Albert Pujols, best player of all time?

[Call Me Genius]

Do you guys think that after Pujol's career is over he will be considered the best player of all time, barring no major injuries or something of that matter. I mean he hits amazingly, barely strikes out and Bombs the ball out of the ball park. Will he become the best player of all time, like i said barring no major injuries or off the field matters?

I would have to say its possible.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

Do you guys think that after Pujol's career is over he will be considered the best player of all time, barring no major injuries or something of that matter. I mean he hits amazingly, barely strikes out and Bombs the ball out of the ball park. Will he become the best player of all time, like i said barring no major injuries or off the field matters?

I would have to say its possible.
Too much too soon.
There are at least 50 players I'd put ahead of him now.

BTW, doesn't this belong in the HOG forum?

[Call Me Genius]

my fault, wasnt sure where it went so as usual just put it in current events, my fault.

[The Dude]

I don't know how you could not say he hase one of the best "peaks" of all time.
Even if you adjust for era, it's amazing.
4 seasons of 40+ doubles, 2 of them 51.
3 seasons of 40+ HR's.
5 seasons of 100+ RBI's.
5 Seasons of 100+ Runs.
4 Seasons of 190+ hits.

Not to mention he has the best eye in the major leagues.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Ted Williams may be regarded as the best hitter of all time, but not best player because his glovework and baserunning skillis were far surpassed. Pujols would need to excel in areas other than hitting, and I don't mean simply be adequate, to be seriously regarded as the best of all time when all is said and done.

[Dasperp]

Not to mention he has the best eye in the major leagues

Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi say hello

I agree that it is way too early to say, but if he continues at his current rate, then he'll certainly be in the discussion when his career is over.

[KingJ]

Too early to tell. I remember when the scouts were going "Eduardo Perez, will be greatest player of all time?"...didn't work out that way. Then again, Pujols has a proven major league bat.

[538280]

His career is still way too short and he hasn't played nearly enough to even merit discussion as perhaps being the best ever. BTW, while Pujols' hitting peak so far has been amazing, it is quite clearly not as good as Frank Thomas' when he first came into the league, and quite clearly not as good as Barry Bonds has been over the past few years, leaving out 2005 when he was hurt. So let's not be so premature.

[BoofBonser26]

His career is still way too short and he hasn't played nearly enough to even merit discussion as perhaps being the best ever. BTW, while Pujols' hitting peak so far has been amazing, it is quite clearly not as good as Frank Thomas' when he first came into the league, and quite clearly not as good as Barry Bonds has been over the past few years, leaving out 2005 when he was hurt. So let's not be so premature.
This is a thread about potential, as I think was clearly stated in the first post. Of course it's too early to give him that title. In the future, who knows.

[Elvis]

Ken Griffey Jr. was on his way to immortal greatness too, but you never know how injuries and refusing to cheat to recover will change everything. If only Jr would've juiced, instead of having integrity, he could've been right up there with the great ones. :rolleyes:

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I understand your thinking but to say your getting too far ahead of the game would be putting it mildly. Only time will tell.

[538280]

Ken Griffey Jr. was on his way to immortal greatness too, but you never know how injuries and refusing to cheat to recover will change everything. If only Jr would've juiced, instead of having integrity, he could've been right up there with the great ones. :rolleyes:

Steroids would prevent him from getting hurt?

Look, no matter how much you may hate Bonds, he was a much better player than Griffey before steroids.

[Call Me Genius]

Remember, I meant, as stated in the first post, if Pujols continues to hit the way he has for another ten years, and barring no major injuries, will he be the best player of all time, I'm not asking now.

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

Nah, I don't think they'll consider Pujols the greatest of all time. People would still be going back and pointing to Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Jackson, Cobb , Mantle etc. as the best ever. Which could be true...:coffee :)

[Elvis]

Steroids would prevent him from getting hurt?

Look, no matter how much you may hate Bonds, he was a much better player than Griffey before steroids.

No, they would help him recover faster.

No, he wasn't.

[BoofBonser26]

Pujols just blasted his ninth home run of the season.

[Taco De Muerte]

No, he wasn't.

Assuming that bonds took steroids, and benefitted from them greatly, before 99, he was undoubtedly a superior baseball player to griffey.

As for Pujols, it's too early to tell, but we are certainly watching something special.

[KCGHOST]

I would say the odds are distinctly against him. The odds of anyone dominating their era for 15-20 years at a similar level to Babe Ruth is virtually impossible.

[Elvis]

Assuming that bonds took steroids, and benefitted from them greatly, before 99, he was undoubtedly a superior baseball player to griffey.

I doubt. I'd say they were about equal overall. Great speed, power, defense. Bonds was a better base stealer, but I think he had an edge because of the great hitters surrounding him in the lineup, more than Jr had. Plus the Kid isn't a smarmy, arrogant cheating jerk. :)

That's why I'm rooting for Albert to have a monster career and wipe out the "records" of Barroid. Pujols is much more of a role model.

[STLCards2]

I doubt. I'd say they were about equal overall. Great speed, power, defense. Bonds was a better base stealer, but I think he had an edge because of the great hitters surrounding him in the lineup, more than Jr had. Plus the Kid isn't a smarmy, arrogant cheating jerk. :)

I know, Jr. had it tough with E. Martinez, Alex Rodriguez, Jay Buhner, Tino, etc. batting around him all the time.:laugh

The Reds lineup has been pretty weak too. Larkin, Dunn, Casey, Kearns, Lopez, etc. :laugh

Also, what does Bonds being smarmy, arrogant, and / or jerksih have to do with Jr. being better?

I like Jr. I don't like Bonds. However, one has to be pretty awe-struck at Griffey's centerfield gold- gloveness vs. Bond's left-field gold-gloveness to overlook Bond's huge OPS and baserunning advantages.

[Elvis]

I know, Jr. had it tough with E. Martinez, Alex Rodriguez, Jay Buhner, Tino, etc. batting around him all the time.:laugh

The Reds lineup has been pretty weak too. Larkin, Dunn, Casey, Kearns, Lopez, etc. :laugh

Also, what does Bonds being smarmy, arrogant, and / or jerksih have to do with Jr. being better?

I like Jr. I don't like Bonds. However, one has to be pretty awe-struck at Griffey's centerfield gold- gloveness vs. Bond's left-field gold-gloveness to overlook Bond's huge OPS and baserunning advantages.

Take away Bonds and Griffey and I'm much rather face the lineups of Bonds' team than Griffey's. Jay Buhner? The guy was a perrenial .250 hitter with some pop, like Dave Kingman. Bonds+Bonilla and Bonds+Kent was more than Jr had to work with in his prime.

[RuthMayBond]

Take away Bonds and Griffey and I'm much rather face the lineups of Bonds' team than Griffey's. Jay Buhner? The guy was a perrenial .250 hitter with some pop, like Dave Kingman. Bonds+Bonilla and Bonds+Kent was more than Jr had to work with in his prime.If you don't include Tino Martinez, Edgar Martinez, AROD!!!!!! (you probably wouldn't include Dunn?)

[Elvis]

If you don't include Tino Martinez, Edgar Martinez, AROD!!!!!! (you probably wouldn't include Dunn?)

Rodriguez came along 6 or 7 years into Jr's career. If you look at the Mariners, from the time Jr came up until Rodriguez became a factor, you'll see Griffey was the only player on that team to break 100 RBI in all of those years. That's what I mean - he had good players around him, but not any really fearsom slugger. Now if they'd both came up at the same time and played all those seasons together, you might have seen the greatest 1-2 combo ever seen. That plus Bonds not using cheat drugs would've put Jr ahead of Barroids.

[538280]

Bonds and Griffey before 1998 wasn't even close. Griffey had the flash, but he couldn't get on base nearly as much as Bonds and his SLG were considerably behind as well. Bonds was the much more valuable offensive player, it's not even close. Here are their year by year RC/27 in the 1990s up until '98, leader in bold:

1990 Bonds 8.24 Griffey 6.37
1991 Bonds 7.45 Griffey 7.94
1992 Bonds 10.41 Griffey 7.04
1993 Bonds 11.76 Griffey 9.12
1994 Bonds 10.17 Griffey 10.29
1995 Bonds 8.81 Griffey 6.45
1996 Bonds 10.46 Griffey 9.07
1997 Bonds 9.25 Griffey 8.98
1998 Bonds 9.41Griffey 7.94

Bonds 7, Griffey 2. It's no contest as offensive players. Basically BAs were the same, SLGs were a good lead for Bonds, and in OBP Bonds has Griffey beat by about 80 points.

Griffey won all those GGs in CF, but I'm yet to see a statistical system which sees him as anything really special out there. Bonds was an awesome LF for the first part of his career, and very well may have deserved most of those GGs.

Putting it all together, there's just no way Griffey is the better player. The only way you come out with him being better is if you confuse "better baseball player" with "better talents for playing the game", or of course if you're bent on hating Bonds so much you can't speak about him with any sort of objectivity. Win Shares by year, 1990-1998, again leader in bold:

1990 Bonds 37 Griffey 24
1991 Bonds 37 Griffey 30
1992 Bonds 41 Griffey 25
1993 Bonds 47 Griffey 29
1994 Bonds 25 Griffey 20
1995 Bonds 36 Griffey 9
1996 Bonds 39 Griffey 28
1997 Bonds 36 Griffey 36
1998 Bonds 34 Griffey 29

Bonds has him beat every year solidly except the tie in 1997. Say what you want about Win Shares, but you have to admit they're at least somewhat accurate, and they don't even have this comparison being remotely close. Overall the total score, and this is pre-steroids, is Bonds 332, Griffey 230. Bonds beats Griffey by 31% pre steroids.

Say all you want about discounting Bonds' past 1998, but Griffey has also spent almost all that time hurt. Even with very extreme steroid discounts, there's just no way you could possibly have Griffey ahead of Bonds. The comparison is really a joke.

[BadKarma]

The thing I am wondering is: " When are these guys going to come to their senses and stop pitching to Pujols?" The man can just crush, plain and simple. Talking about greatest ever is way too early, but there is no way and heck he would ever see a good pitch from me.

