Prince Albert Pujols, he reigneth

I seem to recall there are a lot more pitcher friendly parks in the league these days (SF, SD, ?), not that those slowed Bonds down much.

SF is a hitter's park according to bbref park factors... not sure where it got its reputation as a pitcher's park, i think it's just because the giants' offense has been so horrible since bonds left.

By the way, I'm pretty partial to "Clemenza," but if I do ever change my handle, I'm claiming ownership of "The Ground Zero Mosque of Sports" right now--thank you, Morbius.

Nothing stopping you from being "The Ground Zero Mosque of Sports (clemenza)"

EXCEPT THIS!

well that did not work out at all.

ok, it's yours.

after tonight's game, pujols is at .322 and joey votto is at .323

anyone see anything about what was the latest in a season that anyone's been leading for the triple crown since the last one?

There's a link somewhere upthread to a piece I wrote about Triple Crowns a few years ago, the year Delgado made a run at one, where I tried to weigh who's come the closest since '67. But I would think it'd be hard to find out who's led all three at the latest date since then, because my guess is that it wouldn't be very late at all; I wouldn't be surprised if no one's led all three after June or July. As opposed to chasing .400, where I know there have been at least a couple who where there in August and beyond (didn't Brett nudge over .400 in early September?).

Anyway, Votto had a big night last night, and Albert was 0-4. Canadians--I hate them.

Bonds would have won a couple times if he wasn't intentionally walked a zillion times. I think that's when people stopped caring about the triple crown.

Really? Bonds was so manifestly unpopular, I find it hard to believe he would have affected anybody one way or the other. If you didn't care about the Triple Crown to begin with, you still don't; if you did (like me), you still do. We went through the intentional walks upthread; without them, I don't think he ever would have won that batting title.

Batting titles, plural. He had 403 AB for the first one, 373 for the next one.

That's cool dude. Must be refreshing in a rip van winkle stylee to live in a world where AB > PA, BA > OBP, RBI > VORP. Keep on keepin on.

if you're hitting so well that people are walking you that often, then how do you not deserve a batting title if you manage to qualify for it regardless

SS: You're absolutely right--other than the intentional walks, Bonds had every indication that he was primed for a couple of 225-hit seasons in his late '30s. Thanks for setting me straight. (I sometimes get the feeling that Bill James must feel like Dr. Frankenstein when he takes a look around at what he unleashed unto the world.)

(I'm not saying that Bonds didn't deserve the batting titles that he clearly won. What I am saying is that he wouldn't have won them without the IBB--that there was no way he was going to maintain those averages in the normal course of events.)

Well thanks for your opinion...

I guess you'll always have Carlos Delgado...?

ironically, if he wasn't going to maintain those averages then the IBBs were probably mostly incorrect moves

I don't know the ins and outs of analyzing IBB. Bonds was hitting HR at such a phenomenal rate that, even if his average had dropped, probably there was a net gain for the teams that were walking him. I did feel at the time that a complete panic had overtaken the league with regards to pitching to Bonds that was a little out of proportion.

i just did some quick math, and if NO ONE had IBBed bonds in 2004 when he got IBBed 120 times, he would have had to hit .308 in those extra 120 PAs to maintain his batting title lead over Helton. and that's making the stupidly conservative assumption he draws 0 unintentional walks in that span, otherwise the number dips down below .300.

Now, if we could only determine each instance of an intentional "unintentional" walk...

in 2002 he was IBBed 68 times, and he would have needed 11 hits in those 68 PAs (.162)

i think it's safe to say he would have won the 2002 one, 2004 is less clear-cut but who cares

Good point--maybe he would have won the batting title after all. Here's a slight variation for 2004. Since a whole bunch of his non-intentional walks were, realistically, intentional walks too, I looked at his season in terms of 100 walks period, adding back 132 AB. That would have given him 505 for the season, in which case he would have needed 176 hits to beat Helton; he would have needed to go 41/132, or .310. Yeah, I think you can safely say he would have done that. That would still leave the RBI leg of the Triple Crown, where he finished 30 behind Castilla. So he would have needed 31 RBI in 132 AB--a pretty good clip, but manageable. Home runs, he would have cleaned up. So: in a more normal 100-walk season, he might indeed have won the Triple Crown.

Curiously enough, I'm still excited about Pujols' run.

I made a silly mistake in my 225-hit comment upthread--that'd be true only if nobody walked him all season. Duh.

"Bonds would have won a couple times if he wasn't intentionally walked a zillion times. I think that's when people stopped caring about the triple crown."

I thought that BA was based on plate appearances not at bats?

BA titles that is.

