as a Cardinal. He doesn't have a position at this point, and no longer hits well enough to be a dependable RHB off the bench. Great career and a 1st ballot HOF-er, but I'd be surprised if he lands anywhere else, if he even wants to.
Top 5 worst contracts in sports history. I can’t see a team taking a flyer on him
I disagree. He had some good years with the Angels. It's not a good contract, as one for a length like that rarely is. However, top 5 worst contracts is hyperbole.
Ellsbury, Fowler, Price, Heyward, Chris Davis are probably worse just off the top of my head.
Top 5 worst contracts in sports history. I can’t see a team taking a flyer on him
I disagree. He had some good years with the Angels. It's not a good contract, as one for a length like that rarely is. However, top 5 worst contracts is hyperbole.
Ellsbury, Fowler, Price, Heyward, Chris Davis are probably worse just off the top of my head.
but he's been really bad the past 4 years, and he hasn't been a star in a decade. I don't think he offers much in the way of helping on the field or at the ticket booth at this point.
Eh. Peaked at age 30. Productive thru age 36. That’s the arc of a lot of players.
Even his 31 and 32 seasons were really good, and as you note, very productive for the next 4. It's not his fault that LAA decided to hand a 10-year contract to 32-year old.
Top 5 worst contracts in sports history. I can’t see a team taking a flyer on him
I disagree. He had some good years with the Angels. It's not a good contract, as one for a length like that rarely is. However, top 5 worst contracts is hyperbole.
Ellsbury, Fowler, Price, Heyward, Chris Davis are probably worse just off the top of my head.
John Wall
Oh, you are right. He did say sports history. I just had my mind on baseball. Not even the top 5 in baseball, let alone all of sports.
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He’s up there as a pure hitter. I think I’d go Trout/A-Rod ahead of him but that might be because they were better overall players, Trout especially is a GOAT tier type of player. Pujols wasn’t bad with the glove in his prime either but he was a 1st baseman.
He’s a case where longevity kind of made you forget who he used to be. Cardinals Pujols was a special hitter who basically averaged 40/120/.330 for a decade with the advanced metrics to back up that dominance. All-time great and one of the best 1st baseman ever.
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He’s up there as a pure hitter. I think I’d go Trout/A-Rod ahead of him but that might be because they were better overall players, Trout especially is a GOAT tier type of player. Pujols wasn’t bad with the glove in his prime either but he was a 1st baseman.
He’s a case where longevity kind of made you forget who he used to be. Cardinals Pujols was a special hitter who basically averaged 40/120/.330 for a decade with the advanced metrics to back up that dominance. All-time great and one of the best 1st baseman ever.
His Cardinals hitting numbers are a ton better than Trout’s. Trout is a great all around player, but as far as pure hitting he’s not better than Pujols.
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He was an all-time great whose performance fell off a cliff. Whether it was a PED thing or something else, there's no way around that. He's not the first great player to decline rapidly. IIRC Jimmy Foxx also basically went from Ruthian home run totals to being done in a short time. It happens.
It's not his fault the Angels gave him so many ABs after he was basically done.
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He’s up there as a pure hitter. I think I’d go Trout/A-Rod ahead of him but that might be because they were better overall players, Trout especially is a GOAT tier type of player. Pujols wasn’t bad with the glove in his prime either but he was a 1st baseman.
He’s a case where longevity kind of made you forget who he used to be. Cardinals Pujols was a special hitter who basically averaged 40/120/.330 for a decade with the advanced metrics to back up that dominance. All-time great and one of the best 1st baseman ever.
His Cardinals hitting numbers are a ton better than Trout’s. Trout is a great all around player, but as far as pure hitting he’s not better than Pujols.
You’re comparing raw stats from two different eras in terms of their prime.
This doesn’t even include Trout’s current season where is off to the best start of his career and once again the best player in the sport. He’s also a far better base runner and more valuable fielder. Trout is an absolutely legendary player.
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He’s up there as a pure hitter. I think I’d go Trout/A-Rod ahead of him but that might be because they were better overall players, Trout especially is a GOAT tier type of player. Pujols wasn’t bad with the glove in his prime either but he was a 1st baseman.
He’s a case where longevity kind of made you forget who he used to be. Cardinals Pujols was a special hitter who basically averaged 40/120/.330 for a decade with the advanced metrics to back up that dominance. All-time great and one of the best 1st baseman ever.
His Cardinals hitting numbers are a ton better than Trout’s. Trout is a great all around player, but as far as pure hitting he’s not better than Pujols.
You’re comparing raw stats from two different eras in terms of their prime.
This doesn’t even include Trout’s current season where is off to the best start of his career and once again the best player in the sport. He’s also a far better base runner and more valuable fielder. Trout is an absolutely legendary player.