[Elvis]

Bonds and Griffey before 1998 wasn't even close. Griffey had the flash, but he couldn't get on base nearly as much as Bonds and his SLG were considerably behind as well. Bonds was the much more valuable offensive player, it's not even close. Here are their year by year RC/27 in the 1990s up until '98, leader in bold:

1990 Bonds 8.24 Griffey 6.37
1991 Bonds 7.45 Griffey 7.94
1992 Bonds 10.41 Griffey 7.04
1993 Bonds 11.76 Griffey 9.12
1994 Bonds 10.17 Griffey 10.29
1995 Bonds 8.81 Griffey 6.45
1996 Bonds 10.46 Griffey 9.07
1997 Bonds 9.25 Griffey 8.98
1998 Bonds 9.41Griffey 7.94

Bonds 7, Griffey 2. It's no contest as offensive players. Basically BAs were the same, SLGs were a good lead for Bonds, and in OBP Bonds has Griffey beat by about 80 points.

Griffey won all those GGs in CF, but I'm yet to see a statistical system which sees him as anything really special out there. Bonds was an awesome LF for the first part of his career, and very well may have deserved most of those GGs.

Putting it all together, there's just no way Griffey is the better player. The only way you come out with him being better is if you confuse "better baseball player" with "better talents for playing the game", or of course if you're bent on hating Bonds so much you can't speak about him with any sort of objectivity. Win Shares by year, 1990-1998, again leader in bold:

1990 Bonds 37 Griffey 24
1991 Bonds 37 Griffey 30
1992 Bonds 41 Griffey 25
1993 Bonds 47 Griffey 29
1994 Bonds 25 Griffey 20
1995 Bonds 36 Griffey 9
1996 Bonds 39 Griffey 28
1997 Bonds 36 Griffey 36
1998 Bonds 34 Griffey 29

Bonds has him beat every year solidly except the tie in 1997. Say what you want about Win Shares, but you have to admit they're at least somewhat accurate, and they don't even have this comparison being remotely close. Overall the total score, and this is pre-steroids, is Bonds 332, Griffey 230. Bonds beats Griffey by 31% pre steroids.

Say all you want about discounting Bonds' past 1998, but Griffey has also spent almost all that time hurt. Even with very extreme steroid discounts, there's just no way you could possibly have Griffey ahead of Bonds. The comparison is really a joke.
-------------

So?

[west coast orange and black]

ah, the old question of "potential" rearing its ugly head.
as many have said, it is simply too early to tell what pujols can accomplish.
but he continues at his current *pace* for another 10 seasons than he would certainly enter the discussion as one of the best hitters of all time.
but because he has accomplished what he has during the steroid era, there is a saltshaker* on the table.

*because more than simply one grain of salt is necessary to be included for serious discussion

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Let me see here. Two weeks ago it would not be considered that Albert might be the greatest ever. Now because he's been ripping the cover off the ball we should seriuosly consider that, he may be the greatest........ ever. Certainly one of the best in todays game, one of the best in the last 30 seasons, but the best of all time.

How did a couple of weeks bring him to the top. Jumping the gun here. Suppose he hits 70 and has around 160 RBI's will that mean he is the greatest, I don't think so, we have to wait, wait some years before we put him on top.

[Rennie Stennett]

As the numbers show Bonds was clearly a better ballplayer. He used his God given talent better than Griffey. Griffey didn't workout. He never stole bases. never danced off the bag to make the pitcher nervous. He never took the extra base. He never hit behind guys; he never moved guys over, never went up the middle. On many occasions, all the M's needed was a ground ball to the right side or a fly ball the other way and they would have scored. Put Edgar in those positions: guys on 2nd and 3rd or a guy on 3rd with one out or less and Edgar would always get you one for sure and maybe two RBI's. Griffey always went for the downs. Of his (500) dingers, many are meaningless, either when the M's were up by (10) or down by (10.) Sure the Grifster had some big hits; a game winning homer against the bombers late during the strike year. He got on base in game (5) and scored on Edgar's double in the Division series against the bombers. Bonds used everything he had to give his team a chance to win. Griffey didn't. Bonds had a better arm. Griffey often missed the cut-off guy and air-mailed them in.

Griffey had just as many hitters around him then Bonds. Before Arod arrived and played fulltime, Edgar allready had two batting titles. Buhner striked out a bunch but he had like four years in a row with 40 or more taters and he often hit in the clutch; a base knock when you need one.

Griffey's hamstring problems can be directly linked to him not working out and stretching. Strength training improves flexibility. Stretching and aerobics help also. Look at Rickey Henderson. He used weight training and stretching and he kept his flexibility into his (40's).

Griffey's other injuries could have been caused by playing (81) games a year in the Kingdome. The Kingdome was rough on ballplayers Mariners and Seahawks alike. It was basically playing on concrete. A guess would be that Griffey played about (800) games in the Kingdome. This is alot of wear and tear.

[leecemark]

--Alot of Griffey's HR were in games where his teams were up or down 10 runs? How many games per season do you think are actually decided by 10 runs? Not very many and if Junior's team won by that many his HR probabky helped them get there, rahter than coming after it was already in the bag.
--I do agree Griffey got too HR happy as his career progressed though. He hit for very good average as a young player and I would have rather seen him spend the late 90s contending for a Triple Crown than concentrating on breaking HR records (which ironically got broken by others anyway).

[Rennie Stennett]

In Sweet Lou's early years the idea was to get as many guys with pop and put them in the Kingdome and see how many homers the M's could hit. Team play, was not part of it. The M's, I think, broke the team season homerun record* (since been broken). If you remember, there were many 10-9, 12-4, 8-6 games in both directions. Most, if not all, of JR's dingers were meaningless and I'd love if someone (perhaps me) would do the research on it. What I'm saying is Griffey is a bum. He was a spoiled brat in Seattle. He had speed and he never used it. He wasted his God given talent. He could have bunted once in awhile. He could have stole more bags. I know, the chic's want to see the homerun. Sure, he was fun to watch in the early years when he hit to all fields, but he never did the little things to help his team win. He was a choker. Guys in scoring position, with the game on the line and griffey up, you can bet he'll pop out to short. The M's sucked for many years. It's hard to keep your head in it when your losing 90 games per year, but team play is contagious, just like hitting. If a guy sees that Griffey never gives himself up to move a guy over, why should he ? Everyone just trying to get their own numbers: stats guys.

[Rennie Stennett]

Albert is the best hitter in the game right now, Power, Average. all of it. He is amazing the way he takes that low and away breaking ball and drives it out of here. He, Manny, Arod, are the few that can do this. How old is Albert now ? I know he didn't play minor league ball. He must be 25, 26, ???

what a great talent. (500) homers & (3000) hits, with a (.330) BA, when it's all done.

[538280]

-------------

So?

So, Bonds is a clearly better and more valuable player, even before steroids.

[HOOTIE]

Pujols could crack the top 10 all time, but i doubt the top 3.

As a Seattle fan, Bonds beats Griffey easy. And not because of injuries. Bonds walks alot, made far fewer outs.

And what's this nonsense Bonds had better lineups? Not even close. Griffey was in stacked lineups, Bonds had Kent at best. Go look at their team run totals. Griffey had it as good as you could get. Stacked lineup, easy hr park, media kissed his behind. But he whined his way to Cincy.

[Zito75]

Do you guys think that after Pujol's career is over he will be considered the best player of all time, barring no major injuries or something of that matter. I mean he hits amazingly, barely strikes out and Bombs the ball out of the ball park. Will he become the best player of all time, like i said barring no major injuries or off the field matters?

I would have to say its possible.

Ask again in about 10-12 years.

[geezer]

Ask again in about 10-12 years.

Yup, when he reaced 500 homers, 3,500 hits, 700 doubles, 2,300 runs scored and 2,500 RBI, we hope he reaches those marks.

[digglahhh]

Considering that Rodriguez is still a GG caliber SS (even though he plays 3B) I would have a hard time saying that Pujols is the best CURRENT player.

Pujols gets some credit because he has defensive skills beyond the 1B, but to even break into the top 10 as a 1B, we are talking Gehrig here.

Pujols is quite premature. And as has been mentioned, this was the talk about Frank Thomas, who was, IMO, even more impressive early in his career. At this point Thomas isn't even a unanimous HOFer, although I really can't see how somebody could not support him...

[switch_hitter]

Pujols is definitely in the upper echelon of best hitter, but he still has to contend with Ramirez and Arod; if you take 'clutch' into the equation, David Ortiz's name must also come up. When it comes to batters' eyes, Bonds and Giambi are at the top, but pitchers are going to learn more and more (as if they shouldn't have by now) that it is not a good idea to pitch to Pujols-after he's jacked two homers in the game already-in the bottom of the ninth with two on.

As to Bonds and Griffey, we're talking about, as some of you mentioned, performance vs. potential, as everything in defense of Griffey is unfortunately qualified by an "if". Griffey was my favorite player growing up (and I was a big M's fan so I admit that possible bias). Looking at the stats, Bonds was the better hitter. Bonds wasn't such a jerk back then either so I really don't have too many qualms saying that about him. As fielders, even if they both played GG-caliber defense Griffey played the tougher position, though some may argue that that doesn't make up for the hitting advantage. Griffey hit more homers and drove in more runs, and that undoubtedly contributed to the popular lexicon that he was the better player (he reached 50 homers twice, *presumably unassisted, whereas Bonds never hit over 45; of course, we all know that RBI's are team dependent, but I don't dismiss them entirely as a stat because a Mark Bellhorn, no matter what team you put him on and where he bats, is not going to drive in as many runs as a Manny Ramirez). As to peripheral matters, Bonds won more MVP's (I'm talking 90's only), though Griffey has the All-Star clout. Griffey was the face of the game, Bonds wasn't. Neither has won a World Series, though Griffey made the playoffs twice, and I'm not sure how many times Bonds made it in the 90's, but his teams never got to far anyway. So really, it all boils down to what you put weight on. This would be an interesting separate topic, by the way, even though I fear that Bonds would win in a landslide because of his 'overall' play.

