Pujols, Mr. September

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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).