Pujols, Mr. September

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.