*I don't believe Griffey took steroids or anything like that at all, like most. BUT, I must be mindful of this era

[Pghfan987]

Ask again in about 10-12 years.

I see nothing wrong with predicting how a player will do in his career. If we are wrong, we are wrong. It is a very inexact science- just like comparing Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth.

I will tell you what convinced me that Albert Pujols will be an all-time great. Sure, he hit those three inside fastballs for homers. But then, the next day against my beloved Buccos, Phat Albert hit a curveball that was perhaps just barely touching the outside corner and at the knees, and he hit it over the centerfield fence. To me, that is what makes a hitter special. There are lots of guys who can hit homers when a pitcher makes a mistake and throws a fastball over the plate. Pujols, however, makes solid contact consistently, no matter where the pitch is. Luckily he is in the Cardinals lineup and gets pitches to hit- if he were on a weaker team he would never see a strike.

It's not that his sudden hot streak has caused me to change his opinion of him, it's just that I have watched him more this season on mlb.tv and have seen that this guy is going to be truly great. You say give him 10 more years, I say he is going to be the best.

Mark

[The Big C]

Here is how I see it:
At the plate: Bonds > Griffey
In the field: Griffey > Bonds
On the basepaths: Bonds > Griffey
In life: Griffey > Bonds

And I would rather not talk about Pujols... I find it hard to say nice things.

[BoofBonser26]

I know he didn't play minor league ball. He must be 25, 26, ???
He's 26 and he spent a full year in the minors (2000).

I think people are forgetting that the point of this thread is to discuss if Pujols is ON PACE to be the greatest ever, not the greatest RIGHT NOW. That would be a silly claim.

[geezer]

And let's not forget, Pujols came to the majors thanks to Bobby Bonilla

[The Big C]

Relevance? I'm just curious why that is something we wouldn't want to forget.

[BoofBonser26]

He cracked his tenth of the season tonight. Does anyone have a list of the most home runs hit after x number of games? I've got to think he's getting close to some sort of record.

[switch_hitter]

I know Mike Schmidt hit 11 homers in his first 13 games one year.

[digglahhh]

I know Mike Schmidt hit 11 homers in his first 13 games one year.

I think it was through 12 games actually, and it was 1976.

[Zito75]

I see nothing wrong with predicting how a player will do in his career. If we are wrong, we are wrong. It is a very inexact science- just like comparing Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth.

I will tell you what convinced me that Albert Pujols will be an all-time great. Sure, he hit those three inside fastballs for homers. But then, the next day against my beloved Buccos, Phat Albert hit a curveball that was perhaps just barely touching the outside corner and at the knees, and he hit it over the centerfield fence. To me, that is what makes a hitter special. There are lots of guys who can hit homers when a pitcher makes a mistake and throws a fastball over the plate. Pujols, however, makes solid contact consistently, no matter where the pitch is. Luckily he is in the Cardinals lineup and gets pitches to hit- if he were on a weaker team he would never see a strike.

It's not that his sudden hot streak has caused me to change his opinion of him, it's just that I have watched him more this season on mlb.tv and have seen that this guy is going to be truly great. You say give him 10 more years, I say he is going to be the best.

Mark

I hear you, bro. All I am saying is that Pujols could get hurt, could retire early, etc. But yeah, at the pace he's on, he very will could be up there with Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Ruth etc.

[leecemark]

--Yeah, if he never gets hurt and doesn't have any significant decline in his 30s and is still going into his 40s then he'll be right up with Aaron:rolleyes: . Not only is that extremely unlikely, it still wouldn't make him the best ever. He isn't the hitter Ruth or Williams were and gives up alot of defense and baserunning to Mays and Wagner and even more baserunning and still alot of defense to Cobb. If Pujols can stay healthy and productive long enough he might crack the top 10, but thats his best case scenario.

[Taco De Muerte]

--Yeah, if he never gets hurt and doesn't have any significant decline in his 30s and is still going into his 40s then he'll be right up with Aaron:rolleyes: . Not only is that extremely unlikely, it still wouldn't make him the best ever. He isn't the hitter Ruth or Williams were and gives up alot of defense and baserunning to Mays and Wagner and even more baserunning and still alot of defense to Cobb. If Pujols can stay healthy and productive long enough he might crack the top 10, but thats his best case scenario.

He isn't the hitter ruth and williams are yet ( even taking league quality into account, they are still superior), but he could very well become just as good, if not better, who knows.

Look at the type of season he's having right now.

[leecemark]

--Well he has had a great couple weeks. I guess he is the best ever:laugh .

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Nothing to do with Pujols, although he's an absolute stud.

Who else is impressed with how far Andruw Jones has come as a maturing hitter.

Today he got up against Victor Zambrano with Giles on second, and first base open.

Ol' Victor boy proceeds to throw a curveball low and away. Then a fastball low and away. Then a curveball low and away. 3-0 count. Victor pumps across a curveball for a strike. He throws another curve on 3-1 and Andruw, sitting dead read apparently, swings over the top of it. Full count. So now what do you do if you're Victor, with first base open. Well, he didn't throw a curveball. He tried to sneak a fastball on the outer half past Andruw and he sent it over the centerfield fence, just left of center. Seems like he's matured so much.

The chess game of the hitter/pitcher matchup is incredible in cases like this. Seems like reverse psychology really. Victor probably thought Andruw would be expecting a curveball, so he threw a fastball, and Andruw, knowing that Victor would be thinking that, sat dead red.

Andruw had a good game. Maybe he's the best ever ! :p Hey, 10 more years, he'll only be 38. So 10 more years at just 35 dongs a year, and you essentially have Willie Mays on your hands.

[csh19792001]

Do you guys think that after Pujol's career is over he will be considered the best player of all time, barring no major injuries or something of that matter. I mean he hits amazingly, barely strikes out and Bombs the ball out of the ball park. Will he become the best player of all time, like i said barring no major injuries or off the field matters?

I would have to say its possible.

I'd say it's actually possible, if he keeps this up, stays healthy, and follows a normal aging pattern (retiring around age 40). I've never actually felt with any degree of credulity, and I never thought I would, but his fielding and baserunning have really improved, and he's an alltime great hitter/offensive force. If everything goes ideally, and he keep improving the finer points of his game, when all is said and done he could be right there with Ruth, Mays, Cobb, Wagner.

[BoofBonser26]

Today he got up against Victor Martinez with Giles on second, and first base open.
Are there two Victor Martinezs? 'Cause the one I know of was catching for the Indians yesterday.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Are there two Victor Martinezs? 'Cause the one I know of was catching for the Indians yesterday.

Good call, you're right. Hard to keep their last names straight. It was Zambrano. Got the Victor part right though :lookitup

[digglahhh]

Sometimes I think that if I close my eyes, concentrate and wish hard enough, he'll become Carlos Zambrano...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

:laugh

Nice Diggs....does he really have that bad of stuff though? Seems just very streaky with his control, and when he starts gettin' hit around, it's like he doesn't have that "bear down" gene in him. You almost expect him to pull out a white flag from his back pocket and start wavin' it, lol. When he's on though, he can be pretty damn effective I think.

[digglahhh]

When he's on he is very good. The problem is that when he is not, he has such a lack of peripheral skills and understanding that he can't minimize the damage. He also loses composure after he starts to get hit. This happens to Trachsel a lot too. Once he gets in trouble, he often doesn't get out.

There is no telling when Victor is going to be good and when he won't. He probably doesn't even know. What is more alarming though, is that I doubt he even knows what he does differently when he is effective. I think he is often good "by accident." He has a difficult time controlling his pitches, though they have great movement. Sometimes, they move right into the hitting zone. This is why the fact that he walks so many is horrible. You know he is going to hang some pitches or miss his spots and give the hitter a fat one at a few points during the game. It would help greatly if he didn't give out so many free passes because then, in all likelihood, those mistakes wouldn't hurt as much. Of course what leads to the walks and what leads to the mistakes are one in the same, so you can't eliminate one without the other. Very frustrating in general.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

How many of his pitches have movement, and if all of them, why not just throw a four seamer to get ahead in the count. Shouldn't be that hard to spot that pitch. The most a guy can do with it, is slap a single the other way, but usually a hitter will take that pitch 9/10 times cause it's not in his zone. Granted, you gotta switch it up to hitters, especially the second time through, but I don't see a reason why he needs to have movement on all his pitches, at least not until he's ahead in the count. Kinda weird, it's almost as if he's a knuckleballer out there, in the sense that he really doesn't know how much his ball is gonna move and where it'll really end up. How sad for Victor :(

[west coast orange and black]

sultan: Who else is impressed with how far Andruw Jones has come as a maturing hitter.

many believe that the light bulb goes on for most around the 7th season.
whaddaya think, man?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

sultan: Who else is impressed with how far Andruw Jones has come as a maturing hitter.

many believe that the light bulb goes on for most around the 7th season.
whaddaya think, man?

Depends on how bright the bulb shines, and how soon, but Andruw clearly has made strides from where he was. Starting with last year's widening of his stance, his approach and pitch selection seems much more consistent, and to me it looks like he's come to understand the head game that goes on. You know WC, he had very early success and has always been criticized for kind of going through the motions and not getting the best out of his ability. Just sayin', I think he's come a ways, that's a good thing.

[538280]

Andruw had a good game. Maybe he's the best ever ! :p Hey, 10 more years, he'll only be 38. So 10 more years at just 35 dongs a year, and you essentially have Willie Mays on your hands.

He of the 116 OPS+?

Sultan, you're a lot smarter than this. Jones is a bad contact hitter, doesn't really walk much, so he's not a good OBP guy at all. He has very good power, but it's hardly all time great power. He's played in the biggest slugging era of all time.

His fielding is the best all time through this age (I'm extremely impressed with him and statistics have him literally THROUGH THE ROOF), but he's been declining out there and it's anyone's guess whether he'll end up better than Mays.

[jpenrod]

He of the 116 OPS+?

