Gehrig vs Pujols

Printable View

10-21-2008, 12:54 PM
TheNamelessPoet

Gehrig vs Pujols

Pujols remonds me of Gehrig... put up GREAT #'s every year but just happened to be around "better" players. Bonds was around previously, and now Howard is always talked about because of his dominant HR's and RBI

Code:

Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 1923 20 NYY AL 13 26 6 11 4 1 1 9 0 0 2 5 .423 .464 .769 218 20 1 0 1924 21 NYY AL 10 12 2 6 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 3 .500 .538 .583 189 7 0 0 1925 22 NYY AL 126 437 73 129 23 10 20 68 6 3 46 49 .295 .365 .531 127 232 12 2 MVP-24 1926 23 NYY AL 155 572 135 179 47 20 16 112 6 5 105 73 .313 .420 .549 152 314 18 1 MVP-10 1927 24 NYY AL 155 584 149 218 52 18 47 175 10 8 109 84 .373 .474 .765 221 447 21 3 MVP-1 1928 25 NYY AL 154 562 139 210 47 13 27 142 4 11 95 69 .374 .467 .648 194 364 16 4 1929 26 NYY AL 154 553 127 166 32 10 35 126 4 4 122 68 .300 .431 .584 166 323 12 5 1930 27 NYY AL 154 581 143 220 42 17 41 174 12 14 101 63 .379 .473 .721 203 419 18 3 1931 28 NYY AL 155 619 163 211 31 15 46 184 17 12 117 56 .341 .446 .662 194 410 2 0 MVP-2 1932 29 NYY AL 156 596 138 208 42 9 34 151 4 11 108 38 .349 .451 .621 181 370 1 3 MVP-2 1933 30 NYY AL 152 593 138 198 41 12 32 139 9 13 92 42 .334 .424 .605 177 359 1 1 MVP-4,AS 1934 31 NYY AL 154 579 128 210 40 6 49 165 9 5 109 31 .363 .465 .706 208 409 0 2 MVP-5,AS 1935 32 NYY AL 149 535 125 176 26 10 30 119 8 7 132 38 .329 .466 .583 176 312 0 5 MVP-5,AS 1936 33 NYY AL 155 579 167 205 37 7 49 152 3 4 130 46 .354 .478 .696 190 403 3 7 MVP-1,AS 1937 34 NYY AL 157 569 138 200 37 9 37 159 4 3 127 49 .351 .473 .643 177 366 0 4 MVP-4,AS 1938 35 NYY AL 157 576 115 170 32 6 29 114 6 1 107 75 .295 .410 .523 132 301 1 5 MVP-19,AS 1939 36 NYY AL 8 28 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 .143 .273 .143 10 4 0 0 2 AS +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 17 Seasons 8001 2721 163 1995 101 790 .340 .447 .632 179 106 0 0 45 2 2164 1888 534 493 102 1508 5060 +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 162 Game Avg 599 141 204 40 12 37 149 8 8 113 59 .340 .447 .632 179 379 8 0 0 3 0 Career High 157 619 167 220 52 20 49 184 17 14 132 84 .379 .478 .765 221 447 21 0 0 7 2 +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP

always top 10 BA
always top 5 pretty much in HR if not 2nd to Ruth
10-21-2008, 01:18 PM
phightinphils

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

While very similar in stats and all, there is still one MAJOR difference between the two of them.

Gehrig has more World Series rings than Pujols does.
10-21-2008, 01:25 PM
kenny1234

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

I understand the comment about Bonds but I don't think there are that many people outside of Philadelphia that think Howard is a better hitter than Pujols. Gehrig's career overlapped with Ruth (10 years) a bit more than Pujols did with Bonds (7 years) - but it is close.

