Bleacher Report names Pujols #1 in Top 100 Players of the 21st Century

[Angelsjunky]

I'd prefer a bit more offense than we've seen the last two years. In my opinion, the happy medium would be 4.2 to 4.5 runs per game. Interestingly enough, though, historically it is usually above or below that range. But examples of that range include 2010-12 and most of the early 70s to mid 80s.

 

1993-2009 was out of control, to such an extent that historical bars of excellence such as a .300 BA and 30 HR were virtually meaningless. I like an era where .330 BA can win you the batting title but it isn't guaranteed and you have to hit over 40 HR to lead the league, but 50 HR is super rare.

[AngelsFanSince86]

Lincecum is about 20 spots ahead of Weaver.  Weak.

[yk9001]

For what its worth, I think Bleacher Report has actually hired some name writers in the last few years.

 

But just on general principle, I refuse to click on any Bleacher Report article based on their clickbait-y, sweatshop conditions for their scrub writers.

[QuinlansMinion]

They really have Bonds at number 8.  

[tdawg87]

Derek Jeter became something of a mythical figure during the final years of his career, a living legend of sorts, and that has led some to call him overrated.

 

Yes, and putting him at number 4 on your list ahead of A-Rod, Bonds, and Halladay only serves to prove that point.

[Angelsjunky]

Lincecum is about 20 spots ahead of Weaver.  Weak.

 

Let's do some actual research:

 

Lincecum: 101-79, 3.59 ERA, 1567.1 IP, 27.4 fWAR

Weaver: 131-69, 3.59 ERA, 1688 IP, 31.7 fWAR

 

So yeah, the stats agree with you. But of course Lincecum has those two Cy Youngs, years which were better than anything Weaver has. I'd say it is pretty close, but if I'm taking the career of one of the two (so far) for my team I'd take Weaver.

[DW711]

Look, I realize there's a lot of factors that go into this list...but on what planet is Lincecum (who has been COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE for the past THREE YEARS) better Mussina, Bumgarner, Weaver, Lester........hell...just about any starter on there?

[DW711]

Let's do some actual research:

 

Lincecum: 101-79, 3.59 ERA, 1567.1 IP, 27.4 fWAR

Weaver: 131-69, 3.59 ERA, 1688 IP, 31.7 fWAR

 

So yeah, the stats agree with you. But of course Lincecum has those two Cy Youngs, years which were better than anything Weaver has. I'd say it is pretty close, but if I'm taking the career of one of the two (so far) for my team I'd take Weaver.

 

In the a much easier park to pitch in with no dh.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Agreed with AJ about how underrated beltre has been. Im not saying hes a HOF candidate, but hes been one of the best players the last decade. His bat may have been 2cd tier (or lower) than some of the bigger names, but the combo of it and his glove have been pretty huge.

Still not over missing out on him...

[Hollyw00d]

Yes, and putting him at number 4 on your list ahead of A-Rod, Bonds, and Halladay only serves to prove that point.

 

 

I'm not mad at it.

 

Jeter was the best as his position for a very long time.

 

File A-Rod and bonds under 'D' for douchebag.  Screw them.

 

Halladay was a late bloomer and I'm not sure you could say he was the absolute best for more than a 5 year stretch

[Hollyw00d]

Agreed with AJ about how underrated beltre has been. Im not saying hes a HOF candidate, but hes been one of the best players the last decade. His bat may have been 2cd tier (or lower) than some of the bigger names, but the combo of it and his glove have been pretty huge.

Still not over missing out on him...

 

 

I'm saying he is a hall of fame candidate, and rather easily IMO

[tdawg87]

I'm not mad at it.

 

Jeter was the best as his position for a very long time.

 

File A-Rod and bonds under 'D' for douchebag.  Screw them.

 

Halladay was a late bloomer and I'm not sure you could say he was the absolute best for more than a 5 year stretch

 

Who cares if A-Rod and Bonds are "douchebags"? They were far, far better baseball players than Derek Jeter. Even during the 00's.

[AngelsFanSince86]

Let's do some actual research:

 

Lincecum: 101-79, 3.59 ERA, 1567.1 IP, 27.4 fWAR

Weaver: 131-69, 3.59 ERA, 1688 IP, 31.7 fWAR

 

So yeah, the stats agree with you. But of course Lincecum has those two Cy Youngs, years which were better than anything Weaver has. I'd say it is pretty close, but if I'm taking the career of one of the two (so far) for my team I'd take Weaver.

 

Exactly.  I can see someone using postseason stats and Cy Youngs to argue that Lincecum is better.  I definitely wouldn't agree, but everyone has their opinion of what is more important.  However, the gap between them in the rankings is absurd.  I just find it hard to give Lincecum much credit given he has averaged a 4.76 ERA in an extreme pitchers park in the national league over the past 3 seasons (98 games).  And the guy is only 30.  Its not like he had a decade of good production before crapping out.  He had a 4 year stretch with 3 great years and 1 good year and has since been one of the worst starters in baseball.  The author must really value Cy Youngs.  