Sultan, you're a lot smarter than this. Jones is a bad contact hitter, doesn't really walk much, so he's not a good OBP guy at all. He has very good power, but it's hardly all time great power. He's played in the biggest slugging era of all time.

His fielding is the best all time through this age (I'm extremely impressed with him and statistics have him literally THROUGH THE ROOF), but he's been declining out there and it's anyone's guess whether he'll end up better than Mays.

Not really sure why this is even being discussed in this thread, but I have come to the conclusion that no matter what Andruw Jones does for the rest of his career it will never be enough to shake the tag of dissappointment. It seems no matter what his accomplishments people always look at him and say he could do more, He doesn't do this, he doesn't do that, If he did this imagine how much better he would be. It is a shame that that expectations for him have been so high that many people can not enjoy him for the player he is instead of always comparing him to the player they think he should be.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He of the 116 OPS+?


You of the only look at OPS+?

Sultan, you're a lot smarter than this.

thanks

Jones is a bad contact hitter


Never implied he wasn't. He's getting better though. Chris, he widened up his stance. He's simplified things, and eliminated wasted movement. This leads to him seeing the pitch slightly longer before committing, which will improve his pitch selection. Tell ya what. Betcha 10 bucks he never strikes out 147 times again... that was his 2004 total, and career high, the year before he changed his stance.


He has very good power, but it's hardly all time great power. He's played in the biggest slugging era of all time.


You bring up this slugging era when it fits your argument, but when it doesn't, you claim how "tough" this era is. What's up with that. It is a sluggers era, but I think Jones is just starting to really figure things out, and given those 10 year projections, he'll only be 38 and doesn't need to avg that many homers per year to get where Mays is.

His fielding is the best all time through this age (I'm extremely impressed with him and statistics have him literally THROUGH THE ROOF), but he's been declining out there and it's anyone's guess whether he'll end up better than Mays.

Through the roof, deservingly so imo, although his arm appears to not be what it once was, for whatever reason; still well above avg though.

[538280]

You of the only look at OPS+?

You KNOW I look at more than OPS+. OPS+, anyway, actually favors Jones (i.e., he's probably not as good a hitter as his OPS+ suggests) because OPS will always favor SLG over OBP, when in reality OBP is more important. This would actually be a formula that would correlate to runs better:

(1.2*OBP)+(SLG)=OPS

That would be more accurate, and Jones also would have a lower OPS+ by it. So, Jones actually isn't as good a hitter as his OPS+.

Never implied he wasn't. He's getting better though. Chris, he widened up his stance. He's simplified things, and eliminated wasted movement. This leads to him seeing the pitch slightly longer before committing, which will improve his pitch selection. Tell ya what. Betcha 10 bucks he never strikes out 147 times again... that was his 2004 total, and career high, the year before he changed his stance.

Hmm...he's getting older, will play less. I'll take the bet if you make it a per AB figure. That means you owe me something (I don't know, bragging rights) if Jones ever strikes out more than .258 times per AB.

You bring up this slugging era when it fits your argument, but when it doesn't, you claim how "tough" this era is. What's up with that. It is a sluggers era, but I think Jones is just starting to really figure things out, and given those 10 year projections, he'll only be 38 and doesn't need to avg that many homers per year to get where Mays is.

It is true that this era is "tough", but Jones has 116 rel. SLG. With my normal league quality adjustments, I'd get that up to about 120. That's still A LONG WAY from Mays, and a long way from all time great.

Through the roof, deservingly so imo, although his arm appears to not be what it once was, for whatever reason; still well above avg though.

Jones' defense had been going down though:

Relative Range Factor
1997-127
1998-127
1999-142
2000-124
2001-134
2002-125
2003-120
2004-115
2005-110

FRAA
1997-21
1998-23
1999-22
2000-13
2001-16
2002-16
2003-15
2004-0
2005--3

Jones, according to Baseball Prospectus' fielding runs above average, was actually a below average CFer last year.

[jpenrod]

Jones, according to Baseball Prospectus' fielding runs above average, was actually a below average CFer last year.

I do not care what baseball prospectus says, from watching the guy everyday (well almost everyday) you can not convince me he is a below average CFer.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I do not care what baseball prospectus says, from watching the guy everyday (well almost everyday) you can not convince me he is a below average CFer.

Bingo.

Numbers shmumbers. This dude is nearly a modern day Tris Speaker and still is. He plays shallow enough, and gets great enough jumps to take away low liners for base hits, and can go back on the ball with the best of 'em. The only decline I've seen from him is his arm. Perhaps he hasn't kept it in shape like he should be, but from watching him a lot, it still appears well above average; stronger than most RFers arms in fact.

Chris, I'll take that bet, but it's gotta be 147 for the season. He's only 28 dude, you make it seem like he's 34 or something. He plays every day, so no need to get "formula-matic" on me with the SO/PA. It worry's me that you can't see the adjustment he's made and how it will positively affect him as a hitter. Do you watch many Braves games?

[538280]

I do not care what baseball prospectus says, from watching the guy everyday (well almost everyday) you can not convince me he is a below average CFer.

I agree with you, actually. Jones has been, by far, the most impressive outfielder I've ever seen, though it does seem he's losing it a bit.

[538280]

Chris, I'll take that bet, but it's gotta be 147 for the season. He's only 28 dude, you make it seem like he's 34 or something. He plays every day, so no need to get "formula-matic" on me with the SO/PA. It worry's me that you can't see the adjustment he's made and how it will positively affect him as a hitter. Do you watch many Braves games?

Hardly any. Most of what I watch are high school games, and an occansional Red Sox or ESPN game. Most of my other baseball time is spent thinking and reading about all time great players, reading about Reggie, and thinking about baseball statistics.

BTW, I'm not taking the bet unless we go SO/AB.

[Taco De Muerte]

Another milestone for Phat Albert...

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060421&content_id=1411794&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[Astro]

Andruw Jones should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Willie Mays... unless that sentence is saying he should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Willie Mays

[rockin500]

Andruw Jones should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Willie Mays... unless that sentence is saying he should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Willie Mays
defensively, you bet your bottom dollar he should be mentioned in the same sentence. offensively, you may have a point.


BTW, being that this is a Phat Albert thread, he's the one batter I absolutely fear in any lineup. got his 1000th career hit on a homer. :(

[geezer]

At this pace, he had a career average of .333, not bad at this point, Stan Musial's career batting average was .331, Albert you're the man!!!

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Hardly any. Most of what I watch are high school games, and an occansional Red Sox or ESPN game. Most of my other baseball time is spent thinking and reading about all time great players, reading about Reggie, and thinking about baseball statistics.

BTW, I'm not taking the bet unless we go SO/AB.

Fine. It's gotta be SO/PA though. Just cause he walks doesn't mean he couldn't have struck out. That's part of why the bet is being made. His ability to draw walks and display better pitch selectoin. SO/PA it is.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Andruw Jones should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Willie Mays... unless that sentence is saying he should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Willie Mays

It was mentioned in a 10 year scenario from now, nothing more.

[jrduchek]

Let me see here. Two weeks ago it would not be considered that Albert might be the greatest ever. Now because he's been ripping the cover off the ball we should seriuosly consider that, he may be the greatest........ ever. Certainly one of the best in todays game, one of the best in the last 30 seasons, but the best of all time.

How did a couple of weeks bring him to the top. Jumping the gun here. Suppose he hits 70 and has around 160 RBI's will that mean he is the greatest, I don't think so, we have to wait, wait some years before we put him on top.


Two weeks ago you wouldn't have considered him at all? I know he's young, and I'm well aware that in baseball, longevity is the gold standard (Albert definitely has consistency!) -- but are you saying he was a scrub before this year? He's 26 years old, this is his 6th season in the Majors, (And I know avg is overrated but if you know that you can dig deep enough to see where I'm going) and his worst season is a .314? At least as far as what he's done in the years he's been there, he's easily in the company of DiMaggio, Williams, et al. (Only time will tell where he stands when he's 38, of course)

And to the guy who said he could name 50 better players -- go for it. I'd like to see your list. I'd be interested to see a worthwhile list of even 10 players who have done what he's done from the age of 21-26.

[starkeeper]

Pujols surely has all the tools and credibility to make this a viable discussion and an exciting career to watch. If St. Louis decides they can't afford him anymore maybe they will return the Carpenter favor to the Blue Jays.
I think I'll wake up now!!

[geezer]

Pujols surely has all the tools and credibility to make this a viable discussion and an exciting career to watch. If St. Louis decides they can't afford him anymore maybe they will return the Carpenter favor to the Blue Jays.
I think I'll wake up now!!

And you think the Cards will get rid of him, come on, last year, they sign Pujols to a 7 year, $100 million dollar deal, and they're getting their reward.

[Mariano_Rivera]

way way way to much to soon to be considered best of all time. Best hitter off all time would be far more likely but Ruth and Williams are tough to beat

[yeshual]

I couldn't help but reply to some peoples opinions after reading the posts about the subject of Albert Pujols. Here are some of the facts and my thoughts:

1) To the person who said Pujols beginnings are not as good as Frank Thomas...
You said it is CLEARLY not as good...here are the stats of Pujols first 5 seasons compared to Thomas first FULL 5 seasons (not counting the 1990 season where he only played in 60 games):

Pujols beats Thomas in ALL major categories:

(Pujols - Thomas)

AVG: (.332 - .323)
HR (201 - 175)
RBI (621 - 564)
RUNS (629 - 526)
HITS (982 - 830)
2B (227 - 174)

And on top of that Pujols struck out 45 less times than Thomas! It is CLEAR that Pujols is by far superior than Thomas in his first 5 seasons and like another person said is in the same class as Dimaggio and Williams as far as first 5 seasons hitting stats.

2) To those who are talking about what he has done in the past 2 weeks as though he is some newly discovered phenom:

What Pujols has done the past 2 weeks should be no suprise to those who have followed his career so far (See above). He is in my opinion the most CONSISTENT hitter in the game today. A-Rod goes through hitting slumps, yet Pujols seems to never go through slumps. Last year Derek Lee was leading the majors in AVG at around .380 for the first half of the year and eventually slumped down to a .335 AVG at the end while Pujols was consistently around .340 / .330 ALL YEAR!!!

