Albert Pujols: As a Cards' fan I'm biased, but...

[WSUCougar]

...I think it's safe to say he is on-track to be one of the all-time greats.

Discuss.

[Butter]

No arguments from this Reds fan. The guy is lethal. Can't believe I was on these same boards arguing for Soriano over him just 2 years (or so) ago.

[condors]

he is off to one heck of a start hopefully he stays healthy and has a very long career as that is the only thing i think that could stop him, needs to be traded to the Phillies for David Bell :)

[MizzouRah]

He IS the greatest right now. :)

[primelord]

he is off to one heck of a start hopefully he stays healthy and has a very long career as that is the only thing i think that could stop him, needs to be traded to the Phillies for David Bell :)

We already had David Bell and got rid of him. :)

[AgustusM]

Giants fan and you will get no argument from me. He is the first player I would pick to start a team with.

great player, great attitude - all natural. If he stays healthy Barry, Babe and Hank will all be surpassed by him and ARod.

[condors]

We already had David Bell and got rid of him. :)

but he is a good clubhouse guy, you can't attach numbers to that, you need him back, really :)

[oykib]

He is on track for the inner circle of the Hall.

[primelord]

He is on track for the inner circle of the Hall.
I have to admit that I first read that to say... "He is on track for the inner circle of Hell."

I thought that was a bit harsh. :)

[rkmsuf]

...I think it's safe to say he is on-track to be one of the all-time greats.

Discuss.

you are sharp

[dixieflatline]

Clearly a great player having a great year. I keep hearing rumors though that he is older than 26, like maybe 28 or 29. If he is 26 I agree he could end up being the one of the best ever. If he is 29 I doubt that will happen. Players with his skill set sometimes don't age as well as you might think.

[ISiddiqui]

I have to admit that I first read that to say... "He is on track for the inner circle of Hell."

I thought that was a bit harsh. :)

LOL!

Pujols has been absolutely great so far in his career. If he stays away from injuries (or isn't implicated in a steroids investigation), we'll be able to tell our grandkids that we saw one of the Top 10 ball players of all time.

[JeeberD]

He seems like a great guy, but I hate him for ruining Brad Lidge...

[WSUCougar]

He seems like a great guy, but I hate him for ruining Brad Lidge...
Well, somebody had to.

[Eaglesfan27]

No argument from this Phillies fan. He is the best pure hitter in baseball.

[SuperGrover]

He's had a great start. However, things can go wrong. Frank Thomas was off to a very similar start until 1998 when it all fell apart. He's had his share of productive seasons since then, but only one that would compare to his first 7 years of greatness.

Still, Frank is destined for the HOF even though he's missed 2+ years with injuries and because of the strike. Pujols is almost guaranteed to make the HOF unless something devastating happens very soon.








Unless he's not really 25.

[bbor]

If he stays at the same level he is at right now for the next 5 or 6 season he will be top 5 all time.

[Subby]

Interesting personal story too. Really like him.

[kcchief19]

Clearly a great player having a great year. I keep hearing rumors though that he is older than 26, like maybe 28 or 29. If he is 26 I agree he could end up being the one of the best ever. If he is 29 I doubt that will happen. Players with his skill set sometimes don't age as well as you might think.
I can't place my finger on it and my anti-Cardinal bias may be deeply influencing me, but there is something about him that has struck me as being out of place.

The age thing has always been a question -- if he is older than we think, then his accomplishments thus far while nice are not as impressive and he's that much closer to his decline. If he's is older than we think, then he would certainly be at the peak of his career right now rather than being someone who is ascending.

The fact that he was so completely overlooked so many times is a mystery, as is his sudden development as a great player. He moved to the Kansas City area for high school and got no attention from colleges and ending up playing at a local juco. He was overlooked again in the draft. Then all of a sudden he's a Hall of Famer. He showed a hell of a lot more power right off the bat in the majors than he ever showed before. How do you go from hitting 19 homers in the minors to hitting 37 homers the next season in the majors and becoming a star over night? It makes you wonder.

I have no basis for my wonders. I'm not the first to wonder either. I hope that his story is 100 percent true and legit.

[Crapshoot]

He's had a great start. However, things can go wrong. Frank Thomas was off to a very similar start until 1998 when it all fell apart. He's had his share of productive seasons since then, but only one that would compare to his first 7 years of greatness.

Still, Frank is destined for the HOF even though he's missed 2+ years with injuries and because of the strike. Pujols is almost guaranteed to make the HOF unless something devastating happens very soon.








Unless he's not really 25.

Dude, Frank's a 1st ballot HOF, and one of the 5 best 1b who ever played the game. There's not much more he could have done.

[stevew]

I can't place my finger on it and my anti-Cardinal bias may be deeply influencing me, but there is something about him that has struck me as being out of place.

The age thing has always been a question -- if he is older than we think, then his accomplishments thus far while nice are not as impressive and he's that much closer to his decline. If he's is older than we think, then he would certainly be at the peak of his career right now rather than being someone who is ascending.

The fact that he was so completely overlooked so many times is a mystery, as is his sudden development as a great player. He moved to the Kansas City area for high school and got no attention from colleges and ending up playing at a local juco. He was overlooked again in the draft. Then all of a sudden he's a Hall of Famer. He showed a hell of a lot more power right off the bat in the majors than he ever showed before. How do you go from hitting 19 homers in the minors to hitting 37 homers the next season in the majors and becoming a star over night? It makes you wonder.

I have no basis for my wonders. I'm not the first to wonder either. I hope that his story is 100 percent true and legit.

Probably just a random talent increase like OOTP.

Albert Pujols has taken his game to the next level!

[MrBug708]

He obviously doesnt play for the Jays

[dixieflatline]

Funny story about Albert. I saw him play in 2000 when he was in A ball. He was off to a good start but I had never heard of him. He wasn't a highly rated prospect, especially at that point. Anyway, the stadium announcer pronounced it like pug-ols. He went 0-4 with 3 K's I think and I didn't give him a second thought. The next year I hear about how this pujols guy is tearing up the league and when I go to look it is pug-ols from last year! Ah the joys of minor league baseball.

[Swaggs]

He is on track to be one of the greatest righthanded hitters in history.

[bulletsponge]

hmmmm. i know im going to get flamed for this but it has to be said. a few years ago we were all saying the same thing about Bonds, then we found out it was the juice. in 5 years are we going to be saying the same about pujols?

[Swaggs]

hmmmm. i know im going to get flamed for this but it has to be said. a few years ago we were all saying the same thing about Bonds, then we found out it was the juice. in 5 years are we going to be saying the same about pujols?

Not really because Bonds clearly is one of the best of all time.

[Fonzie]

hmmmm. i know im going to get flamed for this but it has to be said. a few years ago we were all saying the same thing about Bonds, then we found out it was the juice. in 5 years are we going to be saying the same about pujols?

Maybe so, but in Bonds' case we had the visual evidence of his entire body suddenly puffing up (especially that goddamned head). I don't think anybody has noticed or remarked on such a thing with Pujols, who actually looks pretty lean and doesn't display any of the puffiness usually associated with steroids.

