Pujols, Mr. September

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just checked, after 9.1 he had 9 HR and 27 RBI. Sure helps to be THAT hot when chasing milestones. One does wonder a bit. Those 9 RBI in 4 games to close out the chase for 2nd place was amazing especially.

[isiahfan]

I feel as if he basicaly was pitched underhand for the last two months...cheapens the 700 and RBI marks IMO.

[ClementeFanOh]

Isiahfan- I feel that Bonds' "activities" cheapened the 700 HRs. The conspiracy
theory stuff (pitchers getting together to decide it's okay to groove pitches
to one guy, at their expense) is lame. Great player, great accomplishments-
and no, I'm neither a Cards nor Angels fan. What's a player have to do to
impress? Wow... Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Isiahfan- I feel that Bonds' "activities" cheapened the 700 HRs. The conspiracy
theory stuff (pitchers getting together to decide it's okay to groove pitches
to one guy, at their expense) is lame. Great player, great accomplishments-
and no, I'm neither a Cards nor Angels fan. What's a player have to do to
impress? Wow... Trent King

I'd like to see someone who knows math estimate the deviation between his last month and the rest of the season and the odds of it. 9 RBI in 4 days when he just happens to be chasing Ruth? Doesn't feel right to me. Agree of course on Bonds. And agree of course Pujols is a very great player.

[G1911]

He was hotter in July and August than he was in September. 4 games is a tiny sample size for baseball and prone to all kinds of extremes, from batting .000 to .700. I don't see anything nefarious.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes, tiny sample size, but Oddhe came up with it in the final four games of his career needing a near impossible performance to break a record.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, tiny sample size, but Oddhe came up with it in the final four games of his career needing a near impossible performance to break a record.

I don't know how to effectively test this with Baseball Reference where I can look up individual players etc., but I would guess that most guys that hit .270 have a stretch where they hit .556 for four games (or substitute average for whatever high achieving stat we like; while average is not the best stat overall I think it does a very very good job of tracking short term 'hotness'). They'll probably also have a stretch at .111. More than one, really. I would expect if we took, say, a thousand players and tested this, cutting up blocks of four games, the results would indicate it would be more surprising if Pujols did NOT have a stretch like this. I would be interested to know beyond hypothesizing.

I didn't watch those games, or the highlights. Maybe he got grooved one, there's a long history of that (McLain I think it was, lobbing a gift to Mickey for #500 as I recall) too, but I don't think there's a data problem here, even if that is what happened.

[isiahfan]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Isiahfan- I feel that Bonds' "activities" cheapened the 700 HRs. The conspiracy
theory stuff (pitchers getting together to decide it's okay to groove pitches
to one guy, at their expense) is lame. Great player, great accomplishments-
and no, I'm neither a Cards nor Angels fan. What's a player have to do to
impress? Wow... Trent King

Oh I am greatly impressed by him...but make no mistake he was getting a retirement grand tour of grooved pitches...fastballs...middle of the plate...belt high....

and I agree with you on Bonds..

and as small as a sample size as it was tonight...0-4 when a game mattered...maybe he'll go 4-4 with 2HR tomorrow and show me

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by isiahfan

Oh I am greatly impressed by him...but make no mistake he was getting a retirement grand tour of grooved pitches...fastballs...middle of the plate...belt high....

and I agree with you on Binds..

and as small as a sample size as it was tonight...0-4 when a game mattered...maybe he'll go 4-4 with 2HR tomorrow and show me

i didnt check who the pitchers were but most pitchers are pretty particular about keeping their era in check and not groove fastballs..certain veterans perhaps..

if go to arbitration and a reliever says 'yeah i gave up 5 homers late in games but 1 was to pujols, wink wink'' then ill believe they just grooving fastballs.

end of year usually have bad relievers filling up innings as well, larger rosters etc..last day of year was a lot of big games by not big time hitters for the time...small sample..but just saying

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by isiahfan

Oh I am greatly impressed by him...but make no mistake he was getting a retirement grand tour of grooved pitches...fastballs...middle of the plate...belt high....

and I agree with you on Binds..

and as small as a sample size as it was tonight...0-4 when a game mattered...maybe he'll go 4-4 with 2HR tomorrow and show me

You are probably right in many cases a retirement tour but I am sure others did also.
Regardless great story and great ending to that story. AND I enjoyed watching it

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't know how to effectively test this with Baseball Reference where I can look up individual players etc., but I would guess that most guys that hit .270 have a stretch where they hit .556 for four games (or substitute average for whatever high achieving stat we like; while average is not the best stat overall I think it does a very very good job of tracking short term 'hotness'). They'll probably also have a stretch at .111. More than one, really. I would expect if we took, say, a thousand players and tested this, cutting up blocks of four games, the results would indicate it would be more surprising if Pujols did NOT have a stretch like this. I would be interested to know beyond hypothesizing.

