Albert vs the other legacy legends

[Angelsjunky]

It is impossible to compare players across eras, especially the further back you go. We simply don't know who among the old-time greats would have thrived in today's environment because they would be very different people. For instance, you can't just plop 1920s Babe Ruth into a game a century later. He'd be a different person.

But baseball talent is baseball talent. I'm pretty certain that Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Hornsby, Williams, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, etc, would have excelled in any era. Cobb probably wouldn't have hit .400 in today's era, but he might have consistently hit .350, and with 20 HR a year rather than 5. Ruth might have looked something like peak Frank Thomas. Ted Williams, well, I think there's an argument that he's the greatest hitter of all time.

Similarly, if you put Trout back in the 50s, he might have hit .350 like Mantle did a couple times. 

All of this is to say that there's a reason that the modern stats like WAR and wRC+ are so useful. They're imperfect, but they give us a sense of how good a player was relative to their peers, and that is, in the end, the only way we can judge a player.

As for Pujols, in another thread I said that he wasn't quite inner circle, and not even a top 20 position player. I might have to soften that a bit, but haven't decided. I'll futz around a bit and maybe write something overly long. There's no denying that, for about a decade, he was the best first baseman since peak Jimmie Foxx and Lou Gehrig. He was a better version of Jeff Bagwell, or Thomas with the bat but Mark Grace with the glove. But the fact is, he stopped being a star after a decade. The very best of the best were stars for longer and didn't tarnish their resume with half a decade like Pujols' last five years. So if he's "inner circle," he is definitely not "innermost circle." Pujols was great for ten, ok for five, and terrible for five. 

[JustATroutFan]

19 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

It is impossible to compare players across eras, especially the further back you go. We simply don't know who among the old-time greats would have thrived in today's environment because they would be very different people. For instance, you can't just plop 1920s Babe Ruth into a game a century later. He'd be a different person.

But baseball talent is baseball talent. I'm pretty certain that Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Hornsby, Williams, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, etc, would have excelled in any era. Cobb probably wouldn't have hit .400 in today's era, but he might have consistently hit .350, and with 20 HR a year rather than 5. Ruth might have looked something like peak Frank Thomas. Ted Williams, well, I think there's an argument that he's the greatest hitter of all time.

Similarly, if you put Trout back in the 50s, he might have hit .350 like Mantle did a couple times. 

All of this is to say that there's a reason that the modern stats like WAR and wRC+ are so useful. They're imperfect, but they give us a sense of how good a player was relative to their peers, and that is, in the end, the only way we can judge a player.

As for Pujols, in another thread I said that he wasn't quite inner circle, and not even a top 20 position player. I might have to soften that a bit, but haven't decided. I'll futz around a bit and maybe write something overly long. There's no denying that, for about a decade, he was the best first baseman since peak Jimmie Foxx and Lou Gehrig. He was a better version of Jeff Bagwell, or Thomas with the bat but Mark Grace with the glove. But the fact is, he stopped being a star after a decade. The very best of the best were stars for longer and didn't tarnish their resume with half a decade like Pujols' last five years. So if he's "inner circle," he is definitely not "innermost circle." Pujols was great for ten, ok for five, and terrible for five. 

Pujols is a slightly worse version of Thomas with a terrific glove. Pujols had some seasons where he was basically Thomas at the plate with the high batting average, great power, walking a lot, and having a great ability to put the ball in play. But Thomas always walked a lot, even as he got old. Pujols stopped walking as he started to decline in 2011. So Pujols wasn't as great as Thomas with the bat but both terrific hitters. But there's no doubt that Pujols was a better defensive player than Thomas by a lot. That's one skill of Pujols' that not many people talk about, which is his excellent defensive skills. 

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, JustATroutFan said:

Pujols is a slightly worse version of Thomas with a terrific glove. Pujols wasn't as great as Thomas with the bat but both terrific hitters. But there's no doubt that Pujols was a better defensive player than Thomas by a lot. That's one skill of Pujols' that not many people talk about, which is his excellent defensive skills. 