I'm more concerned about the age thing. But even if he's 29 and this is as good as he'll get, this is pretty damned good. If he plateaus at this level for the next 3-4 years before beginning the inevitable decline he'll have assembled an amazing career.

However, if he's in fact his stated age and continues to improve...watch out.

[GreenMonster]

Ken Griffey was on this same track and took alittle detour..

[Ramzavail]

Dude, Frank's a 1st ballot HOF, and one of the 5 best 1b who ever played the game. There's not much more he could have done.

Woah relax, I have Frank Thomas jersey size 42 that hasn't fit me since 1996, so I'm a FT supporter..I don't think he's a 1st ballot HOF, and I think he fits in the same spot with Bagwell, if one gets in, the other will...but I don't think its automatic.


but

Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Killebrew, McCovey, Mize, Cepeda - Thomas isn't in that company, and I left out a couple of current players.

Edit: Maybe he's in Cha Cha's company but certainly not the other 5 and I didn't bring up oldtimeres, Anson and Sisler.

[Fonzie]

Ken Griffey was on this same track and took alittle detour..

Yeah, injuries can jump up at any time and rob a player of their ability/longevity, but Pujols is fortunate in that area as he plays a relatively un-demanding position.

I hope to god he stays healthy, as I can't wait to see what kind of numbers he puts up for his career.

[bulletsponge]

if theres 1 player i hope Drayton Mclain actually throws money at to get its him. and im sure Lidge agrees

[Crapshoot]

Woah relax, I have Frank Thomas jersey size 42 that hasn't fit me since 1996, so I'm a FT supporter..I don't think he's a 1st ballot HOF, and I think he fits in the same spot with Bagwell, if one gets in, the other will...but I don't think its automatic.


but

Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Killebrew, McCovey, Mize, Cepeda - Thomas isn't in that company, and I left out a couple of current players.

Roffle. Frank and Bagwell are better than Killebrew, McCovey, Mize, - Cepeda and Murray are absolute jokes in that arguement (HOF's, but not in Thomas or Bagwell's class). Gehrig and Fox are probably the only 2 1b who are better, and then we deal with their advantage in playing in a lower talent level era - pre-integration. Also, Killebrew was primarily a 3b. If you're making this arguement, Greenberg might have been a better guy. Frank Thomas is a no questions asked HOF - any writer who doesn't vote for him on the 1st (or any ballot) out to have his voting privlidges removed.

[JS19]

if theres 1 player i hope Drayton Mclain actually throws money at to get its him. and im sure Lidge agrees

It was stated in another thread that he signed a long term deal a yr or so ago.

I must say, I almost feel lucky to be able to watch this guy play. Being the huge baseball fan that I am, it's like watching a work of art out there.

[ISiddiqui]

Dude, Frank's a 1st ballot HOF, and one of the 5 best 1b who ever played the game. There's not much more he could have done.

I think he was saying that if Frank Thomas hadn't gotten that rash of injuries and lost some of his amazing skill, he wouldn't just be talked about as one of the 5 best 1B to play the game, but perhaps as one of the 5 best PLAYERS to play the game.

[Ramzavail]

Roffle. Frank and Bagwell are better than Killebrew, McCovey, Mize, - Cepeda and Murray are absolute jokes in that arguement (HOF's, but not in Thomas or Bagwell's class). Gehrig and Fox are probably the only 2 1b who are better, and then we deal with their advantage in playing in a lower talent level era - pre-integration. Also, Killebrew was primarily a 3b. If you're making this arguement, Greenberg might have been a better guy. Frank Thomas is a no questions asked HOF - any writer who doesn't vote for him on the 1st (or any ballot) out to have his voting privlidges removed.

Killebrew went in the HOF as a 1b.

Eddie Murray is a joke? What is he - one of 3 guys who has 3000 hits and 500HRs, come on.

If you are going to talk about lower talent era - FT played in the age of further expansion.

I think you need to brushen up on your baseball history and I can clearly see FT being left off someone's ballot.

Injuries, played ALOT of DH, he had only 7 dominant seasons and a great 2000 season which I thought he should have won the MVP over Giambi (if he had, THEN I'd say he's a shoo-in having 3 MVPs). I just think its not that clear cut.

[ISiddiqui]

Woah relax, I have Frank Thomas jersey size 42 that hasn't fit me since 1996, so I'm a FT supporter..I don't think he's a 1st ballot HOF, and I think he fits in the same spot with Bagwell, if one gets in, the other will...but I don't think its automatic.


but

Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Killebrew, McCovey, Mize, Cepeda - Thomas isn't in that company, and I left out a couple of current players.

Edit: Maybe he's in Cha Cha's company but certainly not the other 5 and I didn't bring up oldtimeres, Anson and Sisler.

Frank Thomas has a career OPS+ of 161, which is tied for 14th ALL TIME. On your list only Gehrig (179) and Foxx (163) are better. Murray is 129 (and not in the Top 100 OPS+ in history). Killebrew is 143 (57th all time). McCovey is at 148 (40th all time). Mize is 158 and 17th all time (so arguable, I guess as to who is better) and Cepeda is 133 and not on the Top 100.

I think the only 1B clearly above Thomas are Gehrig. Foxx, Mize, Greenberg, and McGwire have an argument that they are better, but I think Thomas gets in at either 3rd or 4th best all time (I'd put Gehrig and Foxx over him, and depending on my mood he flip flops with Mize).

[JS19]

It's too bad Thomas suffered all those injuries. He seems like he just fell of the face of the earth despite the amazing career he had which a lot of people forget about.

Also, although Murray's prime was well before my time, that guy is no joke.

[Crapshoot]

Killebrew went in the HOF as a 1b.

Eddie Murray is a joke? What is he - one of 3 guys who has 3000 hits and 500HRs, come on.

If you are going to talk about lower talent era - FT played in the age of further expansion.

I think you need to brushen up on your baseball history and I can clearly see FT being left off someone's ballot.

Injuries, played ALOT of DH, he had only 7 dominant seasons and a great 2000 season which I thought he should have won the MVP over Giambi (if he had, THEN I'd say he's a shoo-in having 3 MVPs). I just think its not that clear cut.

No, I said Eddie's a HOF - he's just not as good as Frank Thomas, though in fairness, he does deserve some props for career value. His peak value isn't close to Frank's.

The expansion arguement is trite - compare the US population, and the eligible baseball playing population today (the Puerto Ricans, the South Americans, African-Americans, etc) to that of Gehrig/Foxx's era - there are twice as many teams, and look at the demographics today as a sort of clue to what it could have been if the teams had expanded as fast as the population did.

Also, stupid MVP decisions beget stupid HOF decisions ? Frank has a career OBP of .427 - his career OPS+ is 161. There are problems with rate statistics undoubtedly - I wish I had WS or WARP3 numbers easily accessible. Frank has created 1800 Runs in 8500 PA's - Murray had 1965 in over 12,000 PA's. Even adjusting for era context, Frank was a better player.

As for baseball history, I think research on your part is needed, before making silly arguements.

[primelord]

Gehrig and Fox are probably the only 2 1b who are better, and then we deal with their advantage in playing in a lower talent level era - pre-integration.

