Can Albert Pujols surpass Lou Gehrig?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I know it may be a bit early for this but please bare with me. I'm not going to ask if Pujols can catch Gerhig. I'm going to ask you what kind of career would you need to see from Pujols to surplant Lou Gehrig without a doubt as the greatest first baseman in baseball history?

Lou's Relative Stats:

Gehrig------Rel.BA-----Rel.Onbase-----Rel.Slg.-----OPS+-----Rel.ISO+
----------117.2 (37th)---126.4 (11th)---154 (3rd)---179 (4th)---227.6 (3rd)
------------------------------------------------------------
Home/Away--BA----Slg.----onbase---HR---D-------T-----RBI------AB------BB
Home:-----.329---.620-----.436----251---206-----83-----947-----3,861----713
Away:-----.351---.644----.458----242---329-----79---1,043-----4,140---795
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top OPS+ seasons of some prominent 1Bmen. (Minimum 500 PA, except for pre-1900, due to fewer games/season.)

Lou Gehrig........221, 208, 203, 195, 194, 190 Average: 202
Dan Brouthers.....206, 201, 199, 189, 187, 182 Average: 194
Jimmie Foxx........205, 200, 188, 186, 182, 182 Average: 191
Frank Thomas.....212, 181, 180, 178, 178, 177 Average: 184
Mark McGwire......217, 203, 178, 175, 168, 164 Average: 184
Cap Anson..........200, 191, 180, 178, 176, 176 Average: 183 (fewer games due to era)
Roger Connor......201, 185, 184, 176, 171, 168 Average: 181
Willie McCovey....211, 182, 175, 165, 161, 160 Average: 176
Dick Allen...........200, 181, 174, 166, 165, 162 Average: 175
Jeff Bagwell........213, 179, 169, 168, 158, 152 Average: 173
Albert Pujols.....189, 180, 175, 167, 158, 155 Average: 170
Johnny Mize.......178, 176, 175, 172, 161, 160 Average: 170
Hank Greenberg..172, 170, 170, 169, 163, 156 Average: 166
Harmon Killebrew.179, 174, 161, 161, 158, 153 Average: 164
George Sisler......181, 170, 161, 157, 154, 140 Average: 161
Bill Terry............158, 156, 149, 141, 137, 135 Average: 146
Ted Kluszewski....166, 147, 145, 142, 132, 124 Average: 142
Gil Hodges..........143, 142, 141, 138, 128, 126 Average: 136
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Gehrig - 154.0 - 2 SLG. titles - 9954 PA - 179 OPS+ - Rel. ISO - 230. Ave. held up well, of course due to lack of decline phase, hence low PA. Only won 2 titles.
----------------------
...............OPS+....EqA.....BRAR....BRAR/650 PA
Gehrig........179....345......1219.......82.02
Brouthers.....170....324.......780........66.21
Pujols.........171....343.......515........82.41
Foxx...........163.....327......1012........68.02
F.Thomas....160.....342......1146.......81.31
D.Allen........156.....325.......801........71.19
McCovey.....148.....318.......960........64.42
-------------------------------------------------
Relative ISO:

Lou Gehrig: 230
Mark McGwire: 223
Hank Greenberg: 220
Jimmy Foxx: 214
Johnny Mize 209
Dick Allen: 198
Willie McCovey: 192
Harmon Killebrew: 190
Albert Pujols: 182 (6 seasons)
Frank Howard 175
Frank Thomas: 169
Rafael Palmeiro: 149
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of David Kent. Here is a list of the top 100 sluggers of all time based on relative isolated power (min 5000 AB). The values are league adjusted but not park adjusted. (NB: If someone has park factor values for average and slugging, I would love to see it.)


Player AB Slg Avg ISO Rel ISO
-------------------------------------------------------
Lou Gehrig 8001 0.632 0.340 0.292 227.6
Hank Greenberg 5193 0.605 0.313 0.292 223.1
Mark McGwire 6187 0.588 0.263 0.325 217.1
Jimmie Foxx 8134 0.609 0.325 0.284 215.6
Johnny Mize 6443 0.562 0.312 0.250 209.8
Dick Allen 6332 0.534 0.292 0.242 199.2
Willie McCovey 8197 0.515 0.270 0.245 192.3
Harmon Killebrew 8147 0.509 0.256 0.252 190.8
Dan Brouthers 6711 0.519 0.342 0.177 181.2
Frank Howard 6488 0.499 0.273 0.225 175.3
Roger Connor 7794 0.486 0.317 0.169 171.6
Frank Thomas 6851 0.567 0.308 0.259 168.3
Norm Cash 6705 0.488 0.271 0.217 165.2
Cecil Fielder 5157 0.482 0.255 0.227 157.6
Jeff Bagwell 7697 0.542 0.297 0.245 157.6
Jim Bottomley 7471 0.500 0.310 0.191 156.2
Boog Powell 6681 0.462 0.266 0.196 153.9



---Albert Pujols, Cardinals' 1B, 2004-present-------------------------------------------August 14, 2004, breaks his bat.---BB Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/pujolal01.shtml)


June 19, 2005, Tropicana Field, St. Petersburg, FL

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here are there stats through roughly the same number of ABs. One thing is that these stats are through Pujols age 25 season (2005) and Gehrig's age 26-season (1929)



Gehrig (767 G :2746 ABs)--.343/.438/.631, 175 OPS+, 146 HR, 637 RBI, 631 R, 206 doubles, 72 triples, 919 hits, 480 BB, 351 K

Pujols (790 G: 2954 ABs)--.332/.416/.621, 169 OPS+, 201 HR, 621 RBI, 629 R, 227 doubles, 11 triples, 982 hits, 401 BB, 344 Ks



This is just a start. Can someone look up Gehrig's Win shares total through the 1929 season? I have Pujols with 173 Win shares through the 2005 seaspn.

[OldEnglishD]

Here are there stats through roughly the same number of ABs. One thing is that these stats are through Pujols age 25 season (2005) and Gehrig's age 26-season (1929)



Gehrig (767 G :2746 ABs)--.343/.438/.631, 175 OPS+, 146 HR, 637 RBI, 631 R, 206 doubles, 72 triples, 919 hits, 480 BB, 351 K

Pujols (790 G: 2954 ABs)--.332/.416/.621, 169 OPS+, 201 HR, 621 RBI, 629 R, 227 doubles, 11 triples, 982 hits, 401 BB, 344 Ks



This is just a start. Can someone look up Gehrig's Win shares total through the 1929 season? I have Pujols with 173 Win shares through the 2005 seaspn.

You mixed up LGs average a little (unless I'm wrong about batting average formula ;)) 919 / 2746 = .335

I noticed as I was trying to forecast all the #s to the same number of at bats for easier comparison & couldn't get it to add up. Anyway, thought I'd share - back to work :)

[OldEnglishD]

Did a little math to LG to put him at 2954 ABs (using the 2746 #s) for easier comparison (rounded of course) ....

LG (825 G; 2954 ABs) -- .335, 157 HR, 685 RBI, 678 R, 222 doubles, 78 triples, 988 Hits, 516 BB, 377 K

AP (790 G: 2954 ABs)--.332, 201 HR, 621 RBI, 629 R, 227 doubles, 11 triples, 982 hits, 401 BB, 344 Ks

[OldEnglishD]

Thought it was interesting that the descrepency in walks put Lou at a bunch more games -

but adds up : 116 more walks, at 4 AB per game = 29 games !

Obviously more than that goes into the diff, but still intersting to me.

So, I did more - Gehrig walked 1508 times. At 5 ABs a game, that would be 301 games. He walked for 2 complete years !

Bonds is the career leader at 2335. That's 467 games. Almost 3 years of nothing but free passes !


Anyway, sorry to steer the ship off course - back to the topic fellas

[leecemark]

--Using AB's puts Gehrig much deeper into his career than Pujols, since the one thing Lou clearly did better than Albert was take the base on balls (although I was surprised to see that Pujols struck out less, even though K's overall have gone up dramatically). Albert also has the advantage in HR and hits and is closer in RBI than I would have guessed.
--Gehrig was remarkably consistent at this high level through his mid-30s and that will be difficult for Pujols to match. Only a very few players go through their careers without having to deal with a season marring injury or two and most also have a down year or two along the way as well. OTOH, Pujols will likely end up playing longer than Gehrig and ecliping many of his career totals. On the third hand, I would have said the same of Frank Thomas at the same point:D . Time will tell.
P.S. HWR, I'd bare with you, but I haven't kept myself in great shape and I don't want anybody puking all over their keyboard:D .

[KCGHOST]

To state the obvious, for Pujols to catch Gehrig we will have to lump his first three years totals as a non-1B into his 1B totals.

[Taco De Muerte]

This is just a start. Can someone look up Gehrig's Win shares total through the 1929 season? I have Pujols with 173 Win shares through the 2005 seaspn.

166. And This doesn't even take league quality into account. Also, adjusted BRAA has pujols at 330 from 01-05, with 17 more added this season. Lou from from 23-29 had 312. Also, WARP3 has pujols at 67.2 right now, Lou from 23-29 50.2. Also defensive statistics show that lou was nothing special defensively, while pujols has been very good sofar. I think it's safe to say pujols could easily have a better career than Lou if he doesn't get injured.

[DoubleX]

I'd say he's had as good a start as a player could have that hopes to unseat Gehrig as king at 1B. I doubt Pujols will ever match Gehrig's peak, but that's largely offset by era adjustments. If Pujols can keep this up for say 6-8 more years, I can see the argument for him. But as Mark said, many of us would have said the same thing about Frank Thomas about 12 years ago.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

166. And This doesn't even take league quality into account. Also, adjusted BRAA has pujols at 330 from 01-05, with 17 more added this season. Lou from from 23-29 had 312. Also, WARP3 has pujols at 67.2 right now, Lou from 23-29 50.2. Also defensive statistics show that lou was nothing special defensively, while pujols has been very good sofar. I think it's safe to say pujols could easily have a better career than Lou if he doesn't get injured.
Of course Gehrig was incredibly consistent until he became ill, a remarkable run of about 15 seasons. I think Pujols can keep his carrent pace through age 30. How he will age after that is anyone's guess.

[julusnc]

Albert Pujols at the end of his career may surpass Lou Gehrig's career numbers but Pujols will never surpass the legendary status of Lou Gehrig.

Many baseball fans and 99% of the New York Yankees fans see a big banquet table in heaven with the legends of baseball gathered and I dont think there will ever be a chair for Pujols at this table but only time will tell the tale.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Albert Pujols at the end of his career may surpass Lou Gehrig's career numbers but Pujols will never surpass the legendary status of Lou Gehrig.

Many baseball fans and 99% of the New York Yankees fans see a big banquet table in heaven with the legends of baseball gathered and I dont think there will ever be a chair for Pujols at this table but only time will tell the tale.
I guess you don't know Albert Pujols's personal story. Alberty is only 26 and we don't know what he can accomplish...



Pujols married his wife, Deidre on January 1, 2000. They have three children, Isabella (Deidre's daughter, adopted by Albert), Albert, Jr. and Sophia. Albert and his wife are active in the cause of people with Down syndrome, as Isabella was born with this condition. In 2005, they launched the Pujols Family foundation which is dedicated to "the love, care and development of people with Down syndrome and their families," as well as helping the poor in the Dominican Republic. Pujols and his wife are very active Christians; as the foundation's website says, "In the Pujols family, God is first. Everything else is a distant second." More information on the foundation can be found at their website: www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org


http://www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org/index2.html

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Both Gehrig and Pujols were/are "good" guys. :D

[DoubleX]

166. And This doesn't even take league quality into account. Also, adjusted BRAA has pujols at 330 from 01-05, with 17 more added this season. Lou from from 23-29 had 312. Also, WARP3 has pujols at 67.2 right now, Lou from 23-29 50.2. Also defensive statistics show that lou was nothing special defensively, while pujols has been very good sofar. I think it's safe to say pujols could easily have a better career than Lou if he doesn't get injured.

What happens when you drop off Gehrig's '23 and '24 numbers? He only had 38 ABs combined in those two years, seems kind of unfair to include them.

It's extremely rare that a player comes on the scene and right away is a force like Pujols. Not even Gehrig was able to come on the scene with such force when he finally got full playing time in '25. However, once Gehrig hit his stride in '27, there are few players that can compare to his run from '27 to '37. If not for the fatal disease, he probably could have tacked on a few more years to that great run or production.

[538280]

I think it will largely come down to how long Pujols lasts. If he is able to sustain his performance for 2500+ games, I think he'll be better than Gehrig, if he goes the Frank Thomas route and flames out after 7 or 8 great seasons (which is totally a possibility), then no. His peak is already as good as Gehrig's, maybe just a sliver behind.

[Taco De Muerte]

What happens when you drop off Gehrig's '23 and '24 numbers? He only had 38 ABs combined in those two years, seems kind of unfair to include them.


That wouldn't help his case, it would hurt it.



It's extremely rare that a player comes on the scene and right away is a force like Pujols. Not even Gehrig was able to come on the scene with such force when he finally got full playing time in '25.

Agreed - which is why we must cherish the fact that we are witnessing albert pujols play. He's already an incredible hitter this early in his career - and I don't believe he's even peaked yet. Judging by the season he's having so-far, this may be the start of it.