Fangraphs is not very positive on Pujols' defense over the years.  Baseball Reference is a little more positive, but still pretty "meh."

And Thomas wasn't objectively a better hitter than Pujols.  In their peak years, on average, their OPS+ was almost identical.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

It is impossible to compare players across eras, especially the further back you go. We simply don't know who among the old-time greats would have thrived in today's environment because they would be very different people. For instance, you can't just plop 1920s Babe Ruth into a game a century later. He'd be a different person.

But baseball talent is baseball talent. I'm pretty certain that Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Hornsby, Williams, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, etc, would have excelled in any era. Cobb probably wouldn't have hit .400 in today's era, but he might have consistently hit .350, and with 20 HR a year rather than 5. Ruth might have looked something like peak Frank Thomas. Ted Williams, well, I think there's an argument that he's the greatest hitter of all time.

Similarly, if you put Trout back in the 50s, he might have hit .350 like Mantle did a couple times. 

All of this is to say that there's a reason that the modern stats like WAR and wRC+ are so useful. They're imperfect, but they give us a sense of how good a player was relative to their peers, and that is, in the end, the only way we can judge a player.

As for Pujols, in another thread I said that he wasn't quite inner circle, and not even a top 20 position player. I might have to soften that a bit, but haven't decided. I'll futz around a bit and maybe write something overly long. There's no denying that, for about a decade, he was the best first baseman since peak Jimmie Foxx and Lou Gehrig. He was a better version of Jeff Bagwell, or Thomas with the bat but Mark Grace with the glove. But the fact is, he stopped being a star after a decade. The very best of the best were stars for longer and didn't tarnish their resume with half a decade like Pujols' last five years. So if he's "inner circle," he is definitely not "innermost circle." Pujols was great for ten, ok for five, and terrible for five. 

We were on the verge of getting TORS to give up the location and you interrupt with this codswallop? 

[T.G.]

11 hours ago, Blarg said:

We were on the verge of getting TORS to give up the location and you interrupt with this codswallop? 

 

13 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

24 hour yorba linda, boys

 

But the real talent is self made fitness... lots of wannabe instagram models there....

Key is to make friends w the trainers.... then you reep all the benefits of low self esteem chicks

Try to keep up.

[Angelsjunky]

Sorry, I wasn't following Ocho's Bad Lieutenant shakedowns.

[Inside Pitch]

19 hours ago, JustATroutFan said:

Pujols had an advantage that many sluggers (Aaron, Mays, etc) didn't have, which is most of Pujols' prime years (2001-2009) were in the steroids era (juiced baseballs, expansion teams, etc). That's like the best hitting era ever in MLB history. So Pujols' career slash line were a bit inflated, probably. While guys like Aaron and Mays had the advantage of getting to face starting pitchers a fourth time in many games, most of their prime years were during dominant pitching seasons. It is what it is. 

It wasn't just hitters using roids and don't look now but when when the entire league is putting up big numbers the weighted data tends to take a hit.  Anyway, unless you're arguing that Pujols was also using steroids and his numbers are a byproduct of chemical engineering, playing in that era was actually a disadvantage and it's worth noting that greenies were a much bigger thing in the Mays and Aaron era than now -- PEDs have always been around.  

Maybe more importantly the 90s-2000 were baseballs most offensive driven decade and the 50s through early 60s were considered pretty offensively driven times partially due to expansion.  Yes, the end of the 60s saw pitching tend to dominate, but MLB stepped in pretty quickly to right the ship after the 1968 season.

Consider this comparison of the years, runs per game and OPS for the NL where Aaron Mays and AP all played in.