On a sidenote SkyDog has done a pretty good job of convincing me that the pre-integration argument really doesn't hold water. Certainly Gehrig and Fox weren't facing all of the elite picthers in the country. However at that time there were also almost half as many teams and most teams only went with 4 man rotations. So the pitching was not nearly as diluted as it is now. So while they didn't have to face Satchel Paige they also didn't get to feast off of some of the trash that passes for 5th starters in the league now.

In the end it probably balances out.

[Crapshoot]

Killebrew went in the HOF as a 1b.

Eddie Murray is a joke? What is he - one of 3 guys who has 3000 hits and 500HRs, come on.

If you are going to talk about lower talent era - FT played in the age of further expansion.

I think you need to brushen up on your baseball history and I can clearly see FT being left off someone's ballot.

Injuries, played ALOT of DH, he had only 7 dominant seasons and a great 2000 season which I thought he should have won the MVP over Giambi (if he had, THEN I'd say he's a shoo-in having 3 MVPs). I just think its not that clear cut.

No, I said Eddie's a HOF - he's just not as good as Frank Thomas, though in fairness, he does deserve some props for career value. His peak value isn't close to Frank's.

The expansion arguement is trite - compare the US population, and the eligible baseball playing population today (the Puerto Ricans, the South Americans, African-Americans, etc) to that of Gehrig/Foxx's era - there are twice as many teams, and look at the demographics today as a sort of clue to what it could have been if the teams had expanded as fast as the population did.

Also, stupid MVP decisions beget stupid HOF decisions ? Frank has a career OBP of .427 - his career OPS+ is 161. There are problems with rate statistics undoubtedly - I wish I had WS or WARP3 numbers easily accessible. Frank has created 1800 Runs in 8500 PA's - Murray had 1965 in over 12,000 PA's. Even adjusting for era context, Frank was a better player.

As for baseball history, I think research on your part is needed, before making silly arguements.

[Crapshoot]

I think he was saying that if Frank Thomas hadn't gotten that rash of injuries and lost some of his amazing skill, he wouldn't just be talked about as one of the 5 best 1B to play the game, but perhaps as one of the 5 best PLAYERS to play the game.

Which is certainly valid, though I don't think Frank's ceiling was ever that high. :D

[Crapshoot]

On a sidenote SkyDog has done a pretty good job of convincing me that the pre-integration argument really doesn't hold water. Certainly Gehrig and Fox weren't facing all of the elite picthers in the country. However at that time there were also almost half as many teams and most teams only went with 4 man rotations. So the pitching was not nearly as diluted as it is now. So while they didn't have to face Satchel Paige they also didn't get to feast off of some of the trash that passes for 5th starters in the league now.

In the end it probably balances out.

I disagree - for the following reasons.

1. Expansion is trotted out ad nauseum - but look at the US population in 1920 and today - its significantly more than doubled. If anything, expansion hasn't kept with the demographic growth.

2. Look at the MLB demographics in the last 15-20 years - the best available players are playing the game, and caucasian players are a plurality at best - and not even that. Ruth and Gehrig and co were playing in an ERA where not only where they facing inferior talent, but they were facing the lower end of the inferior talent distribution. In other words, I venture the level of play of a negro leagues that included Cuban's, Dominicans, South Americans' etc would have had a level of play awfully close (if not greater) than that of the Major Leagues.

I think there are arguements in favor of what you're saying, but I come down in favor of treating baseball before the early 60's as good, but lower talent levels.

[Ramzavail]

Your love affair with Frank Thomas has won you my size 42 authentic White Sox Jersey - Where should I send it?

[ISiddiqui]

I think that people forget just how dominent Frank Thomas WAS in his early career. In his first 8 seasons (1990 - 1997), Thomas never had an OPS+ of LESS than 174. For comparison, Murray has NEVER had an OPS+ of 174 or higher. His highest was 156, almost 20 points below Thomas' low point in the first half of his career. Even more impressive, Ken Griffey, Jr. NEVER had an OPS+ of 174. His highest was 172.

That's is utterly jaw dropping numbers there. His average OPS+ per season those first 8 years was 182.125. A number which Willie Mays only bested once (for a season) in his career.

[Crapshoot]

Your love affair with Frank Thomas has won you my size 42 authentic White Sox Jersey - Where should I send it?

I am a size 42 - I'd love it. :D

[Ramzavail]

I think that people forget just how dominent Frank Thomas WAS in his early career. In his first 8 seasons (1990 - 1997), Thomas never had an OPS+ of LESS than 174. For comparison, Murray has NEVER had an OPS+ of 174 or higher. His highest was 156, almost 20 points below Thomas' low point in the first half of his career. Even more impressive, Ken Griffey, Jr. NEVER had an OPS+ of 174. His highest was 172.

That's is utterly jaw dropping numbers there. His average OPS+ per season those first 8 years was 182.125. A number which Willie Mays only bested once (for a season) in his career.

I didn't forget. I just value longevity and consistency over spurts of greatness (not to mention his awfulness at the position and the fact that he had to rely on the DH slot). Thats why I'd put Murray ahead of Thomas, I don't care what the OPS says.

[ISiddiqui]

I didn't forget. I just value longevity and consistency over spurts of greatness (not to mention his awfulness at the position and the fact that he had to rely on the DH slot). Thats why I'd put Murray ahead of Thomas, I don't care what the OPS says.

Yikes... I'd never put Murray ahead of Thomas. Ever. Longevity and consistency is great and all, but when you have that much greater talent over the prime years, no contest.

Do you also consider Nolan Ryan ahead of Sandy Koufax?

[Ramzavail]

Yikes... I'd never put Murray ahead of Thomas. Ever. Longevity and consistency is great and all, but when you have that much greater talent over the prime years, no contest.

Do you also consider Nolan Ryan ahead of Sandy Koufax?

No, I should restate when I mean.

When looking at players that I consider in the same realm of talent, I use consistency and longevity to be a determining factor to who should be ahead of the other.

Ryan isn't even a top 25 SP of all time, while Koufax is top 5.

To me, its close between Murray and Thomas, but I'd give Murray the edge b/c of 3,000 hits and 500 HRs and the longevity.

[kcchief19]

I disagree - for the following reasons.

1. Expansion is trotted out ad nauseum - but look at the US population in 1920 and today - its significantly more than doubled. If anything, expansion hasn't kept with the demographic growth.
I disagree with that if you take a look at the full spectrum. There are certainly more than twice as many professional athletes today than there were in 1920. If you want to compare baseball expansion to the U.S. population, I think it's relevant to take into consideration the entire professional athlete population, since there are plenty of people who will argue that the American baseball player talent pool is less than it once was since great athletes who previously may have played baseball are now pursing football, basketball and other sports.
2. Look at the MLB demographics in the last 15-20 years - the best available players are playing the game, and caucasian players are a plurality at best - and not even that. Ruth and Gehrig and co were playing in an ERA where not only where they facing inferior talent, but they were facing the lower end of the inferior talent distribution. In other words, I venture the level of play of a negro leagues that included Cuban's, Dominicans, South Americans' etc would have had a level of play awfully close (if not greater) than that of the Major Leagues.
I will disagree with that vehemently. If you held a baseball World Cup in 1920, it would have been like watching Team USA basketball in 1992 -- the rest of the world was way behind. There were plenty of Negro Leagues players who could have played in the majors in 1930, but relatively few from other parts of the world. It took time to catch up.