That said, I think they are also similar in that both Gehrig and Pujols are very consistent. No huge numbers in any specific category - and therefore not likely to set a lot of single season records to attract the media.
10-21-2008, 01:26 PM
HoustonGM

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

Pujols remonds me of Gehrig... put up GREAT #'s every year but just happened to be around "better" players. Bonds was around previously, and now Howard is always talked about because of his dominant HR's and RBI

I'm glad you put "better" in quotes, :p. Gehrig was always behind a better player in Ruth, and Pujols was when Bonds was around, but Ryan Howard isn't close to Albert Pujols, at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phightinphils

While very similar in stats and all, there is still one MAJOR difference between the two of them.

Gehrig has more World Series rings than Pujols does.

1) It was easier to win the World Series in Gehrig's time. There were less teams, and only one round in the playoffs.

2) It's not Pujols' fault that the Cardinals don't have Babe Ruth and an assortment of other Hall of Famers.

So, no, that's not a major difference between the two as players.
10-21-2008, 01:26 PM
RickD

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Gehrig was also under the radar media wise because of Ruth and later Dimaggio. Pujols doesn't have the issue with teammates but with other players in higher markets! If Pujols played in NY, LA or Boston he would get way more coverage than he does now.
10-21-2008, 01:29 PM
phightinphils

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

2) It's not Pujols' fault that the Cardinals don't have Babe Ruth and an assortment of other Hall of Famers.

So, no, that's not a major difference between the two as players.

Well, there is still only one team that wins it all each year. So what is the problem?

Seems like some people just like to disagree with others.
10-21-2008, 01:30 PM
HoustonGM

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by phightinphils

Well, there is still only one team that wins it all each year. So what is the problem?

It's easier to win it when there are less teams and less rounds in the playoffs?

Quote:

Seems like some people just like to disagree with others.

If I disagree, yeah. The difference in World Series wins says absolutely nothing about the two players.
10-21-2008, 01:31 PM
phightinphils

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It's easier to win it when there are less teams and less rounds in the playoffs?

If I disagree, yeah. The difference in World Series wins says absolutely nothing about the two players.

Slaps head and just walks aways saying, " Some people are really stubborn".
10-21-2008, 01:32 PM
HoustonGM

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by phightinphils

Slaps head and just walks aways saying, " Some people are really stubborn".

Tell me, how does the number of rings tell you anything about either individual player?
10-21-2008, 01:56 PM
gRYFYN1

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

So, no, that's not a major difference between the two as players.

well it is a major difference, but it has no bearing on the skill level or talent of the player involved, similar to the fact that Pujols is Latino and Gehrig was Caucasian was a major difference.
10-21-2008, 01:59 PM
HoustonGM

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

well it is a major difference, but it has no bearing on the skill level or talent of the player involved, similar to the fact that Pujols is Latino and Gehrig was Caucasian was a major difference.

Yeah, it makes no difference when it comes to evaluating the two players. It tells you nothing about them as players, other than that Lou Gehrig played on some historically great teams.
10-21-2008, 02:23 PM
kenny1234

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yeah, it makes no difference when it comes to evaluating the two players. It tells you nothing about them as players, other than that Lou Gehrig played on some historically great teams.

Increasing the number of teams makes it harder to get a ring - increasing the number of rounds in the playoffs doesn't. Otherwise, I agree that it is of no more than marginal relevance.
10-21-2008, 02:29 PM
etothep

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny1234

Increasing the number of teams makes it harder to get a ring - increasing the number of rounds in the playoffs doesn't. Otherwise, I agree that it is of no more than marginal relevance.

I would think it's easier to win 2 rounds of playoff games than 3 rounds of playoff games.

Assuming each team has a 50% chance of winning their playoff round series, then each team has a 25% chance of winning the Series in a 2 round playoff (1/2 * 1/2). If there are 8 teams, and 3 rounds, then each team has a 1/2*1/2*1/2 chance of winning, which equals a 1/8 chance of winning, cutting their chances to win in half by doubling the ammount of teams.
10-21-2008, 02:40 PM
kenny1234

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by etothep

I would think it's easier to win 2 rounds of playoff games than 3 rounds of playoff games.

Assuming each team has a 50% chance of winning their playoff round series, then each team has a 25% chance of winning the Series in a 2 round playoff (1/2 * 1/2). If there are 8 teams, and 3 rounds, then each team has a 1/2*1/2*1/2 chance of winning, which equals a 1/8 chance of winning, cutting their chances to win in half by doubling the ammount of teams.