 

Edit: Also, Weaver has a career 3.28 ERA, not 3.59.

Edited March 9, 2015 by AngelsFanSince86

[Angelsjunky]

Agreed with AJ about how underrated beltre has been. Im not saying hes a HOF candidate, but hes been one of the best players the last decade. His bat may have been 2cd tier (or lower) than some of the bigger names, but the combo of it and his glove have been pretty huge.

Still not over missing out on him...

 

I'll agree with Hollywood and say Beltre is a Hall of Famer. Not only is he worthy right now - he's 9th all-time among third basemen - but he's not done yet. If he can accrue another 10-15 WAR he's going to pass Brooks Robinson and be right there with George Brett and Chipper Jones.

 

 

In the a much easier park to pitch in with no dh.

 

This isn't true, actually. SF has a higher park factor - meaning, it is more conducive to offense than the pitching friendly Anaheim.

[yk9001]

[sneaky_flute]

I'd eat her dish rag vagina. 

[DW711]

 

This isn't true, actually. SF has a higher park factor - meaning, it is more conducive to offense than the pitching friendly Anaheim.

 

Ok..I wasn't necessarily talking about Anaheim..but if this is what you meant..I'll go back three years

 

2012: San Francisco 29th at .737 runs Anaheim 27th at .812       

2013: San Francisco 27th at .869 runs Anaheim 19th at .968

2014: San Francisco 25th at .920 runs Anaheim 26th at .919

 

Actual runs scored in their home parks: 

 

2012: San Francisco: 272 Anaheim: 309

2013: San Francisco: 335 Anaheim: 371

2014: San Francisco: 288 Anaheim: 310

[Butcher'd]

Pujols has been a massive disappointment as an Angel. Sick of reading how great he was for the Cardinals. All these high priced free agents never live up to it in Anaheim

[Inside Pitch]

 

This isn't true, actually. SF has a higher park factor - meaning, it is more conducive to offense than the pitching friendly Anaheim.

 

I believe this was true last year -- but the multi-year figures are either a dead heat or still favor ATT Park, they are both pitcher's parks..   When it comes to HR index, ATT still tends to favor pitchers more than Angel Stadium.   AJ, check the crazy variance in ATT's triples index -- it's all over the place.

 

With all the talk about the Angels possibly moving out of Anaheim or whatever..   Whatever they do, remodel or rebuild.....  I hope they stay true to a pitcher's park.

[Inside Pitch]

Pujols has been a massive disappointment as an Angel. Sick of reading how great he was for the Cardinals. All these high priced free agents never live up to it in Anaheim

 

Guess it depends on the expectations.  I figured he'd be around a 135 OPS+ guy, so hes been a disappointment but not a massive one for me.  The differences in leagues, Angel Stadium, and Father Time were all reasons for concern for me.  The leg injury and subsequent lost season a couple years ago probably makes it looks worse than it is.... or I'm just guilty of giving him too much leeway due to the injury.  I just always believed that the Angels were gambling that Pujols would be one of those exception to the rules guys...   Oopsie.

 

Amyway, IMO the PED era really distorted people's views of a player's aging curves including front office people....  I'm not trying to be negative but I think the Angels would have to consider themselves fortunate if he can stay at a 125 OPS+ level for another 2 or 3 years.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Inside Pitch

[Blarg]

Pujols has been a massive disappointment as an Angel. Sick of reading how great he was for the Cardinals. All these high priced free agents never live up to it in Anaheim

 

[Stradling]

Sick of reading how great he was for the Cardinals.

Step 1. Don't click on links naming Pujols #1 player of the 21st Century

Step 2. Congratulations you succeeded

[ten ocho recon scout]

As far as beltre, i can see the argument for him getting into the hall. I guess im a little biased against him because of his seattle years, where his bat wasnt as good as fenway/arlington.

[Inside Pitch]

As far as beltre, i can see the argument for him getting into the hall. I guess im a little biased against him because of his seattle years, where his bat wasnt as good as fenway/arlington.

 

Isn't Beltre still able to get a TUE due to his having lost one of his nads?   I mean, for all intents and purposes he was able to take testosterone legally...   So while everyone else ages naturally, he's able to stay at peak male levels I'd assume.  There is no denying he's been a completely different hitter since having that accident.  Guy was a league average hitter (101 OPS+) for 5 years from age 26 through age 30.  Loses a nut, gets a TUE to compensate and goes on to be a 140 OPS+ hitter from age 31 on...    Sorry, but that doesn't seem like a coincidence.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Good point IP. Id also suspect he was helped in 2004. And thats not me hating on him, ive been very vocal about how badly we screwed up chasing crawford instead of him. (And ending up with wells instead)

But thats a great point, hes got a definite legit reason to boost his test through the needle, and the results seem to show the benefit