That said, there are plenty of other obstacles Ruth and Gehrig faced that today's players don't. They played in inferior conditions with poor fields. Travel conditions were a nightmare compared to today's chartered first class jets. There were no conditioning or training programs for anybody. In the end, I think it was largley a wash.

But I think the most relevant comparison of statistics is to compare players to their peers, not to other generations. That's why Ruth will always be the greatest player of all time. He hit more home runs in a season than entire teams in the league.

[ISiddiqui]

No, I should restate when I mean.

When looking at players that I consider in the same realm of talent, I use consistency and longevity to be a determining factor to who should be ahead of the other.

Ryan isn't even a top 25 SP of all time, while Koufax is top 5.

To me, its close between Murray and Thomas, but I'd give Murray the edge b/c of 3,000 hits and 500 HRs.

I guess I simply don't consider Thomas and Murray to be the same realm of talent. To me it isn't even close, especially when I see Thomas is 14th all time in Career OPS+ and Murray isn't even in the Top 100.

[WSUCougar]

Threadjackers. Please, this is a Pujols thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, we've gotten past that ;).

[Ramzavail]

Pujols is 30...just wait

[Glengoyne]

...I think it's safe to say he is on-track to be one of the all-time greats.

Discuss.

While I agree with you.

I remember thinking the same thing about Will Clark. A sure fire Hall of Famer I tell you! Ooops.

[DanGarion]

Albert Pujols is almost on the Jack Bauer of kickass.

[McSweeny]

Similar Batters through Age 25
Compare Stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=pujolal01:Albert+Pujols&st=age&compage=25)
Joe DiMaggio (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dimagjo01.shtml) (905) *
Frank Robinson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinfr02.shtml) (894) *
Jimmie Foxx (http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/foxxji01.shtml) (891) *
Hank Aaron (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/aaronha01.shtml) (883) *
Hal Trosky (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/troskha01.shtml) (874)
Vladimir Guerrero (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/guerrvl01.shtml) (871)
Orlando Cepeda (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cepedor01.shtml) (870) *
Ken Griffey (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/griffke02.shtml) (865)
Mickey Mantle (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mantlmi01.shtml) (862) *
Joe Medwick (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/medwijo01.shtml) (849) *

[BishopMVP]

His consistency is just ridiculous. Coming in at age 21 and hitting .330 with 37 HR's, maintaining that pace or better the next 4 years? Now if he's turned it up another notch and keeps doing what he's doing for this full season, his numbers will be epic. Even if he's 29 or 30 now, that's still ridiculous. And if he's really 26 and still improving? Dear god. Avoid injuries and he'll re-write every record, just like Griffey Jr. and Thomas did before him.

On Thomas, he gets screwed because he was dominant just before HR #'s took off and everyone started obsessing over OBP. He also had his most dominant season (1994) when he was a legitimate Triple Crown threat killed due to strike.

[WSUCougar]

One of the scarier Pujols skills is his ability to hit with two strikes. It's almost like he wants to set the pitcher up to get there, and knows exactly what he's doing.

And if you haven't watched him play much (other than the ESPN HR clips), he's becoming one helluva defensive first baseman.

[primelord]

And if you haven't watched him play much (other than the ESPN HR clips), he's becoming one helluva defensive first baseman.

A fact that Hrabosky will never let any of us forget.

[DaddyTorgo]

A PRIMELORD SIGHTING!! A NEW GAME CAN'T BE FAR BEHIND!

[dawgfan]

It's not really accurate to say that Pujols didn't display power in the minors. He only had the one season, but he still hit 41 doubles and 19 HR's in 490 AB. His SLG for the year was .543.

Pujols has had a phenomenal start to his career. Of recent guys, Frank Thomas is the only one I can think of that's had a better start. Even if Pujols is a few years older than his listed 26, it's still a hell of a start to his career. If he can stay healthy, he could be right there with A-Rod in challenging Aaron's HR record.

He's certainly on pace to enter himself in the discussion of top RH hitters of all time.

[Swaggs]

One of the scarier Pujols skills is his ability to hit with two strikes. It's almost like he wants to set the pitcher up to get there, and knows exactly what he's doing.

And if you haven't watched him play much (other than the ESPN HR clips), he's becoming one helluva defensive first baseman.

Uh oh... I'm thinking you are going to start making Chuck Norris-like proclaimations about Pujols next. ;)

[Crapshoot]

No, I should restate when I mean.

When looking at players that I consider in the same realm of talent, I use consistency and longevity to be a determining factor to who should be ahead of the other.

Ryan isn't even a top 25 SP of all time, while Koufax is top 5.

To me, its close between Murray and Thomas, but I'd give Murray the edge b/c of 3,000 hits and 500 HRs and the longevity.

Koufax is not even top 20. Pedro Martinez is the pitcher people imagine Koufax was. This reverence for the past in lieu of the present is one of the things that baseball desperately needs to get over. Respect the past - don't over estimate it.

[WSUCougar]

A fact that Hrabosky will never let any of us forget.
You mean "The Mad Homerian"? :D

[DanGarion]

Koufax is not even top 20. Pedro Martinez is the pitcher people imagine Koufax was. This reverence for the past in lieu of the present is one of the things that baseball desperately needs to get over. Respect the past - don't over estimate it.
I call bullshit. Koufax is one of the best of all time, just like Drysdale.

[McSweeny]

I call bullshit. Koufax is one of the best of all time, just like Drysdale.

yeah easily, but Pedro is still far and away the best

[Crapshoot]

I call bullshit. Koufax is one of the best of all time, just like Drysdale.

Call it all you want. Koufax is a great pitcher, but he's probably the second most overrated pitcher of all time - after Nolan Ryan. THT just did a study on Koufax in dodger stadium as opposed to anywhere else - its illuminating. Pedro Martinez is significantly better. I'll try and address this later - work is sorta calling. :D

[dawgfan]

I call bullshit. Koufax is one of the best of all time, just like Drysdale.
In terms of peak value, yes, Koufax was one of the best of all time. His 4-year stretch before he retired due to elbow arthritis is one of the best such stretches in MLB history. But, prior to that he was only moderately above being a league-average starter. Also, Dodger Stadium appears to have helped out Koufax a great deal.

Koufax was unquestionably a great pitcher at the point at which he retired. However, his career isn't nearly as impressive as his hype would suggest. Pedro Martinez has already had a significantly better career than Koufax (and a better 4-year stretch of dominance as well). Randy Johnson arguably has had a 4-year stretch as good as Koufax, and a much better overall career.

Summary: in terms of peak value, Koufax is indeed one of the top pitchers of all-time. Career value though, he's well down the list.

[Huckleberry]

Koufax's great run started in 1962. The Dodgers moved from Memorial Coliseum to Dodger Stadium in 1962. Hardly a coincidence.

That being said, his run was spectacular. But even his 4-year craziness from '63-'66 was not as good as Pedro's 7-year run from 1997-2003.