Pujols adjusts his hitting to the situation, not always trying to jack homeruns.

3) The steriods era issue: He is a hard-working, well built Dominican, and dedicated Christian who has never had a logical reason for being accused of using steroids.

Conclusion: If Pujols does indeed stay healthy and continue on his current level of play he will no doubt be considered one of the best HITTERS ever to play the game. As far as best all-round players go, I don't think anyone can deny the Babe that title, for being a dominating pitcher and hitter - something I don't think needs to be rehashed.

Go Albert!!!

[tigers527]

Now, it is early still so who knows, but for him to be the absolute best he needs to pick up the egg every 5th day. Babe Ruth won 93 games in 5 years before he went on to NY. Thats just sick, I believe he led the league in ERA one of those years....just checked yup 1.75 in 1916.

I am not even a NY honk. I just think when you speak of best ballplayer ever and you have a guy that dominated 2 of the 3 aspects of the battery the way he did. Even with the lack of integration thats just unprecidented in history. I mean I cant even recall a pitcher turned position player much less a stud pitcher. (I know dude in St Louis, I just cant remember his name.) I'll look it up....Rick Ankiel, but he isnt even back in the bigs yet, nor has he really dominated.

Besides Pojols is no Chris Shelton...j/k

[Goooooo]

No. Maybe best hitter, but not player. Mays is best player ever hands down. great hitter, great fielder, basestealer, everything. And he played in a legitimate league. Ruth didn't. He really needs to stop being called the greatest ever. He played in a incredibly weak league. His bloated numbers both pitching and hitting indicate this. He's the most significant player ever, but far from the best ever. One guy who I think is capable of retiring the best player ever is arod.

[starkeeper]

No, I don't think the Cards will get rid of him. That was said very tongue in cheek. "I think I'll wake up now"!!!!

[1doug]

While Pujols is probably the best player in today's game, and one day may rank among the greatest, he still has a lot of work to do, time will tell.

[geezer]

While Pujols is probably the best player in today's game, and one day may rank among the greatest, he still has a lot of work to do, time will tell.

That is so true, but I hope that his numbers are always climbing and he is taking all with a humbling spirit.

[RuthMayBond]

Andruw Jones should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Willie Mays... unless that sentence is saying he should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Willie MaysWe are talking defensively, and Andruw is already ahead in adjusted fielding runs above average

[Lipsander]

way way way to much to soon to be considered best of all time. Best hitter off all time would be far more likely but Ruth and Williams are tough to beat


I agree. Look back to Ken Griffey Jr. He was going to be the all-time everything, then injuries set in. He's great for the game of baseball, leading by example, but we need to hold off on the all-time status until he nears the end of his career.

[ZR56664]

It's way too early to say that. he's a great slugger and a great team player but ask me 5 or 10 years from now then I will tell you my opinion.

[tigers527]

No. Maybe best hitter, but not player. Mays is best player ever hands down. great hitter, great fielder, basestealer, everything. And he played in a legitimate league. Ruth didn't. He really needs to stop being called the greatest ever. He played in a incredibly weak league. His bloated numbers both pitching and hitting indicate this. He's the most significant player ever, but far from the best ever. One guy who I think is capable of retiring the best player ever is arod.

Maybe best hitter? My point wasnt being made upon his hitting stats, which are prolific as we know. My point on why hes the best, was the 19 wins a year for 5 years before he became full time outfielder. As to the level of competition, that may be true. But it cant be "THAT" true as no one else even came close to doing what he did. Ty Cobb tried pitching and was horrid at it. Some say it even ruined his arm for the outfield.

Even if the league wasnt intergrated while he was playing. When he was pitching, he was doing it against some of the best hitters ever. In 1916 he had 23 wins and a 1.75 ERA. While facing in their prime Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Joe Jackson, and in his early part of his career Harry Heilmann. Thats 4 of the top 10 in lifetime batting AVG. all batting above .340 for their career. In perspective, .340 wins a batting title in most years these days. All those guys batted better then that in their careers.

While Mays is certainly the better outfielder of the 2. Baseball, is so much more then outfield, and Ruth dominated as a pitcher. Without the position change to fulltime outfielder when he went to the Yankees, he would have likely been a hall of fame pitcher. To my knowledge no one else has ever come close to dominating from both sides of the plate (not right/left, pitcher and batter).

To let you know I am not a Yankee honk (I hate the FREAKING Yankees). I would so like to have this same argument with you only with Ty Cobb instead of Ruth. I think Cobb and Mays are close but Mays has the slight edge though. Just Ruth spending a very efective 5 years pitching the latter of which spending off days in the outfield is SICK. Rick Ankiel not with standing, who's ever going to do that again or before?

[csh19792001]

I would so like to have this same argument with you only with Ty Cobb instead of Ruth. I think Cobb and Mays are close but Mays has the slight edge though.

I think we engaged in that debate for.....uh.....what seems like about 2+ years (almost incessantly) here already, man. :rolleyes:

You missed the party. :D

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Just Ruth spending a very efective 5 years pitching the latter of which spending off days in the outfield is SICK.

It is SICK, but his pitching is just icing on the cake. Give him '15-'19 as a full time player, along with the rest of his career, and he's still tops with Cobb being the only serious competition. Lest you forget that Ruth could do it all on the ballfield at a high level. In later years his belly grew and his legs weren't what they once were, which affected his fielding and baserunning. He was still cabable in both areas though, using his experience and great instints. The arm never left, the average and power never left.

[BoofBonser26]

Pujols has launched his 12th home run.

[W_Marone]

Let me see here. Two weeks ago it would not be considered that Albert might be the greatest ever. Now because he's been ripping the cover off the ball we should seriuosly consider that, he may be the greatest........ ever. Certainly one of the best in todays game, one of the best in the last 30 seasons, but the best of all time.

How did a couple of weeks bring him to the top. Jumping the gun here. Suppose he hits 70 and has around 160 RBI's will that mean he is the greatest, I don't think so, we have to wait, wait some years before we put him on top.

I don't think people started thinking he could be the best player ever just becuase of his 2006 start, his whole major league career, starting in 2001, correct me if im wrong, in each of those years he hasnt had a season in which he compiled less than 100 RBI or hit atleast 30 homeruns, not to mention his OPS has only been under 1.00 once, which it was .955, and he has never had a OBP under .394 and never had an average under .314 not to mention a slugging percentage that has been under .600 only once in his so far outstanding career. With his prior stats im not sure that just because of his hot start this season people are starting to think he could be one of the best hitters ever.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't think people started thinking he could be the best player ever just becuase of his 2006 start, his whole major league career, starting in 2001, correct me if im wrong, in each of those years he hasnt had a season in which he compiled less than 100 RBI or hit atleast 30 homeruns, not to mention his OPS has only been under 1.00 once, which it was .955, and he has never had a OBP under .394 and never had an average under .314 not to mention a slugging percentage that has been under .600 only once in his so far outstanding career. With his prior stats im not sure that just because of his hot start this season people are starting to think he could be one of the best hitters ever.
I don't recall this much chatter in reply to the question, could he be the greatest ever until this season. Besides this thread started out with the question could he be the greatest ever, those were the words, not one of the best but the best hitter ever. There is a great difference between being one of the best hitters ever and the best hitter ever.

Yes there has been much talk about him joining the greatest list before this season, but now the words are the greatest ever. I'm sure his past added to his great start this season played a part.

[csh19792001]

Could Albert Pujols end up with a strong case for being the greatest player ever?

How do you think he'd do if we put it to a poll?

[geezer]

Could Albert Pujols end up with a strong case for being the greatest player ever?

How do you think he'd do if we put it to a poll?

Its too early to tell yet, but dont count him out

[Lipsander]

I do know if I were starting a team and could pick the first position player, Albert Pujols would be my first choice.

[bluezebra]

Every time some new stud comes along, someone thinks he's the best ever. While Pujols is among the best TODAY, he is not head-and-shoulers above his contemporaries. With the "juiced-up" baseballs, and other factors, 'everyone' is hitting home runs, and putting up huge stats.

In his prime, Babe Ruth out-homered most TEAMS in the Majors, along with being a top left-handed pitcher before moving to the outfield.

Bob

[ZR56664]

I wouldn't pick Pujols over DLee as a 1Bman though.

[Go Bravos!!!#1]

I wouldn't pick Pujols over DLee as a 1Bman though.

Same here. Pujols is gonna have to win some GG's before he could be considered the greatest to me.

[The Big C]

Pujols is a fricking machine and he is younger than D-Lee. I would have to pick Pujols in such a situation as this:

Part 1: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=silver/060418
Part 2: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=silver/060418_2

[csh19792001]

I wouldn't pick Pujols over DLee as a 1Bman though.

Same here. Pujols is gonna have to win some GG's before he could be considered the greatest to me.

This is complete silliness, guys. Pujols put together what was arguably the best first 5 seasons anyone's had in baseball history, and you'd rather have a guy with a .276/.363/.501 guy who's hit .300 once and has nearly as many career strikeouts as games played?

Norm Cash sends you both his regards for picking him over Jeff Bagwell. :p

[Blackout]

i think its impossible to say Pujols is better than Ruth or Cobb or Mays at this point

but if he can crack 50 homers in a season, maybe win another batting title and score 130+ runs a year, his peak could be close

[STLCards2]

Best case scenario: Pujols continues to pound the ball 12 more seasons, with a normal decline, and ends his career with say 600 homeruns, 1,900 RBI's, 1,900 runs, .328 BA, .420 OB%, .600% Slg., 3 MVP's, 2 Gold Gloves.