Year  RPG, OPS -- YR  RPG, OPS
51 -- 4.46, .731 -- 01, 4.70, .756
52 -- 4.17,  .695 -- 02, 4.45, .741
53 -- 4.75, .747 -- 03, 4.60. .749
54 -- 4.52, .742 -- 04, 4.64. .756
55 -- 4.53, .735 -- 05, 4.45, .745
56 -- 4.25, .722 -- 06, 4.76, .761
57 -- 4.38, .722 --  07, 4.70, .757
58 -- 4.40, .738 -- 08, 4.54. .744
59 -- 4.40, .725 -- 09, 4.43, .739
60 -- 4.24, .707 -- 10, 4.33, .723
61 -- 4.52, .737 --  11, 4.10, .711
62 -- 4.48, .720 -- 12, 4.22, 718
63 -- 3.83, .669 -- 13, 4.00, 703
64 -- 4.01, .695 -- 14, 3.94, .694
65 -- 4.03, .685 -- 15, 4.11, .713

Really outside of 1952 where the offenses cratered league wide the gap between the two eras wasn't that wide.

Also, when people want to argue that Gehrig and Foxx were better, ask them how many black and Latino players of color those guys faced.  RPs weren't used like they have been since the late 80s, the shift wasn't even considered -- I bring it up because nothing has had a bigger impact on AP's decline than the shift.

People are trying too hard to diminish how truly great he was.  

[Inside Pitch]

15 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

Fangraphs is not very positive on Pujols' defense over the years.  Baseball Reference is a little more positive, but still pretty "meh."

And Thomas wasn't objectively a better hitter than Pujols.  In their peak years, on average, their OPS+ was almost identical.

Yep they were pretty much equals through age 32 if you look at weighted offensive data.  Also, Thomas was done as an everyday 1B prior to turning 30..

I absolutely loved the Big Hurt's swing.. 

[JustATroutFan]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

It wasn't just hitters using roids and don't look now but when when the entire league is putting up big numbers the weighted data tends to take a hit.  Anyway, unless you're arguing that Pujols was also using steroids and his numbers are a byproduct of chemical engineering, playing in that era was actually a disadvantage and it's worth noting that greenies were a much bigger thing in the Mays and Aaron era than now -- PEDs have always been around.  

Maybe more importantly the 90s-2000 were baseballs most offensive driven decade and the 50s through early 60s were considered pretty offensively driven times partially due to expansion.  Yes, the end of the 60s saw pitching tend to dominate, but MLB stepped in pretty quickly to right the ship after the 1968 season.

Consider this comparison of the years, runs per game and OPS for the NL where Aaron Mays and AP all played in.

Year  RPG, OPS -- YR  RPG, OPS
51 -- 4.46, .731 -- 01, 4.70, .756
52 -- 4.17,  .695 -- 02, 4.45, .741
53 -- 4.75, .747 -- 03, 4.60. .749
54 -- 4.52, .742 -- 04, 4.64. .756
55 -- 4.53, .735 -- 05, 4.45, .745
56 -- 4.25, .722 -- 06, 4.76, .761
57 -- 4.38, .722 --  07, 4.70, .757
58 -- 4.40, .738 -- 08, 4.54. .744
59 -- 4.40, .725 -- 09, 4.43, .739
60 -- 4.24, .707 -- 10, 4.33, .723
61 -- 4.52, .737 --  11, 4.10, .711
62 -- 4.48, .720 -- 12, 4.22, 718
63 -- 3.83, .669 -- 13, 4.00, 703
64 -- 4.01, .695 -- 14, 3.94, .694
65 -- 4.03, .685 -- 15, 4.11, .713

Really outside of 1952 where the offenses cratered league wide the gap between the two eras wasn't that wide.

Also, when people want to argue that Gehrig and Foxx were better, ask them how many black and Latino players of color those guys faced.  RPs weren't used like they have been since the late 80s, the shift wasn't even considered -- I bring it up because nothing has had a bigger impact on AP's decline than the shift.

People are trying too hard to diminish how truly great he was.  