[kcchief19]

Koufax's great run started in 1962. The Dodgers moved from Memorial Coliseum to Dodger Stadium in 1962. Hardly a coincidence.

That being said, his run was spectacular. But even his 4-year craziness from '63-'66 was not as good as Pedro's 7-year run from 1997-2003.
That's just not true. Koufax really started to turn it up in 1961 at age 25 when he went 18-13. '62 was a decent year, but '63-'66 were the magnificent years, and I think there is a much better correlation with that run coinciding with his peak age as a pitcher rather than simply blaming Dodger Stadium. Saying Doger Stadium made Koufax great begs the question as to why every Dodgers pitcher isn't great.
That being said, his run was spectacular. But even his 4-year craziness from '63-'66 was not as good as Pedro's 7-year run from 1997-2003.
Martinez's great run -- which by the way started at age 25 as well -- was great, but it also included an injury-plagued season where he missed most of the year, so it was really a six-year run. Even then, Koufax was better in those four years than Pedro was in his six.

I don't take anything away from Pedro, but I don't think it's fair to compare the two. I think Koufax would have continued his brilliance for several more seasons had he not retired. The heart that man had to pitch when he knew his elbow as going to be swollen like a grapefruit after every game was amazing. With his arm falling off, Koufax average 7.9 innings per start. At age 30, Pedro average 6.6 innings per start. But since Koufax didn't pitch after 30, we don't know what he might have done. Up to age 30, they were very comparable pitchers, although I would give the edge to Koufax.

When it comes to intanglibles, I don't think there is any argument who is the better player. Koufax had a 0.95 ERA in the World Series, and the Dodgers won three of four World Series with him. Martinez has historically been a much worse pitcher in the postseason than the regular season. Pedro doesn't have the endurance and stamina that Koufax did, even though Pedro doesn't have a debilitating condition.

Pedro's great, but if I had to run one of those guys out there in a must-win game, I'd pick Koufax every single time.

[McSweeny]

Koufax pitched off a higher mound, in a huge ballpark, and in a league without a DH.

From 1903 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1903) through 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968) this height limit was set at 15 inches, but was often slightly higher, sometimes as high as 20 inches (50.8 cm), especially for teams that emphasized pitching, such as the Los Angeles Dodgers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Dodgers), who were reputed to have the highest mound in the majors.

those 5-10 inches made a HUGE difference. Just ask Bob Gibson

[Katon]

Martinez's great run -- which by the way started at age 25 as well -- was great, but it also included an injury-plagued season where he missed most of the year, so it was really a six-year run. Even then, Koufax was better in those four years than Pedro was in his six.


But he wasn't. That's the thing. Koufax's ERA+ in his four years: 161, 187, 160, 190. That's very good. Pedro's ERA+ in his six-year run: 221, 160, 245, 285, 189 (injured), 196, 212. That's ridiculous. And Pedro was in the top eight in his league in innings pitched from 1997-2000 (the first four seasons) so most of the difference in their number of innings is just down to the different eras they pitched in. Koufax gets an edge on durability, sure, but not enough to make up for the fact that Pedro was completely unhittable.

[Fonzie]

I've read this entire thread, but I cannot figure out how a thread about a Albert Pujols' awesomeness became a debate about Sandy Koufax's and Pedro Martinez's relative peak values.

To bring this thread back on topic: Albert Pujols is awesomer than any human being, ever.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, when I said Koufax I was refering to his peak value, since we were discussing short brilliance vs. longevity.

Though I agree that Pedro's run HAS been more impressive than Koufax's (Katon's ERA+ comparison bears that out), but he wouldn't have made my point as well ;).

If we look at the stats (ERA+ is the prime one I'm looking at) there is a very good argument that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived. Even though he may not approach the lofty Wins numbers (he is 35 and just hit 200 wins), he is #1 all time in ERA+ (and it really isn't close... he's at 166, while 2nd place Lefty Grove is 148). He's #1 in the modern era in K/BB. He's 2nd in the modern era in Win/Loss % to Spud Chandler (of the famed Yankees teams of the late 30s and 40s). He's 3rd all time in WHIP behind two dead ball pitchers (Addie Joss and Ed Walsh). He's 3rd in K/9 behind Randy Johnson and Kerry Wood. He's got 3 Cy Youngs.

I'd be very tempted to put Pedro close to the top of the list. But, of course, longevity concerns do play a part, so perhaps he can't topple Lefty Grove and Walter Johnson from the top of my list.

[Katon]

I've read this entire thread, but I cannot figure out how a thread about a Albert Pujols' awesomeness became a debate about Sandy Koufax's and Pedro Martinez's relative peak values.


Well, we've got to argue about something, and what on earth is there to argue about with Pujols?

[ISiddiqui]

Well, we've got to argue about something, and what on earth is there to argue about with Pujols?

Bingo... I don't know of anyone who doesn't think Pujols is awesome, provided all the info we have on him is true. So we have to talk about something else.

[Fonzie]

Well, we've got to argue about something, and what on earth is there to argue about with Pujols?

New debate topic: will, in the distant future, science be able to create a human being and/or android who approximates Albert Pujols' awesomeness?

Discuss.

[JonInMiddleGA]

New debate topic: If a team of 9 Pujols' faced a team of 5 Ditka's and 4 Mini-Ditka's who would win?

[dawgfan]

New debate topic: If a team of 9 Pujols' faced a team of 5 Ditka's and 4 Mini-Ditka's who would win?
The team of one Chuck Norris. Duh.

[dawgfan]

That's just not true. Koufax really started to turn it up in 1961 at age 25 when he went 18-13. '62 was a decent year, but '63-'66 were the magnificent years, and I think there is a much better correlation with that run coinciding with his peak age as a pitcher rather than simply blaming Dodger Stadium. Saying Doger Stadium made Koufax great begs the question as to why every Dodgers pitcher isn't great.
Dodger Stadium has, for virtually its' entire existence, been a pitcher's park. Most pitchers show advantages in their home/road splits when pitching in Dodger Stadium over a period of reasonable time.

I don't have home/road splits handy for Koufax, but I recall reading an article or two that did have that info, and I remember it heavily favoring Koufax's home numbers when pitching in Dodger Stadium.

Now, that's not to say that there weren't additional factors in play, like an improvement in his approach and a refinement of his control and his pitch quality. But, IIRC the numbers also show a pretty strong correlation between his move to Dodger Stadium and his big jump in performance.

[kcchief19]

Koufax pitched off a higher mound, in a huge ballpark, and in a league without a DH.

those 5-10 inches made a HUGE difference. Just ask Bob Gibson
Again, if you want to start whipping differences like this, we could go on all night. Koufax pitched more day games and Martinez pitched more night games -- batting statistics are better during day games. Expansion has diluted the league and given Martinez weaker opponents.

Best of all -- Martinzez didn't have freakin' arthritis.