All I meant was that the number of rounds doesn't affect the number of rings that are handed out. Increasing the number of teams that make the playoffs increases the odds that a weak team win - so more rounds spread the wins around among more teams thus increasing the odds that a player has 1 ring while decreasing the odds that he has 5.
10-21-2008, 03:09 PM
HoustonGM

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny1234

All I meant was that the number of rounds doesn't affect the number of rings that are handed out.

Nobody said that, and I don't think I implied that. :confused:

Quote:

Increasing the number of teams that make the playoffs increases the odds that a weak team win

Exactly, and as such, it decreases the odds of each team winning the World Series. Thus, it's harder to win the World Series in a 3-round playoff than in a 1-round playoff.

The same number of World Series rings are given out now as in Gehrig's time, but more teams + more playoff teams = harder to win the World Series.
10-21-2008, 03:19 PM
kenny1234

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Nobody said that, and I don't think I implied that. :confused:

Exactly, and as such, it decreases the odds of each team winning the World Series. Thus, it's harder to win the World Series in a 3-round playoff than in a 1-round playoff.

The same number of World Series rings are given out now as in Gehrig's time, but more teams + more playoff teams = harder to win the World Series.

You said that:

Quote:

1) It was easier to win the World Series in Gehrig's time. There were less teams, and only one round in the playoffs.

More teams yes. More playoff teams not necessarily. More playoff teams means that it is harder for the best teams to win and easier for weaker teams to win. If only 1 team made the playoffs now then Pujols probably doesn't have a ring. Or if more than one team made the playoffs in the 40's then Ted Williams probably does. It is harder now to have a dynasty - for individual players the difference depends on those around you.
10-21-2008, 04:31 PM
TheNamelessPoet

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by phightinphils

Well, there is still only one team that wins it all each year. So what is the problem?

Seems like some people just like to disagree with others.

ok that being said... philly would be out and not have a hot at the ring :p

it would have been angels and cubs
10-21-2008, 04:33 PM
TheNamelessPoet

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by etothep

I would think it's easier to win 2 rounds of playoff games than 3 rounds of playoff games.

Assuming each team has a 50% chance of winning their playoff round series, then each team has a 25% chance of winning the Series in a 2 round playoff (1/2 * 1/2). If there are 8 teams, and 3 rounds, then each team has a 1/2*1/2*1/2 chance of winning, which equals a 1/8 chance of winning, cutting their chances to win in half by doubling the ammount of teams.

dont forget in their time there was NO 2 rounds... it was 50% chance not 12.5%
10-21-2008, 04:35 PM
TheNamelessPoet

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny1234

More teams yes. More playoff teams not necessarily. More playoff teams means that it is harder for the best teams to win and easier for weaker teams to win. If only 1 team made the playoffs now then Pujols probably doesn't have a ring. Or if more than one team made the playoffs in the 40's then Ted Williams probably does. It is harder now to have a dynasty - for individual players the difference depends on those around you.

you are priving our point tho... if you have MORE "compitition" (more rounds) thats more games to ge thru... is anyone really going to say that STL was the best team in the leage in 2006... Not a chance... but because they had a CHANCE to play for the series they got in... the mets were clearly a stronger team that year
10-21-2008, 04:43 PM
kenny1234

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

you are priving our point tho... if you have MORE "compitition" (more rounds) thats more games to ge thru... is anyone really going to say that STL was the best team in the leage in 2004... Not a chance... but because they had a CHANCE to play for the series they got in... the mets were clearly a stronger team that year

Right, so it was easier for Pujols to earn a ring because of the enlarged playoffs. It can't be harder (meaning less likely) for all players to earn a ring. Enlarged playoffs made it harder for the Cubs and Angels to earn a ring but easier for the Phillies or Red Sox.