I didn't watch those games, or the highlights. Maybe he got grooved one, there's a long history of that (McLain I think it was, lobbing a gift to Mickey for #500 as I recall) too, but I don't think there's a data problem here, even if that is what happened.

It's not that he had a stretch like this that bothers me, it's that he just so happened to have it when he did, in the final games of his career and trying to catch Ruth. The odds ex ante before the first of the four games that he would get 9 RBI over the next four games and pass Ruth must beenormous I would think. I'm not smart enough to be sure, but I think your analysis is missing the context.

[jayshum]

It's one thing to think that pitchers are grooving fastballs to give Pujols a better shot at a home run, but getting 9 RBIs in 4 games also requires him to come up with enough men on base to have the opportunity to get that many RBIs (assuming he didn't hit 9 solo home runs which he didn't). I'm not sure how possible it would be for something like that to be set up. Instead, I agree with what others have said which is that in a small sample size in baseball, almost anything can happen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

It's one thing to think that pitchers are grooving fastballs to give Pujols a better shot at a home run, but getting 9 RBIs in 4 games also requires him to come up with enough men on base to have the opportunity to get that many RBIs (assuming he didn't hit 9 solo home runs which he didn't). I'm not sure how possible it would be for something like that to be set up. Instead, I agree with what others have said which is that in a small sample size in baseball, almost anything can happen.

That hitters at the top of the lineup get on base against the mighty Pirates is essentially a given. To me the question is, with Pujols at bat with an RBI opportunity, did pitchers ease up?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That hitters at the top of the lineup get on base against the mighty Pirates is essentially a given. To me the question is, with Pujols at bat with an RBI opportunity, did pitchers ease up?

So if you don't think the Pirates pitchers were good enough to get outs against other batters in the Cardinals lineup, why should they be good enough to get Pujols out?

[jayshum]

I didn't realize the Cardinals played the Pirates their last 6 games. Maybe that is a better explanation for his strong finish. He just happened to be playing against a 100 loss team with the 4th worst ERA in the NL. Seems like the Pirates pitchers were either easing up against a lot of hitter with runners on base all season or they just weren't very good.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

So if you don't think the Pirates pitchers were good enough to get outs against other batters in the Cardinals lineup, why should they be good enough to get Pujols out?

I think Pujols with all those successful RBI attempts seems to have done better than he would have in the ordinary course even against mediocre pitching. Not saying he would have gone oh-fer or anything. Maybe it was just extraordinary luck or an extraordinary clutch effort, not saying I am sure.

It's also the case I believe that in the 4 game series all his hits were in RBI situations. Oh, I know, small sample size.

[Smarti5051]

Yeah, with millions of dollars on the line and offices running every analytic under the sun to determine what pitchers are getting that money, I am sure a reliever (or starter) is willing to gift 2 runs to the other team so that Pujols can catch a milestone. It shouldn't matter that all of the pitchers conspiring to gift the legend 9 RBIs have probably never met or said a word to the guy. I could maybe see a 9th inning walk to extend a consecutive games reaching base record or a gimme pitch at the ASG, but nobody is sacrificing .25 on their ERA for the season to let Pujols pad his stats.

I am sure all of us would gladly risk our careers by giving up a valuable appointment with a company prospect so that Miley Cyrus can have our last spot on the plane to make it to her record setting 300th consecutive performance.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's not that he had a stretch like this that bothers me, it's that he just so happened to have it when he did, in the final games of his career and trying to catch Ruth. The odds ex ante before the first of the four games that he would get 9 RBI over the next four games and pass Ruth must beenormous I would think. I'm not smart enough to be sure, but I think your analysis is missing the context.

Sure, in isolation. It’s very unlikely a player will do that over a specifically chosen 4 game period.

What do you think happened? The pitchers all decided independently to groove Pujols free hits?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sure, in isolation. It’s very unlikely a player will do that over a specifically chosen 4 game period.

What do you think happened? The pitchers all decided independently to groove Pujols free hits?

