Home Sports Talk

Amazing article on Pujols

frankhardyfrankhardy Posts: 8,044 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here it is. By Jason Stark on ESPN.com.



Today's subject, history lovers, is home runs and strikeouts.

We all know they go together like Tom and Katie, like Britney and Kevin, like Brad and Angelina.

You can't get one anymore without the other.

Unless you're Albert Pujols.

Stare at Pujols' line on the old stat sheet. Here's what you'll see -- and it's no typographical error:

46 home runs, 44 strikeouts.

Well, as loyal reader Craig Edwards points out, you don't see lines like that one every year.

Only six times in history, in fact, has any player hit as many homers as Pujols and still had more home runs than whiffs. It's kind of notable that none of those More HRsThan Ks performances has taken place during the lifetime of Julio Franco.

Even more fascinating to those of us who think about the historical-type stuff that could still happen between now and the end of this season, just once has a player hit 50 home runs in a season featuring more homers than strikeouts. And Sir Albert has a very real chance to pull off that feat.

So here's the club Pujols is aspiring to join:

Johnny Mize (1947), 51 homers, 42 strikeouts
Lou Gehrig (1934), 49 homers, 31 strikeouts
Lou Gehrig (1936), 49 homers, 46 strikeouts
Ted Kluszewski (1954), 49 homers, 35 strikeouts
Ted Kluszewski (1955), 47 homers, 40 strikeouts
Joe DiMaggio (1937), 46 homers, 37 strikeouts

Hmmm. Pretty good group.

Now let's put this season in a perspective that frames it against the rest of the mad-hacker times Pujols lives in.

• Pujols has whiffed as many times this year as Royals catcher Paul Bako, a man who has hit zero homers.

• Pujols has struck out 37 fewer times than Houston leadoff man Willy Taveras, a man who has hit one homer.

• Pujols has whiffed 52 fewer times than Rockies outfielder Cory Sullivan, a man who has hit two homers.

• Pujols has punched out nearly 100 fewer times than Indians shortstop Jhonny Peralta (142 Ks), a man who has hit 12 homers.

• Pujols nearly has fewer strikeouts than A's sub Antonio Perez (40 whiffs), even though Perez is a man who has only gotten nine hits all season.

• Pujols has fewer strikeouts this season than 43 different players have run up since the All-Star break -- a list that includes Emil Brown, Ryan Freel, Felipe Lopez, Jorge Cantu and Eliezer Alfonzo.

• And Pujols has whiffed fewer times all season than Reds basher Adam Dunn has whiffed just in his last 117 at-bats.

Ohbytheway, one more thing: If we include Ryan Howard this year, in the 21 seasons of at least 50 homers in the last quarter-century, the average number of strikeouts by the men who did it is 134. Meaning that Albert Pujols could beat that by (gulp) 90.

So obviously, you'll never find this guy shopping at K-Mart.

Shane

Comments

  • Reading this makes me realize how blind (or narrow sighted) the voters are these days.....

    they simply look at WHO HAS MOST HR AND RBI and that is how they vote!!

    a second grader could be a voter.....where is the creative thinking....

    it doesnt take much effort to look beyond the 2 obvious numbers.....

    everyother number besides HR and RBI favors Pujols.....


    i still only have 1 question...how could a player who hits only .250 (way below his season average) with runners in scoring position, be THE MOST VALUABLE player? You put anyone in that spot of --batting with the most runners on than anyone in the league---they will have a ton of RBI's....Howard is just the classic slugger with no sense of the strike zone, with a poor ability to make contact....not only that but HOWARD IS UNCLUTCH, his .240 average with RISP and 2 outs is even more telling...

    if Pujols batted in that Phillies order, in the park, he woud have had 60 HR and 175 RBI.....PUJOLS BATTED .400 WITH RISP AND TWO OUTS-- HOWARD BATTED .240.........

    Howard was not THE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER because his team missed the playoffs by i game (probably because of his poor averages in the clutch)

    Pujols WAS the MOST VALUABLE because he batted with way fewer runners in Scoring position, batted way better than Howard in those situations, yet had fewer RBI's....

    The Peak of Pujols Value was evident when he broke the Cardinals losing streak with a HR in the last week of the season...Without that Hr, the Cards would not have made the playoffs THAT IS ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED FOR A REASONABLE PERSON TO VOTE PUJOLS 1st and HOWARD 2nd.....
  • sagardsagard Posts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    I almost wonder if you preffered the results of the '05 season better?
  • what happens in the regular season and what happens in the post season are 2 different things....

    yes i am happy the Cards won the WS, but that doesnt mean i cant feel Pujols got shafted for an individual award because the voters are not intelligent enough to look beyond the obvious numbers (HR RBI)---pick any other number to compare and Pujols leads Howard...not to mention Howard is DH quality fielder and PUJOLS is GOLD GLOVE quality.....SO DEFENSE DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING FOR MVP???....that is why they invented SILVER SLUGGER award, to award the best SLUGGER, and the MVP is most VALUABLE PLAYER (leadership,hitting ability -not just slugging ability-and fielding ability), you see the difference? its not too difficult to discern...

    i dont like it when people say "you should be happy you won the WS and not complain about MVP"...so cause 1 good thing happens, you accept being screwed?
  • sagardsagard Posts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    People who understand and are willing to perform any analysis would realize Pujols is the better player and had the better season. When the complaining comes from a fan of the world champs it reeks of the Yankee sense of entitlement.
  • ctsoxfanctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
    Not this again...

