The 5.5 Hole

Albert Pujols is back to hitting the ball like an MVP.  He's now hit six home runs, five doubles, and is hitting .424 in his last seven days.  But it's not just the last seven days.  Pujols has been coming on strong since Mike Trout was called up to the Angels on April 28th.  Because of the hole he dug himself through the first month of the season, it took some time to realize that Pujols was back to his old self, but he is hitting .289 on the season, he has 24 home runs, he's driven in 76 runs, and may very well cross the .300 batting average plateau before the season's over.  His Los Angeles Angels are planted in the play-off, but they are trailing the Rangers - and they have been all year.

So the question is, how much did Albert Pujol's early-season slump cost the Angels.  There are two ways to look at this question and thus two sets of answers, both equally important.  How much money did Pujols cost the Angels, and how many wins did he cost the team?

Let me start with this disclaimer: I am an admitted Albert Pujols apologist.  I love everything about the guy.  His performance on the field, the way he carries himself, his philanthropic contributions.  Everything.  So, as you read this piece about Pujols' contract negotiations you can write it off.  Or, you can love it and appreciate the logic.  I believe you will do the second thing.

I'll start by reminding everyone that we live in a different world than those of athletes.  If we pass judgement because we can't fathom the amount of money athletes make, we don't really have a leg to stand on in the argument.  Yet, that doesn't seem to be the main issue many people have with Pujols and the contract negotiations.  It would seem that most people are put off by Pujols' rejection of $200 million.  But why?

Pujols signed his current contract after the 2003 season.  He would make $13.875 a year million for the next eight years.  Pujols was coming off a .329/.403/.610 season in 2001, a .314/.394/.561 season in 2002, and a .359/.439/.667 season in 2003.  That's a pretty good start to a career, but no one could have known that Pujols would carry these types of number in every year of his career.  $13.875 million a year seemed fair.  But it quickly became clear that Pujols was the greatest player in the game.  Yet, his salary was being outpaced by players like Ryan Howard, Mark Teixiera, and even Miguel Cabrera.  Inferior players were making more than Pujols (inferior but still of All Star quality).  Ryan Howard is making $25 million a year.  Mark Teixeira is making $22.5 million a year.  Miguel Cabrera is making $19 million a year.  Pujols is better than all of them.

But Pujols played out his contract.  He didn't demand a trade to a team willing to pay him more immediately.  He didn't demand a new contract.  He played it out.  Now that it's time for him to renegotiate, he is getting flak for wanting to see what he's worth on the open market.

Last we heard, the Cardinals had reportedly offered something like eight years, $200 million.  That equates to $25 million a year.  Pujols was reportedly looking for ten years, $300 million.  So he rejected $200 million.  If any team is willing to pay him more, why shouldn't he take it? 

Perspective check:
You're working in an office making $40,000 a year.  From everything you've heard, everyone acknowledges you as the best at what you do, including other companies.  There are other employees, employees who are not as good as you, who make more.  Say you find out a few of these employees within your own company and at other companies are making 44% more than you.  That comes to roughly $57,000 and some change.  Now you know other companies want you and are willing to pay you.  Is there anything wrong with demanding say $67,000?  You're better, companies want you.  It would seem the market would place at least that value on you.  Now, let's assume your own company offers you the $57,000 others are making who clearly are inferior in performance.  Would anyone second guess your decision to test the market and see if you can in fact get the $67,000 elsewhere?

I know many of you may have stopped reading, shocked that I am using numbers with no baseball statistical relevance, but for those of you who continued on, you probably realized this is a simplified version of Pujols' situation using similar percentages scaled back to what we in middle-class America can understand.  When you look at it in terms of numbers we are familiar with, it doesn't seem so bad.  When you look at from a percentage standpoint, it doesn't look so bad. Ryan Howard is making 44% more than Pujols per year.  Pujols is better.  He should be paid more than Howard.  Pujols has asked to be paid 16.67% more than Howard.  Pretty reasonable considering his performance over the years.

So, nothing Pujols has asked seems out of line.  If you have issue with it, you simply have issue with contracts in baseball that have set the precedent.  You cannot blame Pujols for what other teams chose to pay players like Howard, Teixeira, and Cabrera. 

Now that I have blown your mind with numbers, go forth and praise Pujols, start a telethon to help him raise the money he should be earning, and bow at his feet.  Or continue to dislike him because he turned down $200 million.  I've said my piece.

Why is it so hard for us to dub someone the greatest of all time? Is the characterization really based so much on opinion that a consensus cannot be reached? Perhaps. But I thunk it goes beyond that. People are afraid. They do not want to dust off a crown given to someone long ago, pass it on to the next great thing, only to have that crown yanked away and given to someone new. The debates about the greatest of all time are so historically based, not many are willing to pluck a modern player from the pool and throw them into the discussion. Instead, people will use phrases like "one of the greatest," or "the greatest of his time," or "in the discussion as one of the best."

