Pujols, Mr. September

[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.