You're just using OPS for the NL only. But here are the slash lines for all of MLB from 1951-1965:

1951: .261/.336/.386

1952: .253/.327/.370

1953: .264/.336/.397

1954: .261/.333/.390

1955: .259/.332/.394

1956: .258/.331/.397

1957: .258/.327/.391

1958: .258/.325/.394

1959: .257/.324/.392

1960: .255/.324/.388

1961: .258/.328/.399

1962: .258/.326/.393

1963: .246/.309/.372

1964: .250/.313/.378

1965: .246/.311/.372

Looking at the slash lines, I can for sure tell you that from 1954-1965, it were all seasons that are considered "pitcher-friendly seasons". Baseball Reference's neutral slash line for offense as a whole is .335/.400/.735. All OBPs, Slugging Percentages, and OPSs from every single one of those seasons (1954-1965) were below .335/.400/.735. And I have seen it multiple times where people just use raw numbers to compare 2001-2010 Pujols to 2011-2020 Trout. From 2001-2010, only 2010 was considered a "pitching-friendly season". As for 2011-2020, there are six times (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2018) were there are pitching-friendly seasons. Trout's been great in five of those seasons. 2011 was his debut season and it wasn't good. Pujols benefited from playing in the steroids era. Not saying that he wasn't great as a hitter, however. I've already stated that raw numbers can be overrated when comparing hitters. Perfect example with 2001-2010 Pujols vs. 2011-2020 Trout. Trout's OPS+ from 2012-2019: 168, 179, 168. 176, 173. 186. 198. and 180. he only season where his OPS+ was below 160 was 2011, where he had an OPS+ of 89. For Pujols, his OPS+ from 2001-2010 was under 160 just three times. And not to mention, Trout's won three MVPs while finishing second four times from 2011-2019. I don't think we'll ever see another player like Trout, in regards to accomplishments, for a long time. I think there won't be another player like him for another century. 

[Inside Pitch]

28 minutes ago, JustATroutFan said:

You're just using OPS for the NL only. But here are the slash lines for all of MLB from 1951-1965:

1951: .261/.336/.386

1952: .253/.327/.370

1953: .264/.336/.397

1954: .261/.333/.390

1955: .259/.332/.394

1956: .258/.331/.397

1957: .258/.327/.391

1958: .258/.325/.394

1959: .257/.324/.392

1960: .255/.324/.388

1961: .258/.328/.399

1962: .258/.326/.393

1963: .246/.309/.372

1964: .250/.313/.378

1965: .246/.311/.372

Looking at the slash lines, I can for sure tell you that from 1954-1965, it were all seasons that are considered "pitcher-friendly seasons". Baseball Reference's neutral slash line for offense as a whole is .335/.400/.735. All OBPs, Slugging Percentages, and OPSs from every single one of those seasons (1954-1965) were below .335/.400/.735. And I have seen it multiple times where people just use raw numbers to compare 2001-2010 Pujols to 2011-2020 Trout. From 2001-2010, only 2010 was considered a "pitching-friendly season". As for 2011-2020, there are six times (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2018) were there are pitching-friendly seasons. Trout's been great in five of those seasons. 2011 was his debut season and it wasn't good. Pujols benefited from playing in the steroids era. Not saying that he wasn't great as a hitter, however. I've already stated that raw numbers can be overrated when comparing hitters. Perfect example with 2001-2010 Pujols vs. 2011-2020 Trout. Trout's OPS+ from 2012-2019: 168, 179, 168. 176, 173. 186. 198. and 180. he only season where his OPS+ was below 160 was 2011, where he had an OPS+ of 89. For Pujols, his OPS+ from 2001-2010 was under 160 just three times. And not to mention, Trout's won three MVPs while finishing second four times from 2011-2019. I don't think we'll ever see another player like Trout, in regards to accomplishments, for a long time. I think there won't be another player like him for another century. 

YES.... I said as much, because the players YOU mentioned by name played in the NL...   AL numbers are completely meaningless for an era where interleague didn't exist.

[JustATroutFan]

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

YES.... I said as much, because the players YOU mentioned by name played in the NL...   AL numbers are completely meaningless for an era where interleague didn't exist.

So? Players could get traded from one league to another even during the 1940s. Every great hitters had at least an advantage or two that other great hitters didn't have. 

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, JustATroutFan said:

So? Players could get traded from one league to another even during the 1940s.

LOL....  Talk about grasping at straws. 

League average data excludes anything other than numbers produced IN league.   A guy traded to the NL would only have his NL numbers count for the sake of a league wide neutral comparison.   

Lastly -- here is BBRefs disclaimer about their neutralized numbers..