However, once Gehrig hit his stride in '27, there are few players that can compare to his run from '27 to '37. If not for the fatal disease, he probably could have tacked on a few more years to that great run or production.

Fair enough - But my point was that a younger pujols is better than a younger Gehrig - and he dominates a stronger league. If pujols can stay healthy - he could retire a top five player in history, IMO.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think it will largely come down to how long Pujols lasts. If he is able to sustain his performance for 2500+ games, I think he'll be better than Gehrig, if he goes the Frank Thomas route and flames out after 7 or 8 great seasons (which is totally a possibility), then no. His peak is already as good as Gehrig's, maybe just a sliver behind.
I think Pujol may last longer than Thomas. After Pujols' 8th season he will still only be 28 years old.

[Mattingly]

I'm curious if it would be relevant than Gehrig played likely 99% of his games at 1B, whereas Pujols has played most of his games there, but only recently?

Lou Gehrig (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gehrilo01.shtml)

Position/Games

1B/2,137 (99.5342%)
OF/9
SS/1
====
2,147 games career

Albert Pujols (http://baseball-reference.com/p/pujolal01.shtml)

Position/Games (2001-05)

1B/434 (51.1792%)
LF/269
3B/96
RF/40
DH/8
SS/1
===
848 games: 2001-05

[Francoeurstein]

I think Gehrig was arguably better before he turned 25.

[Pghfan987]

I'm curious if it would be relevant than Gehrig played likely 99% of his games at 1B, whereas Pujols has played most of his games there, but only recently?

Lou Gehrig (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gehrilo01.shtml)

Position/Games

1B/2,137 (99.5342%)
OF/9
SS/1
====
2,147 games career

Albert Pujols (http://baseball-reference.com/p/pujolal01.shtml)

Position/Games (2001-05)

1B/434 (51.1792%)
LF/269
3B/96
RF/40
DH/8
SS/1
===
848 games: 2001-05

Personally, I don't think it matters. Pujols is going to be known as the better defensive first baseman. We shouldn't penalize Pujols just because he is capable of playing multiple positions. I think that Pujols will get extra points for being a better fielder and baserunner, and so if the two are equal hitters (which is theoretically impossible, but you get the idea), then I would give Pujols the nod in the long run.

I think that Pujols will be thrown in with the likes of Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, and Mays- we will be able to make arguments for any of these players as the best of all-time. Of course "time will tell", but I think that he has considerably better tools than Frank Thomas- more nimble body (he weighs almost 50 pounds less!!), better baserunner, better fielder, and, I would say, a better swing. A statsheet might tell us that Pujols could end up like the Big Hurt- but I think that experience tells us that Pujols has a better chance of being great for a longer period of time.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

bump :happy:

Can a mod please move this thread to the History forum.

Thanks,

HWR

[Honus Wagner Rules]

. G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+ SB CS
Gehrig 1232 4542 1075 1558 321 113 267 1146 806 508 .343 .444 .640 182 63 68
Pujols 1209 4475 927 1495 332 13 310 948 678 496 .334 .425 .622 169 44 25


Pujols' stats are through August 24, 2008. I'll update this comparison at the end of the '08 season.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

As good as Albert's been, I think it's still an uphill battle. He's on pace to become better than Foxx, but he needs to either pick it up a notch or age unbelievably well to top Gehrig. I think he will almost certainly top Gehrig's counting stats and aggregate career value - 3,000 hits and 600 homers seem to be reasonable bets for Pujols. The thing Lou will probably still have on him is peak. Albert needs a couple of 200 OPS+ seasons or at least a string of seasons like the one he's having now to erase that deficit. Could he do it? Yes, but I'd say the odds are well under 50/50 that he does.

[jalbright]

bump :happy:

Can a mod please move this thread to the History forum.

Thanks,

HWR

Will do, as you are the thread creator and it probably is more suited to History.

[KCGHOST]

If Albert were to have 8 more season like his first eight (no mean feat) he would pass Gehrig in career value at the same age Gehrig left baseball. Should he do that we should let go of the emotional baggage and agree that Pujols is the greatest 1B of all time.

[STLCards2]

As good as Albert's been, I think it's still an uphill battle. He's on pace to become better than Foxx, but he needs to either pick it up a notch or age unbelievably well to top Gehrig. I think he will almost certainly top Gehrig's counting stats and aggregate career value - 3,000 hits and 600 homers seem to be reasonable bets for Pujols. The thing Lou will probably still have on him is peak. Albert needs a couple of 200 OPS+ seasons or at least a string of seasons like the one he's having now to erase that deficit. Could he do it? Yes, but I'd say the odds are well under 50/50 that he does.


I would agree with this, mostly. Chance of catching Foxx? 50/50. Chance of catchcing Gehrig? 20/80.

[philkid3]

As good as Albert's been, I think it's still an uphill battle. He's on pace to become better than Foxx, but he needs to either pick it up a notch or age unbelievably well to top Gehrig. I think he will almost certainly top Gehrig's counting stats and aggregate career value - 3,000 hits and 600 homers seem to be reasonable bets for Pujols. The thing Lou will probably still have on him is peak. Albert needs a couple of 200 OPS+ seasons or at least a string of seasons like the one he's having now to erase that deficit. Could he do it? Yes, but I'd say the odds are well under 50/50 that he does.

I pretty much agree with this. I think the odds are against Pujols passing Gehrig, but it's actually possible. That, in itself, is a huge compliment.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I think the odds are against Pujols passing Gehrig, but it's actually possible. That, in itself, is a huge compliment.

Yes. To be eight years into your career and still have a fighting chance at becoming greater than Lou Gehrig is an amazing accomplishment in and of itself.

[STLCards2]

When you look at the best of all-time, most of them had several of the following: eye-popping (to specify: Ruth, Williams, steroid Bonds type OPS+) numbers, longevity, great positional advantages, great defense, and/or great speed.

Not in any order:

Ruth: eye-popping numners, pitching ability,
Cobb: eye-popping numbers, longevity, speed,
Mays: longevity, speed, defense, very good offense, position +
Arron: incredible longevity, speed, very good pffense
Wagner: great defense, position +, longevity, great bat, speed
Musial: great offense, great longevity
Gehrig: eye-popping offense, moderate longevity
Hornsby: eye-popping offense, positional +
Speaker: defense, positional+, speed,very good offense, longevity
Williams: longevity, eye-popping offense
Bonds: longevity, speed, defense, great offense
Collins, Morgan, Lajoie: offense, defense, posional+(speed for some),longevity
Bench: huge positional+, very good offense, great defense
Mantle: eye-popping offense, good defense, postional +
Henderson: great longevity, great speed, very good offense, good defense

The guys without speed and positional+ are like Gehrig, Musial and Williams.

Pujols, despite putting up great offensive numbers so far, has not put up the types of seasons that Gehrig and Williams had. For Pujols to reach their level, he would have to play for a very long time. Looking at Pujols body types and injuries, I don't see a 20 year+ career as being very likely.

I think a great comparison would be a guy who put up great offensive seasons (but never williams/Ruth type seasons), from a not-very-important defensive position, while playing for a while but not 20+ years long -like Jimmie Foxx or Frank Thomas. This is why I think Pujols is a good bet to finish his career in the 25-50 all-time range, but not higher. But the truth remains, the fact that we can have this discussion about a guy in his 8th season is pretty remarkable. I am not trying to come down on the amazing Pujols - just trying to give a realistyic and non-biased evaluation.. Now excuse me while I go hide from my St. Louis freinds.:hide:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Pujols health is the the only real issue. If he doesn't take care of those nagging injuries in a timely manner they will become more of an issue as he enters his 30s. At the moment they are not a major issue, yet.

I'm not sure Pujols body type is as much a major issue. Pujols body is very similar to Gehrig's body only taller. Pujols is listed at 6'3 and 230 lbs. Gehrig was listed at 6'0" and 200 lbs. But I think that 200 lbs is too low. If we look at Gehrig photos he is very muscular just like Pujols. Lou was a big man for a ballplayer in his day.

[STLCards2]

Pujols health is the the only real issue. If he doesn't take care of those nagging injuries in a timely manner they will become more of an issue as he enters his 30s. At the moment they are not a major issue, yet.

I'm not sure Pujols body type is as much a major issue. Pujols body is very similar to Gehrig's body only taller. Pujols is listed at 6'3 and 230 lbs. Gehrig was listed at 6'0" and 200 lbs. But I think that 200 lbs is too low. If we look at Gehrig photos he is very muscular just like Pujols. Lou was a big man for a ballplayer in his day.

You could be right in regards to Pujol's body type.

Looking at the all-time best 1Bmen (not Musual or Banks or Killebrew), it looks like Pujols' career could stack up very well against any of them. He has the huge era advantage over Anson and Brouthers, for one. He has a lot of ball to play to gain on Murray and McCovey, but if he hits like this until his 12th year or so, and has a normal decline until he is 38 or so, he should pass those guys. He should have no problems with longevity to pass Bagwell, and the fact that FrankThomas DH's the majority of his career means Albert will likely pass him. Johhny Mize had very similar numbers through his first 10 yearsm then fell. Albert should catch him. That really leaves Foxx and Gehrig. Foxx has similar rate states through a much longer career. I don't know if Albert can play that long. I also don't see him putting up the season by season production to catch Gehrig. 3rd best 1stbasemen looks like a reasonable bet, assuming health.

[Brad Harris]

I know it may be a bit early for this but please bare with me. I'm not going to ask if Pujols can catch Gerhig. I'm going to ask you what kind of career would you need to see from Pujols to surplant Lou Gehrig without a doubt as the greatest first baseman in baseball history?
A career of 20+ seasons at what he's established as his career averages and 8-10 gold gloves. Excellent playoff performances wouldn't hurt, nor a few more MVPs. Finishing the Aughts as the best hitter of the decade (which he's on pace to do) is a great start.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

A career of 20+ seasons at what he's established as his career averages and 8-10 gold gloves. Excellent playoff performances wouldn't hurt, nor a few more MVPs. Finishing the Aughts as the best hitter of the decade (which he's on pace to do) is a great start.

So basically Pujols has to have a 20 year peak like Hank Aaron? :)

[yankillaz]

As good as Albert's been, I think it's still an uphill battle. He's on pace to become better than Foxx, but he needs to either pick it up a notch or age unbelievably well to top Gehrig. I think he will almost certainly top Gehrig's counting stats and aggregate career value - 3,000 hits and 600 homers seem to be reasonable bets for Pujols. The thing Lou will probably still have on him is peak. Albert needs a couple of 200 OPS+ seasons or at least a string of seasons like the one he's having now to erase that deficit. Could he do it? Yes, but I'd say the odds are well under 50/50 that he does.

I consider Gehrig the best player in season averages ever. He cannot be topped when you put into the comparison their season numbers. I do think that Gehrig won't be topped by any player from this era. Players like Ruth, Teddy, Gehrig and Foxx, statistically speaking, will never be seen again.

[philkid3]

Players like Ruth, Teddy, Gehrig and Foxx, statistically speaking, will never be seen again.

Why is that?

[Brad Harris]

So basically Pujols has to have a 20 year peak like Hank Aaron? :)

More or less, if he wants to be the greatest first baseman in history. If he could reproduce Gehrig's numbers for as long as Gehrig played, that would do the trick, too, considering LQ adjustments.

Obviously he could probably do it on less, I'm just stating the most obvious case.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I consider Gehrig the best player in season averages ever. He cannot be topped when you put into the comparison their season numbers. I do think that Gehrig won't be topped by any player from this era. Players like Ruth, Teddy, Gehrig and Foxx, statistically speaking, will never be seen again.

How is Gehrig the best player is season averages ever? He was an RBI machine but he was fortunate to have played his peak years in extreme offensive environments. Does a player today have to drive in 184 runs to simply to be equal to Gehrig? No, they do not. The modern game, as it is set up today, will simply not allow for an 184 RBI season. Of the top 20 all-time single season RBI totals only one (Manny Ramirez, 1999) has occurred since 1938. Think about that for a moment. Nineteen of the top 20 single season RBI totals occurred at least 70 years ago. Think of all the great sluggers and RBI men since 1938 (Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Musial, Bonds, Sosa, Murray, Griffey, etc.) None of them came close to matching the inflated single season RBI totals of the 1920s-30s. I think to ask Pujols to match Gehrig's raw statistics, without taking context into account, to be considered equal to Gehrig simply is not right.

[Wade8813]

HWR originally asked what Pujols would have to do to supplant Gehrig without a doubt. That's harder than just supplanting him.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You could be right in regards to Pujol's body type.

Speaking of Lou's body, I found these crazy photos of Gehrig auditioning to play Tarzan!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

HWR originally asked what Pujols would have to do to supplant Gehrig without a doubt. That's harder than just supplanting him.

I guess I was being too specifc. :think: But, hey, that's ok. To surpass Gehrgi, it appears Pujols has to be basically superhuman on the ballfield for 20 years. :D

[Brad Harris]

OMG! Please stop with the c.1935 porn! I'm gonna have nightmares next time I think about the '27 Yanks. :hp

[Honus Wagner Rules]

OMG! Please stop with the c.1935 porn! I'm gonna have nightmares next time I think about the '27 Yanks. :hp

:rofl: :rofl:

Can you image Gehrig on a modern weight program?! :eek: Scary...

