Master Index of Archived Threads


How Bad is Albert Pujols?

Frayed Knot Sep 14 2017 01:27 PM

Historically bad claims this BP article - or is so at least when compared to all those reaching the once vaunted 100-RBI plateau (he's not there yet but currently has 94). With a .247 BA, a .290 OBA, and a league-leading 24 GiDP, 'The Machine' is basically an out-making machine this season, only one with the good fortune of both staying healthy [131 GP / 565 PA -- thank you DH rule!] and of having a manager who writes his name in the middle of the lineup every day, much of it behind Mike Trout. Throw in his negative base running and fielding values (played 1B a handful of games) and he's a negative WAR player at this point in his career. That .290 OBA represents 172 points off his peak season (2008) and for his six seasons with the Angels his OBA is a full 100 points below where it was with StL (420 to 320). Don't think the Cards are regretting their decision to let him go, eh? But don't worry, he won't turn 38 until January and has a mere $124 million left on his deal -- which doesn't include the $3 mil for notching 3,000 hits (he will) or another $7 mil for 765 HRs (he won't) or various small change additions for MVP votes -- running through 2021 Holy Shit what an albatross!!

Edgy MD Sep 14 2017 01:38 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

When he was young, he was even a great baserunner. His second half his career is a lot like Jim Rice's in that he's still putting up the traditional production numbers, but that only obscures the reality that the relative lack of walks and the accumulation of double plays makes him something less than an asset.

Frayed Knot Sep 14 2017 01:51 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

And no one seems to love those traditional production numbers and ignore the outs they create like Mike Scioscia Not that I see a ton of Angels games, but Scioscia has certainly been running that ship long enough for me to know that I've never liked the way his teams play and, despite his rep, wouldn't want him running my team. Pujols had maybe the best opening decade of any player for whom I've witnessed their entire career. 366 HRs and a .427 OBA all before turning 30 (plus the good running and good glove), he'd finish 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 9th, 1st, 1st, and 2nd in MVP voting over those ten seasons, much of that during the era of Bonds. But that was then and this is now.

MFS62 Sep 14 2017 02:15 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

I'm waiting for one of the NY Post writers (or some WFAN callers )to say that the Mets should get him because of all those RBIs still in his bat for the rest of his contract. Later

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 14 2017 02:42 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

I mean, it's obvious he was a steroid user.

SteveJRogers Sep 17 2017 08:14 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I mean, it's obvious he was a steroid user. That, and he's older than his stated 37 years.

Ashie62 Sep 17 2017 09:04 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

He had a terrific first ten years and as I see it just aged. Heck, David Wright would be happy to "just age" and play a full season, which Pujols has in 2017.

Ashie62 Sep 17 2017 09:05 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

SteveJRogers wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I mean, it's obvious he was a steroid user. That, and he's older than his stated 37 years. I thought you meant Cespedes.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 17 2017 09:08 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

Give credit to the Cards for taking the emotional attachment and sentiment pretty much out of the formula for re-signing Pujols. They've done just fine without him. Wish the Mets took that same approach with David Wright. No balls here.

smg58 Sep 18 2017 10:56 AM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

I don't remember anybody objecting when the Wright extension happened. If anything, people were relieved that the Mets were still willing to commit money to somebody. They're too cheap, except when they aren't, in which case they didn't have the balls to say no.

41Forever Sep 18 2017 12:35 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

I don't have a problem with the Wright contract.

HahnSolo Sep 18 2017 01:07 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

smg58 wrote: I don't remember anybody objecting when the Wright extension happened. If anything, people were relieved that the Mets were still willing to commit money to somebody. They're too cheap, except when they aren't, in which case they didn't have the balls to say no. I think batmaganleadoff has been pretty consistent in his objections to the Wright deal; going back to when he signed the extension. That might not have been a popular sentiment, but it's been his. FWIW, I don't think I objected to the Wright deal on here, but I did express reservations to acquaintances on the length of the extension.

