Prince Albert Pujols, he reigneth

I'm not saying don't care about it. I'm just saying don't try to convince me that it means anything beyond "this guy had a great season".

It means at least one thing more: "this guy had a great season, and he also did something that no one's done since 1967 because it's a really hard thing to do." I don't think I've made any claims beyond that. And for what it's worth: comparing one's response to an Academy Award winner and one's response to a Triple Crown Winner is perfectly valid, and that's all that Morbius said, and hopefully all that he meant. Because to compare the achievment of winning an Academy Award to the achievement of winning a Triple Crown would be a non sequitur. One is based on the votes of a group of people and is wholly opinion-based; the other measures the actual accomplishments of an individual and is wholly factual. You may not like what it measures, or the way that it goes about measuring it, both those are separate issues.

I wanted Pujols to win because I knew that all of your objections would be taken care of by the fact it was Pujols. Pujols wins the Triple Crown, and I'm pretty sure that when I start looking at home/road splits, and RBI opportunities, and all the rest of it, it won't be a case of "God, no--this guy Pujols is a total fraud!" If Gonzalez wins one, great--I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I'll think, "He had a great season, and he did something that no one's done since 1967," and I'll also think, "He wouldn't have done it had he played somewhere other than Colorado, which really inflates his home stats." That's a lot to keep track of at once. I can do it.

If Gonzo gets the Triple Crown I won't have any objections whatsoever, but if he gets the MVP that's another story.

Comparing MVP winners or Hall of Fame inductees to Academy Award winners, now that would be valid. Baseball writers, for all of the specious picks you can charge them with, are infinitely smarter and more reliable than whoever the hell it is who votes on Academy Awards, especially the past 20-25 years. (I know: "members of the Academy.")

There is only a certain degree to which you can ignore greatness in baseball. Baseball writers know that Alex Rodriguez and JD Drew and Manny Ramirez exist and are useful players, even if they don't always appreciate aspects of their efforts. Meanwhile, Oscar voters generally haven't even heard of the best movies of the year, or appreciate what is good about them.

it's alot easier to make an obscure movie that's very good than it is to be a very good obscure MLB player.

The major difference, undoubtedly, is that Academy Awards are (most of the time) hugely interconnected to box-office and advertising campaigns and lots of other matters that have nothing to do with the films themselves. Even when they appear not to be, they probably are; I figured that "the Academy" was trying to make a statement last year by giving The Hurt Locker best picture over Avatar. (Not saying anything about the films themselves--thought the first was overrated, no interest in the second.) No such economic push-and-pull influences baseball writers, although I suppose that now and again you get a writer tilt towards an underrated/underpaid player in the MVP voting over a 15-million-dollar guy.

Having said all that--here I go being a nostalgic dimwit again--when something I love is nominated for an Academy Award (Bill Murray in Lost in Translation, Man on Wire, etc.), I root for it, and if it wins, I'm irrationally happy.

Joe (Milwaukee)

Just curious as to how long of a deal you would, were you the Cards GM, offer Pujols. He'll age well won't he?
Rob Neyer (12:05 PM)

Look, I'm going to say this now and maybe never again in this space, but ... There are still some reasonably intelligent people with reasonable doubts about Pujols' age. Just for the sake of argument, if he's actually 33 or 34 would you give him eight years? Nine years? Ten?

SHASTA BAIT

'To watch Pujols interact with fans is to watch a prototypical spoiled, arrogant 21st century sports star at his absolute worst'

So glad Pearlman doesn't have a big gig anymore.

haha tru

2011 capsule:

.156/.243/.250
MLB leading 6 GIDPs
2-10 w/ RISP (haha, actually better than w/o RISP)
2 Errors (total of 4 in 2010)

#arbitraryendpoints

#captsaveapoohole

#shastasbestweekever

btw what were they jeering in sf? "Get one hit" or something?

Story on 60 Minutes coming up--is this new?

maybe he reveals something TERRIBLE in the 60 minutes segment...maybe that's why he's been sucking ass all week...just knowing that everyone will know his terrible secret as soon as the segment airs...god what could it be!

It'll be interesting to see him sitting under a high-powered lamp, sweating, getting the third degree from Leslie Stahl.