Neutralized and Converted Stats

First, what is not considered. There are no adjustments for:

• Segregation
• Changing role of bullpens
• Improved travel or fitness or nutrition
• Increased foreign talent
• Field conditions or sizes
• No consideration of changing tactics like the bunt or stolen base
• or anything else not explicitly listed below.

There is a reason I mentioned the exclusion of Black and Latino players..  and No, a neutral number that ignores park effects is not a NEUTRAL number, it's the average of all numbers added together and then divided accordingly.   You're using the data incorrectly.

[JustATroutFan]

6 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

LOL....  Talk about grasping at straws. 

League average data excludes anything other than numbers produced IN league.   A guy traded to the NL would only have his NL numbers count for the sake of a league wide neutral comparison.   

Lastly -- here is BBRefs disclaimer about their neutralized numbers..

Neutralized and Converted Stats

First, what is not considered. There are no adjustments for:

• Segregation
• Changing role of bullpens
• Improved travel or fitness or nutrition
• Increased foreign talent
• Field conditions or sizes
• No consideration of changing tactics like the bunt or stolen base
• or anything else not explicitly listed below.

There is a reason I mentioned the exclusion of Black and Latino players..  and No, a neutral number that ignores park effects is not a NEUTRAL number, it's the average of all numbers added together and then divided accordingly.   You're using the data incorrectly.

We're not on the same page. But the point is: Pujols benefited a lot from playing in the steroid era where offensive numbers were inflated to make many hitters look like Trout at the plate. 

[WicketMaiden]

... picks up popcorn... this is warming up, we've got block caps.

[Tank]

23 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I always use MMA to make points, since I know it better than baseball

But essentially, the greats of the past were kickboxers... sport karate. "Full contact", to a degree for sure, and badasses. But when Rick Roufas (who was a legend) finally agreed to fight a Thai with Thai rules, it all got exposed.

The shift is like leg kicks... the old chuck norris, bill wallace era guys never had to worry about that. And it changed everything. And unless you start your career with that in mind, youre not just gonna learn it later... it changes every mechanic you know

so what you're saying is . . . albert should have kicked more pitchers? maybe do a roundhouse on the catcher first, then bust his bat into nunchuks and go take care of the rest of the infield, something like that?

i'd be okay with that.

[Inside Pitch]

19 minutes ago, JustATroutFan said:

We're not on the same page. But the point is: Pujols benefited a lot from playing in the steroid era where offensive numbers were inflated to make many hitters look like Trout at the plate. 

Your obsession with Mike Trout is crippling your ability to think.    Again, unless you're claiming that Albert Pujols used steroids there would be ZERO benefit from having played in hyper offensive era unless the driving factor for the offense was THE PARKS.  But in a situation where a clean player was playing alongside juicers then the clean player would have his numbers drowned out by all the dirty players. 

And you cannot in one breath talk about neutralized data then to try to push your insipid Trout narratives turn around and claim raw numbers making a guy look better than he is.   AP can aptly be compared to his peers in any one season.  In season neutralized data makes it possible to determine his dominance in relation to the league and other players.  Same applies to Mike Trout, even better they can be compared to each other pretty much every season since 2012 because that data exists.  This is the only way to ATTEMPT to compare players across eras -- their dominance when compared  to their peers.

If all you want to do is say that Mike Trout is better than AP then you should be pointing to their in-season neutralized numbers like OPS+ or wOBA and the sort.  

AP for his career sports a OPS+ of 145.  Mike Trout, 176...   See?  Easy.   If you do the same comparison for them through age 29 guess what?  Trout still wins...  176 to 172.

[JustATroutFan]

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Your obsession with Mike Trout is crippling your ability to think.    Again, unless you're claiming that Albert Pujols used steroids there would be ZERO benefit from having played in hyper offensive era unless the driving factor for the offense was THE PARKS.  But in a situation where a clean player was playing alongside juicers then the clean player would have his numbers drowned out by all the dirty players. 