[primelord]

Here are the Home/Road splits for Koufax:

1961: The year before they moved

Home - 9-8, 4.22 ERA
Away - 9-5, 2.77 ERA

1962:

Home - 7-4, 1.75 ERA
Away - 7-3, 3.53 ERA

1963:

Home - 11-1, 1.38 ERA
Away - 14-4, 2.31 ERA

1964:

Home - 12-2, 0.85 ERA
Away - 7-3, 2.93

1965:

Home - 14-3, 1.38 ERA
Away - 12-5, 2.72 ERA

1966:

Home - 13-5, 1.52 ERA
Away - 14-4, 1.96 ERA


So what is very clear from those stats is that Koufax was dominant on the road as well, but he quite obviously had a HUGE advantage at Dodger Stadium.

[kcchief19]

But, IIRC the numbers also show a pretty strong correlation between his move to Dodger Stadium and his big jump in performance.
That's post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Just because two things sort of happened at the same time -- which as I've noted, they didn't really -- doesn't mean one caused the other.

Pedro's great run kicked off when he moved to the National League, so I could argue that once he got on a better team he became a better pitcher. The Dodgers of that era were completely inept offensively -- that team was built on great pitching.

[Fonzie]

New debate topic: If a team of 9 Pujols' faced a team of 5 Ditka's and 4 Mini-Ditka's who would win?

Tough one, but I have to give Pujols the nod, as he's the most awesome human ever.

Here's one that could spark some more intense debate: who would win if a team of 5 Diktas and 4 Mini Ditkas went up against a Millenium Falcon, a Death Star, 2 Galaxy-class cruisers, and 5 K'vort-class cruisers?

[kcchief19]

Though I agree that Pedro's run HAS been more impressive than Koufax's (Katon's ERA+ comparison bears that out), but he wouldn't have made my point as well ;).

If we look at the stats (ERA+ is the prime one I'm looking at) there is a very good argument that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived.
Dear god, sometimes I wish some of these stat heads who took over baseball had their graphing calculators shoved so far up their ass they'd have to blow their nose to calculate a function.

I'm not slamming you ISiddiqui (man, that's hard to type) but anyone who wants to argue that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived -- and believes they have stats to prove it -- just has lost all sense of reality. Pedro is a great pitcher -- but greatest of all time? C'mon.

Anybody who can't get through an average of seven innings when they are at their most dominant is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Continuing my line from an earlier post, Koufax pitched in an era when relievers were used sparringly -- how much lower do you think Koufax's ERA might have been if he didn't throw 300-plus innings and stay in ball games late, maybe sometimes when he was starting to lose it late in the game? Pedro is a six-inning pitcher.

And if ERA+ is a determination of great pitching, I'm not going anywhere until everybody signs my Hall of Fame peition for Dan Quisenberry.

[kcchief19]

Here are the Home/Road splits for Koufax:

1961: The year before they moved

Home - 9-8, 4.22 ERA
Away - 9-5, 2.77 ERA

1962:

Home - 7-4, 1.75 ERA
Away - 7-3, 3.53 ERA

1963:

Home - 11-1, 1.38 ERA
Away - 14-4, 2.31 ERA

1964:

Home - 12-2, 0.85 ERA
Away - 7-3, 2.93

1965:

Home - 14-3, 1.38 ERA
Away - 12-5, 2.72 ERA

1966:

Home - 13-5, 1.52 ERA
Away - 14-4, 1.96 ERA


So what is very clear from those stats is that Koufax was dominant on the road as well, but he quite obviously had a HUGE advantage at Dodger Stadium.
So in five seasons he won a grand total of three more games at home than on the road. Not terribly significant there. In four of five seasons he still had an ERA under 3.00 on the road, including a stellar '66 season.

I don't dispute that Koufax had better home splits than normal. Most players do perform better at home, and I'll grant that Koufax did better than average. I don't dispute that Dodger Stadium is a great pitcher's park. I don't dispute any of that.

But saying Dodger Stadium made Koufax great begs the question of why can't other Dodger pitchers over the years be that good? Valenzuela was never that good? Don Sutton was good, but never better than Koufax. Even Drysdale wasn't better than Koufax. And what Burt Freakin' Hooten?

[dawgfan]

That's post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Just because two things sort of happened at the same time -- which as I've noted, they didn't really -- doesn't mean one caused the other.
Actually, they did happen at the same time. His ERA+ jumped from 124 (the highest it had been by far since his 41.2 IP in his rookie year) in 1961 to 143 in 1962 and then 161, 187, 160 & 190. Now, it could also be said that he made a big jump from 1960 to 1961 - he did. And that shows it wasn't all Dodger Stadium. But, as the home/road splits that primelord posted show, he enjoyed a tremendous boost from Dodger Stadium, especially comparing 1961 in the Coliseum vs. 1962 and beyond in Dodger Stadium. He was a great pitcher anyway, but playing half his games in Dodger Stadium helped him even more in terms of his overall stats.

Pedro's great run kicked off when he moved to the National League, so I could argue that once he got on a better team he became a better pitcher. The Dodgers of that era were completely inept offensively -- that team was built on great pitching.
Huh? Pedro started off in the NL. He only pitched one full season in LA, and it was a very good season for him - his ERA+ was 151. He continued to be a good pitcher in Montreal, with ERA+ of 123, 120, 117 before exploding in his last season in Montreal with a ridiculous 221. That dominance continued when he moved to the AL and Boston.

As for the whole arthritis thing and comparing Koufax to Pedro, it could also be argued that Pedro has been pitching with a bum shoulder for the last 4 seasons, so while I respect the fact that Koufax's run was cut short due to injury and it may have effected him prior to his retirement, I'm not so sure Sandy was that much worse off in terms of health than Pedro has been for the last few years.

[Chief Rum]

Dude, Frank's a 1st ballot HOF, and one of the 5 best 1b who ever played the game. There's not much more he could have done.

Well, maybe among five best hitters who also happened to play 1B. :)

[Crapshoot]

Dear god, sometimes I wish some of these stat heads who took over baseball had their graphing calculators shoved so far up their ass they'd have to blow their nose to calculate a function.

I'm not slamming you ISiddiqui (man, that's hard to type) but anyone who wants to argue that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived -- and believes they have stats to prove it -- just has lost all sense of reality. Pedro is a great pitcher -- but greatest of all time? C'mon.

Anybody who can't get through an average of seven innings when they are at their most dominant is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Continuing my line from an earlier post, Koufax pitched in an era when relievers were used sparringly -- how much lower do you think Koufax's ERA might have been if he didn't throw 300-plus innings and stay in ball games late, maybe sometimes when he was starting to lose it late in the game? Pedro is a six-inning pitcher.

And if ERA+ is a determination of great pitching, I'm not going anywhere until everybody signs my Hall of Fame peition for Dan Quisenberry.

Dear god, I wish I could be an old fart and keep arguing data with the line "I know better." ERA+ is certainly a flawed measure, but as much BS as you wish to spout, Pedro was amongst the league leaders in innings in his era - just like Koufax, even though he's significantly better. In his career, Sandy's been in the top 10 of innings exactly 4 times - Pedro's done it 6 times.

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
Pedro's not the best of all time - by any measure, except maybe peak value (1999-2000 is probably the best 2 season stretch in history). The best all time is probably Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, or Roger Clemens. But Pedro is better than Koufax - easily.

[dawgfan]

So in five seasons he won a grand total of three more games at home than on the road. Not terribly significant there. In four of five seasons he still had an ERA under 3.00 on the road, including a stellar '66 season.
You're seriously using Win/Loss numbers as an argument? Seriously?