[bob]

I consider Gehrig the best player in season averages ever.
Id vote for Aaron on that one. Gehrig had the bigger "peak", but Aaron is the king of being consistently one of the best in the league.

[NJND96]

It's an interesting thought, "best 162 game average". If you look at Gehrig's season average it's almost unbelievable, because he never had an off year. Just taken on face value without any era or position adjustment his season average might be second only to Ruth.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It's an interesting thought, "best 162 game average". If you look at Gehrig's season average it's almost unbelievable, because he never had an off year. Just taken on face value without any era or position adjustment his season average might be second only to Ruth.

Well that's just it. If we don't take context into account then Gehrig's raw stats will cause him to be overrated.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Id vote for Aaron on that one. Gehrig had the bigger "peak", but Aaron is the king of being consistently one of the best in the league.

Gehrig and Aaron were both very consistent. Gehrig was consistently better than Aaron, but Aaron did it for longer. In terms of 162 game averages, Gehrig dominates Aaron, but Babe Ruth and Ted Williams beat them both:

Ruth - .342 Avg, 46 HR, 143 RBI, 141 R, .474 OBP, .690 SLG%, 207 OPS+
Williams - .344 Avg, 37 HR, 130 RBI, 127 R, .482 OBP, .634 SLG%, 191 OPS+
Gehrig - .340 Avg, 37 HR, 149 RBI, 141 R, .447 OBP, .632 SLG%, 179 OPS+
Aaron - .305 Avg, 37 HR, 113 RBI, 107 R, .374 OBP, .555 SLG%, 155 OPS+

Edit: This is how Pujols compares to them:

Pujols - .334 Avg, 42 HR, 127 RBI, 124 R, .425 OBP, .621 SLG%, 169 OPS+

[csh19792001]

He has a lot of ball to play to gain on Murray and McCovey.

He's clearly a superior baseball player than either one of these guys, though. Murray dominated, and McCovey had huge holes in his game. The counting totals will come.

He is probably at least as great a player as Foxx, and on par with Gehrig in terms of talent and ability. There's no way he could put up totals like either, though, in this era. Or dominate in power related statistics, for that matter. He's going up against a league of vastly bigger players, most of whom approach the game from the HR/B/K perspective. If he continues to play full seasons- or close to it- at about the level he has been until his mid 30's, followed by a normal decline, I think he'll certainly have a strong case as greatest first baseman who ever lived.

Here's a question for the group....through age 28, has Pujols been as great (or greater than) Gehrig was by the same age?

[hellborn]

Here's a question for the group....through age 28, has Pujols been as great (or greater than) Gehrig was by the same age?

I would say Pujols is greater through 28, because Pujols hit the ground running and had his first great season at 21, while Gehrig's came at 23...Lou was out of this world at 24, though.

The studio execs didn't like Lou as Tarzan because his lower body was so thick...they thought it looked unathletic, believe it or not. They preferred the swimmer's build, big upper body and thinner legs.
Lou wasn't called "Biscuit Pants" for nothing...big butt muscles, which he attributed to years of ice skating.

[Sirmudgeon]

Gehrig gets my vote, Foxx #2, Pujols #3 (Mize numbers now, but counting). I have Pujols above Bagwell and Thomas, and wending his way towards Jimmy the Beast. What a treasure, to be watching one of the greatest first sackers ever to play the game. A-Rod will have better numbers, yet who would you rather face in the late innings of a close game?

I'm w/St. Louis Cards, Pujols will wind up w/3K hits, 600+ HRs, yet that doesn't tell the whole tale. He is the one guy that I wouldn't pitch to with the bases loaded in the ninth, game on the line. Barry comes in a distant second in this scenario.

This is like being a BB fan in the mid-70s, when we had a few other all-timers we were priveleged to see play- Bench, Schmidt, Aaron for a bit, and the pitchers (another post for them). Albert, Manny, A-Rod, Griffey at the tail end, Ichiro, well it's going to be a long list of deservables.

Still,

1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Pujols
4. Greenberg
5. Thomas
6. Bagwelll
7. Mize
8. Anson
9. Ott
10. Killebrew/McCovey (so confused here)

For me, Pujols is my favourite player, I'd like to see him supplant Gehrig, don't see it happening, given the triples (big field adjustment), the iconic status, and the competition. Nonetheless, Hey Albert is an all-timer. He may get to Foxx (he's at Mize numbers already), he'll win the batting title this year, no way he's only 28 but so what, he's the best player outside of A-Rod that we'll see in our lifetime. That's pretty neato.

[hellborn]

Mel Ott played RF and some 3B...are you thinking of somebody else for your 1B list?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I would say Pujols is greater through 28, because Pujols hit the ground running and had his first great season at 21, while Gehrig's came at 23...Lou was out of this world at 24, though.

The studio execs didn't like Lou as Tarzan because his lower body was so thick...they thought it looked unathletic, believe it or not. They preferred the swimmer's build, big upper body and thinner legs.
Lou wasn't called "Biscuit Pants" for nothing...big butt muscles, which he attributed to years of ice skating.

Interesting. Gehrig does seem to have a speed skater's build, thick leg muscles, slimmer upper body. Here's Olympic speed skater, Derek Parra. His body look familiar?

[csh19792001]

Interesting. Gehrig does seem to have a speed skater's build, thick leg muscles, slimmer upper body. Here's Olympic speed skater, Derek Parra. His body look familiar?

It should be noted that Gehrig also worked out/lifted weights from a fairly early age, albeit without any formal trainers, supplements, and regimen/rigor of today's players. He started at the German-American clubs in the Yorktown neighborhood where he grew up.

Gehrig was one of those people, like Mantle, that I shudder to think about on steroids, or even just modern amenities..... I mean, these guys were just brick you-know-what houses, and somehow blessed with great speed too!!! Just superhuman, true pure athletes. Both were much more akin to the premier NFL stars in build and natural skill than the average baseball player. According to biographer Jonathan Eig, Lou was a great pitcher in college and a very good outfielder.

Gehrig, in fact, was a fabulous football player. In 1920, he attracted national attention at a high school game between Commerce and DeWitt Clinton. 10,000 fans attended. This is what facilitated the prompting of the athletic scholarship he received at Columbia. There, he played halfback, tackle, and (due largely to his incredible leg strength) punted occasionally.

Consider that Bonds and Sosa were fairly normal in muscle mass for professional athletes, and look at Sosa in 98' or Bonds after 2000.....Bonds was actually somewhat of an ectomorph naturally. Lou and Mickey were pure mesomorphs. Well, as "pure" as one can be put together, physiologically. There are very few absolutes in this regard.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It should be noted that Gehrig also worked out/lifted weights from a fairly early age, albeit without any formal trainers, supplements, and regimen/rigor of today's players. He started at the German-American clubs in the Yorktown neighborhood where he grew up.

Gehrig was one of those people, like Mantle, that I shudder to think about on steroids, or even just modern amenities..... I mean, these guys were just brick you-know-what houses, and somehow blessed with great speed too!!! Just superhuman, true pure athletes. Both were much more akin to the premier NFL stars in build and natural skill than the average baseball player. According to biographer Jonathan Eig, Lou was a great pitcher in college and a very good outfielder.

Gehrig, in fact, was a fabulous football player. In 1920, he attracted national attention at a high school game between Commerce and DeWitt Clinton. 10,000 fans attended. This is what facilitated the prompting of the athletic scholarship he received at Columbia. There, he played halfback, tackle, and (due largely to his incredible leg strength) punted occasionally.

Consider that Bonds and Sosa were fairly normal in muscle mass for professional athletes, and look at Sosa in 98' or Bonds after 2000.....Bonds was actually somewhat of an ectomorph naturally. Lou and Mickey were pure mesomorphs. Well, as "pure" as one can be put together, physiologically. There are very few absolutes in this regard.

Some great info, Chris :thumbsup:. I think most people just assume that in genrations past pro athletes didn't work out all. That's not true of course but their workouts were much less structured as you say.

I think mesomorphs today tend to get funneled into football at an early age. Had Gehrig come up today there's a good chance he would have directed towards football given his physical gifts. Pujols has a similar build to Gehrig? Coincidence? Apparently, my info on Pujols weight is outdated. According to the 2007 Muscle & Fitness issue, Albert is now at 245 lbs. :eek: He was the first baseball player to be on the cover of Muscle & Fitness Magazine in its 68 year history. Please, Ablert, don't be on PEDs! :dismay:

[Brad Harris]

Gehrig, in fact, was a fabulous football player. In 1920, he attracted national attention at a high school game between Commerce and DeWitt Clinton. 10,000 fans attended. This is what facilitated the prompting of the athletic scholarship he received at Columbia. There, he played halfback, tackle, and (due largely to his incredible leg strength) punted occasionally.
I recently read that Lou's sister was the first great woman's fencer from the U.S. so I guess athleticism certainly ran in the family!

[STLCards2]

Some great info, Chris :thumbsup:. I think most people just assume that in genrations past pro athletes didn't work out all. That's not true of course but their workouts were much less structured as you say.

I think mesomorphs today tend to get funneled into football at an early age. Had Gehrig come up today there's a good chance he would have directed towards football given his physical gifts. Pujols has a similar build to Gehrig? Coincidence? Apparently, my info on Pujols weight is outdated. According to the 2007 Muscle & Fitness issue, Albert is now at 245 lbs. :eek: He was the first baseball player to be on the cover of Muscle & Fitness Magazine in its 68 year history. Please, Ablert, don't be on PEDs! :dismay:

Albert said he specificaly did the Muscle and Fitness magazine in order to show people how he is so strong without the use of PED's. Of course that doesn't mean he isn't, but until there is a shred of evidence...

Also, have you seen Lebron James and Dwight Howard? Those guys are more ripped than Albert, and they play what is supposed to be a tall/lanky man's sport-but nobody is questioning them. Being very muscular does not mean PED use, hopefuly not for Pujols too!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Albert said he specificaly did the Muscle and Fitness magazine in order to show people how he is so strong without the use of PED's. Of course that doesn't mean he isn't, but until there is a shred of evidence...
So far not even a hint of rumors. :thumbsup:



Also, have you seen Lebron James and Dwight Howard? Those guys are more ripped than Albert, and they play what is supposed to be a tall/lanky man's sport-but nobody is questioning them. Being very muscular does not mean PED use, hopefuly not for Pujols too!

I think perhaps basekball gets a pass because it's not percived as a sport where phyiscal strength is the primary attribute for great success. There have been immensely strong basketball players before; Wilt Chamberlain, Gus Johnson, Moses Malone, Karl Malone, Daryll Dawkins, Charles Barkely, etc. However, explosiveness and speed are more important than pure physical strength in basekball. But you do make a good point. I wonder how many NBA players are on PEDs?

[Sirmudgeon]

Hellborn,

I thought Ott played more than half his games at 1B, am I totally wrong (yet again)?

Still think Pujols is an all-timer, and a great joy to watch. I particularly enjoy watching the pitcher's mental adjustment, you can see it reflected in body language, when they have to face him. That sort of fleeting image is why baseball is still an incredible spectator sport.

As a brief aside, I'm built exactly like Gehrig, and I'm 6/2, 220. Gehrig cannot have weighed only 200. Given his size and the determination in his eyes, it's a logical extension that he cut such a wide swath. Gee whiz, wouldn't you like to see a Gehrig on your favourite team? I certainly would.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Albert got his 1,500th career hit on Saturday, August 30 with a third inning double against the Astros. Congrats to "El Hombre". :thumbsup:

[csh19792001]

Can Albert Pujols surpass Lou Gehrig?

Let's take it a step further:

Let's say the perfect confluence of events occurs, and Albert stays injury free till after age 40, with a normal aging pattern, with no allegations of PED/steroid use.

Could Pujols end up as the greatest player of all time?

[Sirmudgeon]

Sorry, Pujols is awesome, but he ain't Babe Ruth. Hey Albert could hit 900 HRs, win GGs from here to eternity, he ain't the Babe. I reckon he'll be the #2 first sacker, best the Beast, but c'mon, better than the Sultan? Think not.

Before you get all irate, Pujols is my favourite current player, I'm somewhat a student of baseball history, it's still Babe and then everyone else in the general debate.


Can Albert Pujols surpass Lou Gehrig?

Let's take it a step further:

Let's say the perfect confluence of events occurs, and Albert stays injury free till after age 40, with a normal aging pattern, with no allegations of PED/steroid use.

Could Pujols end up as the greatest player of all time?

[STLCards2]

Can Albert Pujols surpass Lou Gehrig?

Let's take it a step further:

Let's say the perfect confluence of events occurs, and Albert stays injury free till after age 40, with a normal aging pattern, with no allegations of PED/steroid use.

Could Pujols end up as the greatest player of all time?

No. There is nothing Pujols could do to make up for the hitting/pitching combo of Ruth, the all-around- every facet of the game dominance of Wagner, Cobb, and Mays, Bonds,and Aaron, or the offensive superiority of Williams.