With wartime credit, and playing in a slightly more pitching conducive era, I would put Pujols' hitting career below that of Ted Willaims, who I have ranked #4 all-time. Williams average left-field ability is probably on par or slightly more valuable that Pujols' good firstbase ability. Therefore, I don't see Pujols cracking the top 4. With longevity, I can see Pujols approach Lou Gehrig's realm of best firstbasemen ever, but that is a long way off.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

i think its impossible to say Pujols is better than Ruth or Cobb or Mays at this point

but if he can crack 50 homers in a season, maybe win another batting title and score 130+ runs a year, his peak could be close

Well, this era isn't going to do much for making his homers look very spectacular. Too common for everyone. What's gonna set Albert apart imo, is his consistently high HR totals (not necessarily 50 or 60), and him also keeping his BA around .330-.340. If he can keep that up, then he'll go down on the short list with the others who did the same.

lol, Bonds just went yard again. Another opposite field shot about 2 rows deep.

[csh19792001]

Best case scenario...

Therefore, I don't see Pujols cracking the top 4. With longevity, I can see Pujols approach Lou Gehrig's realm of best firstbasemen ever, but that is a long way off.

Therefore, unless someone pulls a Barry Bonds (incredible talent to begin with) and finds the perfect concotion of steroids, nobody really has a chance to supplant Ruth, Cobb, Mays?

Let's be realistic here...

How much better can we realistically expect a player to be (esp at this young age), and playing in this day and age, when talent, scouting, training and nutrition are (arguably) at levels never previously approached- and when the talent pool is the same. I mean, who has had a start nearly this consistantly outstanding in the modern era?

Nobody.

Let's extrapolate here. I think, in essence, a guy would have to come up that hit like Pujols, field at the level of (or close to the level of) Andruw Jones, and run/run the bases like something like Ichiro (and do it for over 15 years) to put Ruth and others aside and become the greatest player ever?

So how likely do you think it is that this hypothetical player should arise in the ensuing decades? Sound like slim to none.

[digglahhh]

If we eliminate the age factor and just focus on the skills, I don't know if he is better than A-Rod.

The numbers are one thing, but one of these guys is a good 1B and the other is a GG caliber SS, the fact that he actually plays 3B, doesn't mean anything to me...

It seems we have a guy who is ACTUALLY knocking on the door of the top 10 and he's not getting the attention he deserves.

[STLCards2]

Only in BBF can somebody make a statement that a current player who has only played 6 years could end up as one of the 5-10 greatest players ever, (but probably not top 5), and be told in so many words that he is possibly underrating the player. I love Pujols as much as anybody. I am a huge fan, but I just don't ever see any slow (last year's 15 stolen bases were impressive and opportunistic, but don't get that confused with speed) firstbasemen ever being a better player than Ruth, Cobb, or Mays. Even if Pujols hits like Williams or Gehrig his whole career. Sure, if Pujols plays 15 more seasons similar to his first 5, doesn't have a decline, stays injury free, and develops into a Keith Hernandez like firstbasemen, and wins several World Series,then we will talk best player ever, but that is very unlikely.

I think claiming that Pujols could be better than Gehrig is massive praise for a current player and shows how highly I regard Albert. Why isn't that enough?

Yes, I do think somebody could come along and be better that Babe, Cobb, etc., but I believe they would almost certainly come from a more important defensive position than 1B. Could somebody come along and hit like Albert and play a great shortstop or center or right? Yes.

[digglahhh]

Could somebody come along and hit like Albert and play a great shortstop or center or right? Yes.

His name is Alex...

No, he's not as good a hitter as Albert, but he's done it for a long time and he's won GGs at the most highly regarded defensive position.

[STLCards2]

His name is Alex...

No, he's not as good a hitter as Albert, but he's done it for a long time and he's won GGs at the most highly regarded defensive position.

As much as I love Pujols and am lukewarm on Rodriguez, I do agree that Rodriguez' prospects of being the greatest player of all time are higher than Albert's...but who cares? Albert is an absolute beast. He is easily the most consistent hitter I have ever seen. Why isn't that enough for some people?

[Goooooo]

Pujols best season is .359 43 hr's 1.106 ops. That season would convert to .400, 60 hr's, 1.400 ops in ruth's time. Pujols is already a better and stronger hitter then ruth. Player I don't know. His defense isn't good. Arod is better. And bay warrants some consideration. he's a great allaround player.

[csh19792001]

If we eliminate the age factor and just focus on the skills, I don't know if he is better than A-Rod.

The numbers are one thing, but one of these guys is a good 1B and the other is a GG caliber SS, the fact that he actually plays 3B, doesn't mean anything to me...

It seems we have a guy who is ACTUALLY knocking on the door of the top 10 and he's not getting the attention he deserves.

Oh, I agree, and of course you're correct. Focusing on the skills, I'd probably give it to A-Rod, although Pujols has really worked his butt off at 1st to improve from a nomad "place me wherever I won't be the greatest liability" type guy to a VERY good fielder. His great baserunning as a Paul Bunyan who runs on his heels actually makes me admire him MORE- maybe that actually makes him greater.

Derek, do you think Rodriguez might end up deserving of the title of greatest ever? What would he need to do, in your opinion, to be worthy of this highest accolade?

And if not A-Rod, how likely do you think it is that someone will come along and be greater than Ruth, Cobb, Mays?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Pujols best season is .359 43 hr's 1.106 ops. That season would convert to .400, 60 hr's, 1.400 ops in ruth's time. Pujols is already a better and stronger hitter then ruth. Player I don't know. His defense isn't good. Arod is better. And bay warrants some consideration. he's a great allaround player.
Is there anyway you can convince the board that this claim in true. Shoot.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sure, it's the time machine method. Goooo's MO is to smear Ruth, no worries. His name fits his posts IMO.

[csh19792001]

Sure, it's the time machine method. Goooo's MO is to smear Ruth, no worries. His name fits his posts IMO.

You mean "Goooo"? Or is it "Dontworry" or maybe "!!!!!!!" or "Nine 11"?

I'm confused......

No, wait, I'm actually quite clear on this. More than a few of us are now, thanks to the dissemination of the proper information. ;)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You mean "Goooo"? Or is it "Dontworry" or maybe "!!!!!!!" or "Nine 11"?

I'm confused......

No, wait, I'm actually quite clear on this. More than a few of us are now, thanks to the dissemination of the proper information. ;)

Yeah, the four headed monster who just mentioned Jason Bay as having a shot at being among the best ever :rolleyes:

[ESPNFan]

You mean "Goooo"? Or is it "Dontworry" or maybe "!!!!!!!" or "Nine 11"?

I'm confused......

No, wait, I'm actually quite clear on this. More than a few of us are now, thanks to the dissemination of the proper information. ;)

LOL and there are even more floating around too.

[Rennie Stennett]

No. Maybe best hitter, but not player. Mays is best player ever hands down. great hitter, great fielder, basestealer, everything. And he played in a legitimate league. Ruth didn't. He really needs to stop being called the greatest ever. He played in a incredibly weak league. His bloated numbers both pitching and hitting indicate this. He's the most significant player ever, but far from the best ever. One guy who I think is capable of retiring the best player ever is arod.

Arod ? yea, he's a good one, but you don't consider having Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto in your division watered down ? Ruth was bigger than the game; Arod will never be. Arod is a choker; Ruth was not.

Willie Mays was a great one.

[digglahhh]

Derek, do you think Rodriguez might end up deserving of the title of greatest ever? What would he need to do, in your opinion, to be worthy of this highest accolade?

And if not A-Rod, how likely do you think it is that someone will come along and be greater than Ruth, Cobb, Mays?

No, but I think he will be top 10, he's pretty close already.

For most, he would have to go back to SS and still be an elite defender. For me, its not as important, though I would like to seem him move again at some point so I can be sure that his skills havent deteroriated.

I still consider A-Rod an SS, and he accrues ridiculous value for every offensive season he posts assuming he is a good SS. But at some point he would fall to just an average SS and eventually probably below, as long as he is not playing there, I don't know when those times come and I can't make adjustments as such.

He looks like he'll have a Mays-esque career as a SS. Being one of the better SSes of your time isn't as good as being one of the best CFs ever.

Mays, Cobb, Ruth and Wagner are tough, but I would guess eveybody else is within reach.

[RuthMayBond]

Being one of the better SSes of your time Don't strain yourself

[digglahhh]

Don't strain yourself

Defensively, I meant.

Is it really unclear that I was speaking of his defense in that portion of the post, or were you TRYING to take things out of context?

How could I say that top 5 of all time was in reach and then refer to him as merely one of the best all around SSes of his time?

I don't see what the source of confusion would be unless you were just trying to bust my balls, or not really paying attention when you were reading.

[RuthMayBond]

Defensively, I meant.

Is it really unclear that I was speaking of his defense in that portion of the post, or were you TRYING to take things out of context?

How could I say that top 5 of all time was in reach and then refer to him as merely one of the best all around SSes of his time?

I don't see what the source of confusion would be unless you were just trying to bust my balls, or not really paying attention when you were reading.Right before that you said

"He looks like he'll have a Mays-esque career as a SS", I'm not sure why I would think you're talking defensively

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I have heard/seen people say that:

(1) Pujols is ALREADY the #1 MLB first baseman of all time, and, when confronted with the specific question, that he is better than Lou Gehrig ever was; and

(2) Pujols, not Musial, is the greatest player in St. Louis history.

Here is what I think:

(A) Assuming he is clean, and thus far I know of exactly nothing to indicate otherwise, Pujols in "on pace to" break a ton of major power records, if one further assumes his age is somewhere near what it's alleged to be;

(B) If he puts up another 7 or 8 years like he's had so far, and there is no "proof by a preponderance of the evidence" (i.e., more than 50%, the normal standard in a civil court) of his using PED's, I'd be willing to do the unthinkable and put him ahead of Gehrig. It would take a lot less to get me to put him at #2, ahead of Bagwell, Thomas, Mize, Foxx, Greenberg, Murray, Killebrew, my beloved Willie Mac and various other greats (in no particuar order);

(C) He'll have to do more, in my book, to pass Musial than he will to pass Gehrig, but not by much; and

(D) Not counting Charleston, my Top 5 are Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Mantle (a distant 4th) and probably Ted Williams (as I hold my nose). It is hard for me to see Pujols' passing any of them, but who knows what the next 6 to 8 years--perhaps his best years of all--have in store for him?