And you cannot in one breath talk about neutralized data then to try to push your insipid Trout narratives turn around and claim raw numbers making a guy look better than he is.   AP can aptly be compared to his peers in any one season -- the in season neutralized data makes it possible to determine his dominance in relation to the league and other players.   Same applies to Mike Trout, even better they can be compared to each other pretty much every season since 2012 because that data exists.

If all you want to do is say that Mike Trout is better than AP then you should be pointing to their in-season neutralized numbers like OPS+ or wOBA and the sort.  

AP for his career sports a OPS+ of 145.  Mike Trout, 176...   See?  Easy.   If you do the same comparison for them through age 29 guess what?  Trout still wins...  176 to 172.

Of course Pujols took advantage from playing with the juiced baseballs during the steroid era. A few of those home runs that Pujols hit from 2001-2009 would have been deep flyball outs without the juiced baseballs. You would be an idiot to think that Pujols didn't benefited from the juiced baseballs. Trout also benefitted from playing with the juiced baseballs in the 2019 regular season, as well as in 2017. 

[Inside Pitch]

13 minutes ago, JustATroutFan said:

Of course Pujols took advantage from playing with the juiced baseballs during the steroid era. A few of those home runs that Pujols hit from 2001-2009 would have been deep flyball outs without the juiced baseballs. You would be an idiot to think that Pujols didn't benefited from the juiced baseballs. Trout also benefitted from playing with the juiced baseballs in the 2019 regular season, as well as in 2017. 

I like bananas.  Not as much as tangerines mind you, but I like them a lot more than apples because the color blue is my favorite.

[tdawg87]

@Inside Pitch stop burying him in the Pet Semetary.

[ten ocho recon scout]

47 minutes ago, Tank said:

so what you're saying is . . . albert should have kicked more pitchers? maybe do a roundhouse on the catcher first, then bust his bat into nunchuks and go take care of the rest of the infield, something like that?

i'd be okay with that.

Mang-K Abbott...

[ten ocho recon scout]

21 hours ago, PattyD22 said:

I like when Bruce Buffer announces the fighting style of an MMA fighter.

”Out of the blue corner, a Street Fighter.......”. What?  A Street Fighter?  That’s like fighting a fucking feral cat.

Left handing pitching is the Angels street fighter, or feral cat.

I way preferred old UFC before it became "professional". 

MMA today is its own style... and everyone is the same. Some are better at this than that, but its a total style now. And the guys who do it are all in phenom shape

I miss the "bloodsport" UFC days. When like you said, some fat dude was a "street fighter", and he was taking on some guy with a mullet who was a "ninja", or a "pitfighter"

Sumo guy vs like 160 karate guy. Boxer vs wrestler. Etc etc.

Those fights sucked, but it was more fun

[ten ocho recon scout]

This era is the toughest for hitters.

Which makes our pitching woes even more depressing.

[JustATroutFan]

22 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

This era is the toughest for hitters.

Which makes our pitching woes even more depressing.

Guys are just trying to swing for the fences these days. It's just gotten to the point where it's going to be the norm for hitters to strike out at least 200 tines, Reggie's career strikeout record of 2,597 won't last that much longer. I could see Trout breaking it due to longevity or Stanton due to just being a strikeout machine (averages over 190 strikeouts per-162 games played). 

[Lou]

3 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

LOL....  Talk about grasping at straws. 

League average data excludes anything other than numbers produced IN league.   A guy traded to the NL would only have his NL numbers count for the sake of a league wide neutral comparison.   

Lastly -- here is BBRefs disclaimer about their neutralized numbers..

Neutralized and Converted Stats

First, what is not considered. There are no adjustments for:

• Segregation
• Changing role of bullpens
• Improved travel or fitness or nutrition
• Increased foreign talent
• Field conditions or sizes
• No consideration of changing tactics like the bunt or stolen base
• or anything else not explicitly listed below.

There is a reason I mentioned the exclusion of Black and Latino players..  and No, a neutral number that ignores park effects is not a NEUTRAL number, it's the average of all numbers added together and then divided accordingly.   You're using the data incorrectly.

[Docwaukee]

if you played during the steroid era and didn't take steroids while everyone else was, then you had a distinct disadvantage.