Pujols has a 170 career OPS+ (outstanding). However, he hasn't hit his decline yet - after he does, his career OPS+ will be far below the best of the best offensive players (Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Gehrig, etc.) He also plays a less important defensive position than most of the greats, has little speed to speak of, and already has little injuries piling up. For Pujols to be better than those guys while playing 1stbase, he would have to put up astronomical, video gamelike offensive numbers.

Is Pujols the best (suposedly clean) hitter and one of the top 2-3 players of the decade? Yes!

Will Pujols be a 1st abllot HOFer? Of course, assuming he plays two more seasons!

Could he challenge Jimmie Foxx as second best 1stbaseman ever? Yes.

Gehrig? Not likely, but not impossible.

Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Williams, Bonds, Speaker, Hornsby, etc? Nope.

No offense to Albert: he is great, my favorite player. He is no doubt a Johnny Mize contemp. already. I am just trying to give an unbiased look at Pujols without letting personal feelings enter in.

[hellborn]

Hellborn,

I thought Ott played more than half his games at 1B, am I totally wrong (yet again)?

...

As a brief aside, I'm built exactly like Gehrig, and I'm 6/2, 220. Gehrig cannot have weighed only 200. Given his size and the determination in his eyes, it's a logical extension that he cut such a wide swath. Gee whiz, wouldn't you like to see a Gehrig on your favourite team? I certainly would.

Ott played 2313 games in the OF (mostly RF, I believe), 256 games at 3B, and 6 games at 2B...none at 1B. Could it be that you've got Ott mixed up with Banks, who played over half his games at 1B and most of the rest at SS? They are right next to each other on the career HR list, Ott at 511 and 512 for Banks, and they both have monosyllabic surnames...
:cap:
I agree that Lou must have been well over 200 in his prime, the weights listed for players are usually rookie weights that are never updated. I think that Fielder is listed at 260, Frank Thomas at 240, Boog Powell at 240, and those guys clearly got well over 300lbs.

I've also read that Honus Wagner engaged in dumbbell training in the offseason, as well as playing basketball to help his aerobic conditioning (and because he loved it). Weight training has been engaged in for centuries, but it was commonly believed that it was only for strongmen and bodybuilders...other athletes didn't want to become "musclebound". One of the top golfers decades ago complained that his golf game suffered because he spent his offseason building his own house (imagine that happening nowadays!) and became musclebound from laying bricks. I would suspect that it was more due to not practicing because he was busy with the house and maybe straining his back, too, but that was the common view of athletes with lots of muscles back then.

[Sirmudgeon]

Apparently I mixed up Ott, Banks, Musial, and myself. I'm scratching my little bald head in disbelief.

Please correct me if I'm wrong yet again, but isn't Hey Albert having an awesome year? Missed a bunch of games, yet is doing the whole Pujols the Repeater thing, same stats. I fear the Foxx falloff, don't see it happening with Pujols, he's too dedicated. I'm going w/StLCards, he produces two more years like this, he's by Foxx. No, he'll not catch Gehrig. No one could, not a fair test. And that's even considering .360/30/90, being pitched around. Who's close to those? Bonds and Ruth and Williams and Gehrig, and Foxx for a few, Thomas for a few. Mighty fine company indeed.



Ott played 2313 games in the OF (mostly RF, I believe), 256 games at 3B, and 6 games at 2B...none at 1B. Could it be that you've got Ott mixed up with Banks, who played over half his games at 1B and most of the rest at SS? They are right next to each other on the career HR list, Ott at 511 and 512 for Banks, and they both have monosyllabic surnames...
:cap:
I agree that Lou must have been well over 200 in his prime, the weights listed for players are usually rookie weights that are never updated. I think that Fielder is listed at 260, Frank Thomas at 240, Boog Powell at 240, and those guys clearly got well over 300lbs.

I've also read that Honus Wagner engaged in dumbbell training in the offseason, as well as playing basketball to help his aerobic conditioning (and because he loved it). Weight training has been engaged in for centuries, but it was commonly believed that it was only for strongmen and bodybuilders...other athletes didn't want to become "musclebound". One of the top golfers decades ago complained that his golf game suffered because he spent his offseason building his own house (imagine that happening nowadays!) and became musclebound from laying bricks. I would suspect that it was more due to not practicing because he was busy with the house and maybe straining his back, too, but that was the common view of athletes with lots of muscles back then.

[hellborn]

Apparently I mixed up Ott, Banks, Musial, and myself. I'm scratching my little bald head in disbelief.

Please correct me if I'm wrong yet again, but isn't Hey Albert having an awesome year? Missed a bunch of games, yet is doing the whole Pujols the Repeater thing, same stats. I fear the Foxx falloff, don't see it happening with Pujols, he's too dedicated. I'm going w/StLCards, he produces two more years like this, he's by Foxx. No, he'll not catch Gehrig. No one could, not a fair test. And that's even considering .360/30/90, being pitched around. Who's close to those? Bonds and Ruth and Williams and Gehrig, and Foxx for a few, Thomas for a few. Mighty fine company indeed.

Pujols is his usual transcendent self, and not getting enough press for it...they'd rather write about Ludwick or Ankiel. As much as I'm enjoying a guy like Ludwick breaking out with a big year, Ryan is actually a year and a half OLDER than Albert, and Albert is still way ahead of him with the bat this year.
Foxx claimed that his career was shortened by the Bosox using him as a catcher when he was in his '30s...most people say his excessive drinking was the key (Ted Williams was in that camp). Given that Albert doesn't seem to be an alcoholic, doesn't carry a lot of EXTRA weight beyond his impressive muscle, and Tony LaRussa would surely be strung up if he put Pujols at C, I don't see a big falloff coming for him anytime soon.
I can certainly see Albert catching Gehrig in my estimation...I really feel that baseball is more competitive now than in Lou's time. Given that he started earlier and is one of the best hitters in baseball, if Pujols keeps it up until he's almost 40...yeah, I might give it to him over Lou. If anything ever comes out about him and PEDs, he's out the window, though. I don't see him as a user, and my heart sank when he was on that fake list that came out just before the Mitchell report, but I am mentally prepared to hear that any player from the last 15-20 years was/is a PED user.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

A Pujols bump!

[bob]

Quite a random bump there HWR!

IMO as great as i think Pujols is, i dont see him ending up higher in the rankings than Lou. That still leaves Pujols room for inner circle HOF worthiness if we can maintain his career averages for another 8 years or so.

[dominik]

No. There is nothing Pujols could do to make up for the hitting/pitching combo of Ruth, the all-around- every facet of the game dominance of Wagner, Cobb, and Mays, Bonds,and Aaron, or the offensive superiority of Williams.

Pujols has a 170 career OPS+ (outstanding). However, he hasn't hit his decline yet - after he does, his career OPS+ will be far below the best of the best offensive players (Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Gehrig, etc.) He also plays a less important defensive position than most of the greats, has little speed to speak of, and already has little injuries piling up. For Pujols to be better than those guys while playing 1stbase, he would have to put up astronomical, video gamelike offensive numbers.

Is Pujols the best (suposedly clean) hitter and one of the top 2-3 players of the decade? Yes!

Will Pujols be a 1st abllot HOFer? Of course, assuming he plays two more seasons!

Could he challenge Jimmie Foxx as second best 1stbaseman ever? Yes.

Gehrig? Not likely, but not impossible.

Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Williams, Bonds, Speaker, Hornsby, etc? Nope.

No offense to Albert: he is great, my favorite player. He is no doubt a Johnny Mize contemp. already. I am just trying to give an unbiased look at Pujols without letting personal feelings enter in.

That's right. Albert won't come close to the babe. The game is much more developed now with all those latino, asian and black players. Plus the pitching is much more specialized. There won't be anyone again posting ruth like stats.

The highest thing I could imagine would be having a bonds like career(whom I rank 3rd all time), but even this is very unlikely.

A safe asumption when he ages well would be all time top 20 or so, maybe a little bit higher.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Quite a random bump there HWR!

I was noticing that Pujols currently has a 217 OPS+ this season. That's pretty much in line with Lou Gehrig at his best. And, so, I remembered this thread.

[Sirmudgeon]

It's almost unbelievable that we are looking at Pujols as one of the all-time greats, and he doesn't even have 10 seasons under his belt. I am not as statistically savvy or enamored thereof as are many of you posters, yet I reckon Phat Albert as #3 all-time, right now, amongst first sackers. He could catch Foxx, probably not Gehrig, but he'll have some mighty fine career numbers. He could win the Triple Crown this year, playing for a hitting-challenged Cards team (o please give him some help!), he is a phenomenon. Given the times, he will not likely approach the numbers put up by Lou and Jimmie, yet era-adjusted, he's right there. He doesn't have Babe Ruth hitting in front of him or Bob Meusel hitting behind, he does have many modern advantages that Gehrig and Foxx were not privy to, it's sort of a wash. I figure that he has now surpassed Greenberg and Mize, or at least will within the next two years. Give him another five at this level, and Foxx is in the sights. Plus, by most accounts he is a good guy, not like Bonds (the other transcendent talent of my generation). I don't give much of a fig about the religious angle, but I do credit his dedication to the afflicted. All pro sports stars, making millions, ought do as much. If I owned a BB team, he would be the first baseman of choice. That's saying something, considering some of the other talent at the position: Teixeira with that silly smile, Fielder who weighs approximately 800 lbs. yet still has the impish grin, Howard who is just BIG, Morneau who comes to play every day, Gonzalez who plays hard and clean in a park the size of Wisconsin, heck there are a number of really really good first basemen. Pujols is the man.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

I have been attending ML games since 1962 and Been a student of the game since the mid to late 60s

I have never been more impressed with a hitter I have seen personally

The noise he makes hitting the ball is the loudest I have ever heard

He is truly a phenomenal hitter

[RubeBaker]

To UNDOUBTEDLY suprass Gehrig as the greatest first baseman, no, I don't think there is ever a chance Pujols will ever be able to do that. To ARGUABLY become the greatest first baseman ever, yes he is well on his way.

The two are such similar players with freakishly great plate discipline, a great balance of power and contact, and they were both very good defensive players. Gehrig may have had the iroman record, but I think Pujols will end up with more MVPs (considering that they are already tied at 2). It will always be that kind of argument, each will end up doing better at something than they other one.

In short, both of these players are just to damn good to ever really conclusively put one past the other (assuming Pujols stays healthy of course).

[Paul Wendt]

Q: Can Albert Pujols surpass Lou Gehrig?
A: Yes
He will not replicate his first eight seasons but that would be more than enough.


I think mesomorphs today tend to get funneled into football at an early age. Had Gehrig come up today there's a good chance he would have directed towards football given his physical gifts. Pujols has a similar build to Gehrig?
To some extent, superior athletes, and moderate ones who are dedicated competitors, must now specialize by choosing one or two sports at an earlier age. Perhaps it is too much to say that they "must" but they are strongly encouraged to specialize. If playing two sports competitively, one of them may be chosen, or may be undertaken with dedication, essentially because it provides good training for the primary one.

[Second Base Coach]

I think these two will be the greatest for some time. One will be the greatest American League First Baseman and the other the greatest National League First Baseman. Choosing between the two will be tough. Everyone who cares to choose has only seen one of them with their own eyes, so Albert will probably win over a few people just because of that. While others will hold his time and place against him because of the cloud of steroids which hangs in the air. Gehrig of course played before integration, but he is also one of the Knights of the Baseball Realm. So this will never be resolved without looking at the numbers. Right now they favor Gehrig and because Pujols is not likely to get THAT much better, I suppose Gehrig will remain as he best ever even after all these years.

[Victory Faust]

I know there has never been a hint of PED use with Pujols, but these days whenever someone does something superhuman like Albert is doing, I automatically am suspicious.

That's the crime of steroid use in baseball: A fan can't simply marvel at how great a player is without wondering in the back of his mind whether he was juicing.

I wonder about Pujols, just as I wonder about Ripken -- and wondered about Clemens, McGwire, etc.

[dgarza]

Currently, I have him at #6 (not counting Musial, Pujols is #5).
Pujols should surpass Anson and Brouthers. He could possible catch Foxx.
But Gehrig would be a very tall order indeed.

1. Stan Musial
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Jimmie Foxx
4. Dan Brouthers
5. Cap Anson
6. Albert Pujols
7. Pete Rose
8. Johnny Mize
9. Frank Thomas
10. Hank Greenberg

[STLCards2]

I know there has never been a hint of PED use with Pujols, but these days whenever someone does something superhuman like Albert is doing, I automatically am suspicious.

.

Lets see how his season-end numbers look before we say he is doing "superhuman" things. The man is a great hitter and could very well be a top 2-3 all-time 1B when it is all said and done, but he has done nothing (in terms of top OPS+ seasons) that Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Carlos Dlegado, Dick Allen, and Jeff Bagwell didn't do as well - until this year.

If he ends the season with a 215 OPS+, then he had an all-time year. If it ends up around 190 again, it was just another great (but short of historic) season.

[Victory Faust]

Lets see how his season-end numbers look before we say he is doing "superhuman" things. The man is a great hitter and could very well be a top 2-3 all-time 1B when it is all said and done, but he has done nothing (in terms of top OPS+ seasons) that Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Carlos Dlegado, Dick Allen, and Jeff Bagwell didn't do as well - until this year.