Using those same seasons
Pujols
.334 BA
337 HRs
973 RBIs
956 Runs
.433 OBP
.635 Slugg %
1.067 OPS
177 OPS+
69.3 WAR
Trout
.308 BA
280 HR
736 RBI
883 Runs
.422 OBP
.587 Slugg %
1.009 OPS
178 OPS+
71.8 WAR
Pujols has him beat in most categories. And again this isn’t a better overall player argument. This is a better hitter argument. Pujols in his prime was the best RH in my lifetime (Im 38)
The differences seem to be Pujols played in a better hitting environment so his raw stats are higher and he was more durable. The rate stats are as close as it gets. I didn’t say Trout blew him out of the water as a hitter.
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He was an all-time great whose performance fell off a cliff. Whether it was a PED thing or something else, there's no way around that. He's not the first great player to decline rapidly. IIRC Jimmy Foxx also basically went from Ruthian home run totals to being done in a short time. It happens.
It's not his fault the Angels gave him so many ABs after he was basically done.
Jack Clark agrees with you … behold the greatest legal letter ever written Link - ( New Window )
I have no info, but if I had to guess, I'd say yes.
Pujols is one of the greatest hitters of his genereration. Pujols probably got a lot of hits and hit a lot of home runs off of pitchers on PEDs. Therein lies the eternal gray area of parsing through and ultimately judging the PED era.
That said, anyone who thinks Pujols wasn't on PEDs for a significant part of his career, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
He belongs in the Hall of Fame. So does Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, ARod, etc etc etc
I have no info, but if I had to guess, I'd say yes.
Pujols is one of the greatest hitters of his genereration. Pujols probably got a lot of hits and hit a lot of home runs off of pitchers on PEDs. Therein lies the eternal gray area of parsing through and ultimately judging the PED era.
That said, anyone who thinks Pujols wasn't on PEDs for a significant part of his career, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
He belongs in the Hall of Fame. So does Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, ARod, etc etc etc
I firmly believe a HoF without Bonds isn't really a HoF.
I have no info, but if I had to guess, I'd say yes.
Pujols is one of the greatest hitters of his genereration. Pujols probably got a lot of hits and hit a lot of home runs off of pitchers on PEDs. Therein lies the eternal gray area of parsing through and ultimately judging the PED era.
That said, anyone who thinks Pujols wasn't on PEDs for a significant part of his career, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
He belongs in the Hall of Fame. So does Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, ARod, etc etc etc
How fair is this though? The guy was always a big dude that grew into his body. He’s never failed a drug test, and has never been outted by anyone that was credible. It’s complete bullshit that he is associated with PEDs.
Clean baseball players typically leave their prime at around 31, 32 years old. He was 32 years old when he signed with the Angels. It’s not his fault the Angels offered him a 10 year contract.
how fast he went from the best hitter in baseball to the worst among regulars. He has been terrible for a while now.
If you look at counting stats, he actually wasn’t that bad his first 6 years in LA. He averaged just about 30 HR and 100 RBI (169 HR, 589 RBI) in those first 6 years. But, his OPS ranged from .767 to .859 in those 6 years, a far cry from his St Louis days, where he had 1.000 or better 8 of 11 years (including 1.100 or better 4 times).
But, signs of his decline were there in his last year in St. Loo. In his prime, he was averaging about 100 walks and only 60 strikeouts per year. But in 2011, his age 31 season, he had 61 BB and 58 K’s, his worst ratio since his 22 yo 2nd season in 2002. Consequently, his OPS was down to .906.
His first year in LA he had only 52 walks to 76 K’s. He hung out around that level for the 6 ok years in LA, but then the wheels started to really off in 2017. He racked up 23 HR and 101 RBI but his OPS was .672 with 37 BB and 93 K’s and he was .665-.734 those 4 years.
So, it looks like he predictably started to lose his hitting reflexes as age 32, his first season in LA and was pretty amazing to still hold it at nearly 30/100 for the first six years in LA.
LA was just really ill-advised to sign a 32 yo to a 10 year deal. It was the epitome of paying for the past production rather than for a reasonable guess at future production. You just can’t sink that much money into a 32 yo in the post-steroid era. Pujols started to age baseball-wise exactly when you’d expect, at age 32. The days of players maintaining primes into 5heir late 30s and early 40s with regularity are over until an undetectable PED is found. Amphetamines, which were common in clubhouses were also helpful in maintaining performance as a player ages, were also banned.
Basically, Pujols has done what he looked poised to do in LA. His age made that contract really stupid for LA. I could see St Louis keeping him on that deal, given his importance to the team and city. But to bring 8n a power hitter at age 32 for a new team was just lunacy, IMO.
At league minimum? I can
Eh. Peaked at age 30. Productive thru age 36. That’s the arc of a lot of players.