I don't dispute that Koufax had better home splits than normal. Most players do perform better at home, and I'll grant that Koufax did better than average. I don't dispute that Dodger Stadium is a great pitcher's park. I don't dispute any of that.
No, most players don't perform better at home. All other things being equal, playing at home provides an advantage, but when you factor in park effects and whatnot, there are quite a few players that don't peform better at home - that's why there are some parks that play more as hitter's parks (negatively affecting pitchers) and some play as pitcher's parks (negatively affecting hitters).

But saying Dodger Stadium made Koufax great begs the question of why can't other Dodger pitchers over the years be that good? Valenzuela was never that good? Don Sutton was good, but never better than Koufax. Even Drysdale wasn't better than Koufax. And what Burt Freakin' Hooten?
We're not saying that Dodger Stadium made Koufax a great pitcher - what we're saying is that the advantages Koufax gained pitching in Dodger Stadium were so great that they made his numbers that much better than they would've if he'd pitched his home games in a more neutral park.

I'd bet if you looked at home/road splits for all the Dodger pitchers listed above, you'd find nearly all (if not all) enjoyed an advantage in pitching at Dodger Stadium. Fernando Valenzuela was a good pitcher (though not in Koufax's class), but pitching half his home games in Dodger Stadium made his stats look better than they would've if he'd been a Cub.

And take another look at the significant difference between Sandy's home ERA between 1961 in the LA Coliseum and the following years in Dodger Stadium. It could be argued that Sandy had already turned the corner in 1961, but that improvement was masked by playing half his games in such a hitter-friendly park.

[dawgfan]

Dear god, sometimes I wish some of these stat heads who took over baseball had their graphing calculators shoved so far up their ass they'd have to blow their nose to calculate a function.

I'm not slamming you ISiddiqui (man, that's hard to type) but anyone who wants to argue that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived -- and believes they have stats to prove it -- just has lost all sense of reality. Pedro is a great pitcher -- but greatest of all time? C'mon.
I see - so what are we supposed to judge players by if not by their performance (which is what stats analysis is all about)? The line of argument ISiddiqui is pursuing is that, when you look at how pitchers have done in terms of ERA in comparison to the rest of the league, Pedro thus far in his career is about as good as it gets. Now, is that the only measurement to use when talking about greatest pitcher ever? No. Clemens' longevity is enough to outweigh Pedro's current ERA+ advantage. And Pedro, given his iffy shoulder, may not be able to come close enough in his career numbers to bridge that difference. But Pedro absolutely belongs in the argument.

Anybody who can't get through an average of seven innings when they are at their most dominant is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Continuing my line from an earlier post, Koufax pitched in an era when relievers were used sparringly -- how much lower do you think Koufax's ERA might have been if he didn't throw 300-plus innings and stay in ball games late, maybe sometimes when he was starting to lose it late in the game? Pedro is a six-inning pitcher.
Uh, Pedro averaged 7.8 IP in his breakout year with Montreal, and at or above 7 IP thereafter until he injured himself. Until 1997, Montreal had babied him to keep him from breaking down. Since then he's been handled more carefully given his iffy shoulder, yes, but then again he's still pitching. Maybe if Koufax hadn't pitched so many innings he might not've had to retire so young.

And if ERA+ is a determination of great pitching, I'm not going anywhere until everybody signs my Hall of Fame peition for Dan Quisenberry.
ERA+ is a far more important stat for starters than relievers because ERA for relievers is much less indicative of their effectiveness than it is for starters. Given the huge disparity in IP between HOF starter candidates and HOF reliever candidates, you'd better be a dominating reliever to gain entry. Quiz was very, very good for a few years there, but he wasn't dominant long enough and his career overall was too short to merit serious consideration as a reliever.

[Thomkal]

Well as a Cards fan, all I can say is I'm glad that the Cards have him and I'm glad I spent $45 fake dollars on him in my Rotisserie draft this season. :) A bit worried the nagging injury he's been fighting this season with his back is going to lead to some DL time.

Really hope five years from now we are still talking positive about him unlike Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro and the rest.

[dawgfan]

Dola,
Pedro's not the best of all time - by any measure, except maybe peak value (1999-2000 is probably the best 2 season stretch in history). The best all time is probably Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, or Roger Clemens. But Pedro is better than Koufax - easily.
Pedro's got all of those guys beat in ERA+, so that's a measure where he's best. Not saying he's better overall than those guys because of it - he's not IMO due to the disparity in career length, but Pedro is in the argument, and every year from here on out where he's better than league average will strengthen his position in the debate. Basically, as long as his shoulder holds out, he's got a shot to be #1.

[primelord]

I'd bet if you looked at home/road splits for all the Dodger pitchers listed above, you'd find nearly all (if not all) enjoyed an advantage in pitching at Dodger Stadium. Fernando Valenzuela was a good pitcher (though not in Koufax's class), but pitching half his home games in Dodger Stadium made his stats look better than they would've if he'd been a Cub.

L.A. Dodgers Pitching Splits

1961:

Home - 3.91 ERA (3.84)
Away - 4.18 ERA (4.22)

1962:

Home - 3.49 ERA (3.72)
Away - 3.92 ERA (4.19)
H/R Diff - 0.43 LH/R Diff - 0.38
HvsL Diff - 0.23 RvsL Diff - 0.27

1963:

Home - 2.53 ERA (3.26)
Away - 3.20 ERA (3.67)
H/R Diff - 0.67 LH/R Diff - 0.41
HvsL Diff - 0.73 RvsL Diff - 0.47


1964:

Home - 2.58 ERA (3.44)
Away - 3.34 ERA (3.72)
H/R Diff - 0.76 LH/R Diff - 0.28
HvsL Diff - 0.86 RvsL Diff - 0.38

1965:

Home - 2.74 ERA (3.36)
Away - 3.05 ERA (3.63)
H/R Diff - 0.31 LH/R Diff - 0.27
HvsL Diff - 0.62 RvsL Diff - 0.58

1966:

Home - 2.27 ERA (3.38)
Away - 3.01 ERA (3.67)
H/R Diff - 0.74 LH/R Diff - 0.29
HvsL Diff - 1.11 RvsL Diff - 0.66

The numbers in the parenthesis are the league wide averages. Here is a quick run down of what the Abreviations are:

H/R Diff - The difference between the Dodgers ERA at Home and on the Road
LH/R Diff - The difference between the league wide ERA at HOme and on the Road
HvsL Diff - The Difference between the Dodgers Home ERA and the league wide home ERA
RvsL Diff - The difference between the Dodgers Road ERA and the league wide Road ERA

So what can we conclude from the numbers above. In every single season the difference between the Dodgers home ERA and road ERA was bigger than the difference in the league wide home vs road ERA. In addition in every year except 62 their ERA at home compared to the league average ERA at home was bigger than the road comparisons. It seems pretty obvious that the Dodgers enjoyed a distinct advantage pitching at home in Koufax's golden years.

