Albert Pujols named MLB athlete of the decade

Discussion in 'Baseball' started by Millz, Sep 24, 2009.

  1. Millz

    Millz LGB Staff Member V.I.P.

    My first reaction was, "duh," but I am a bit biased...

    Nobody has had a better start to a career then Albert Pujols....

    This is only just the beginning folks. Having the pleasure to watch the best player in baseball play day in and day out has been so awesome.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2009

  2. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I love Pujols and think he's the best player in the Major League and is deserving of athlete of the decade. He is nothing short of phenominal.
     
  3. Babe_Ruth

    Babe_Ruth Sultan of Swat Staff Member V.I.P.

    Doesn't surprise me that Pujols was named the best player in the last decade.

    But again Millz I think it's debatable if he had the best start of a MLB career, you can make an argument for Teddy Ballgame in my opinion. Ruth as well if he wasn't a pitcher for his first few seasons.
     
  4. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    I'd say Albert deserves it, but I don't think it's a "duh" situation.

    A-Rod played a MUCH more valuable position than Pujols (and then was forced into a lesser, but still more valuable position). Pujols does have a bit better hitting numbers, but it's the steroids that put Pujols over the top.

    Bonds raises an interesting question. Pujols is better if you choose to look at the years 2000-2009. But if you had chosen to look at any other set of 10 years, Bonds would have a much better argument. It seems unfair that Pujols' years started right at the beginning of the decade, but Bonds' best years don't line up so conveniently.


    BTW - I think Ted Williams' start of career > Pujols (I don't think it's fair to ignore Ruth's years as a pitcher).
     
  5. Babe_Ruth

    Babe_Ruth Sultan of Swat Staff Member V.I.P.

    I totally agree with you on the defensive side of the ball Wade, not taking anything away from Pujols defensively but playing Shortstop and Third Base is much easier then first base. But now that we know he took steroids he doesn't deserve to be known as the best.

    Also Wade I'm not taking anything away from Ruth's years as a pitcher, it's just hard to judge the start of his career because he was a pitcher and a outfielder as well.
     
  6. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    You mean harder, right? ;)
    I agree, it's hard to judge, and he was a very good pitcher, and it's probable that he would have been almost as dominating as a batter if that's all he did. But since we're looking at how he actually started his career, and not what he might have done, I'm not sure I can rate him as getting off to as good of a start as Pujols.

    His first year, he didn't play much, but was pretty bad. His second year he was a fairly good pitcher. He was a very good hitter, but only had 92 AB. The year after that, his hitting was down, but he was a dominant pitcher. In his 4th year, he was a very good but not amazing pitcher. His hitting was back up, but again, he had limited times at the plate. Pujols got off to a better start than that.
     

Share This Page