I disagree. He had some good years with the Angels. It's not a good contract, as one for a length like that rarely is. However, top 5 worst contracts is hyperbole.
Ellsbury, Fowler, Price, Heyward, Chris Davis are probably worse just off the top of my head.
Quote:
Top 5 worst contracts in sports history. I can’t see a team taking a flyer on him
I disagree. He had some good years with the Angels. It's not a good contract, as one for a length like that rarely is. However, top 5 worst contracts is hyperbole.
Ellsbury, Fowler, Price, Heyward, Chris Davis are probably worse just off the top of my head.
John Wall
Quote:
Buyer beware
Eh. Peaked at age 30. Productive thru age 36. That’s the arc of a lot of players.
Even his 31 and 32 seasons were really good, and as you note, very productive for the next 4. It's not his fault that LAA decided to hand a 10-year contract to 32-year old.
Quote:
In comment 15256561 bubba0825 said:
Quote:
Top 5 worst contracts in sports history. I can’t see a team taking a flyer on him
I disagree. He had some good years with the Angels. It's not a good contract, as one for a length like that rarely is. However, top 5 worst contracts is hyperbole.
Ellsbury, Fowler, Price, Heyward, Chris Davis are probably worse just off the top of my head.
John Wall
Oh, you are right. He did say sports history. I just had my mind on baseball. Not even the top 5 in baseball, let alone all of sports.
I have no info, but if I had to guess, I'd say yes.
But if a horrible team wants to sell tickets maybe you can start him everyday and hope he passes A-Roid. 29 HR to go.
It'd take starting him into 2022 to get there.
2004 - 46 HR and 52 K
2006 - 49 HR and 50 K
He’s up there as a pure hitter. I think I’d go Trout/A-Rod ahead of him but that might be because they were better overall players, Trout especially is a GOAT tier type of player. Pujols wasn’t bad with the glove in his prime either but he was a 1st baseman.
He’s a case where longevity kind of made you forget who he used to be. Cardinals Pujols was a special hitter who basically averaged 40/120/.330 for a decade with the advanced metrics to back up that dominance. All-time great and one of the best 1st baseman ever.
Quote:
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He’s up there as a pure hitter. I think I’d go Trout/A-Rod ahead of him but that might be because they were better overall players, Trout especially is a GOAT tier type of player. Pujols wasn’t bad with the glove in his prime either but he was a 1st baseman.
He’s a case where longevity kind of made you forget who he used to be. Cardinals Pujols was a special hitter who basically averaged 40/120/.330 for a decade with the advanced metrics to back up that dominance. All-time great and one of the best 1st baseman ever.
His Cardinals hitting numbers are a ton better than Trout’s. Trout is a great all around player, but as far as pure hitting he’s not better than Pujols.
It's not his fault the Angels gave him so many ABs after he was basically done.
Quote:
In comment 15257098 JoeyBigBlue said:
Quote:
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He’s up there as a pure hitter. I think I’d go Trout/A-Rod ahead of him but that might be because they were better overall players, Trout especially is a GOAT tier type of player. Pujols wasn’t bad with the glove in his prime either but he was a 1st baseman.
He’s a case where longevity kind of made you forget who he used to be. Cardinals Pujols was a special hitter who basically averaged 40/120/.330 for a decade with the advanced metrics to back up that dominance. All-time great and one of the best 1st baseman ever.
His Cardinals hitting numbers are a ton better than Trout’s. Trout is a great all around player, but as far as pure hitting he’s not better than Pujols.
You’re comparing raw stats from two different eras in terms of their prime.
Cards Pujols (‘03-‘10): 177 OPS+ (1240 games)
Angels Trout (‘12-‘19): 178 OPS+ (1159 games)
This doesn’t even include Trout’s current season where is off to the best start of his career and once again the best player in the sport. He’s also a far better base runner and more valuable fielder. Trout is an absolutely legendary player.
Quote:
In comment 15257111
Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:
Quote:
In comment 15257098 JoeyBigBlue said:
Quote:
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He’s up there as a pure hitter. I think I’d go Trout/A-Rod ahead of him but that might be because they were better overall players, Trout especially is a GOAT tier type of player. Pujols wasn’t bad with the glove in his prime either but he was a 1st baseman.
He’s a case where longevity kind of made you forget who he used to be. Cardinals Pujols was a special hitter who basically averaged 40/120/.330 for a decade with the advanced metrics to back up that dominance. All-time great and one of the best 1st baseman ever.
His Cardinals hitting numbers are a ton better than Trout’s. Trout is a great all around player, but as far as pure hitting he’s not better than Pujols.
You’re comparing raw stats from two different eras in terms of their prime.