Well I am speculating as to all of it, but I could imagine, with nothing at all on the line, a general understanding on the team that if the situation presented where Pujols was up with men on, whoever was pitching would lay up a bit. Again, sample size sure, but it seems strange he has no hits in the series except in RBI situations. It doesn't take much to make a pitch more hittable against one of the great batters of all time, you can take a little off a fastball or hang a curve slightly and the world won't be wiser..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well I am speculating as to all of it, but I could imagine, with nothing at all on the line, a general understanding on the team that if the situation presented where Pujols was up with men on, whoever was pitching would lay up a bit. Again, sample size sure, but it seems strange he has no hits in the series except in RBI situations. It doesn't take much to make a pitch more hittable against one of the great batters of all time, you can take a little off a fastball or hang a curve slightly and the world won't be wiser..

So the idea is that the last 4 games, the pitchers, independently and without a conspiracy to do so, grooved Pujols pitches only when runners were on base and multiple runs were on the table?

We could look at the game scores, the pitchers contract performance and reputation to see if getting rocked could hurt them materially, etc.

My personal opinion is that this scenario seems very unlikely on the surface.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

Yeah, with millions of dollars on the line and offices running every analytic under the sun to determine what pitchers are getting that money, I am sure a reliever (or starter) is willing to gift 2 runs to the other team so that Pujols can catch a milestone. It shouldn't matter that all of the pitchers conspiring to gift the legend 9 RBIs have probably never met or said a word to the guy. I could maybe see a 9th inning walk to extend a consecutive games reaching base record or a gimme pitch at the ASG, but nobody is sacrificing .25 on their ERA for the season to let Pujols pad his stats.

I am sure all of us would gladly risk our careers by giving up a valuable appointment with a company prospect so that Miley Cyrus can have our last spot on the plane to make it to her record setting 300th consecutive performance.

Besides the above how many pitches would they have to groove in a live game? In the HR Derby the best hitters actually have a guy that regularly pitches to them doing their absolute best to groove them one and still can't get good contact most of the time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Besides the above how many pitches would they have to groove in a live game? In the HR Derby the best hitters actually have a guy that regularly pitches to them doing their absolute best to groove them one and still can't get good contact most of the time.

Difference between trying to hit it out with every swing and to make solid contact, no?

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well I am speculating as to all of it, but I could imagine, with nothing at all on the line, a general understanding on the team that if the situation presented where Pujols was up with men on, whoever was pitching would lay up a bit. Again, sample size sure, but it seems strange he has no hits in the series except in RBI situations. It doesn't take much to make a pitch more hittable against one of the great batters of all time, you can take a little off a fastball or hang a curve slightly and the world won't be wiser..

I get it - for some reason you dislike Pujols and absolutely refuse to give the man his credit. That's ok. You couldn't get enough support on the other Pujols thread because it was all pro - Pujols - you had to start your own just to try and tarnish or lessen what he has done. According to your previous posts they should also put Trout's name in parentheses beside Pujols' name because he was the reason Pujols is 2d all time - ALL TIME - in RBI's and 4th all time - ALL TIME - in home runs!

Now, you have implied, stated, imagined, speculated, whatever - that whoever was pitching (Eddie Cicotte, Scherzer, DeGrom, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Walter Johnson, Christy, Nolan Ryan, etc. etc. it doesn't matter) would just groove him a pitch with men on! Are you kidding me.

All the statistics you quote are to diminish Pujol's career and records. Find someone to brow beat (Trevor Bauer, Tatis, etc.) that is more susceptible that we can believe, there are plenty available.

I do get a kick out of reading all your researched data - I always just kind of sit back and think "Who in the Hell would check all that crap!".

It's time to go - I have to watch "Eight Men Out" which of course is the true documentary of exactly what happened in the 1919 World Series and the greatest baseball team of all time (except they cheated).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I get it - for some reason you dislike Pujols and absolutely refuse to give the man his credit. That's ok. You couldn't get enough support on the other Pujols thread because it was all pro - Pujols - you had to start your own just to try and tarnish or lessen what he has done. According to your previous posts they should also put Trout's name in parentheses beside Pujols' name because he was the reason Pujols is 2d all time - ALL TIME - in RBI's and 4th all time - ALL TIME - in home runs!

Now, you have implied, stated, imagined, speculated, whatever - that whoever was pitching (Eddie Cicotte, Scherzer, DeGrom, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Walter Johnson, Christy, Nolan Ryan, etc. etc. it doesn't matter) would just groove him a pitch with men on! Are you kidding me.

