• Featured |
  • Burton DeWitt
  • Vin Diec
  • Trevor Freeman
  • Diane M. Grassi
  • Gabe Kahn
  • Ryan McGowan
  • Kris Pollina
  • Matt Waters
  • Ray Yocke
  • -----------
  • Write for SC
  • Get Featured
  • Nominate
• blog |
• Journals

• NFL
• NBA
• MLB
• NHL
• College
• Other

• forums + |
  • Chat Room
  • Message Boards
  • Philly Message Boards
  • Photo Pool
• Submit |
• Help

Could Albert Pujols at only age 26, already be considered the greatest hitter ever?

By Nyyankees0815, Section MLB
Posted on Tue May 16 2006 at 10:46 PM EST
More on: (all tags)

Hey, hey, it's Big Albert Pujols. The man-child who's quickly becoming perhaps the greatest right-handed hitter baseball has ever seen. Already Pujols set a mark for most home runs in April with 14. At his current pace, he'll hit 90 home runs, have 207 RBI, hit a healthy .345 with whopping .908 slugging percentage and walk 181 times. The scary thing about all of this is that he is only 26 years young.

    You want spooky similar stats? Try these on. Before 2001, Bonds had never hit 50 homers in a season (previous high :48). Neither has Pujols (previous high: 46). Bonds' slugging percentage had never been above .700 prior to 2001 (previous high: .687); Pujols previous high .666 (on pace for .908). Bonds had 177 walks in 2001; Pujols is on pace for 181. Bonds' 2001 on-base percentage was .515; Pujols is on pace for .509. The minor ups and downs in Pujols' year-to-year slugging percentages are very similar to that of Bonds' slugging percentage. It's all right there in black and white.

   So can Albert hit 74? Or 78? Or, dear God, an unimaginable 81? (And do not think for a moment that this impossible. Unlikely, yes; impossible, no.) And here's the key: Albert has better lineup protection (Jim Edmonds and Scott Rolen) than Bonds did in 2001 (Rich Aurilia and Jeff Kent). The only verdict out yet is whether or not the new Busch Stadium will yield more or fewer gopher balls than AT&T Park did in 2001.

   But what will people say about a player who's never hit 50 dingers in a season who all of a sudden hits 74 or 75 homers? Who's never even come close to these kinds of numbers? What will they think? Will it be more a 'pure' and 'untainted' record in the public's eyes? With testing now in place that didn't exist in 2001, I would imagine so.

   It would also do something else, too: Blow a huge hole in the argument that Bonds' year was so statistically freakish (it wasn't, as I've discussed in previous posts) that it had to have been aided by illegal substances--aka: 'roids. That argument is gone if Pujols hits 74. And everything Albert has done in his career so far has indicated that having a monster, almost unthinkable year is entirely possible, if not likely. The stats say so. No manipulating or spinning required.

     In the meantime for Pujols, there's still lots of baseball to be played. Many injuries and slumps to avoid. And walks to take. But one thing is for certain: If Pujols breaks one or more of Bonds' 2001 records, there'll be little 'roids talk. And that's perfectly fair. But ultimately, if and when he does break any those records, in a very silent, perhaps unnoticeable way it'll do more to legitimize Bonds' marks than anyone will be willing or able to admit.