If he ends the season with a 215 OPS+, then he had an all-time year. If it ends up around 190 again, it was just another great (but short of historic) season.


Except for Dick Allen, I also wonder about every other player you mentioned.

I hate that this is so, but it's what the steroid era has wrought. When a guy like Jim Thome comes along and hits 600 homers, I start wondering.

[538280]

I think Pujols has a great shot to supplant Gehrig, to me Gehrig is great but definitely somewhat historically overhyped, probably due to his great numbers in RBI and such. He played in a very high offensive era and for many great teams. Really IMO considering league quality, the length of his career, and his limited fielding/baserunning compared to other all time greats he's great but not really one of the top 10 or so. I could very well see Pujols having an extremely long career and maintaining an extremely high level of play, have sort of a Hank Aaron/Stan Musial type career. Of course this is all speculation but he certainly seems talented enough to me.

Of course I could have said this about Frank Thomas in 1997, or about Dick Allen in the early 70s (though Allen played a lot of 3B), and it didn't work out for either of them, though they're still all time greats. Pujols could end up declining like they did but just like them he's got a shot to be among the all time greatest.

[STLCards2]

Except for Dick Allen, I also wonder about every other player you mentioned.

I hate that this is so, but it's what the steroid era has wrought. When a guy like Jim Thome comes along and hits 600 homers, I start wondering.

Fair point, but Albert has done nothing even close to what Williams, Ruth, Hornsby, Gehrig and Cobb did in terms of OPS+. He hasn't even had as many 180+ years in his prime as Musial and Wagner. Even pre-roids Bonds has 2-3 200 or more OPS+ years

Of course there is a LQ/seperation from norm issue with some of these guys, but Albert is doing nothing that the best hitters in any era (save the 80's) didn't do in terms of OPS+. Well, I guess some of Brett and Schmidts' top years compare favorably with Pujol's top years too.

My point is - if people are looking at Pujols' numbers as evidence for PED usage, that is a very poor reason. Pujols is an absolute beast for sure, but is doing nothing unusual for an all-time great hitter. Start having 220 OPS+ seasons in your 40's, have your OPS+ out of nowhere jump 70-80 points, crash in terms of production shortly after testing gets stricter, top previous homerun totals by 100%, gain 20 pounds in a single off-season, fail a drug test, and then I will get suspicious. Not a single one of these (that we know of) has happened to Pujols.

Am I saying that I know he is innocent? Of course not. Only a completely naive person would do that. However, the evidence available does not favor Pujols being on steroids. He has a perfectly normal career arc so far, has not been linked to steroids in any credible source or by any credible teamate/person, has not failed a test (that we are aware of), has not had any strange spikes or outliers in production, has done absolutely nothing in terms of production that other hitting greats haven't matched or surpassed, has only gained about 15 pounds in the past 10 years, and most telling, has gotten much better after testing got serious in 2003.

Would I be shocked if he was using - no. But I will give him (and others) the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

[Blackout]

gehrig > pujols for sure


pujols needs to RAISE his OPS+ after age 29

[bob]

gehrig > pujols for sure


pujols needs to RAISE his OPS+ after age 29
During Gehrigs career there were more than as dozen 200 OPS+ seasons. It was simply easier for a great hitter to separate themselves, especially in power numbers. OPS+ is a useful way of judging how good players are in there era, but not great for comparing 2 people seperated by 80 years.

[dominik]

That's right. The average OPS was not as high because there where some postions who just couldn't hit.

Not only there was no DH, but also catchers and middle infielders where usually weak hitters.

Today nearly all players(exept pitchers) are very good hitters.

Also gehrig had some good protection:). Imagine what pujols would do with the ball when a guy like babe ruth was in front of him (getting on base nearly half of his PA).

Then the pitchers would have to serve him more nice strikes and he would kill the ball even more than he does now.

Still gehrig is very far ahead of albert and is likely to stay there if albert doesn't have a very good late career.

[cavalier1968]

Im just glad we get to watch an all time great...who seems to be a wonderful person............

Cav

[NewYork NewYork]

I believe the difference between Pujols and Gehrig isn't nearly as great as some think. I say this as a diehard New York Yankees fan who loves Gehrig. Among all the truly Legendary Yankee Players, Gehrig was the best person. He was a beast on the field and all class off the field. But with that being said, I think Pujols has a chance to pass Gehrig by the time his career is over.

There are 3 basic aspects when it comes to rating positional players. Hitting, Fielding, and Baserunning. Let's see how Pujols and Gehrig compare hitting-wise first. I'll also throw in Jimmie Foxx in these comparisons because he's generally considered the second best 1st Baseman ever. Albert Pujols has played 1320 Career Games (not including July 4th), so I'll compare him to Foxx and Gehrig at roughly the same point in their careers.


Player Yrs G PA R H HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS+ BtRuns BtR/162
Gehrig '23-'33 1384 6157 1213 1756 299 1285 .342 .442 .636 181 632.8 74.1
Foxx '25-'36 1411 5932 1105 1690 343 1218 .339 .440 .639 172 550.5 63.2
Pujols '01-'09 1320 5728 1010 1623 350 1059 .335 .427 .631 173 550.4 67.5

Player Yrs G PA R H HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS+ BtRuns BtR/162
Gehrig '34-'39 780 3503 675 965 194 710 .337 .457 .626 175 350.1 72.7
Foxx '37-'45 906 3738 646 956 191 704 .303 .410 .563 148 232.4 41.6
Pujols '10- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

All 3 of these guys were extremely deadly hitters. Gehrig seems to be the best hitter out of the 3 players. BtRuns is a formula based on linear weights that estimates a player's production. So Lou Gehrig at 74.1 BtR/162 produced roughly 7 runs more than Pujols per 162 and 11 more runs than Foxx per 162. Although Pujols comes out looking better than Foxx, it seems like Gehrig was slightly more dominant than him at the plate thru the same point in their careers. And Gehrig kept his excellent production going on through the end of his career. His 72.7 BtR/162 during his last 780 games is almost identical to his 74.1 number from the first 1384 games of his career. Whereas Jimmie Foxx went from GREAT at the start of his career to merely very good at the end. It seems like it'll be extremely hard for Pujols to match Gehrig at the plate, but I think it's likely that he passes Foxx in terms of hitting.

Hitting is the most important aspect of the game, but fielding is valuable as well. Pujols has been an EXCELLENT fielder throughout his career. UZR is generally considered the best fielding metric out there. It's very hard to measure how valuable a fielder truly is, but UZR does the job better than anything else. According to UZR, Albert Pujols has been 40.6 runs above average at first base thoughout his career. That is about 6.8 runs saved per 162 games. To combine his defensive value to his offensive value, let's add his UZR/162 to his BtR/162.


Player BtR UZR Total
Pujols 67.5 6.8 74.3
Gehrig 74.1 ? 74.1
Foxx 63.2 ? 63.2

Once you take into account fielding, Pujols and Gehrig are basically tied. But the problem here is that we don't really have any truly accurate fielding formulas for players who played during Gehrig and Foxx' time. From what I've read and heard, Foxx and Gehrig were both around average in the field. I believe they would've likely been somewhere between -2.0 to 2.0 in the field per 162. Baserunning is the other aspect of the game but none of these guys had a signficant impact on the bases. As baserunners I would rank them Pujols, Gehrig, Foxx in that order. But the difference between the 3 would probably be no more than 1-3 runs per 162 games.

No matter how you look at it, Foxx was not as good as Pujols or Gehrig were. But Gehrig and Pujols are essentially identical when you combine hitting, fielding, and baserunning through the first ~1350 games of their career. While Gehrig was a slightly more dangerous hitter, Pujols' fielding prowess closes the gap and makes it a toss up. The numbers between the two are too close to say one was clearly better than the other through the same point in their careers.

But a HUUUGE thing we haven't taken into consideration here is the era these guys played in. Pujols unquestionably has played in a far more talented era. I don't know specifically how many runs the difference in era is worth, but I think it's enough to give Pujols a clear edge over Gehrig through their first ~1350 games.

While I believe Pujols at his peak is better than Gehrig at his peak, Gehrig still played for several more years at a dominant level. I think Pujols is a safe bet to supplant Jimmie Foxx in the #2 spot among All-Time 1st Baseman. Foxx was a GREAT player, but he simply wasn't the same caliber of player as Pujols and Gehrig. But Pujols needs to put together several more years similar to his first 8.5 to one day pass Gehrig. I believe Pujols will do that and eventually pass Gehrig.

[STLCards2]

During Gehrigs career there were more than as dozen 200 OPS+ seasons. It was simply easier for a great hitter to separate themselves, especially in power numbers. OPS+ is a useful way of judging how good players are in there era, but not great for comparing 2 people seperated by 80 years.

I did acknowlege this - but keep in mind, due to whatever you feel is responsible (PEDS, expansion, etc. I'll leave the gues work up to you guys) there has (been relative to most other eras), a whole lot of 190-200 OPS+ seasons in Pujol's era too. probably 7-8, right?

[538280]

NYNY, I agree with you for the most part, Pujols is putting up hitting seasons year after year right now that do stack up with Gehrig and he's an even better fielder. Another factor you don't even mention is to me one of the most important factors in the comparison and that's the quality of competition they faced. In today's era of worldwide scouting and of course integratoin the league average just isn't the same as it was in Gehrig/Foxx's level, with LQ I'd say Pujols has had a better start to his career than Gehrig. But, of course as I said I would have said the same about Frank Thomas in 1997. Thomas was probably an even better hitter than Pujols has been (of course not nearly as good a fielder, though). Thomas declined sharply afterward, I honestly don't see Pujols doing that but I wouldn't have thought Thomas would have either.

Usually systems see Gehrig as a little better than average in the field and Foxx is sometimes viewed as a very good 1B (A- by DWS I believe) but sometimes is viewed as average. Foxx also caught a little bit so that's a little extra value for me since if the team needed him to step in there he could and he did in a few seasons. But, anyway, I think if he keeps going the way he's going Pujols will definitely be better than Foxx.

[Paul Wendt]

I did acknowlege this - but keep in mind, due to whatever you feel is responsible (PEDS, expansion, etc. I'll leave the gues work up to you guys) there has (been relative to most other eras), a whole lot of 190-200 OPS+ seasons in Pujol's era too. probably 7-8, right?

Very high OPS+ should be easier to achieve in the National League, I suppose. The reference level "league average" batting does not include pitchers but does include designated hitters. Because designated hitters are above-average batters the reference level should be a little higher in the American League.

[stejay]

I think he can. He has time on his side. Lou had to retire early. Pujols can still have a huge career ahead of him. And Lou wasn't the most dominant player in the MLB, sadly, due to a certain Bambino. Pujols is by far the most dominant in the MLB. That is a stat-less view.

[538280]

Very high OPS+ should be easier to achieve in the National League, I suppose. The reference level "league average" batting does not include pitchers but does include designated hitters. Because designated hitters are above-average batters the reference level should be a little higher in the American League.

The league averages for OPS+ are calculated with the pitchers' batting numbers taken out.

[STLCards2]

I think he can. He has time on his side. Lou had to retire early. Pujols can still have a huge career ahead of him. And Lou wasn't the most dominant player in the MLB, sadly, due to a certain Bambino. Pujols is by far the most dominant in the MLB. That is a stat-less view.

Offensively, he has been the past 2 years - but a healthy Rodgriguez, Utley and Ramirez close that gap a whole lot when positional difference is considered. Wright and Longoria are just a step behind those guys (for know), for the same reason. As a mighty-hitting catcher, Mauer is in that discussion too.

I bet when we look back 30 years from know at the starting NL infield of the 2009 ASG, we will be considering it an all-time great group.

[Paul Wendt]

The league averages for OPS+ are calculated with the pitchers' batting numbers taken out.

But designated hitters are included, so the AL reference level should be higher, relative to shortstops and firstbasemen.


Regarding the time pattern:
STLC: "there has (been relative to most other eras), a whole lot of 190-200 OPS+ seasons in Pujol's era too. probably 7-8, right?"

See the single-season leader board at Baseball-Reference (link (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_plus_season.shtml)). I count eight seasons at 190 and above during the 20-aughts, including five at 200 and above. "Most other eras"? Judging by the numbers of seasons at 200 and above, it's clearly more than the 1890s or the 1970s-80s.

Here is my hand count by decade, covering 1876-2008.


7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 ; decade, 1870s to 2000s

1 2 0 0 0 8 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 ; number of OPS+ 220 and above (18)

1 6 0 3 4 4 6 4 2 3 0 1 5 1 ; number of OPS+ 200 to 219 (41)

[STLCards2]

"Most other eras"? Judging by the numbers of seasons at 200 and above, it's clearly more than the 1890s or the 1970s-80s.

e]

And after Pujols this year (most likely) - double the amount of the 60's and 1900's too.

[NewYork NewYork]

NYNY, I agree with you for the most part, Pujols is putting up hitting seasons year after year right now that do stack up with Gehrig and he's an even better fielder. Another factor you don't even mention is to me one of the most important factors in the comparison and that's the quality of competition they faced. In today's era of worldwide scouting and of course integratoin the league average just isn't the same as it was in Gehrig/Foxx's level, with LQ I'd say Pujols has had a better start to his career than Gehrig.