All the statistics you quote are to diminish Pujol's career and records. Find someone to brow beat (Trevor Bauer, Tatis, etc.) that is more susceptible that we can believe, there are plenty available.

I do get a kick out of reading all your researched data - I always just kind of sit back and think "Who in the Hell would check all that crap!".

It's time to go - I have to watch "Eight Men Out" which of course is the true documentary of exactly what happened in the 1919 World Series and the greatest baseball team of all time (except they cheated).

Pujols is a very great player, I don't dislike him at all. If you can't acknowledge hitting behind Trout did a great deal for his RBI totals, you don't know anything about baseball, what can I say? Stop the sycophantic hero worship already. As for his amazing closing run, It's a fair question and we're discussing it is all. Nobody else here takes it personally or feels the need to attack.

[G1911]

Pujols is where he is on the RBI list because of Trout. He spent several years as a DH/1B with a below average bat but still getting RBI’s because the Angels kept him hitting behind Trout who gets on base at an absurd rate.

I don’t see how this can be argued, on reasonable factual grounds, to be false.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pujols is where he is on the RBI list because of Trout. He spent several years as a DH/1B with a below average bat but still getting RBI’s because the Angels kept him hitting behind Trout who gets on base at an absurd rate.

I don’t see how this can be argued, on reasonable factual grounds, to be false.

I remember Bill James ran some simulation where he replaced one of the KC Royals with a hypothetical batter who walked every time. All else being equal, the guy batting behind him, who was just an average player, had something like 160 RBI lol. Of course it matters.

[ClementeFanOh]

Dear God- "mountain, meet mole hill"

1) There is no conspiracy about Pujols reaching HR history. There wasn't a
secret meeting of the pitcher's union in which they voted to groove
pitches, so he could reach a milestone while they become answers to
obscure trivia questions.

2) Albert Pujols has reached his achievements because of his OWN
performance. The RBI total certainly is influenced by who bats ahead of
him- as it is for every single player. He doesn't make out the lineup cards
and does not control who reaches base in front of him, who the opposing
pitcher is, etc. Yes, several of his Angels years were below average- for
him!- as he got older. I continue to be amazed that some "fans" continue
to be befuddled by the reality that the skill of most professional athletes,
even great ones, diminishes with age. Google machine reveals a career
average of 296 with 2000+ RBI and 700+ HR. He's Mickey Mantle with
175 more HR and 500+ more RBI (and save it, I know they played
different positions and different amounts of seasons- point is he's been a
killer player).

3) The problem with dissecting something is that it's dead when you're
done. Give it a rest!


Trent King

[Republicaninmass]

Now draft kings has a partnership with ESPN.

Expect the unexpected!

[G1911]

Pujols years were not below average “for him”, he has been below league average offense for several years. More if you’re only looking at 1B and DH. “Google machine” will turn this data up as well.

RBI totals are not really the product of individual performance. Pujols got a great gift in Trout. Many, even most, milestones and records have been aided by favorable circumstances. Such is reality.

Pujols is a legendary player, a first ballot of famer, and my bias leans towards his favor. But dismissing a rather unlikely event of several pitchers non conspiratorially juicing him balls repeatedly with runners on base can be done without insisting on things that are plainly false. People love to just take the most opposite argument possible instead of actually staying within the bounds of evidence and reason.

[frankbmd]

The fix was in, but it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I will grant that it's hard to fathom a plot, but at the same time it's just hard to accept that in the natural course of things, a 45 year old or whatever he is who has been pretty bad for a long time comes up with a 9 HR 27 RBI month and finishes with 9 RBI in four games when he just happens to be chasing HR and RBI milestones. That's all I have to say about it. Good discussion, good points raised.

[ClementeFanOh]

1911-

"People love to just take the most opposite argument possible instead of
actually staying within the bounds of evidence and reason." It's amusing
that YOU typed that statement with a straight face. you desperately need
to look up the meaning of "self awareness", partner...

You have this funny habit of quoting specific stats and refusing to consider
context, or ANY data that tends to unseat your position. (You also enjoy
portraying yourself as somehow neutral and objective in your proclamations,
although many seem to have a derisive quality about them.) It all goes
with your "I am always right, just ask me and I'll confirm it" mantra. It
would work so darn well if you were the czar but, alas...