Frayed Knot Sep 18 2017 01:14 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

The point Mags is making is that the popular move -- in this case keeping the home-grown star -- isn't always the smarter business move. The Cards were willing to walk away from their extremely popular superstar's demands and they've been the better club since because of it. That said, there were differences in the two cases: Wright signed the winter he turned 30 for a seven year deal; the Angels inked Pujols for ten years at age 32 and for a lot more money. Now one could argue that Pujols was the better player and deserved more, but the two years prior to his FA deal had already seen slips of 90 and then 105 points of OPS (or OPS+ level of 173 to 148 to 138) so that he was no longer quite the player he had been and therefore worth neither the length nor the per/year cash. That a player who was already trending downward and would turn 32 before ever suiting up for you would continue to fall could have and should have been easily foreseeable. And then there's the injury factor. The biggest problem with Pujols is that he's essentially been giving LAA replacement level while hardly missing any time at all. In only one of his now six seasons w/the Angels (2013) had Albert failed to reach 600 PA David of course has been exactly the opposite. And while signing aging players always carries a risk, getting less than 300 ABs in total from ages 32 to 34 is totally out of the realm of predictability. Money owed starting in 2018: Mets = $47 million over three seasons; Angels = $114 million over four (at which point the ten year "personal services" contract kicks in).

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 18 2017 02:00 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

HahnSolo wrote: smg58 wrote: I don't remember anybody objecting when the Wright extension happened. If anything, people were relieved that the Mets were still willing to commit money to somebody. They're too cheap, except when they aren't, in which case they didn't have the balls to say no. I think batmaganleadoff has been pretty consistent in his objections to the Wright deal; going back to when he signed the extension. That might not have been a popular sentiment, but it's been his. FWIW, I don't think I objected to the Wright deal on here, but I did express reservations to acquaintances on the length of the extension. Someone needs to find that thread!

Benjamin Grimm Sep 18 2017 03:26 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

The deal was announced on November 30, 2012. But I'm not seeing any threads that were opened around that date that look like the "big discussion" that we undoubtedly had. Maybe there had already been a long-running thread that had been opened months before?

Ceetar Sep 18 2017 03:36 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

I mean, the analogy to Wright isn't quite fair, as Pujols was older and signed for longer. and Wright's decline was medical. He's been good while he's been on the field. Pujols of course has at least hit better than average until this year, though not amazingly. But Pujols is dead weight, whereas Wright is dead money. (At least right at this moment) So Wright has A. produced when he's been here. B. Not been here for a bunch that allows the Mets to fill his spot with a player that can hit (Pujols doesn't give the Angels that. If he was hurt like Wright this year the Angels might be in a playoff spot) and C. actually recoops some of the money by being injured. This is the only year Pujols has actually been terrible. I wouldn't be surprised to see him somewhat retool is approach and swing in the offseason and be passable again next year, but he's still an anchor.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 18 2017 05:00 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

smg58 wrote: I don't remember anybody objecting when the Wright extension happened. If anything, people were relieved that the Mets were still willing to commit money to somebody. They're too cheap, except when they aren't, in which case they didn't have the balls to say no. I was dead set against the Wright re-signing from the get-go. I thought Wright was past his prime at 30, and that his risk of future serious injury was significantly increased because the back injury he had already sustained was typically, progressive. But this alone, wasn't what turned me off the Wright re-signing. It was that, plus that the Mets were a dreadful, abysmal team in 2012, easily three years from respectability, I thought. The combination of those factors, I thought, made the Wright re-signing just pointless from a competitive point of view. When you're three years away from anything, a high-priced 30 year old with a serious injury history is the last kind of guy you'd want to sign to a long-term top dollar contract. I would've rathered Sandy work his magic and get a young superstud for Wright --- a superstud who'd hopefully be an all-star making peanuts money baseball-wise, today. I also panned the Mets for letting Dickey go that season, but mainly because I thought the move was necessitated by the Mets poverty more than anything else. I guess I was challenging the Mets motives. I was on board with the Dickey trade before the 2013 season started, once I absorbed Syndergaard's press clippings.