Maybe you didn't see it but I did mention that at the end of my post. Here's what I said...

But a HUUUGE thing we haven't taken into consideration here is the era these guys played in. Pujols unquestionably has played in a far more talented era. I don't know specifically how many runs the difference in era is worth, but I think it's enough to give Pujols a clear edge over Gehrig through their first ~1350 games.

I definitely agree with you, League Quality is a very very important part of this debate. Today's league is so much more talented. With LQ taken into consideration I think Pujols compares favorably to Gehrig.

[bob]

I'll leave the gues work up to you guys) there has (been relative to most other eras), a whole lot of 190-200 OPS+ seasons in Pujol's era too. probably 7-8, right?
Theres been 5 200 OPS+ seasons since '01 when pujols started. 4 by Bonds and 1 by Sosa, both of which most people discredit during that time.

[STLCards2]

Theres been 5 200 OPS+ seasons since '01 when pujols started. 4 by Bonds and 1 by Sosa, both of which most people discredit during that time.

I already said that I would "leave the guess work up to you" as far as to how the 200+ OPS seasons came about. You even qouted that statement.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Would I be shocked if he was using - no. But I will give him (and others) the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Same here, as far as I'm concerned he has not used until it is proven.
I like some others some time ago thought that Clemens and Sosa had used, this was before they were found to be users. But I also made the point that what I thought meant nothing at that time, they were still innocent.
Same with Albert, no proof. Will we find that he did use later, who can say.
Not a Card fan but you have to be impressed by this guy's hitting, great hitting and so consistent. I hope he is clean.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Gehrig in this era with these conditions. Scary. Pujols back then in those parks with those conditions. Not so much. I have questions about PED use with Pujols but for now he's a stud with a ways to go before reaching Lou. Gehrig has a larger baserunning edge than Pujols has a fielding edge...but it'll still come down to offense and longevitiy.

[brett]

Gehrig in this era with these conditions. Scary. Pujols back then in those parks with those conditions. Not so much. I have questions about PED use with Pujols but for now he's a stud with a ways to go before reaching Lou. Gehrig has a larger baserunning edge than Pujols has a fielding edge...but it'll still come down to offense and longevitiy.

How do you rate Gehrig better on the bases? Triples? I though that was because of the huge ballparks. Pujols is 55-29 in steal attempts, Gehrig 102-101.

Anyway, I think Pujols is on a Gehrig-like pace. If he is clean, consider that this would be his record of MVP finishes if we remove the suspected:

1 (Bonds, Sosa, Gonzalez)
1 (Bonds)
1 (Bonds)
2 behind Beltre and (Bonds) and he probably would have won because Bonds voters tended to put Pujols second which is the biggest cut in MVP points
1
2 behind Howard (he was easily the saber choice though)
9 (Although BB Prospectus rated him #1)
1
1 (so far this year)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How do you rate Gehrig better on the bases? Triples? I though that was because of the huge ballparks. Pujols is 55-29 in steal attempts, Gehrig 102-101.

Anyway, I think Pujols is on a Gehrig-like pace. If he is clean, consider that this would be his record of MVP finishes if we remove the suspected:

1 (Bonds, Sosa, Gonzalez)
1 (Bonds)
1 (Bonds)
2 behind Beltre and (Bonds) and he probably would have won because Bonds voters tended to put Pujols second which is the biggest cut in MVP points
1
2 behind Howard (he was easily the saber choice though)
9 (Although BB Prospectus rated him #1)
1
1 (so far this year)

Tsh, tsk, Brett. Don't you know you that if you brought back all those old time greats they ALL would destroy the modern players? All the all-time greats were 100% superior to the modern stars at least. The further you back in baseball history the more the gap increases on the current baseball stars. Shoot if Ruth could hit 104 HR in today's game the Iron Horse is good for at least 90 bombs. Throw in 244 RBI's, 212 runs, 70 doubles and a .404 BA. And he would do it without PED's! No matter how good Pujols gets Gehrig will always be 2X better. :nod:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Tsh, tsk, Brett. Don't you know you that if you brought back all those old time greats they ALL would destroy the modern players? All the all-time greats were 100% superior to the modern stars at least. The further you back in baseball history the more the gap increases on the current baseball stars. Shoot if Ruth could hit 104 HR in today's game the Iron Horse is good for at least 90 bombs. Throw in 244 RBI's, 212 runs, 70 doubles and a .404 BA. And he would do it without PED's! No matter how good Pujols gets Gehrig will always be 2X better. :nod:

No humor in sarcasm that doesn't remotely reflect the persons opinion. And clearly you still don't even understand the point of Jenkinson's book. Amazing.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that Gehrig was a better baserunner and not based on stolen bases. Baserunning and basestealing are separate abilities. Good to know this site hasn't changed. Unbelievable.

[STLCards2]

Clearly you still don't even understand the point of Jenkinson's book. Amazing.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that Gehrig was a better baserunner and not based on stolen bases. Baserunning and basestealing are separate abilities.

I am not sure about Gehrig, but I have seen that Albert adds an extra 6-10 runs per season by taking extra bases and scoring from second on singles. Just some interesting info.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I am not sure about Gehrig, but I have seen that Albert adds an extra 6-10 runs per season by taking extra bases and scoring from second on singles. Just some interesting info.

Pujols is a good baserunner and much of that comes from his great reads and lack of hesitation.

I have him as a better fielder than Gehrig btw.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Tsh, tsk, Brett. Don't you know you that if you brought back all those old time greats they ALL would destroy the modern players? All the all-time greats were 100% superior to the modern stars at least. The further you back in baseball history the more the gap increases on the current baseball stars. Shoot if Ruth could hit 104 HR in today's game the Iron Horse is good for at least 90 bombs. Throw in 244 RBI's, 212 runs, 70 doubles and a .404 BA. And he would do it without PED's! No matter how good Pujols gets Gehrig will always be 2X better. :nod:

Theres the other side, some that think some modern hitters would go back in time and whack around all those " so called" 80 MPH that were in the game back then.
You would have to believe that there are a number of hitters in todays game that could put up 60-70-80 homer seasons and more if they played in the 1920s-1930s.
They don't have to say it in words but they don't have to. If the pitching is so tough in todays game and so easy back then and we've had seasons of 73-70-66-65-64-63-58-58-57-56-56 all in the last 12 seasons, what would these guys do playing in the 1920s or 1930s.

There was Ruth with 4 seasons of 50 or more and some others scattered over decades with some 56-58 homer seasons and Maris with 61 but nothing compared to all that took place in the space of the last 12 seasons.

So there are two sides, some maybe going a bit over on the what the past players could do today, but theres the other side that by talking about what they call the weak pitcing of years ago, you have to believe they think some of todays hitters could hit 70-80+ homers against that pitching.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I am not sure about Gehrig, but I have seen that Albert adds an extra 6-10 runs per season by taking extra bases and scoring from second on singles. Just some interesting info.



Not taking anything away from Abert's running but the hundreds of games I've watched over the years, scoring from second on a single is not that unusual.

Or am I missing your point, your saying it's a plus that he takes the extra base and gets into scoring position, that could be, I have not seen him play very much.
If he does do that, get into scoring position, that is a plus.

[STLCards2]

Not taking anything away from Abert's running but the hundreds of games I've watched over the years, scoring from second on a single is not that unusual.

Or am I missing your point, your saying it's a plus that he takes the extra base and gets into scoring position, that could be, I have not seen him play very much.
If he does do that, get into scoring position, that is a plus.

He scores from 2B on singles at a higher rate than the average player and he get extra bases (going from 1B to 3B on singles or 1B to home on doubles) at a higher rate than the average player too.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Theres the other side, some that think some modern hitters would go back in time and whack around all those " so called" 80 MPH that were in the game back then.
You would have to believe that there are a number of hitters in todays game that could put up 60-70-80 homer seasons and more if they played in the 1920s-1930s.
They don't have to say it in words but they don't have to. If the pitching is so tough in todays game and so easy back then and we've had seasons of 73-70-66-65-64-63-58-58-57-56-56 all in the last 12 seasons, what would these guys do playing in the 1920s or 1930s.

There was Ruth with 4 seasons of 50 or more and some others scattered over decades with some 56-58 homer seasons and Maris with 61 but nothing compared to all that took place in the space of the last 12 seasons.

So there are two sides, some maybe going a bit over on the what the past players could do today, but theres the other side that by talking about what they call the weak pitcing of years ago, you have to believe they think some of todays hitters could hit 70-80+ homers against that pitching.

How dare you point out the obvious Joe. That ruins his little fantasy of hero worship and making people out to be something they aren't. Don't do that to his little dream. You know it's only a one way street.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Theres the other side, some that think some modern hitters would go back in time and whack around all those " so called" 80 MPH that were in the game back then.
You would have to believe that there are a number of hitters in todays game that could put up 60-70-80 homer seasons and more if they played in the 1920s-1930s.
They don't have to say it in words but they don't have to. If the pitching is so tough in todays game and so easy back then and we've had seasons of 73-70-66-65-64-63-58-58-57-56-56 all in the last 12 seasons, what would these guys do playing in the 1920s or 1930s.

There was Ruth with 4 seasons of 50 or more and some others scattered over decades with some 56-58 homer seasons and Maris with 61 but nothing compared to all that took place in the space of the last 12 seasons.

So there are two sides, some maybe going a bit over on the what the past players could do today, but theres the other side that by talking about what they call the weak pitcing of years ago, you have to believe they think some of todays hitters could hit 70-80+ homers against that pitching.

This group is greatly outnumbered by the "Ruth would hit 104 HR's today" group here at BBF. ;) Whenever an old timer is compared to a more modern star a certain group will ALWAYS pick the old timer no matter what. To some the game's greatest stars all played before 1940.

[Sirmudgeon]

This group is greatly outnumbered by the "Ruth would hit 104 HR's today" group here at BBF. ;) Whenever an old timer is compared to a more modern star a certain group will ALWAYS pick the old timer no matter what. To some the game's greatest stars all played before 1940.

Certainly, some of the "old time" stars are in the pantheon. They are also safe to worship as we have not seen them and they are, well, dead. I still consider that Schmidt was the best 3B, and Bench the best C. Bonds is right up there with the top LFs ever. Mine own list of best ever has a sprinkling from most eras, including the Negro Leagues, the Federal League, and whatnot. I think integration to be a great thing, yet no excuse. To me, that is subvert racism in the extreme. It's not about where you came from, but what you do with it. For gosh sakes, Ruth came from the mean streets of Baltimore, Mickey from Commerce, OK, Joe D from Martinez, CA, these are not exactly the hotbeds of human experience. And how many of our current stars came from the poor areas of Santo Domingo, Venezuela, the DR, PR, et al?

Lighten up, folks. I've found that everyone that I've ever met is smarter than me in at least one way. The Pujols-Gehrig debate is almost specious, different eras, same sort of peer separation, both pretty good guys by most accounts, both really good hitters, both decent fielders and baserunners, it's nearly a wash. Give Phat Albert 5 or 6 more good years, and he's right there with Gehrig. Give him two or three, and he's Jimmie Foxx. Either way, not bad company to be in. It's still Lou to me, yet counting.

And no, Ruth would not have hit 104 HRs, with that long swing, he would K 200 times a season on sliders and changeups. Plus, there would not be enough hot dogs in the stadium to feed him.

[nerfan]

This group is greatly outnumbered by the "Ruth would hit 104 HR's today" group here at BBF. ;) Whenever an old timer is compared to a more modern star a certain group will ALWAYS pick the old timer no matter what. To some the game's greatest stars all played before 1940.

Wasn't Ruth going to hit 15,000 homers? Christ, you underestimate the Babe.

Anyway, there's been a huge jump in quality from 1900-present, and I truly believe that only the stars/semi-stars of the 40's (down to about Dom DiMaggio) would play today. The population to select from has gotten so much larger and more and more international players are coming into the game.

Albert Pujols, if he stays healthy and puts up the same (similar) stats as/to Gehrig, he'll be my number one first baseman.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Certainly, some of the "old time" stars are in the pantheon. They are also safe to worship as we have not seen them and they are, well, dead. I still consider that Schmidt was the best 3B, and Bench the best C. Bonds is right up there with the top LFs ever. Mine own list of best ever has a sprinkling from most eras, including the Negro Leagues, the Federal League, and whatnot. I think integration to be a great thing, yet no excuse. To me, that is subvert racism in the extreme. It's not about where you came from, but what you do with it. For gosh sakes, Ruth came from the mean streets of Baltimore, Mickey from Commerce, OK, Joe D from Martinez, CA, these are not exactly the hotbeds of human experience. And how many of our current stars came from the poor areas of Santo Domingo, Venezuela, the DR, PR, et al?

Lighten up, folks. I've found that everyone that I've ever met is smarter than me in at least one way. The Pujols-Gehrig debate is almost specious, different eras, same sort of peer separation, both pretty good guys by most accounts, both really good hitters, both decent fielders and baserunners, it's nearly a wash. Give Phat Albert 5 or 6 more good years, and he's right there with Gehrig. Give him two or three, and he's Jimmie Foxx. Either way, not bad company to be in. It's still Lou to me, yet counting.