And yes, many of Pujols' Angels years were indeed below average for him-
period. You worship stat lines, look it up. Doesn't mean he isn't a great
player. It means he is human. Pretty sure your guy Babe Ruth "got a gift" of
some pretty fair teammates to hit in, yes? (I know how you slob over the
Babe, so I genuflected before I typed his name). So yes, Captain Obvious,
players who accumulate lots of RBIs must have baserunners on in order to
accomplish that task- glad you cleared that up for everyone. It's that pesky
little task of actually doing it, that separates some players from others.

Trent King

By the way, it's completely unsurprising that you whiffed on the "Google
machine" comment. You truly think that's what I believe it's called! Perfect.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So we're now explaining the second half of Pujols' career by saying he's "human." LOL why can't people just accept what the numbers show, that he had an unreal first half, a mostly average second half, and that his RBI totals benefited greatly from hitting behind Trout? These are just facts, there's no emotion in them. Why would anyone take offense?

BTW how many all star teams did Pujols make in the last 12 years? 2, including this year which was honorary as he had a bad first half. Just showing he was human I guess.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So we're now explaining the second half of Pujols' career by saying he's "human." LOL why can't people just accept what the numbers show, that he had an unreal first half, a mostly average second half, and that his RBI totals benefited greatly from hitting behind Trout? These are just facts, there's no emotion in them. Why would anyone take offense?

Because there are a lot of dipshits here who get triggered and go nuts by anything that does not accord with a narrative they made up.

We got through like ten posts with reasonable discourse, so that’s pretty good.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

1911-

"People love to just take the most opposite argument possible instead of
actually staying within the bounds of evidence and reason." It's amusing
that YOU typed that statement with a straight face. you desperately need
to look up the meaning of "self awareness", partner...

You have this funny habit of quoting specific stats and refusing to consider
context, or ANY data that tends to unseat your position. (You also enjoy
portraying yourself as somehow neutral and objective in your proclamations,
although many seem to have a derisive quality about them.) It all goes
with your "I am always right, just ask me and I'll confirm it" mantra. It
would work so darn well if you were the czar but, alas...

And yes, many of Pujols' Angels years were indeed below average for him-
period. You worship stat lines, look it up. Doesn't mean he isn't a great
player. It means he is human. Pretty sure your guy Babe Ruth "got a gift" of
some pretty fair teammates to hit in, yes? (I know how you slob over the
Babe, so I genuflected before I typed his name). So yes, Captain Obvious,
players who accumulate lots of RBIs must have baserunners on in order to
accomplish that task- glad you cleared that up for everyone. It's that pesky
little task of actually doing it, that separates some players from others.

Trent King

By the way, it's completely unsurprising that you whiffed on the "Google
machine" comment. You truly think that's what I believe it's called! Perfect.

You got butthurt after Pujols RBI’s were put into context. “Google machine” is exactly what you called it. That is a quote. I never said Pujols isn’t a great player, if you ever finish Hooked on Phonics and learn to read, you will see that I said the exact opposite and called him legendary and a first ballot hall of famer. Again, you’re just lying and making crap up that is directly contradictory to the transcript.

I have hardly ever said anything about Ruth on here at all, so you’re making crap up again, but Gehrig hit behind him as I recall, not in front.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes, Ruth typically batted third. I doubt he was hitting behind anyone with the on base percentage of Mike Trout.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Because there are a lot of dipshits here who get triggered and go nuts by anything that does not accord with a narrative they made up.

We got through like ten posts with reasonable discourse, so that’s pretty good.

I don't see why pointing out facts gets translated into hating or bashing someone. I have said all along I like Pujols and he's an all time great player. That doesn't mean one should not critically examine numbers.

[ClementeFanOh]

PeterSpaeth- I'm not "taking offense". I have directly stated Pujols'
performance declined after he went to the Angels. I have directly
acknowledged the brilliant discovery that he- like every hitter who has ever
stepped to the plate- needed baserunners to hit in. I didn't "explain" the
second half of his career by claiming that he's only human, I replied to
asinine comments by 1911 that deserved the retort. If anything, I "take
offense" at artificially generated nonsense and the people who think it is
clever or insightful.

Short version:

1) Pujols has been a great player by ANY statistical measure

2) Yes, he benefitted by having a great player ahead of him. He also
benefitted by having the skill to drive him in. Trout didn't bat for him.

3) Yes, RBI guys need the reality of baserunners on base, to hit them in.

4) NONE of this has a thing to do with that little achievement of hitting
700 home runs or enjoying a .296 lifetime BA.

