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

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

Discuss.

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.

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 :)

He IS the greatest right now. :)

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

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.

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

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. :)

you are sharp

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.

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.

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

Well, somebody had to.

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

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.

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.

Interesting personal story too. Really like him.

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.

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.

Probably just a random talent increase like OOTP.

Albert Pujols has taken his game to the next level!

He obviously doesnt play for the Jays

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.
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.

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.