And no, Ruth would not have hit 104 HRs, with that long swing, he would K 200 times a season on sliders and changeups. Plus, there would not be enough hot dogs in the stadium to feed him.

You were doing great till you got to that K 200 times.
Maybe your doing some tongue in cheek with the 200 number.
But, if you are serious, don't you think Babe would make some adjustments, the bat and the swing.
He did know something about the art of hitting, not only the long ball..

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You were doing great till you got to that K 200 times.
Maybe your doing some tongue in cheek with the 200 number.
But, if you are serious, don't you think Babe would make some adjustments, the bat and the swing.
He did know something about the art of hitting, not only the long ball..

I consider Babe a wonderous hitter. His career slugging record IMO is the greatest career record ever. Given what we know about about his physical abilities I don't think he'd have much trouble adjusting to the modern game. My two favorite photos of Ruth are below. He's young and trim and he reminds me of hitters like Travis Hafner, Lance Berkman, and Jim Thome physically. IMO he'd be right there with them, probably hit for a better batting average and slugging percentage. He would probably strikeout with them, too.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I consider Babe a wonderous hitter. His career slugging record IMO is the greatest career record ever. Given what we know about about his physical abilities I don't think he'd have much trouble adjusting to the modern game. My two favorite photos of Ruth are below. He's young and trim and he reminds me of hitters like Travis Hafner, Lance Berkman, and Jim Thome physically. IMO he'd be right there with them, probably hit for a better batting average and slugging percentage. He would probably strikeout with them, too.

He would do that. He would make some adjustments but he would probably still be the free swinger he was back then.

[Sirmudgeon]

You were doing great till you got to that K 200 times.
Maybe your doing some tongue in cheek with the 200 number.
But, if you are serious, don't you think Babe would make some adjustments, the bat and the swing.
He did know something about the art of hitting, not only the long ball..

You are probably correct, that Ruth would have altered his swing, he was an amazing all-around player. I still believe Bonds and Pujols to be the best two players I've seen in my lifetime, Rodriguez a tich behind. There are those who have come just short, such as Andre Dawson and Dave Parker. Wish I'd seen Ruth and Gehrig and Williams and Cobb and Speaker and Mantle and Mays and Koufax at their peaks. Joe D too, for that matter. Musial, a host of others. What a veritable panoply of great talent.

E'en though I cannot afford to attend games anymore, I still take immeasurable joy in following the players. Baseball is a rather neat pasttime.

[csh19792001]

A Midsummer Night's Conversation With Bill James About ... Maybe, Just Maybe, The Most Perfect Player Who Ever Did Live (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1157659/1/index.htm)

July, 2009
Written by Joe Posnanski & Bill James

There are a million words that can be written about Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols, but we only have about 1,300 so we decided to concentrate on just one question: Is he off to the most perfect career start in the history of baseball? We should start by defining what we mean by "perfect," since that's not really a baseball word. Baseball, as every manager and announcer will tell you, is about failure.

But Bill, the baseball writer who's now a Red Sox senior adviser, came up with this concept about perfect careers. By perfect, we are talking about a career that—thanks to a blessed confluence of timing, luck and talent—meets, at minimum, these three criteria:

1. It comprises brilliant full seasons from Day One in the big leagues. This is extremely rare, as most great players will play a partial season or two before their careers really get going. Frank Thomas, for example, was instantly great and is an excellent early-career comparison for Pujols, but he was called up midseason and played only 60 games his first year. Lou Gehrig played 23 games over two seasons before getting called up for good. Ty Cobb played parts of two seasons before becoming a regular in 1907.

2. It is not interrupted (by a war, a strike, injuries) or diminished by a factor out of the player's control, such as a lousy home park. This is probably an unfair requirement, but, hey, we are talking about a perfect career. Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams had tremendous careers, but theirs were interrupted by World War II, and Willie Mays's career was briefly put on hold by the Korean War. Joe Morgan's greatness was undercut by some rather ordinary numbers that were a consequence of playing seven seasons in Houston's Astrodome, one of the worst hitting parks in baseball history.

3. It should be made up of Hall of Fame--caliber seasons every single year.

Those three qualifications, of course, eliminate virtually every player in baseball history from having a career that's considered perfect. One player who is not eliminated, though, is Albert Pujols, who made the Cardinals out of spring training in 2001, had one of the greatest rookie seasons in baseball history—.329 average, 37 homers, 130 RBIs, 112 runs scored—and has been killing the ball ever since, right up through this season, in which he is making his most serious run at a Triple Crown. Through Sunday he had 31 homers (seven ahead of his closest pursuer), 82 RBIs (six ahead) and was hitting .336 (second in the league, 10 points off the pace).

Pujols has battled nagging injuries; nerve irritation in his right elbow has been a concern for seven years now. Still, he has exceeded 600 plate appearances every year and should again this season, his ninth. So far nothing has marred his career, other than the whispers—unsupported—about the use of performance-enhancing drugs that hound all the great players of his generation.

Finally, there is his consistent brilliance. His worst season? Maybe 2002, when he hit only .314 with 34 homers, 127 RBIs and 118 runs. "By my math," Bill James says, "Albert would have to repeat his weakest season 11 times to make the Hall of Fame."

Bill: To the point of perfect careers: I started looking for players who had nine consecutive years as good as Albert's (or close to it) at the beginning of their careers. There are only two I come up with.

• Kid Nichols—like Pujols a Kansas Citian—was a 19th-century pitcher who had 10 outstanding seasons with the Boston Beaneaters at the start of his career, winning 297 and losing only 151.

• Paul Waner, the Hall of Fame outfielder, began his career with nine straight outstanding seasons (1926--34) for the Pirates. In his second season he hit .380, drove in 131 runs and had 237 hits. But in all honesty, some of his seasons were not quite up to Pujols's standard. In 1931 Waner hit .322 with six homers, 70 RBIs, 88 runs scored, 180 hits. It's a good year; it's not a Pujols-caliber season.

Joe: It really is rare for great hitters to be great in their first year. Only 30 Hall of Famers had 500 plate appearances in their first season. (Interestingly enough, one of those Hall of Famers is Sparky Anderson, who's in the Hall as a manager. Sparky had 527 plate appearances in his first year, with the Phillies ... and he never had a single at bat in the big leagues after that. One and done. Nobody else ever had a career like that.) And only a handful of those Hall of Famers—Williams, Waner, DiMaggio, Mays, Frank Robinson, Earl Averill, Eddie Murray, a few others—were complete players right from the start.

Bill: There are so few players who compare to Pujols from the start of a career that I thought we could modify our criteria just a bit and 1) look for players who had nine consecutive seasons as good as Pujols's at any point in their careers and 2) not insist that those nine seasons be as good as Albert's weakest season, just somewhere near that standard.

Even applying that looser standard, I find only 19 players in history who have had comparable strings of nine consecutive years. All 19 of those players are Hall of Famers with the exceptions of Barry Bonds, Pete Rose and Manny Ramirez. Of note:

• Starting in his second season, Henry Aaron had 17 consecutive outstanding years (1955--71), and he started that streak at age 21, the same age that Albert was in his rookie season.

• Honus Wagner had 13 consecutive seasons (1900--12) that clearly meet Pujols's standard.

• Ty Cobb had 13 consecutive dominant seasons (1907--19). Cobb had some outages, some missed games, but on the other hand he was playing at an even more dominant level than Albert (relative to his time), so he's pretty close. I'd say 1914, when he hit .368 but played only 98 games, would be a problem for Cobb advocates.

• Lou Gehrig had 12 consecutive seasons, from 1926 though '37, that match up to Pujols's standard. Gehrig might actually be the closest historical parallel to Pujols, in that he was a first baseman and a power hitter.

Joe: Aaron is the gold standard when it comes to consistency. Pujols, though, is gaining. And that seems to be what drives him: to be great every year. He has never batted lower than .314. Never hit fewer than 32 homers. Never driven in fewer than 103 runs. His career low on-base percentage is .394—that's his low—and to give you an idea about that, Cal Ripken Jr., Ryne Sandberg, Ernie Banks, Lou Brock and Jim Rice never once had an on-base percentage that high.

But one thing about Pujols's career is that it's like a Rockettes performance at Radio City—great show, perfect rhythm, but no one thing stands out. Every season kicks precisely as high as the one next to it. That's why this year is so much fun: Pujols has an excellent shot at winning the first Triple Crown since 1967. It should be noted that in addition to his current Triple Crown stats, Pujols leads the league in runs, walks, on-base percentage, slugging percentage and total bases. The last to win the Triple Crown and lead the league in all the rest of that? Williams in 1947.

Anyway, that's the beautiful thing about baseball numbers: Sure, they can deceive and they can mislead and they may not tell the whole story. But they can also tell you when you are watching true greatness.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Awesome post, Chris! :thumbsup: I truly believe that Pujols is the new Lou Gehrig.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

No humor in sarcasm that doesn't remotely reflect the persons opinion. And clearly you still don't even understand the point of Jenkinson's book. Amazing.
Come on Sultan I was just joshing. Sheesh...:sigh:

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Pujols is no dount one of a kind but I had to laugh at the line about Lou Brock and Ripken and Rice never having an OB% once over .394

well they were not known for OB %

it is like saying Greg Maddux never led the league in K's or Hank Aaron never led the league in SB

while true, it is essentially a worthless point and I found it odd it made its way into the discussion

We did go to a game this year and Pujols hit the ball harder and louder than I have ever seen at a ML game and I have been going since 1962

[sturg1dj]

maybe in future generations upon reflection...but when Pujols retires I doubt it. I think there is more nostalgia today than ever in baseball and many of the older fans would not be able to give Pujols his due.

If there were no steroids would people think Bonds is better than Ruth...of course not!

[sturg1dj]

And clearly you still don't even understand the point of Jenkinson's book. Amazing.


after reading it I would say that his point and what the book is used to "prove" are two very different things.

[PVNICK]

If there were no steroids would people think Bonds is better than Ruth...of course not! I think you could argue w/o steroids he wouldn't have put up the recordsd settign HR, SPct, OBP, BB #s to be in the conversation. But what about if Bonds didn't use steroids and had Willie Mays' personality? I think he would have been best LF w/o question just like Schmidt is at 3B and maybe would be ahead of Willie and Hank on most peoples lists as far as post-integration players.

[nerfan]

I think you could argue w/o steroids he wouldn't have put up the recordsd settign HR, SPct, OBP, BB #s to be in the conversation. But what about if Bonds didn't use steroids and had Willie Mays' personality? I think he would have been best LF w/o question just like Schmidt is at 3B and maybe would be ahead of Willie and Hank on most peoples lists as far as post-integration players.


Willie Mays isn't the nicest guy either, but he's certainly no total ass.

Henry Aaron is sort of a jerk.

That being said, Bonds' personality is a joke. I honestly don't know if Barry has a single friend outside of Greg Anderson.

[PVNICK]

Yeah I guess I was thinking of the Mays as portrayed w/ the NY Giants and Aaron pre-retirement (which what little I know seems sort of stoical, quiet consistent).

[nerfan]

Yeah I guess I was thinking of the Mays as portrayed w/ the NY Giants and Aaron pre-retirement (which what little I know seems sort of stoical, quiet consistent).

Sort of, but Aaron always says he was better than Willie at hitting AND fielding, which is a) untrue and b) untrue.

Willie, I don't know. I guess I was being a bit harsh on him. He's a good guy, a nice guy, but he can/could be mean or stupid at times.

[sturg1dj]

I think you could argue w/o steroids he wouldn't have put up the recordsd settign HR, SPct, OBP, BB #s to be in the conversation. But what about if Bonds didn't use steroids and had Willie Mays' personality? I think he would have been best LF w/o question just like Schmidt is at 3B and maybe would be ahead of Willie and Hank on most peoples lists as far as post-integration players.

thats not the point. my point was that when talking about greatest player ever the majority cannot say it is someone from now they must say its someone from the past. Even if someone comes along and puts up amazing numbers that will still be the case.

[PVNICK]

thats not the point. my point was that when talking about greatest player ever the majority cannot say it is someone from now they must say its someone from the past. Even if someone comes along and puts up amazing numbers that will still be the case.
I'm giving you current examples. How long did it take Schmidt to leap over Brooks? Did he even have to retire? Bench was in the mix with Berra, Campy, et. al. pretty quick. I think Mays and Aaron jumped to near the head of the class in the 70s at the latest, with Mays getting his share for greatest ever. Babe is a tough road to hoe, but I think if Bonds had not had the personality issues he would have slotted in somewhere with Mays and Aaron. And also how do you explain Mariano being credited as the greatest reliever ever, shouldn't it be Firpo Marberry or Hoyt Wilhelm? ;)

[ol' aches and pains]

That being said, Bonds' personality is a joke. I honestly don't know if Barry has a single friend outside of Greg Anderson.


Sure he does. Just go to the "Known PED Users on the All-Star Team thread in the Current Events Forum and you can meet some of them.

[nerfan]

Sure he does. Just go to the "Known PED Users on the All-Star Team thread in the Current Events Forum and you can meet some of them.