    I know the Cardinals won the World Series, but they were lucky to even make the playoffs while playing in the weakest division in baseball. The Astros and Reds practically handed Pujols and the Cardinals the division. Analyze that, if you will.

    Pujols, by coming out and actually saying that Howard "didn't deserve" the MVP and the subsequent whining about it from him has made him look foolish and arrogant to baseball fans that used to think he was all class, all the time. Howard has been nothing but gracious and endearing to fans, perhaps Pujols is a bit jealous of him?

    Pujols is still not the MVP. Be happy all the stars fell into alignment, and they were fortunate enough to win the WS.
    image
  • stownstown Posts: 11,321 ✭✭✭
    I would want a Championship over an individual award any day.

    Spare us the pitty party image
    So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not this again...

    image

    Yes, Puljos had a great season, and yes, he probably should have won the MVP, but Howard was also deserving and the voters have made their decision and that's the end of it.


    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • bri2327bri2327 Posts: 3,178 ✭✭


    << <i>People who understand and are willing to perform any analysis would realize Pujols is the better player and had the better season. When the complaining comes from a fan of the world champs it reeks of the Yankee sense of entitlement. >>



    Show me ONE post on these boards ever where a Yankee fan complained about player on the Yankees not winning an award after the fact.

    Until you can do so your reply will have the stench of Yankee hatred and jealousy.
    "The other teams could make trouble for us if they win."
    -- Yogi Berra

    image
  • frankhardyfrankhardy Posts: 8,044 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not to take away from what "fandango" posted, but I posted that originally on September 20th.

    However, I do agree with him.

    Why does all of this "off the field" stuff always come up. Keep it on the freakin' field. I don't care if he sucks on a baby pacifier in his spare time. Keep it on the field. On the field he was the MVP. Also, the fact that the Cardinals won the World Series with the worst record in history is beside the point. I love it how people like to sidetrack the issue. Keep it on the field.

    Now, if you want to talk about off the field stuff, we can. Let's take the 2 or 3 instances of negative media and put it next to the hundreds of things he has done in charity work and for his community. But until someone starts a thread for off the field stuff, keep it on the field, and not sidetrack the issue.

    I also how someone said that "the stars fell into alignment and the Cardinals won". Yet, the Red Sox (I guess) were just a great team. How about, it was just a good story. The underdog team won. After backing into the playoffs, they got everybody healthy, and turned it on and took care of business.

    Shane

  • ctsoxfanctsoxfan Posts: 6,246 ✭✭
    You are right. But, before we end this, let's take a moment to hear from Albert Pujols himself on this topic...
























    image
    image
  • there was another report that explained how Pujols was misquoted and misunderstood due to the fact the interview was done in spanish...

    he was asked a question and he answered, he did not set up a press conference to complain.....

    Pujols was very upset how this story was spun by reporters, and he was very surprised because that was not his intention....

    he will make people pay next year on the field.....
  • jaxxrjaxxr Posts: 1,258 ✭✭
    Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, ...He did NOT get the MVP
    Ted Williams won the triple crown of hitting in 1942,... he did NOT get the MVP.

    Albert has some good company, however, Howard seemed acceptable and a reasonable choice, although not my first pick.

    The MVP award , an oficial designation from the BWAA since 1931, has been given to such baseball super-stars such as iDolph Camilli, Spud Chandler, Frank McCormick, Dick Groat, and Jeff Burroughs to name sevaral.
    It appears many non-measurable circumstances figure in the equation for the award. Popularity, Character, Sharpness of corners, and Overall eye-appeal may factor in. Seriously, it is an award, not a test , nor a score, nor any special combination of stats.

    It is usually with some controversey, and gets fans talking, and keeps baseball in the public view. Probably a good thing.

    image
    This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
  • frankhardyfrankhardy Posts: 8,044 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, ...He did NOT get the MVP
    Ted Williams won the triple crown of hitting in 1942,... he did NOT get the MVP. >>



    I've always believed that snub was ridiculous.

    Shane

  • You have to understand the meaning of MVP. It is Most VALUABLE Player not Most OUTSTANDING Player. They are two different things. The Cardinals had other things besides just Pujols. For instance the defending Cy Young award winner in Chris Carpenter. The Phillies came close to making the playoffs with very little besides Howard. They traded away Abreu and still nearly made the playoffs. The Cardinals collapsed in the last month and barely backed into the playoffs. They won, but that took place after the voting. I might add, Pujols was not the MVP of any of the playoff series. Pujols may be a better player than Howard, but I am not convinced that he was more valuable to his team last year. There is certainly no basis for saying he should be MVP because some of his numbers are better. The only numbers that really show an answer to this question are those that show how they did in clutch situations. In other words, men on base, men on base with two out, one run games, etc. I know there are some good sybermetic stats that reflect how valuable a player is. I would love to see a comparison of these two guys using some of those. In any event, the point is, the MVP award does not go to the BEST player it goes to the MOST VALUABLE.
  • sagardsagard Posts: 1,898 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>People who understand and are willing to perform any analysis would realize Pujols is the better player and had the better season. When the complaining comes from a fan of the world champs it reeks of the Yankee sense of entitlement. >>



    Show me ONE post on these boards ever where a Yankee fan complained about player on the Yankees not winning an award after the fact.

