Alright it's prediction time in MLB

The guy has played four years, not three. Still pretty impressive yearly averages, but isn't it a little early to predict he'll be the best ever? get a brown paper bag and breath deeply.

 

who cares about all the losers so i'm just doing the 6 division champs and 2 wildcards.

al
east-sox
central-sox (surely ya'll can figure out which ones)
west-angels
wc-yanks

nl
east-braves (yep, again)
central-cards
west-dbacks
wc-cubs

 

Pujols already is the best player ever for someone his age. Although it seems pretty obvious that he's been using steroids (hard to say how getting off the juice will affect him), he has an absolutely incredible grasp of the strike zone, especially for someone as young as he is. The idea of him eventually ending up as the greatest hitter of the modern era isn't outrageous.


As for the Marlins, the addition of Delgado is overrated. He's on the downside of his career and Pro Player is a tough park. At best he gives them what Derrek Lee did before they let him go. Philadelphia has the best lineup in that division, but Florida does have some impressive pitching if everyone stays healthy.

 

Then who would you build a team around?

 

right now, I'd say that Pujols is probably the best in the game, so I'd probably choose Pujols. I just wouldn't go as far as to predict, after four years, that he's gonna be the best to ever play the game. Too many guys like Aaron, Ruth, Williams, Mays and Musial have come before him. I'll bet there are more than a handful of people who made the same proclamation about Ken Griffey.

Look at a guy like Todd Helton. In his first four full seasons (1998-2001), he totalled nearly identical numbers: 151 homers, 503 RBIs and a .336 average. Plus he's been a superior defensive player. Neither have great speed.

 

#1) Helton is a fabulous hitter too (and yes, a better defender).

#2) Helton plays half his games in Coors Field. Pujols obviously does not. Helton's road numbers were still very good, but nowhere near Pujols' pace.

#3) Helton was 25 in his first full season. Pujols was only 21.


Clearly Pujols could get hurt tomorrow or something else could go wrong to the point that he'd no longer be the same player, but it is worth noting that he has had the best first four seasons offensively of any player in the history of the game. A lot of that has to do with the era he's in, but he's an amazing hitter. Heck, he didn't have a single strikeout in all of spring training.

 

Helton's first four were very comparable.

I remember when Kurt Warner had the best QB rating of anyone ever to play the game. Were people predicting he'd be the best football player ever? I'm not arguing that Pujols isn't a damned good ballplayer, just saying it's ridiculous to say he's gonna be the best ever.

 

Helton's first four years were excellent, but Pujols' were better, and Pujols didn't play in Colorado and was four years younger. The fact remains that no one in the history of baseball had a better first four years offensively. And your Warner analogy is off-base. QBs are helped and hindered by the system they're in. Baseball players are affected somewhat by their lineup and moreso by their ballpark, but for the most part their achievements are their own doing. And once again, Pujols is doing this as a very young man. If he doesn't see a significant drop-off in performance and he ends up playing for 10+ more years, he'll go down as one of if not the best hitter of all-time.

I agree that it's too early to say he definitely will be the best player ever, but he's been so incredibly good at such a young age that it isn't at all out of line to say that he has a very good chance of being the best hitter ever if he has a long career and doesn't see a significant decline in performance.

 

not sure what age has to do with anything. Granted, the park one is playing in does play a factor in one's performance. But if you're gonna use that as one basis for the argument, then you need to note that offensive numbers by and large have been inflated over the last decade with the proliferation of hitter-friendly ballparks. Does Pujols put up these "best ever" numbers if he's forced to hit at the Polo Grounds or Forbes Field on a regular basis, at a time when pitchers threw off a higher mound?

As for the Helton-Pujols comparison, look at the numbers for the first four full seasons of each:

Pujols had 160 HRs, 504 RBIs and a .333 average. Helton had 151, 503 and .336. Pretty much identical. Pujols had higher on-base and slugging percentages in his first full season than Helton had in his first year. However, Helton was better on all counts in years two, three and four. It's not outrageous, then, to assert that helton had the best first four years offensively in MLB history.

 

No, it isn't, but fairly or unfairly, there are no qualifiers for "first four full years." Helton doesn't get the mark in the record books because he saw limited action in '97.

And obviously age is critically important because you need to dominate at an early age to have any shot at the all-time records. Plus it's much harder for someone to succeed at age 21 than at age 25. Helton was amazing by any measure, but he was much closer to his "peak years" (27-31) than Pujols.

As for era, I already conceded that point along with making a perhaps undeserved steroids allegation, but that's only an argument for whether or not Pujols is the greatest, not whether or not he deserves to be considered.