Pujols in Context

Maybe it's the fact that the NFL season just officially ended, and basketball has always been a secondary sport to me. Maybe it's just that pitchers and catchers are reporting soon. Maybe it's because Jordan just dropped some serious college hoops knowledge yesterday, and I know I can't compete in that department. I don't know what it is, but I've been in a baseball mood lately. I thought about posting the second part of my musings on baseball's Triple Crown, but frankly, I've already written it and I felt like doing something new tonight. Specifically, I have Albert Pujols on the mind.

Jordan and I were talking a couple of weeks ago about Pujols (the full context of that debate may one day be posted on this site, but quite frankly, it's like 5000 words long, and I don't know that anyone would actually want to read it). Suffice it to say, Albert Pujols is really, really good. The folks over at the Baseball Analysts really think so: see here and here. That should give you a general idea of how good he is. Want to know more? Check out any of the percentage leaderboards on baseball-reference:

BA
OBP
SLG
OPS
OWP
and perhaps most telling of all:
OPS+

If you're really in the mood, check out where Albert ranks among active players in any of those categories. It'll blow your mind. Anyway, while he puts up great numbers in the rate stats, what I specifically want to talk about is this: where does Albert Pujols rank all-time among right-handed hitters? When he steps on the field this April, Albert will be Hall of Fame eligible, so now it's time to rank him, especially among his fellow right-handers.

First, there's the fact of who is up there. This is, as I see it, the Mount Rushmore of Right-Handed Hitters:

Aaron
Mays
Hornsby
Foxx

Frankly, he stacks up well against all of them. Obviously, they have their advantages. Mays and Aaron had careers that were over twice as long as Pujols' has been so far, so they could pile up the raw numbers. Foxx and Hornsby played in what was undoubtedly a diluted era. Yes, they towered above their opponents. Yes, they would have been superstars in any era. Were they better than Pujols? Some of the rate stats above say yes; some say no. Heck, among hitters born after WWII, Pujols is 2nd all-time in batting average (trails only Tony Gwynn). That's pretty dang impressive for a guy we don't even consider to be a contact hitter. I would put him up there right now and say he's better (as a hitter, anyway) than those other four guys, but there are two things that keep nagging at me.

First, it's the raw-numbers thing. Obviously, Pujols is faced here with a famous problem in rating baseball players. Let's call it the Koufax Problem, after its most famous adherent. True Sandy Koufax was an unbelievably dominant pitcher for four years, but didn't do much else, because he retired. Now, if Albert Pujols died tomorrow, and we had to rate him, he would face this same problem. It's awfully tough to take a guy and rank him as the best right-handed hitter when he has 300 home runs (like Hornsby, only without Hornsby's other periperhals, especially batting average, if we're using raw statistics), but not 400 or even 500 (like Foxx), 600 (like Mays), or 700 (like Aaron, the true all-time home run king).

Honestly, I could get past all of that if it weren't for the nagging suspicion that Albert Pujols is Frank Thomas. Thomas faced similar accolades (seriously-- try to think back to 1995 and Big Hurt Baseball). How great was Thomas all-time? Obviously, this Frank Thomas Problem and the Koufax Problem are related, but different in that one assumes no decline and the other assumes a relatively sharp decline.

Now, let me first go on record as saying that Frank Thomas has been drastically, drastically underrated historically. He has been the victim of a number of injuries, and in his healthy seasons, even after his decline, he was a very, very productive player (see 2000, 2003, and 2006 for reference). However, he did face a sharp decline after an almost unparalleled start to his career. Now, this comparison is not entirely fair, since Thomas didn't play his full rookie season, but here are their numbers through their first nine years:

Pujols:
PA=6082
HR=366
BA=.334
SLG=.628
OBP=.427
OPS+=172

Thomas:
PA=5501
HR=286
BA=.321
SLG=.584
OBP=.443
OPS+=174

Obviously, the homers are skewed in Pujols favor, but in the course of over 1300 extra plate appearances. Their home run rates (AB/HR-- in other words, how many at bats would it take for one HR) were 15.4 for Thomas and 14.06 for Pujols. Still a clear advantage, but not as disparate as it may have seemed. Also, the eerily similar OPS+ number is particularly troubling in light of this comparison. Thomas was a better on-base man (because of many more walks), Pujols a stronger slugger (am I the only one who thought that would be reversed?). But both are first basemen, both perennially MVP candidates, and both stand-up citizens who are well-respected in the baseball community. Full statistical results for each through nine seasons can be seen here and here.

Anyway, I find this whole thing very, very troubling. For the moment, I have Pujols settled in as the fairly sold #5 right-handed hitter of all time (with all due apologies to the aforementioned Thomas, Gwynn, Alex Rodriguez, and, of course Joe DiMaggio, as well as about 10 other guys). But that opinion could easily, easily drop. This worries me. My advice? Go watch Prince Albert now, just in case. On the other hand, he could just as easily be chiseling his face onto this particular Mount Rushmore.

Thanks to baseball-reference for all of the statistics. And sorry for all the external links. I know if means a lot of clicking.