AND

(E) I cannot imagine I ever will be persuaded to put a Ted Williams-type player--strictly a hitter, with about Williams' power, only enough defense to play 1B and no great speed on the bases--ahead of Cobb or Mays, let alone The Big Guy.

BHN

[Astro]

Stat wise will he be the best player of all time? Maybe

Talent wise is he the best player of all time? Probably, and if he is not Ted Williams or Willie Mays may be better.... not Ruth

It is my humble opinion that players who played the majority of their careers before 1947 are vastly overrated when comparing them to players after 1947

This is due to the fact they faced only white players... take a look at the major leagues now, if you had only white players the talent level would be MUCH MUCH MUUUUUUUUCH lower than what it is at now

Toss in the fact that pitchers were overused, and always throwing complete games, and you get, in my opinion, a average skill level of a current AA or AAA player

Example: Of the past 10 seasons, 20 MVP awards have been given out.... of those 20, 0 of 10 were awarded to white players over the past 5 years, only 4 of 20 were awarded to white players over the past 10 seasons, one went to Ken Caminiti who admitted to steroid use during that season, another to Jason Giambi who admitted me made a mistake (tho never said what that mistake was)

It only took 2 years after Jackie Robinson broke the color line for a black/hispanic player to win the MVP award, Campanella won 3 ('51,'53,'55)... so obviously the great players from the pre-integrated era were facing much easier competition than those of the post-integration era...

[HOOTIE]

No. Maybe best hitter, but not player. Mays is best player ever hands down. great hitter, great fielder, basestealer, everything. And he played in a legitimate league. Ruth didn't. He really needs to stop being called the greatest ever. He played in a incredibly weak league. His bloated numbers both pitching and hitting indicate this. He's the most significant player ever, but far from the best ever. One guy who I think is capable of retiring the best player ever is arod.


Arod has no shot. Doesn't walk enough, oba not high enough.

Mays best ever, nah. Ruth, Bonds by alot.

[HOOTIE]

Arod ? yea, he's a good one, but you don't consider having Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto in your division watered down ? Ruth was bigger than the game; Arod will never be. Arod is a choker; Ruth was not.

Willie Mays was a great one.

Choker, lol? You let the media spoon feed you i see. Arod has better post season numbers then DiMiggio, Jeter, Mays, Williams to name a few.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Choker, lol? You let the media spoon feed you i see. Arod has better post season numbers then DiMiggio, Jeter, Mays, Williams to name a few.

But that's in fewer playoffs than Jeter and DiMaggio, and is it really fair to compare his postseason experience to Ted Williams, who had just one year of experience.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Stat wise will he be the best player of all time? Maybe

Talent wise is he the best player of all time? Probably, and if he is not Ted Williams or Willie Mays may be better.... not Ruth
It is my humble opinion that players who played the majority of their careers before 1947 are vastly overrated when comparing them to players after 1947

.

Not Ruth you say, are we going to take away from Ruth because he played before integration. Who determines what we can take away from Ruth, how do we measure that.

I think it's evident that Ruth could hold his own in any era. That he would not be as dominant because of integration I would agree with. That he could not put up some monster numbers in any era, I don't agree with. A good number of Ruth home runs came before the 7th and 8th innings not as many as you seem you think came off of tired pitchers. On the subject of pitching, some great closers in todays game and also a number not so great middle relievers.

If we're going to make alterations on Ruth why stop there. What about the shot in the arm hitters got when they made the strike zone smaller and lowered the mound in 1969, should we consider that.

Ruth killed bad pitchers and guess what, so did Barry Bonds. I don't have the info in front of me but a good number of Barry's home runs came off of some poor quality pitchers and some good pitchers that gave up a good number of long balls. All good hitters had some "cousins" that they feasted on.

What separates Ruth from many other great hitters, he not only hit the long ball but he carried a high career batting average. He's in the top 6 in career batting average for all hitters that played in modern times.

Put it this way, are we to believe that there was no hitter that played the game before 1947 that could match May's Aaron or any hitter hitting today, that defies all logic. Again how do we measure what should be subtracted from Ruth or any player who played before integration.

[Skin & Bones]

It's too early to speculate. If healthy, he could retire a top ten, maybe even top five player all-time. He's a great hitter who plays great defense, and despite lack of speed, is a great baserunner. He's better than a Young Lou Gehrig was, and If healthy, I believe will have a better career than Musial.

[Astro]

A good number of Ruth home runs came before the 7th and 8th innings not as many as you seem you think came off of tired pitchers.

Ok, and those pitchers started 50-60 games a season, often throwing complete games... why wouldnt they be tired to start the game after pitching just 2 days before....

And if they were not tired, then why werent they tired? Pitchers in the current era can not pitch like this, and medicine and how pitcher's machenics are used are much better than they were back then...

So either the pitchers were tired going into most starts, or they were not trying near as much as pitchers now do, every at bat

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It's too early to speculate. If healthy, he could retire a top ten, maybe even top five player all-time. He's a great hitter who plays great defense, and despite lack of speed, is a great baserunner. He's better than a Young Lou Gehrig was, and If healthy, I believe will have a better career than Musial.
Thats saying quite a bit at this early stage. Lots of things can happen over a whole career.

[Skin & Bones]

Thats saying quite a bit at this early stage. Lots of things can happen over a whole career.

Right, and barring injury, I believe he will have a better career than Musial.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Stat wise will he be the best player of all time? Maybe

Talent wise is he the best player of all time? Probably, and if he is not Ted Williams or Willie Mays may be better.... not Ruth

It is my humble opinion that players who played the majority of their careers before 1947 are vastly overrated when comparing them to players after 1947

This is due to the fact they faced only white players... take a look at the major leagues now, if you had only white players the talent level would be MUCH MUCH MUUUUUUUUCH lower than what it is at now

Toss in the fact that pitchers were overused, and always throwing complete games, and you get, in my opinion, a average skill level of a current AA or AAA player

Example: Of the past 10 seasons, 20 MVP awards have been given out.... of those 20, 0 of 10 were awarded to white players over the past 5 years, only 4 of 20 were awarded to white players over the past 10 seasons, one went to Ken Caminiti who admitted to steroid use during that season, another to Jason Giambi who admitted me made a mistake (tho never said what that mistake was)

It only took 2 years after Jackie Robinson broke the color line for a black/hispanic player to win the MVP award, Campanella won 3 ('51,'53,'55)... so obviously the great players from the pre-integrated era were facing much easier competition than those of the post-integration era...

Astro,

It's not this simple. Almost ALL of the good black players went into the NL for the first decade+. Larry Doby is perhaps the best black player who went to the A.L., while Campanella, Mays, Aaron, J. Robinson, F. Robinson, Clemente, Banks, Newcombe (who was TREMENDOUS for awhile) and several other big stars went to the N.L.

It's too facile to use 1947 as a cutoff. It probably took until 1951 or 1952 until a meaningful number of good/great black players were in the N.L., and it took a great deal longer in the A.L., the plantation league where Teddy Ballgame played.

BHN

[albertpujols]

Do you guys think that after Pujol's career is over he will be considered the best player of all time, barring no major injuries or something of that matter. I mean he hits amazingly, barely strikes out and Bombs the ball out of the ball park. Will he become the best player of all time, like i said barring no major injuries or off the field matters?

I would have to say its possible.

Much too soon.

But being an Albert fan, I would have to say yes, yes he will.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Astro,

It's not this simple. Almost ALL of the good black players went into the NL for the first decade+. Larry Doby is perhaps the best black player who went to the A.L., while Campanella, Mays, Aaron, J. Robinson, F. Robinson, Clemente, Banks, Newcombe (who was TREMENDOUS for awhile) and several other big stars went to the N.L.

It's too facile to use 1947 as a cutoff. It probably took until 1951 or 1952 until a meaningful number of good/great black players were in the N.L., and it took a great deal longer in the A.L., the plantation league where Teddy Ballgame played.

BHN

What about Sam Jethroe? He had a couple of nice years with the Boston Braves.

[DodgerBlue81]

Do you guys think that after Pujol's career is over he will be considered the best player of all time, barring no major injuries or something of that matter. I mean he hits amazingly, barely strikes out and Bombs the ball out of the ball park. Will he become the best player of all time, like i said barring no major injuries or off the field matters?

I would have to say its possible.


:eek: :crazy HAHAHA no way, he'll never be greater than Ruth.

[Wade8813]

No. While certainly great, I prefer at least a few standout years to just very good years over a long period of time (although both are important). That's why I don't rank Hank Aaron or Cal Ripken as high as some other people. Longevity is good, but I feel that to be the best, you need at least a short time of dominance.

[Hazy]

If I'm correct, Pujols isn't noted for his defense, and certainly not for his speed.

I'm sure many players from the power era could be named who have had comparable stretches. Pujols is simply well-liked for his lack of (media-reported, anyway) attitude and well-known because the Cardinals have been perennial NLC champs over the past few years.

Consider Frank Thomas's numbers in early to mid '90s. Alex Rodriguez from the late '90s up until recently. Ken Griffey Jr. had great offensive numbers in the late '90s, and while he didn't hit for the average Pujols does, he added gold-glove defense. I could go on.

Pujols' offense is outstanding; he certainly has a good chance of being the defining offensive player of the era; but there's too much history to start calling him the greatest. As has been said, too early. If he hits .330/40/120 every year until he's in his late 30s, then maybe we can talk. Maybe.

Also, it's never going to be easy to compare a power/avg guy of this era to someone like, for example, Ty Cobb. As the story goes, Cobb, frustrated by the new attention being given to Babe Ruth and his homerun-hitting, told the newspaper he would go out and try to hit home runs one day. He hit two and flied out to the wall.

Ichiro has power as well, but he hits for singles. Who knows what kind of average he could maintain if he let himself swing for the fences once in a while?

Sorry to say, this thread is pure fanboyism.

[Skin & Bones]

If I'm correct, Pujols isn't noted for his defense, and certainly not for his speed.