Cards Pujols (‘03-‘10): 177 OPS+ (1240 games)
Angels Trout (‘12-‘19): 178 OPS+ (1159 games)
This doesn’t even include Trout’s current season where is off to the best start of his career and once again the best player in the sport. He’s also a far better base runner and more valuable fielder. Trout is an absolutely legendary player.
Using those same seasons
Pujols
.334 BA
337 HRs
973 RBIs
956 Runs
.433 OBP
.635 Slugg %
1.067 OPS
177 OPS+
69.3 WAR
Trout
.308 BA
280 HR
736 RBI
883 Runs
.422 OBP
.587 Slugg %
1.009 OPS
178 OPS+
71.8 WAR
Pujols has him beat in most categories. And again this isn’t a better overall player argument. This is a better hitter argument. Pujols in his prime was the best RH in my lifetime (Im 38)
Pujols vs Trout - ( New Window )
Quote:
In the last 40 years easily. The disrespect on this thread is unreal.
He was an all-time great whose performance fell off a cliff. Whether it was a PED thing or something else, there's no way around that. He's not the first great player to decline rapidly. IIRC Jimmy Foxx also basically went from Ruthian home run totals to being done in a short time. It happens.
It's not his fault the Angels gave him so many ABs after he was basically done.
Jack Clark agrees with you … behold the greatest legal letter ever written
Link - ( New Window )
I have no info, but if I had to guess, I'd say yes.
Pujols is one of the greatest hitters of his genereration. Pujols probably got a lot of hits and hit a lot of home runs off of pitchers on PEDs. Therein lies the eternal gray area of parsing through and ultimately judging the PED era.
That said, anyone who thinks Pujols wasn't on PEDs for a significant part of his career, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
He belongs in the Hall of Fame. So does Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, ARod, etc etc etc
Quote:
Hang over his head by some.
I have no info, but if I had to guess, I'd say yes.
Pujols is one of the greatest hitters of his genereration. Pujols probably got a lot of hits and hit a lot of home runs off of pitchers on PEDs. Therein lies the eternal gray area of parsing through and ultimately judging the PED era.
That said, anyone who thinks Pujols wasn't on PEDs for a significant part of his career, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
He belongs in the Hall of Fame. So does Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, ARod, etc etc etc
Quote:
Hang over his head by some.
I have no info, but if I had to guess, I'd say yes.
Pujols is one of the greatest hitters of his genereration. Pujols probably got a lot of hits and hit a lot of home runs off of pitchers on PEDs. Therein lies the eternal gray area of parsing through and ultimately judging the PED era.
That said, anyone who thinks Pujols wasn't on PEDs for a significant part of his career, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
He belongs in the Hall of Fame. So does Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, ARod, etc etc etc
How fair is this though? The guy was always a big dude that grew into his body. He’s never failed a drug test, and has never been outted by anyone that was credible. It’s complete bullshit that he is associated with PEDs.
If you look at counting stats, he actually wasn’t that bad his first 6 years in LA. He averaged just about 30 HR and 100 RBI (169 HR, 589 RBI) in those first 6 years. But, his OPS ranged from .767 to .859 in those 6 years, a far cry from his St Louis days, where he had 1.000 or better 8 of 11 years (including 1.100 or better 4 times).
But, signs of his decline were there in his last year in St. Loo. In his prime, he was averaging about 100 walks and only 60 strikeouts per year. But in 2011, his age 31 season, he had 61 BB and 58 K’s, his worst ratio since his 22 yo 2nd season in 2002. Consequently, his OPS was down to .906.
His first year in LA he had only 52 walks to 76 K’s. He hung out around that level for the 6 ok years in LA, but then the wheels started to really off in 2017. He racked up 23 HR and 101 RBI but his OPS was .672 with 37 BB and 93 K’s and he was .665-.734 those 4 years.
So, it looks like he predictably started to lose his hitting reflexes as age 32, his first season in LA and was pretty amazing to still hold it at nearly 30/100 for the first six years in LA.
LA was just really ill-advised to sign a 32 yo to a 10 year deal. It was the epitome of paying for the past production rather than for a reasonable guess at future production. You just can’t sink that much money into a 32 yo in the post-steroid era. Pujols started to age baseball-wise exactly when you’d expect, at age 32. The days of players maintaining primes into 5heir late 30s and early 40s with regularity are over until an undetectable PED is found. Amphetamines, which were common in clubhouses were also helpful in maintaining performance as a player ages, were also banned.
Basically, Pujols has done what he looked poised to do in LA. His age made that contract really stupid for LA. I could see St Louis keeping him on that deal, given his importance to the team and city. But to bring 8n a power hitter at age 32 for a new team was just lunacy, IMO.
A player over 35 fell off a cliff, and wasn’t as good as his prime. Shocking.