These debates are not limited to sports. The same restrictions apply when talking about the greatest politicians, greatest writers, greatest actors, and greatest artists. Modern men and women are often compared to the old timers, but rarely vaulted to the top. DeNiro is this generation's Brando, or Mitch Albom is good, but he's no Hemmingway. Albert Pujols is one of the modern masterpieces for which most are afraid to push to the top.

The problem with naming someone the greatest of all time lies in two parts. One, how does one classify the greatest, empirically or all-encompassing. And two, how does one overcome the lore created by those who no longer play (and in many cases, no longer walk this earth)? The first problem can be overcome. The second usually cannot.

Albert Pujols is generally considered the greatest player in the game today, but change that discussion from a current focus to a historical one, and very few will jump at naming Pujols the greatest. I will not shy away from it though. There is no question in my mind that, like Michael Jordan and basketball, Albert Pujols is the greatest to ever play baseball.

His statistics speak for themselves. He is a fearless hitter, both determined and driven. Barring extensive stints on the disabled list, Pujols will break countless records. He is a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame. He makes those who doubt him look foolish.  But what sets him apart from the classics?  Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle.  The list can go on.  But isn't that the point?  If you can talk about each of those players in the same breath, what sets them apart from each other?  Pujols has had in-arguably the greatest eleven years to start a career ever.  And at 31, he has a good six to seven years of dominance ahead of him.  Even beyond that, he could still be a contributor.  No one knows for sure how long Pujols will play, but would anyone doubt he could do it into his forties?

If Pujols performs at even 75% of his career average, and does so for the next six years, he will amass 647 home runs, 1,899 RBI, and 2,961 hits.  But who really thinks he will only go six more years?  Who really thinks he can only perform at 75% of his career numbers?  But the statistics are only part of the equation. 

No one else has played the game like him.  He approaches the game knowing -- not thinking, not hoping -- but knowing he is the best.  Albert Pujols dominates like no one we have ever seen or read about.  Because honestly, isn't that the problem?  We have only read about many of the greats.  Pujols in person must be compared to Ruth on paper or film.  He must be compared to stories of Williams and Mays.  The man must stand up to the legends.  And for his entire career he has.  So, at risk of breaking unwritten rules, at the risk of crossing hidden lines, I can admit that Pujols is the greatest of all time. 

In a September 19th article on Beyond the Boxscore, Justin Bopp analyzed Joe Mauer's season against his career numbers and came to the conclusion that Mauer has peaked.  Bopp said, "I'm going to go out on an easy limb here and say that we've already seen his best, and we'll likely never see another 6+ WAR season from Mauer again. Perhaps his 5+ WAR days are behind him as well."

While Bopp is a very good writer, and Beyond the Boxscore is a very good site, the conclusions being reached here are absurd.  I am going to borrow the graphs they used, then perform my own analysis.  Below are from Beyond the Boxscore:














Here's my first problem: the 2011 numbers are drawn from only 333 plate appearances.  That sample size is so small, any conclusions made would be skewed.  For example, in the article Bopp indicates the 2004 ISO numbers should be taken with a grain of salt because they came from only 122 plate appearances.  If we are to ignore, or set aside, the 2004 numbers because of the limited plate appearances, why are we putting so much weight in 2011?

Joe Mauer was not 100% to start this season.  He ended up on the disabled list.  He was rushed back.  He underperformed.  To truly evaluate Mauer's future potential, I think he needs a pass for this year.  But let's take a closer look at the fluctuations in Mauer's stats.

To say that he has already peaked would be to ignore 2006, 2008, 2010.  Did he peak in '06? Or was it in '10?  When a player sees as much fluctuation in his numbers as Joe Mauer does, it is irresponsible to declare him beyond his prime.  Joe Mauer's K% has remained pretty constant.  His ISO has consistently been above 100 except for this season.  If we look at his BB%, Mauer peaked in 2008.  If that's the case, why was he one of the most sought-after free agents before re-signing with the Twins?

By no means do I think Mauer is as good as Johnny Bench was, but let's look at their WAR graphs (courtesy of Fangraphs, Bench - Green, Mauer - Orange):



By utilizing Bopp's logic, it should have been declared that Bench reached his prime at 24.  Yet, he had another up year at 26.  Every player is going to have up and down years.  Take another example (Piazza - Green, Mauer - Orange):



Mike Piazza had 5 seasons of 4 or more WAR after his 28th birthday.  I think there's hope for Mauer yet.

For all those jumping to conclusions about Joe Mauer, let me leave you with one final reminder: Albert Pujols.  Earlier this season, most writers proclaimed the Pujols we all knew and loved was dead.  They declared Pujols all but washed up and on the back end of his career.  Then what happened?  Pujols started hitting.  He is two RBI away from continuing his already record streak of .300/30 HR/100 RBI seasons.  An off year does not mean the end of a career.  I'm sure Joe Mauer will prove this next season.