This is a totally irrelevant debate that comes down to what we mean by harder. I am arguing that from the point of view of a career, changing the number of rounds in the playoffs doesn't reduce the odds that a random player will have a ring. You are arguing that once a player makes the playoffs his odds have been reduced - which is true but I think totally irrelevant.

The original comment was about the fact that Pujols only has 1 ring while Gehrig has 6 (I think). I just responded that the change in the playoff structure does not make it less likely that any particular player will have a ring or two. It probably does reduce the odds of a player having 6 because it reduces the chance of a dynasty.
10-21-2008, 06:17 PM
Swampdog

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Kenny's right. With the current playoff format (8 teams, 3 rounds), as opposed to the original format (2 teams meet in the WS), it is much easier for any individual player to be on a championship team at some point in his career, and conversely, it is far, far tougher for any player to win multiple (esp 4, 5 or more) 'rings'.
10-21-2008, 08:31 PM
dps

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

More rounds of playoffs make it more likely that the best team talentwise won't win it all in any given year. This means that teams that are truly great over a period of years are less likely to win multiple championships, and therefore individual players are also less likely to win multiple rings.
10-21-2008, 08:38 PM
boomboom

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny1234

You said that:

More teams yes. More playoff teams not necessarily. More playoff teams means that it is harder for the best teams to win and easier for weaker teams to win. If only 1 team made the playoffs now then Pujols probably doesn't have a ring. Or if more than one team made the playoffs in the 40's then Ted Williams probably does. It is harder now to have a dynasty - for individual players the difference depends on those around you.

You guys are looking at the same thing, and seeing it totally different, but in the end you both agree. You are both basically saying the same thing.
10-21-2008, 08:52 PM
Jeffy25

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Being a Cardinal fan, it is a blessing having an all around great ballplayer like Pujols, gives back to the community, gives back to the team, plays great defense, in fact how many GG's did Gehrig end with? I have no idea. What were his fielding numbers? St. Louis is very lucky to have this kind of player...I hope we don't waste it. Gehrig was without question, one of the best....If it was the 30's again, you are talking about just a phenomen in his day...look at 1936, what the hell!? that's a great year!

I don't think Howard even comes close in comparision to either ballplayers...no where even close, he is more like an Adam Dunn in my opinion...and I don't think that is really anything too special, I have no beef with Howard, I just think he is night and day different.

A-Rod is consistantly a threat, just like Albert is...I compare those two more then anyone else in today's hitter athlete.
10-21-2008, 08:54 PM
Jeffy25

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

how many times have the cards had the best record in the NL central since 01?

[QUOTE=kenny1234;1193335]Right, so it was easier for Pujols to earn a ring because of the enlarged playoffs. It can't be harder (meaning less likely) for all players to earn a ring. Enlarged playoffs made it harder for the Cubs and Angels to earn a ring but easier for the Phillies or Red Sox.
10-21-2008, 08:56 PM
HoustonGM

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

in fact how many GG's did Gehrig end with? I have no idea. What were his fielding numbers?

There weren't any Gold Gloves back then. Also, there aren't really any even semi-reliable fielding numbers that go back that far. BP's Fielding Runs Above Average is probably the best, and Gehrig was at -32 for his career.
10-21-2008, 09:13 PM
Jeffy25

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

not to sound dumb....what would an average fielder be then? 0? so is negative good? haha I really don't know
10-21-2008, 09:26 PM
HoustonGM

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

not to sound dumb....what would an average fielder be then? 0? so is negative good? haha I really don't know

Yes, 0 is average. -32 for his career means he was usually a couple runs below average each year - see his page. He ranged from -8 to +3. I think it can be safely said that Gehrig was about an average fielder.

For comparison, Pujols is at +46 for his career, and since his switch to first base full time in 2004, he's ranged from +2 to +15. The past three years, he's gone +11, +14, +15.
10-21-2008, 09:30 PM
Jeffy25

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

so being in the plus is good? haha, sorry
10-21-2008, 09:31 PM
HoustonGM

Re: Gehrig vs Pujols

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

so being in the plus is good? haha, sorry

Yes. 0 is average, above 0 is above average, and below is below average. :)