Frayed Knot Sep 23 2017 01:33 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

Speaking of high contract players cratering, has anyone checked out the year Miguel Cabrera is having? No wonder they're kicking manager Brad Ausmus out the door. After seven straight years with an OPS averaging right around 1000 (169 OPS+), he plunged to [u:r3iw8dil]725[/u:r3iw8dil] this season (91 OPS+) and, like Pujols, has a negative WAR both offensively and defensively - Cabrera, unlike Pujols, is still playing the field more often than not. Now so far this is a one-year plummet, as opposed to Prince Albert's five year steady decline, but that's quite a plummet for a guy who'll turn 35 as next season starts and has an even more expensive contract attached to him. Signed in March of '14 to a deal covering his age 31 - 40 seasons with club/vesting/buyout options for the two years beyond that, he's guaranteed another $172 million thru the 2023 season.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 23 2017 02:32 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

Those Pujols and Cabrera contracts looked foolish from the start. On the other hand, baseball owners are supposed to be sophisticated and with resources and access to the best minds and data out there to evaluate contracts. So what gives here? Did they screw-up, by not seeing what was apparent to any reasonably sentient seasoned baseball fan? Maybe they were counting on baseball revenues to continue to increase at the same recent explosive rate for the foreseeable future. Or maybe mass inflation. I dunno.

Frayed Knot Sep 23 2017 03:11 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

I think the owners and GMs simply delude themselves into thinking that this guy is, and therefore will always be, different; that what he gives you now is too good to pass up so that even when he does decline that decline will be smaller and his future diminished self will still leave him better than most. And then there was ARod where the Steinbrenner boys (left alone I think Cashman would have let him walk) convinced themselves that not showing up on a previous drug sheet was the same thing as being proven clean and so were willing to spend anything to be able to claim that both the season & career HRs records were restored 'back where they belong' in Yanqui pinstripes once baseball -- either officially or just mentally -- weeded out all the steroid cheats. Marketing opportunities and visions of lasting records, in this case, clouded rationality.

Frayed Knot May 05 2018 09:09 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

So Albert got his 3,000th hit Friday night, making him the 32nd player to do so. He and Adrian Beltre are the only two Dominican Republic born players as well as the only two active 3K+ players of any stripe (although Ichiro has yet to officially retire). Upon joining the 3K hit club, Pujols immediately jumps to the top spot as far as having the largest percentage of XBHs (42.1%) thanks to his 626 doubles + 620 HRs (though just 16 measly triples - BY FAR the lowest figure). He drops ARod to 2nd place in Pct of XBHs, followed by Willie Mays, Rafael Palmiero, and Hank Aaron. At the other end, Ichiro, whose ML debut was the same day as Pujols's and now steps aside right on the eve of Albert's accomplishment, ends his career (probably) with the lowest pct of XBHs (18.6%) behind Tony Gwynn, Cap Anson, Rod Carew, and Eddie Collins (28th thru 31st place). Now the problem: the subject heading of this thread still holds, he's not a good hitter anymore and of course is an even worse all-around player. His slugging is up a month into this season but his OBP has ticked even lower (.284) than last season and last year is also when he took over the career lead in GiDPs. But at least the Angels only have ~3.8 seasons remaining on his deal at $27, $28, $29, and $30 million.

Benjamin Grimm May 05 2018 09:10 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

I hope this is how Giancarlo Stanton's career plays out.

Frayed Knot May 05 2018 10:30 PM Re: How Bad is Albert Pujols?

If it wasn't for that contract, the whispers about Pujols might be the same as they were for Wade Boggs during his run-up to 3K: that he might wind up getting his 3,000th hit and his release on the same day. Turns out that Boggs, then with Tampa Bay and 41 y/o, got his 3,000th hit in early August (1999) and went on to notch just 10 more before playing his final MLB game just three weeks later even though teams were on the verge of roster expansion (8/27). Pujols is three years younger now than Boggs was then (although public questioning of THAT has popped up again recently) and is hitting for more power than Boggs in his final year (or more than Boggs ever did really) Wade at least wound up with a .301 BA [88 for 292]/.377 OBA in his final season so at least he wasn't the out-making machine that Pujols is at this point.