Maybe he'll finally admit that he's really 34 years old, right Shasta?

7 GiDPs...

i think he noticed how much the yankees overpaid jeter and is trying to emulate his game at all costs

man.

even when the cardinals are winning, it's just not much fun when pujols isn't effortlessly dominating

sorry, it's just a comment from some random on albert's fangraphs page but:

Fun Fact:

ALBERT Einstein had an IQ of 160. That means he is 60% more intelligent than the average human.

that is wrong on so many levels

wait, sorry, albert einstein, not pujuls...so the 160 part may be correct. the other part, not so much. i will stop talking to myself on this thread...when albert finally gets a hit.

didn't he open cold a couple of seasons back and wind up with 40+ HRs?

I think it was 2007, when his final line was .327/.429/.568

One thing that wouldn't surprise me would be if, at 31, Pujols is on the other side of his peak, and that last year's slightly less imposing line is where he settles in for the next couple of years. He starts at a place where he could probably decline 5% a season and still be the best hitter in the game five years from now.

he could have entered a decline phase, for sure. i mean beyond the age issue, one only needs to look back to who was arguably the previous "best righthanded hitter in the game", frank thomas. 7 eye-popping offensive seasons, a couple of off years in his 30-31 age seasons, one more MVP-caliber year, and the rest of the way he was dealing with injuries and only had two more seasons which could be considered HOF-caliber or even approaching his peak. i think big hurt had other issues that pujols does not have (body size, nagging injuries, lost seasons) but sometimes these epic hitters just drop off out of nowhere.

2 AB hitting streak right now

xp no doubt big first basemen have an annoying habit of falling completely off a cliff.

yep, really falling apart

all the cards needed was to feast on the nl west to get it together

2011 capsule:

.156/.243/.250
MLB leading 6 GIDPs
2-10 w/ RISP (haha, actually better than w/o RISP)
2 Errors (total of 4 in 2010)

― City of Jorts (Steve Shasta), Sunday, April 10, 2011 1:52 PM (1 month ago)

Is it okay to talk about this yet? Free agency looming and all...

.267/.336/.415
MLB leading 13 GIDPs
.327 w/ RiSP (major improvement)
5 Errors (total of 4 in 2010, projecting to 16, a career high)

This is a pretty major statistical depression compared to his career #s for a supposed 31 year old ya? Is he hurt again?

errors are a subjective irrelevancy

13 XBH, 14 GIDP

back to full market value, haters?

I realize he's still only slugging .473, but if you think that's gonna last...

Albert usually takes it upon himself to prove Shasta wrong.

i'm a hater, not because I think he sucks or anything, but because he calls out other teams for celebrating too much on the field and untucking their jerseys while constantly admiring his own home runs and doing things like high stepping his way to home plate, it's like fuck you dude, you can't have your cake and eat it too. btw I'm almost always pro-celebration

see I pretty much don't pay attention to that stuff (unless it's the Phillies or Braves)

I think Hinske is the only guy we've got right now who really likes the look of his own HRs, and he's not really egregious about it.

I miss Reggie Jackson: "The only reason I don't like playing in the World Series is I can't watch myself play."

For that love/hate question that was posted last week, I should have slightly expanded my answer: I love not just stats in general, but also the statistical symmetry of certain careers. Those few players who never have a less than good year--I've loved looking at the career boxes of such players since I first started obsessing over stats as a kid. He'll have to finish strong, but Pujols is still within range of another .300/40/100 year. I expect Morbius or someone else will point out that who cares if he finishes .297/39/98, the difference means nothing. True enough--but .300/40/100 looks nicer.

.300/40/100 would be nice - but .300/30/100 is his gold standard - he's never failed to reach it.

ZIPS projects him for .289/38/100, fwiw

he's been on fire (aka his normal self) ever since his injury, and in fact for the week leading up to his injury. his at bats have that old inevitability of greatness that they always have

hilarious that .289/38/100 is a "down season" for albert. but it's true that he's been noticeably worse this year. particularly with his walk rate (8.5%). normally he's up around 15-16%.

he got another hit as I was typing that. and earlier tonight, he crushed a HR for ~460 ft - longest HR in nu-Busch Stadium history