Seems like a couple of you have come to the brilliant conclusion that Pujols
declined over time and needed other players to do their jobs(!) in order to
accumulate his RBIs total. Well done, Nobel-level work there...

Finally, I'm sure that 1911 has replied while I'm typing. He fits the label of
"tiresome lunatic" to a T, and I'm sure his response will exude objectivity
and reasonableness- so long as we agree with everything he says.

Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

And yes, many of Pujols' Angels years were indeed below average for him-
period. You worship stat lines, look it up. Doesn't mean he isn't a great
player. It means he is human.

Sure sounds like an explanation to me, but maybe I can't keep up with your thought process.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't see why pointing out facts gets translated into hating or bashing someone. I have said all along I like Pujols and he's an all time great player. That doesn't mean one should not critically examine numbers.

I forget who, but someone with a lot more brain cells than me observed something along the lines of “expecting people to be reasonable is the most eminently unreasonable thing”. I wish I knew why any attempt to deal in reality brings this out, pretty much everywhere where man speaks. Many people simply do not live in a state of rationality, and many of us apparently do not live in the state of hyper emotion that many others do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

PeterSpaeth- I'm not "taking offense". I have directly stated Pujols'
performance declined after he went to the Angels. I have directly
acknowledged the brilliant discovery that he- like every hitter who has ever
stepped to the plate- needed baserunners to hit in. I didn't "explain" the
second half of his career by claiming that he's only human, I replied to
asinine comments by 1911 that deserved the retort. If anything, I "take
offense" at artificially generated nonsense and the people who think it is
clever or insightful.

Short version:

1) Pujols has been a great player by ANY statistical measure

2) Yes, he benefitted by having a great player ahead of him. He also
benefitted by having the skill to drive him in. Trout didn't bat for him.

3) Yes, RBI guys need the reality of baserunners on base, to hit them in.

4) NONE of this has a thing to do with that little achievement of hitting
700 home runs or enjoying a .296 lifetime BA.

Seems like a couple of you have come to the brilliant conclusion that Pujols
declined over time and needed other players to do their jobs(!) in order to
accumulate his RBIs total. Well done, Nobel-level work there...

Finally, I'm sure that 1911 has replied while I'm typing. He fits the label of
"tiresome lunatic" to a T, and I'm sure his response will exude objectivity
and reasonableness- so long as we agree with everything he says.

Trent King

The point on 2 is that Pujols' other numbers for those years demonstrate that ANY average ML hitter in that situation would have had that many RBIs or close to it. Giving him "credit" for driving them in is rather meaningless.

[ClementeFanOh]

PeterSpaeth- couldn't have scripted your responses better if I wrote them
myself. What's next? Will you examine the need for basketball players to
miss shots, in order for great rebounders to accumulate the rebounds?
(Don't answer that, please...)

1911- nope, the "he doesn't agree so he must be irrational" argument is a
non-starter. Back to the basement for you! Just keep imagining that the "bad
man must be crazy", I know how important it is that you win all arguments in
your own mind.

Trent King (written without any increase in blood pressure and a complete
lack of wild- eyed irrationality)

[G1911]

Well, the fantasy arguments and statements I have never made and are absent from the transcript that ClementeFan imagines happened are certainly nutball.

Thankfully we have this clear headed thinker to completely make things up, get pissed off at statements of actual fact, completely lie, and flip out constantly instead of filling his med prescription. Diogenes has found his rational man, the lamp may be retired.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought Diogenes was looking for an honest man, not a rational one lol.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought Diogenes was looking for an honest man, not a rational one lol.

In the source Greek, from long after Diogenes time, it’s simply “man”, but with both subtexts of rationality and honesty (which at that time were oft tied together with the different implications of a different language; one cannot be honest if one is not rational). It’s reprinted in English both ways, as honest man and reasonable man depending on the book.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

In the source Greek, from long after Diogenes time, it’s simply “man”, but with both subtexts of rationality and honesty (which at that time were oft tied together with the different implications of a different language; one cannot be honest if one is not rational). It’s reprinted in English both ways, as honest man and reasonable man depending on the book.

Interesting, because one sees reference to him mostly in the context of how corrupt and dishonest people are.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting, because one sees reference to him mostly in the context of how corrupt and dishonest people are.

One of the joys of the classics is that they are often different in context from pop culture's appropriations.

The dual subtext, of reason and honesty, is the rhetorical point of the particular example; as the claims are neither rational nor honest and include several blatant lies accusing both you and myself of saying things that were never said and are not in the transcript.