And before we get into a debate about the signifigance in the distance between the averages I would like to point out that Koufax likely got the most benefit from the advantage. For example let's say suddenly the major leagues started allowing players to use metal bats. If that were to happen offense across the board would go up. However the offensive increase would be more for a guy like Albert Pujols than a guy like So Taguchi. They both would do better, but Albert's significantly higher talent would allow him to better take advantage of the better bats.

No one here is arguing that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher and he was more able to use the advantages of Dodger Stadium to his gain.

[Fonzie]

ALBERT PUJOLS RULES!







;)

[ISiddiqui]

Dear god, sometimes I wish some of these stat heads who took over baseball had their graphing calculators shoved so far up their ass they'd have to blow their nose to calculate a function.

I'm not slamming you ISiddiqui (man, that's hard to type) but anyone who wants to argue that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived -- and believes they have stats to prove it -- just has lost all sense of reality. Pedro is a great pitcher -- but greatest of all time? C'mon.

Anybody who can't get through an average of seven innings when they are at their most dominant is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Continuing my line from an earlier post, Koufax pitched in an era when relievers were used sparringly -- how much lower do you think Koufax's ERA might have been if he didn't throw 300-plus innings and stay in ball games late, maybe sometimes when he was starting to lose it late in the game? Pedro is a six-inning pitcher.

And if ERA+ is a determination of great pitching, I'm not going anywhere until everybody signs my Hall of Fame peition for Dan Quisenberry.

Its been said, but to clarify, I did not say he was the best pitcher of all time, but that you can make the argument (and its a pretty decent one). I think having, by far, the best starter ERA+ (I say that because when Mariano Rivera hits 1000 innings, he'll have the lead.. he's got an ERA+ of 197 and around 850 innings pitched) by a wide margin gives you an 'in' to the debate. I mean if people can make arguments for Koufax based on his peak, surely the same can be done, on an even better level for Pedro Martinez.

Though I did say I'd put Grove and Johnson over him. I don't know if I'd put Clemens over him though, but it'd be neck and neck. Pedro may not have pitched the most innings (though figures VERY well when compared to others in his era as pointed out), but when he did he was one of the best to ever pitch. Longevity is important, but, man, is his 7 year run incredibly impressive.

[DanGarion]

It doesn't really matter about this Pedro / Koufax arguement though. Bob Gibson is the best of all time.

[Warhammer]

Tough one, but I have to give Pujols the nod, as he's the most awesome human ever.

Here's one that could spark some more intense debate: who would win if a team of 5 Diktas and 4 Mini Ditkas went up against a Millenium Falcon, a Death Star, 2 Galaxy-class cruisers, and 5 K'vort-class cruisers?

Is that the Star Wars Death Star or the Return of the Jedi Death Star?

Also, are the Ditkas post-heart attack or pre-heart attack Ditkas?

[SuperGrover]

I think he was saying that if Frank Thomas hadn't gotten that rash of injuries and lost some of his amazing skill, he wouldn't just be talked about as one of the 5 best 1B to play the game, but perhaps as one of the 5 best PLAYERS to play the game.

After 1997, Frank was the 4th most productive player of all-time (IMHO) behind Ruth, Gehrig, and Williams. Since then, his star has diminished considerably.

Trust me, I LOVE FT. I could tell you way, way too much about his career. Still, even his biggest apologist (me) can't ignore his last 8 years.

[oykib]

That said, there are plenty of other obstacles Ruth and Gehrig faced that today's players don't. They played in inferior conditions with poor fields. Travel conditions were a nightmare compared to today's chartered first class jets. There were no conditioning or training programs for anybody. In the end, I think it was largley a wash.

But I think the most relevant comparison of statistics is to compare players to their peers, not to other generations. That's why Ruth will always be the greatest player of all time. He hit more home runs in a season than entire teams in the league.

You have to compare both to the peers and across generations to determine who the best is. If you don't, then all the best players in history were white guys born in the nineteenth century.

That last Ruth statistic sounds nice, but doesn't mean much. He was lucky to have been born when he was. But that has nothing to do with his greatness. He wouldn't be hitting 250 homers a year if he were playing today. You put Travis Hafner back in ruth's time and he'd outhomer whole teams too.

[Fonzie]

Is that the Star Wars Death Star or the Return of the Jedi Death Star?

The original Death Star. The RoJ Death Star had no mobility, which would be crucial when taking on a squad of Ditkas.

Also, are the Ditkas post-heart attack or pre-heart attack Ditkas?

Doesn't matter. Cardiac arrests mean nothing to Ditka.

[Warhammer]

The original Death Star. The RoJ Death Star had no mobility, which would be crucial when taking on a squad of Ditkas.



Doesn't matter. Cardiac arrests mean nothing to Ditka.

OK, easy Post-heart attack Ditka

[Huckleberry]

You put Travis Hafner back in ruth's time and he'd outhomer whole teams too.

Doubtful.

Unless you mean put him in a time machine with his current equipment. Because if he had grown up with 1920s training "regimens" and using 1920s bat technology there's no way what you say is true.

Anyway,

http://clip.break.com/dnet/media/2006/5/96489_75f43514-2792-4ea1-9d9a-7c23523d6da7_prod_break.jpg

edit to add - And the other guy forgot perhaps the most important thing. While Ruth didn't play against blacks or foreigners, he also only played against 7 other teams in his league. He faced Walter Johnson, for example, 7 or 8 times a season. Nobody these days faces a single dominant starter that many times in a season. And back in the 1920s they certainly never got to face the 100th best starting pitcher around. There are about 150 starting pitchers playing now. At least 50 of them suck.

[oykib]

Doubtful.

Unless you mean put him in a time machine with his current equipment. Because if he had grown up with 1920s training "regimens" and using 1920s bat technology there's no way what you say is true.

Anyway,

http://clip.break.com/dnet/media/2006/5/96489_75f43514-2792-4ea1-9d9a-7c23523d6da7_prod_break.jpg

edit to add - And the other guy forgot perhaps the most important thing. While Ruth didn't play against blacks or foreigners, he also only played against 7 other teams in his league. He faced Walter Johnson, for example, 7 or 8 times a season. Nobody these days faces a single dominant starter that many times in a season. And back in the 1920s they certainly never got to face the 100th best starting pitcher around. There are about 150 starting pitchers playing now. At least 50 of them suck.

There are many more good pitchers today than in the past. Ruth didn't just not face the best black and Latin ballplayers. He also didn't play against half the best white ballplayers. Scouting was a haphazard endeavor in those days. If you were a good white ballplayer west of the Mississippi, you weren't very likely to make it to the majors. That's not even mentioning the fact that many good ballplayers were making good money in the minors, which were nothing like the minors of today, and may not have even wanted to come to the majors.

Also, you seem to be in the misguided group that thinks pitchers aren't as good today as they were in the past. Pitchers used to pitch bunches of complete games in the past because there weren't many powerful hitters and there was no specialization. So, pitchers just coasted for most of the game and saved the juice for big situations. Now #8 hitters'll take you downtown if you try shit like that.

And the Hafner reference was to the fact that if we tranported him back in time, he'd have outhomered the league. But if we brought Ruth forward, he wouldn't be able to do the same.

[MizzouRah]

Pujols, 3-3 so far today HR (19) and 3 RBI (47)