I'm sure many players from the power era could be named who have had comparable stretches. Pujols is simply well-liked for his lack of (media-reported, anyway) attitude and well-known because the Cardinals have been perennial NLC champs over the past few years.

Consider Frank Thomas's numbers in early to mid '90s. Alex Rodriguez from the late '90s up until recently. Ken Griffey Jr. had great offensive numbers in the late '90s, and while he didn't hit for the average Pujols does, he added gold-glove defense. I could go on.

Pujols' offense is outstanding; he certainly has a good chance of being the defining offensive player of the era; but there's too much history to start calling him the greatest. As has been said, too early. If he hits .330/40/120 every year until he's in his late 30s, then maybe we can talk. Maybe.

Also, it's never going to be easy to compare a power/avg guy of this era to someone like, for example, Ty Cobb. As the story goes, Cobb, frustrated by the new attention being given to Babe Ruth and his homerun-hitting, told the newspaper he would go out and try to hit home runs one day. He hit two and flied out to the wall.

Ichiro has power as well, but he hits for singles. Who knows what kind of average he could maintain if he let himself swing for the fences once in a while?

Sorry to say, this thread is pure fanboyism.

Pujols isn't noted for his defense

Well, he should be, he's one of the best defensive 1B in baseball, whereas Griffey was never that good defensively.

[cavalier1968]

As the numbers show Bonds was clearly a better ballplayer. He used his God given talent better than Griffey. Griffey didn't workout. He never stole bases. never danced off the bag to make the pitcher nervous. He never took the extra base. He never hit behind guys; he never moved guys over, never went up the middle. On many occasions, all the M's needed was a ground ball to the right side or a fly ball the other way and they would have scored. Put Edgar in those positions: guys on 2nd and 3rd or a guy on 3rd with one out or less and Edgar would always get you one for sure and maybe two RBI's. Griffey always went for the downs. Of his (500) dingers, many are meaningless, either when the M's were up by (10) or down by (10.) Sure the Grifster had some big hits; a game winning homer against the bombers late during the strike year. He got on base in game (5) and scored on Edgar's double in the Division series against the bombers. Bonds used everything he had to give his team a chance to win. Griffey didn't. Bonds had a better arm. Griffey often missed the cut-off guy and air-mailed them in.

Griffey had just as many hitters around him then Bonds. Before Arod arrived and played fulltime, Edgar allready had two batting titles. Buhner striked out a bunch but he had like four years in a row with 40 or more taters and he often hit in the clutch; a base knock when you need one.

Griffey's hamstring problems can be directly linked to him not working out and stretching. Strength training improves flexibility. Stretching and aerobics help also. Look at Rickey Henderson. He used weight training and stretching and he kept his flexibility into his (40's).

Griffey's other injuries could have been caused by playing (81) games a year in the Kingdome. The Kingdome was rough on ballplayers Mariners and Seahawks alike. It was basically playing on concrete. A guess would be that Griffey played about (800) games in the Kingdome. This is alot of wear and tear.

Griffey had MANY homers when his team was winning by 10 or more....or losing by 10 or more?

Prove it!

Cav

[Mariano_Rivera]

Not even the best of the 2000 era. A-Rod is still far better.

[csh19792001]

Stat wise will he be the best player of all time? Maybe

Talent wise is he the best player of all time? Probably, and if he is not Ted Williams or Willie Mays may be better.... not Ruth

It is my humble opinion that players who played the majority of their careers before 1947 are vastly overrated when comparing them to players after 1947

This is due to the fact they faced only white players... take a look at the major leagues now, if you had only white players the talent level would be MUCH MUCH MUUUUUUUUCH lower than what it is at now

Toss in the fact that pitchers were overused, and always throwing complete games, and you get, in my opinion, a average skill level of a current AA or AAA player

Example: Of the past 10 seasons, 20 MVP awards have been given out.... of those 20, 0 of 10 were awarded to white players over the past 5 years, only 4 of 20 were awarded to white players over the past 10 seasons, one went to Ken Caminiti who admitted to steroid use during that season, another to Jason Giambi who admitted me made a mistake (tho never said what that mistake was)

It only took 2 years after Jackie Robinson broke the color line for a black/hispanic player to win the MVP award, Campanella won 3 ('51,'53,'55)... so obviously the great players from the pre-integrated era were facing much easier competition than those of the post-integration era...

Ok, and those pitchers started 50-60 games a season, often throwing complete games... why wouldnt they be tired to start the game after pitching just 2 days before....

And if they were not tired, then why werent they tired? Pitchers in the current era can not pitch like this, and medicine and how pitcher's machenics are used are much better than they were back then...

So either the pitchers were tired going into most starts, or they were not trying near as much as pitchers now do, every at bat

Just one thing (not sure what era you're referring to) but nobody in the 20th century started (or pitched) 50-60 games a season. Walter Johnson averaged about 30 per season, Grove averaged 25+. Both guys averaged more total games pitched, but those were often a few innings and relief work. And even with that, it was only somewhere around 35 per year.

However, I'd like to hear your entire argument here. Some of my friends feel the same way (i.e., that players of the past were not even anywhere close to as great as today's guy's are).

So based on this post and the other regarding baseball pre and post integration...several questions arise, I'd like to hear your thoughts...

1. Can we infer that (all sentimentality aside) that you truly believe that Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb are not close to the best hitters/players ever?

2.And the logical extension of this....that none of the players who played before integration would be among the best in today's game (let alone THE greatest).

3. That the top 10 or 20 players in history should be almost all players from 1950 to the present? (The opposite is almost always the case).

4. So (give us a very rough estimate) what do you think Albert Pujols would hit playing in Babe Ruth's era? Considering all those circumstances about race, fatigue and overuse of pitchers, etc....how would he do?

5. Do you think that a young Pujols is greater than a young Babe Ruth was, based on everything you stated? (Offensively)

[cavalier1968]

Stat wise will he be the best player of all time? Maybe

Talent wise is he the best player of all time? Probably, and if he is not Ted Williams or Willie Mays may be better.... not Ruth

It is my humble opinion that players who played the majority of their careers before 1947 are vastly overrated when comparing them to players after 1947

This is due to the fact they faced only white players... take a look at the major leagues now, if you had only white players the talent level would be MUCH MUCH MUUUUUUUUCH lower than what it is at now

Toss in the fact that pitchers were overused, and always throwing complete games, and you get, in my opinion, a average skill level of a current AA or AAA player

Example: Of the past 10 seasons, 20 MVP awards have been given out.... of those 20, 0 of 10 were awarded to white players over the past 5 years, only 4 of 20 were awarded to white players over the past 10 seasons, one went to Ken Caminiti who admitted to steroid use during that season, another to Jason Giambi who admitted me made a mistake (tho never said what that mistake was)

It only took 2 years after Jackie Robinson broke the color line for a black/hispanic player to win the MVP award, Campanella won 3 ('51,'53,'55)... so obviously the great players from the pre-integrated era were facing much easier competition than those of the post-integration era...


Hmmmmm did the after 1947 players face......

mutiple spitballers
smaller strikezones
longer travel
less medicinal knowledge
a much more condenced league
a softer ball.........etc


Cav

[csh19792001]

Also, it's never going to be easy to compare a power/avg guy of this era to someone like, for example, Ty Cobb. As the story goes, Cobb, frustrated by the new attention being given to Babe Ruth and his homerun-hitting, told the newspaper he would go out and try to hit home runs one day. He hit two and flied out to the wall.


That well known story isn't apocryphal. What might be is that he confided to Sid Keener of the St. Louis Dispatch (and others in the media) that he was going to put on deliberately go for homeruns and succeed.

May 5-6th, 1925.

May 5: Cobb goes 6-6 with three home runs, a double, and a pair of singles, setting the record of sixteen total bases in one game. I think that's still the AL record, 81 years later.

May 6: Cobb goes 3-6 with two more homeruns. His five homeruns in two consecutive games set the modern record of four held by Ruth, Ken Williams, and Tilly Walker. Both homeruns in the second game cleared the right field bleachers.

His 25 total bases in two games has to either be the AL record, or close to it, even after 8 decades have passed.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

American Historian (and part-time baseball historian) Charles Alexander, whose bio of Cobb is probably second only to Creamer's bio of Ruth as my favorite sports biography, credits the story as true. Moreover, he writes that Keener was not the only one to hear Cobb's statement. Rather, he says, Cobb's favorite sportswriter, H.G. Salsinger, was also present at the time.

BHN

[W_Marone]

Hey I remember when I made this thread...what a long time ago this was...and what a name I used to have. Genius? Me? I think So...hahaha just kidding.:clapping

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=csh19792001]
So based on this post and the other regarding baseball pre and post integration...several questions arise, I'd like to hear your thoughts...

1. Can we infer that (all sentimentality aside) that you truly believe that Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb are not close to the best hitters/players ever?

2.And the logical extension of this....that none of the players who played before integration would be among the best in today's game (let alone THE greatest).

QUOTE]

I think that says it all, same thoughts I've been posting on message boards the last ten years or so.

I find it close to silly to hear some say that no hitter before integration can be taken seriously, that they could not match the hitters that came into the game after integration. Pure nonsense, great hitters from many years ago could hit in todays game and more than hold their own. Great hitters of today would also hit great if they were in the game in Cobb and Ruth's day.

Great hitters hit in any era, probably with some diferences in numbers because of different conditions, rule changes, but over all they would still be great hitters.

Great eyes, timing, quick reflexes are not just qualities of modern players, been around since the game began.

[csh19792001]

American Historian (and part-time baseball historian) Charles Alexander, whose bio of Cobb is probably second only to Creamer's bio of Ruth as my favorite sports biography, credits the story as true. Moreover, he writes that Keener was not the only one to hear Cobb's statement. Rather, he says, Cobb's favorite sportswriter, H.G. Salsinger, was also present at the time.

BHN

Really? :confused:

Such differential accounts. Okkonen dissents. Perhaps they didn't stumble onto what Alexander did....

That makes it that much more astounding, if that is indeed the truth.