    Until you can do so your reply will have the stench of Yankee hatred and jealousy. >>



    I was talking about entitlement, not the award. Re-read posts about what the Yanks should do in the off season. Your correct most of the Yanks crowd around here takes their cue from the Captain and didn't complain about the award.
  • frankhardyfrankhardy Posts: 8,044 ✭✭✭✭✭
    reiny81,

    This post is for you (and maybe others who have not read this). I posted this in another thread a few weeks ago. This is an exerpt of an Article by Bernie Miklasz. You brought up a decent points, but this might change your mind. Read every point closely. Here is the exerpt.

    **************************

    Here's why Pujols was the MVP:

    — If you want to use the more traditional statistics, Pujols was the only hitter in the NL to finish in the top five in average (3rd), homers (2nd), RBIs (2nd), runs (5th), on-base percentage (1st), slugging percentage (1st), and batting average with runners in scoring position (1st).

    — If you want to use sabermetrics, Pujols was first in the NL in Value Over Replacement, first in Win Shares, first in Equivalent Average, first in Runs Created, first in Win Probability Added.

    — If you want to zero in on clutch hitting, Pujols led the NL with a .397 batting average with runners in scoring position. Howard ranked 51st in the NL with a .256 average with runners in scoring position. With runners in scoring position and two out, Pujols hit a preposterous .435. Howard batted .247.

    — If you want to downgrade Pujols because the Cardinals struggled in September, then I would simply ask why this should be held against him. In the final month, Pujols batted .372 with 10 homers and 28 RBIs. In the final week of the regular season, Pujols batted .370 with four homers and eight RBIs. And if I'm not mistaken, Philadelphia was in strong position to win the wild card, only to go 3-4 in the final week.

    — Pujols was the NL's best defensive first baseman. In the Baseball Prospectus defensive-rating stat, Fielding Runs Above Replacement, Pujols was a plus 25. Howard was a minus 5.

    — Pujols finished eighth in the NL in extra bases taken as a runner; he would have rated even higher on the chart had he not missed nearly three weeks with a strained oblique.

    — If you want to say that Howard "carried" the Phillies' lineup, then I must simply ask why is it that two of Howard's lineup mates received MVP votes? Philly second baseman Chase Utley finished eighth overall in the voting and was named on 26 of 32 ballots. Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins also received a ninth-place vote. No other Cardinals position player received a vote. So how can anyone possibly argue that Howard carried the Phillies more than Pujols carried the injury-ravaged Cardinals?

    — Pujols hit 49 homers and drove in 137 runs. Howard is the undisputed HR champion, and we salute him. But what about RBIs? The voters love RBIs. And Howard had 149 RBIs, 12 more than Pujols. But let's look beneath the surface numbers. Howard had more RBIs than Pujols for an obvious reason: He had more RBI opportunities. Howard had 358 plate appearances with runners on base; Pujols had 301 plate appearances with runners on base. The Phillies had 509 runners on base for Howard's at-bats; the Cardinals had 429 runners on base for Pujols' at-bats. Howard had 164 at-bats with runners in scoring position; Pujols had 126 at-bats with runners in scoring position. And despite having 38 fewer at bats in those situations, Pujols actually drove in more runs than Howard, 88-83.

    Again, this is no outrage. Howard had a monster season. A rising star who hits 58 homers and knocks in 149 RBIs doesn't have to apologize for winning the MVP.

    But many years from now, when perplexed baseball historians look back on all of Pujols' second-place finishes, they might wonder if the baseball writers owe Pujols an apology.

    ******************************************

    I thought he made an excellent case. I would like to see someone to argue for Howard after reading this article. Someone may can defend the writers, and that's fine. I would just like to see it.

    Shane

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,103 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>The only numbers that really show an answer to this question are those that show how they did in clutch situations. In other words, men on base, men on base with two out, one run games, etc. I know there are some good sybermetic stats that reflect how valuable a player is. I would love to see a comparison of these two guys using some of those. >>


    What you'd find is that while Pujols got better going from none on to men on, and then better still with RISP, Howard got worse and worse again.

    Rather than taking a lesson on "best" vs. "most valuable" out of this, the only lesson to be learned is that the MVP Award is meaningless. There is no reasonable argument to be made for Howard, or anyone else in the NL, winning the MVP besides Pujols - IF the MVP Award means anything at all. Even by the sometimes laughable standards established by past awards, Ryan Howard's 2006 MVP is a joke; tell yourself something different if you want to, but this ought to be the final nail in the coffin for anyone who was trying to hang on to the belief that MVPs were given to either the best or the most valuable player. Ryan Howard was neither.
    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Sign In or Register to comment.