert Pujols, He Has Obtained positive WAR so far this season!!

0.2 fWAR, 1.0 bWAR.

.257/.293/.437, 17 HRs, 99 wRC+

Karl Malone, Thursday, 2 August 2018 06:02 (six months ago) Permalink

he is hovering just above replacement level, at least

he has the slowest sprint speed of any player this year at 22.3 ft/s, which is faster than he was in 2017 when he was also the slowest player, at 21.8 ft/s. he tied for last with victor martinez in 2016.

Karl Malone, Thursday, 2 August 2018 06:07 (six months ago) Permalink

Was Pujols' 2017 the worst season ever for a player with 100 RBI's?

Dante Bichette had some bad WAR seasons with Coors-inflated numbers, but according to bWAR his defense was the worst part of his game.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Thursday, 2 August 2018 10:59 (six months ago) Permalink

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24270231/mlb-how-shift-ruined-albert-pujols

More hard hit outs than anyone in baseball the past four years, blames the shift, thinks RBIs aren't overrated.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 7 August 2018 20:12 (six months ago) Permalink

Pujols is one of only eight players who have been active over the past 18 seasons

pujols, beltre, utley, bartolo, ...?

k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:17 (six months ago) Permalink

sabathia

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:27 (six months ago) Permalink

fernando rodney? he pitched a few games in 2002

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:29 (six months ago) Permalink

ichiro

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:31 (six months ago) Permalink

joaquin benoit

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:34 (six months ago) Permalink

that's 8!

k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:35 (six months ago) Permalink

From 2015 to 2018, Pujols has accumulated a whopping 403 hard-hit outs, putting balls in play that travel at least 95 mph. Nobody has more. His average exit velocity is 90.3 mph, ranked fourth among those with at least 1,700 batted balls during that stretch, according to Statcast. His batting average on balls in play is .245, tied for the lowest in the majors among qualified hitters during that time.

Pujols shrugs.

"What can you do, bro?"

wwjvd

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:40 (six months ago) Permalink

yeah that's a pretty pathetic attitude from someone who is too rich to care lol

k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:40 (six months ago) Permalink

i like how they paired the article with a sam miller piece explaining how shifts are bullshit

mookieproof, Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:42 (six months ago) Permalink

espn, something for everyone

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:42 (six months ago) Permalink

Thinking about that makes Pujols think about all the line drives he has lost up the middle -- guaranteed hits in the baseball game he once knew. He is asked what his batting average would look like if second basemen played their position traditionally and didn't shade toward center field.

"Between .290 and .300, for sure," Pujols says, who instead sports a .254/.290/.428 slash line "Look at the balls that I'm hitting up the middle, especially this year. Out of those 30 or 40 or 50 balls, give me 25 hits. Add those 25 hits to my .250 batting average, I'd be hitting like .290."

(narrator voice): "he'd be hitting like. 316."

...

(narrator voice): "if you assume he's actually right about losing 25 hits up the middle this year against the shift"

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 8 August 2018 02:47 (six months ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZJR3x9xwI

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 29 August 2018 00:12 (five months ago) Permalink

right after i posted that, he got injured and then underwent season-ending surgery on his left knee. sorry albert.

his line for 2018:

117 G, .245/.289/.411, wRC+ 90, 19 HR, 5.6 BB%, 13.1 K%, -0.2 fWAR, 0.1 bWAR (positive!!)

Karl Malone, Friday, 31 August 2018 01:35 (five months ago) Permalink

only 3 years left on his contract, after this season

Karl Malone, Friday, 31 August 2018 01:36 (five months ago) Permalink

he actually injured his left knee in the hardware store

Karl Malone, Friday, 31 August 2018 01:36 (five months ago) Permalink

four months pass...

happy 39th

mookieproof, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 22:16 (one month ago) Permalink

sigh... thread:

He’s listed at 38, but I’m pretty sure Albert Pujols is 40. Today @baseballpro, I lay out new evidence (from Pujols’s own mouth), and then dig into why this happens, and why it matters, and what parts of it *don’t* matter much (Free): https://t.co/HGub38otZd

— Matthew Trueblood (@MATrueblood) April 24, 2018

Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Wednesday, 16 January 2019 22:21 (one month ago) Permalink

only 3 years and $72 million left on his contract

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 22:22 (one month ago) Permalink

slowest sprint speed in the majors last year (22.2 ft/s, which, when you put it that way, always seem really fast to me)
slowest sprint speed in 2017 (21.8 ft/s)
slowest sprint speed in 2016 (22.6 ft/s)
8th slowest sprint speed in 2015 (23.5 ft/s)

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 January 2019 03:42 (four weeks ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

this will be close when it's all said and done

Pujols career (18 seasons): .302/.382.554
Cabrera career (16 seasons): .316/.395/.551

(after 16 seasons Pujols was at .309./.392/.573)

omar little, Friday, 1 February 2019 20:26 (two weeks ago) Permalink

wow that's sad

k3vin k., Friday, 1 February 2019 20:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink

(cabrera obviously a HOFer, but pujols' fall from the inner circle back to the mere mortals has been a long, slow, sad journey)

k3vin k., Friday, 1 February 2019 20:42 (two weeks ago) Permalink

pujols still a little more valuable overall, on average, due to his blazing speed and impressive defensive skills compared to miggy, but yeah :(

Karl Malone, Friday, 1 February 2019 20:50 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Pujols w/the Angels: .260/.315/.453

omar little, Friday, 1 February 2019 20:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink

to compare to similar "decline phases" from a couple recent HOF guys who fell off a lot from their peak:

Frank Thomas after his MVP runner-up campaign in 2000: .262/.376/.507

Griffey Jr with the Reds/ChiSox/Seattle pt 2: .262/.355/.493

omar little, Friday, 1 February 2019 20:58 (two weeks ago) Permalink

that's why Peak Value and Career Value are separate considerations

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 February 2019 21:07 (two weeks ago) Permalink

prince albert pujols, he broketh free agency

mookieproof, Friday, 1 February 2019 21:10 (two weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.