Those are Barry's... associates.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

This group is greatly outnumbered by the "Ruth would hit 104 HR's today" group here at BBF. ;)

Remember this poll?

http://www.baseball-fever.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=4688

You voted that Ruth wouldn't hit 50 homeruns in todays game Adam. How ridiculous is that. Do I need to list all the 50 homer guys to illustrate how unrealistic that is? I'll save the time. There were 16 guys who voted for 104hr or more, and 18 who voted 50hr or less. As silly as 104hr or more is, 50hr or less is even more absurd.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Remember this poll?

http://www.baseball-fever.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=4688

You voted that Ruth wouldn't hit 50 homeruns in todays game Adam. How ridiculous is that. Do I need to list all the 50 homer guys to illustrate how unrealistic that is? I'll save the time. There were 16 guys who voted for 104hr or more, and 18 who voted 50hr or less. As silly as 104hr or more is, 50hr or less is even more absurd.

Why does it matter if I disagree with you, Randy? We'll never know for sure what Ruth can do today. Look, I know Ruth is you boy. If you think he would outhomer everyone else today, fine, that's your opinion. I happen to disagree with that. We had a bunch of guys hit tons of HRs in the in the past 12 years and a good majority had lots of help from PED. If you think Ruth can out homer those guys without PEDs then fine have at it. You can believe anything you like. We are talking about a man that was born in 1895, a man that had his prime years 80 years ago, and retired in 1935. In every other sport modern athletes are leaps in bounds ahead than athletes 80 years ago. That is a simply fact. Yet, in baseball somehow 85% of the greatest players played before 1940? I think Ruth was a wonderous hitter, something I've stated on many many occasions. But he was not some superman with god-like powers. There were lots of conditions on the ballfield that allowed him to do the things he did (and players like Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg did similar things). Most of those conditions no longer exist.

I'll give you an analogy. There was an professional English runner named Walter George who ran in the 1880's. He ran lots of races but he is known for his mile races. He ran the mile in 4:12 3/4 seconds in 1886.* Now, that may not be impressive by today's standards however there are some caveats. The man hardly trained. According to his own diaries he ran about 1-3 miles a day. His training schedule less than what a junior high runner would do today! Yet, his mile time was not bested for almost 30 years. If George's 4:10 time is legit then that time wasn't bested for 45 years. Even into the early 1940's (almost 60 years later) the mile world record was still only 4:06 and these runners were training much much harder than George.

Ther is no doubt in my mind that with modern training Walter George could easily have a mile under 4:00, probably well under. However, I wouldn't claim that George would beat everyone today if he had access to modern training methods, modern medicine, EPO and other PED's. There are just too many variables, too many unknowns to make such an assertion. and that's how I see Babe Ruth.


*George is said to have ran even faster in 1885 with a 4:10 1/5. However there is controversy over this time.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Getting back to Albert Pujols. He already has 31 IBB's this season. That is already #20 all-time. He's on pace for 58 IBB which would be the highest non-Barry Bonds total and the 4th highest total ever. Bonds has the top three IBB single season totals with 120 (2004), 68 (2002), and 61 (2003). Pujols could conceivably get the #3 spot.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Albert has 32 IBB's now.

[sturg1dj]

I'm giving you current examples. How long did it take Schmidt to leap over Brooks? Did he even have to retire? Bench was in the mix with Berra, Campy, et. al. pretty quick. I think Mays and Aaron jumped to near the head of the class in the 70s at the latest, with Mays getting his share for greatest ever. Babe is a tough road to hoe, but I think if Bonds had not had the personality issues he would have slotted in somewhere with Mays and Aaron. And also how do you explain Mariano being credited as the greatest reliever ever, shouldn't it be Firpo Marberry or Hoyt Wilhelm? ;)

you maybe right, but I also believe that this era is a special case and I doubt any of the ballplayers from today will be given their due.

I also still believe nostalgia plays a major role. Remember Schmidt was 7 years in the league when Brooks retired, Bench's rookie season was only 2 years after Berra's final season. These were not very far removed from each other so nostalgia wouldn't play the same role.

as far as the relievers...hehe...its easy to say someone is the greatest ever when he does something unprecedented over a career.

Here we are talking about a player who played during the steroid era being compared to Lou Gehrig...one of the most beloved players of all time. I doubt Pujols will get a fair shake for a long time.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The two great first basemen. Somewhat similar swings even though Lou is a lefty and Albert a righty.

[Sirmudgeon]

Now add Foxx, and you've got the top three...

OK, arguably, but still, those are great pix. Thank you, kind sir.

[Sirmudgeon]

Stances are similar, swings are not. Still wish I had either one.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Ok, it's time for a Pujols/Gehrig update. Gehrig's stats are through his age 30 season in 1933.



. G PA R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+ SB CS
Gehrig 1384 6157 1213 1786 362 125 299 1146 898 550 .342 .442 .638 181 72 81
Pujols 1399 6082 1071 1717 387 14 366 1112 711 570 .334 .427 .628 172 61 30

[Ubiquitous]

I'm giving you current examples. How long did it take Schmidt to leap over Brooks? Did he even have to retire? Bench was in the mix with Berra, Campy, et. al. pretty quick. I think Mays and Aaron jumped to near the head of the class in the 70s at the latest, with Mays getting his share for greatest ever. Babe is a tough road to hoe, but I think if Bonds had not had the personality issues he would have slotted in somewhere with Mays and Aaron. And also how do you explain Mariano being credited as the greatest reliever ever, shouldn't it be Firpo Marberry or Hoyt Wilhelm? ;)

Historically speaking the two weakest positions for all time greats was/is 3B and C. Brooks, Santo, Mathews, Schmidt, Brett, and Boggs pretty much had no competition for the greatest ever besides themselves and those that were recently retired. Mathews retired in 1968, Brooks played at the same time, Santo came along in the early 60's, and Schmidt and Brett came along in the 70's.

The catcher's spot had the same problem in that until the modern catchers came along there really wasn't a whole lot of offensive catchers that played a long time.

Both positions were ripe for modern players to be viewed as greats since they didn't have the pantheon of Gods at those positions.

Hank basically needed the home run record to be considered all time great and even then nobody seriously thought he was the best of his position or a top 5 all time hitter.

Willie was viewed as a great but he also gets the benefit of his position. Willie hit a ton of homers and was miles ahead of his centerfield competition in that department. So I can certainly understand people in the 60's and into the 70's thinking Willie was the greatest of all centerfielders.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If you think he would outhomer everyone else today, fine, that's your opinion. I happen to disagree with that. We had a bunch of guys hit tons of HRs in the in the past 12 years and a good majority had lots of help from PED. If you think Ruth can out homer those guys without PEDs then fine have at it.

Your opinion is that Ruth would not hit 50 homers in todays game. Just wanted to clarify. Disagreeing with that isn't about being a Ruth guy or not. It's about common sense Adam. Over the years you've proven to be pretty level headed on most things but this is baffling. Ruth put up enormous power numbers when the game wasn't set up for power the way it is in this era. Imagine Ruth in Camden or Philly...or hell even the Fenway that Williams enjoyed. You would probably agree that his batting average would go down with the better positioned and more athletic defenders, along with specialized relief, but so many other factors favor power. And baseball is unlike any sport when talking about athletes getting better. Its the ultimate skilled game where guys of all sizes can and do succeed. So many different facets of the game. Have players gotten faster? The baseline is the same distance and guys still get thrown out by half a step. Have guys gotten stronger? Sure, but Ruth's distance is still legendary and Teddy Ballgame was lean. No matter if a guy benches 800 pounds, a baseball bat can be swung from point A to point B while maintaining optimal fundamentals so fast. The point being, anologies with other sports don't hold up. Disagree about Ruth hitting 104 homers...I'm with you on that. But 50? In his sleep.

[Ubiquitous]

If the view is that Babe Ruth would have been a beast playing nowadays and that he would have hit 50 in his sleep then besides a one year peak opposing teams simply would never let him hit 50 or more homers in a year ever again.



As for this era being set up perfectly for power I think HWR makes a lot of sense when he brings up steroids. Almost to a man* the players that have hit 50 or more homers in a season were found to be taking drugs and I think every single player that did so regularly were found to be taking drugs. I think that is pretty conclusive evidence that hitting 50 or more homers in this era naturally would be pretty darn hard to do for pretty much anybody.

*Looked it up (it probably wasn't accurate to say "almost to a man I thinked I lumped in a lot of high 40 homer guys in my mind), Ryan Howard, Jim Thome, Ken Griffey, and Prince Fielder are the only guys on the list that haven't been up against the wall in regards to steroids. I personally think Thome did and it wouldn't shock me if I Howard and Griffey did as well. Fielder, I don't really expect it from him. His dad? Sure, but I don't see Prince on drugs.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Albert had 44 IBB's in 2009 which is the 5th highest single season total, one short of Willie McCovey's 45 IBB's in 1969.

[White Knight]

I was all but certain he would hit 50 HRs and it didn't happen. Much better first half.

[White Knight]

Ok, it's time for a Pujols/Gehrig update. Gehrig's stats are through his age 30 season in 1933.



. G PA R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+ SB CS
Gehrig 1384 6157 1213 1786 362 125 299 1146 898 550 .342 .442 .638 181 72 81
Pujols 1399 6082 1071 1717 387 14 366 1112 711 570 .334 .427 .628 172 61 30


How are they so close in RBI when Gehrig is way, way better than him (or anyone, really) in RBI year by year totals (that three years with 500+ RBI is amazing)? I will look it up in the morning, going to bed. :)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How are they so close in RBI when Gehrig is way, way better than him (or anyone, really) in RBI year by year totals (that three years with 500+ RBI is amazing)? I will look it up in the morning, going to bed. :)

Hmmm...I'm not sure how I screwed that up. Gehrig had 1,285 RBI through age 30. I've added Jimmie Foxx through 1936.



. G PA R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+ SB CS
Gehrig 1384 6157 1213 1786 362 125 299 1285 898 550 .342 .442 .638 181 72 81
Pujols 1399 6082 1071 1717 387 14 366 1112 711 570 .334 .427 .628 172 61 30
Foxx 1411 5932 1105 1690 289 87 343 1218 886 763 .339 .440 .639 172 61 45

[JessePopHaines16]

Maybe in most number categories he will surpass Gehrig but in terms of impact on the game i have to say that he doesnt really have a shot.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Maybe in most number categories he will surpass Gehrig but in terms of impact on the game i have to say that he doesnt really have a shot.

Since "impact in the game" is wholy subjective that is not the issue. Besides what impact did Gehrig have on the game? The question I am asking can Pumols have surplant Gehrig as the game's "greatest" first baseman? This is the question that interests me.

[White Knight]

Since "impact in the game" is wholy subjective that is not the issue. Besides what impact did Gehrig have on the game? The question I am asking can Pumols have surplant Gehrig as the game's "greatest" first baseman? This is the question that interests me.

I doubt it. Gehrig's best three seasons are a lot better than Pujols' best three. Not even close really.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I doubt it. Gehrig's best three seasons are a lot better than Pujols' best three. Not even close really.

Three years isn't enough when you're talking complete careers and greatest ever.

Gehrig is obviously if you're comparing them across the board to this point in their respective careers. But if Pujols is able to sustain his career beyond the point when Gehrig's was tragically ended, it is certainly possible.

How much allowance does Gehrig truly get as a run producer for that lineup he hit in?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Three years isn't enough when you're talking complete careers and greatest ever.

Gehrig is obviously if you're comparing them across the board to this point in their respective careers. But if Pujols is able to sustain his career beyond the point when Gehrig's was tragically ended, it is certainly possible.

How much allowance does Gehrig truly get as a run producer for that lineup he hit in?

Lineup and era as well. Gehrig's gaudy RBI totals overrate him quite a bit. The view that Gehrig is better than Pujols because Gehrig had seasons in 170-180 RBI range and Pujols doesn't is a pretty weak argument. Of the top 20 single season RBI totals, 19 of them came before 1938. Manny Ramirez's 165 RBI in 1999 (#13) is the only one to come after 1938. The pretty much shows that driving in runs was far easier "back in the day" than it is today.

[Joltin' Joe]

Lineup and era as well. Gehrig's gaudy RBI totals overrate him quite a bit. The view that Gehrig is better than Pujols because Gehrig had seasons in 170-180 RBI range and Pujols doesn't is a pretty weak argument. Of the top 20 single season RBI totals, 19 of them came before 1938. Manny Ramirez's 165 RBI in 1999 (#13) is the only one to come after 1938. The pretty much shows that driving in runs was far easier "back in the day" than it is today.

It seems like it was easier to have a gaudy OPS+ as well.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I threw in Frank Thomas into the list.



. G PA R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+ SB CS
Gehrig 1384 6157 1213 1786 362 125 299 1285 898 550 .342 .442 .638 181 72 81
Pujols 1399 6082 1071 1717 387 14 366 1112 711 570 .334 .427 .628 172 61 30
Foxx 1411 5932 1105 1690 289 87 343 1218 886 763 .339 .440 .639 172 61 45
Thomas 1371 6091 968 1564 317 10 301 1040 1076 741 .320 .440 .573 169 28 18