Eligibility is based on PA--3.1 per game, I think. I seem to recall there's a provision that if you fall short of that, but would have won anyway with the minimum PA, you still get the title. That happened once...Ted Williams?

"I think that's when people stopped caring about the triple crown."

I think the general rise of sabermetrics had more to do with this than Bonds actually.

If the Reds win the division, the TC is Albert's best/only hope for being MVP again, assuming Votto stays on track

If Pujols and Votto are still really close in three weeks, we'll find out whether people care or not. I say they will. Because so few players ever get close, it's just not on the radar. And because it involves three things instead of just one, it's not as accessible as some guy making a run at .400, or going on a 30-game hitting streak. If people turn out not to care, I seriously doubt whether sabermetrics will have anything to do with it. For some writers, probably; for the average fan, who still does not care or even know anything about VORP, no way. A much simpler explanation would be record fatigue, and the general distrust of offensive numbers that I think still (rightly or wrongly) exists.

i think it's weird how much people associate steroids with offense, when pitchers were taking them too! throwing a ball really hard to me seems intuitively more closely linked to pure strength than squaring up a baseball. i guess it's because it was hitting records that were broken during the era rather than pitching records.

i mean, people are starting to raise eyebrows at jose bautista, but no one would have suggested that ubaldo was using after his absurd first half, nor was greinke accused at any point last year.

Possible explanation: the power of first impressions. Steroids first became a story with McGwire, and from there it just kind of stuck that it was an offensive issue. (Not saying that you're wrong.)

guess it's because it was hitting records that were broken during the era rather than pitching records.

Pedro broke records and was arguably the greatest pitcher ever during his peak, and Randy Johnson took his game to a new level and was pitching out of his mind in his late 30's. Nobody cared because they didn't look like muscled freaks (just ordinary freaks) and OF COURSE every sportswriter and casual fan can spot a steroid user from a mile away.

RJ sort of looks like a freak.

Yeah I'd def say dude looked like an extraordinary freak.

Johnson didn't come into the league at 5-10, though; he didn't grow a foot.

they didn't look like muscled freaks (just ordinary freaks)

there was nothing ordinary about RJ. i was thinking more like carnival freak.

Pedro didn't break any of the Sacred Pitching Records (which are all unbreakable due to changes in pitcher use and the deadball era and nolan ryan's freakish rubber arm)

What sacred pitching records? I guess the closest thing would be the single season strikeout records, but no pitching record comes close to being as sacred as 56 or 755 762.

Pedro owns the single season and career records in Adjusted ERA+, which levels the playing field between him and the dead ball guys. Bob Gibson's 1.12 ranks "only" seventh all-time (and behind Greg Maddux's two best seasons).

i was thinking single-season and career for the pitching "triple crown" stats of strikeouts, wins, ERA

Where did this Joey Votto dude come from.

he's been around for a couple years

he hit about this well last year but missed a couple months so he didn't have the counting stats to get him noticed

Etobicoke.

Pedro owns the single season and career records in Adjusted ERA+

Well...he was phenomenal during that time frame, but that's what I meant earlier about Sabermetrics not being on the radar of the average fan (not today, and even less so then). If you think interest in Pujols and Votto is minimal, I can guarantee that someone chasing the Adjusted ERA record this year would be greeted by the sound of less than one hand clapping.

just hit #400.

Joey Votto has been pretty good hitter since he got his Sept call up in 2007. He was kind of streaky for his power hitting his first couple of years, seeming to hit his homers in bunches. The guy has been a freaking witch going to the opposite field and he hits lefties pretty well. That homer he hit off Kershaw and both yesterday against the Giants were to left field. While I am sure over his career, Great American will help his power numbers, so far his HR splits are actually better on the road (helped by this west coast swing). I'm sure not having Encarnacion playing third has helped, but Votto has really noticably improved at first base this year. One of the questions for next season is whether Votto would perhaps consider being moved to left field, as the Reds top prospect Yonder Alonso might be ready for the bigs, but they say the guy doesn't have the speed or arm to play in the outfield.

Pujols is in another category, the guy has been so good for so long. I'd love it if Votto could end up with a decade like that.

he's the only ball player i can think of from my hometown. if he had a decade like that i would likely become locked in perpetual orgasm.

yonder can't play any position at first, where he is actually pretty decent

the kid can really, really hit, but he's pretty much going to be a worse version of all star -- potential to be a perennial all star but votto is a potential perennial MVP -- i wouldn't jeopardize that by trying to move votto to another position

what they need to do is evaluate a position of weakness (maybe an OF prospect as insurance against stubbs/bruce flaming out) and trade yonder for a player at that position

lol at that whole post

can't play any position BUT first

he's pretty much going to be a worse version of VOTTO