Would you give Pujols 10/300?

[waroriole]

Not even close? If you consider the AL of 1914-1935 the equal of 2000-2010, I guess that's a reasonable statement.

From age 21-30 Pujols has been worth 84 wins. From 19-30 Ruth was worth about 85 wins.

Ruth's argument is that he was worth more in individual years. Pujols has never had a 14-win season, for example. Ruth had two of those. But the other side of that argument is that the American League in Ruth's time wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. There weren't nearly as many good players, and the replacement level was certainly much, much lower.

In 1923 Ruth may have had his best year. He played on the pennant and World Series winning Yankees. On that team he was the only player with more than 10 homers. He was the only player with more than 30 doubles. Their starting SS had a .591 OPS. Their first baseman, Wally Pip, had a .704 OPS. Less than 40% of the players in the majors were 6' or taller, and 4% were 200 lbs or heavier, compared to nearly 90% and 75% today.

It's just much easier to lap the field when you're playing in probably the equivalent of the Japanese Leagues or AAA today.

But, wasn't Ruth the product of the same environment as those guys. What would he have been like with the kind of training available today? I understand the argument of weaker competition, but at the same time it can't be that much weaker because expansion has dilluted the ML talent today.

[orayole]

I'd pay whatever money it takes, but not 10 years. 7-8 years max.

[scOtt]

But, wasn't Ruth the product of the same environment as those guys. What would he have been like with the kind of training available today? I understand the argument of weaker competition, but at the same time it can't be that much weaker because expansion has dilluted the ML talent today.

I think it's more that Ruth was a freak of nature in his time. Bigger and stronger yes... but more that he just had some innate talent that no one else had. JMO.

[Orioles_Magic]

But, wasn't Ruth the product of the same environment as those guys. What would he have been like with the kind of training available today? I understand the argument of weaker competition, but at the same time it can't be that much weaker because expansion has dilluted the ML talent today.

Expansion has diluted the talent.

But when Ruth played, the league was whites only.

There were no African American players or foreign players.

So I'd say that goes both ways.

[waroriole]

Expansion has diluted the talent.

But when Ruth played, the league was whites only.

There were no African American players or foreign players.

So I'd say that goes both ways.

That's true, and it would have been very interesting if you could have combined the Negro Leagues with MLB.

[DrungoHazewood]

The all-time record for wins over replacement from age 32-on is 86 by Bonds. 2nd is Ruth at 75 and Wagner at 73. Ruth and Wagner played 80, 90+ years ago in eras where it was easier to dominate. Bonds probably had some additional help with his total, too.

Let's say wins depreciate in value at 3% a year, which is conservative. And let's say that Pujols declines by 10% a year, starting at 7 wins this year. That would give him 46 wins from 32-on, essentially tying him with Cobb and Edgar for 8th or 9th most wins ever at those ages. That would be worth something like 10/230.

To get Pujols worth $300M from 32-on, you'd have to assume either more inflation, or less aging. If wins cost 5% more per year instead of 3%, Pujols is worth $250M under these assumptions. If they're 7.5%, he's worth more like $275M.

If wins cost 5% more a year, and he only declines by 5% a year, then he's worth a little over $300M.

Both of those variables are far from sure, and of course heavily impact the value of the deal. If baseball somehow explodes in revenues again, this could be a bargain, if revenues remain flat for a while it could look ridiculous. If Pujols continues to be a historic player, approaching Ruth and Bonds, it could look very good. If he ends up being Ken Griffey Jr or Mickey Mantle, the contract is a debacle.

Mantle was worth 107 WAR going into his age 32 season. He would only accumulate 13 more the rest of his career. Jimmie Foxx had an almost identical career to Pujols up to age 32. He was worth less than 10 wins from then on. Mel Ott, better than Pujols through 31. 22 wins from 32-on. Lou Gehrig, very similar to Pujols up to 32, less than 30 wins from 32-on.

Basically, there are only about seven players in major league history who'd arguably be worth this deal at this age - Bonds, Ruth, Wagner, Mays, Anson, Aaron, and Speaker. While there are 20 players who had 75+ WAR through 31.

So my guess is there's about a 30-40% chance Pujols makes the deal ok with his performance, about 30% chance it's not a terrible disaster although not great, and about a 30% or so that it's a total debacle (for example, he's done with 4-5 years left on the deal).

[scOtt]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUvU4gH1GI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUvU4gH1GI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[DrungoHazewood]

But, wasn't Ruth the product of the same environment as those guys. What would he have been like with the kind of training available today? I understand the argument of weaker competition, but at the same time it can't be that much weaker because expansion has dilluted the ML talent today.

I think talent today is vastly superior to that of Ruth's time, and better than at any point in the past. Expansion hasn't kept pace with the growth of population, much less the growth of the player pool from foreign sources. Ruth played at a time when you only had 16 teams, but the American population was not much over 100M (of which only 80%(?) were of the race necessary to play MLB). Today 30% or 40% of the MLB players are foreign-born, and the US population is over 300M, all of whom are eligible.

I think that if you wanted to replicate the playing quality from 1927 you'd have to expand to about 60 or 70 MLB teams in a short period of time. I truly believe that the 2010 Japanese Series winner would easily win 100+ games in the US majors of 1930.

[waroriole]

I think talent today is vastly superior to that of Ruth's time, and better than at any point in the past. Expansion hasn't kept pace with the growth of population, much less the growth of the player pool from foreign sources. Ruth played at a time when you only had 16 teams, but the American population was not much over 100M (of which only 80%(?) were of the race necessary to play MLB). Today 30% or 40% of the MLB players are foreign-born, and the US population is over 300M, all of whom are eligible.

I think that if you wanted to replicate the playing quality from 1927 you'd have to expand to about 60 or 70 MLB teams in a short period of time. I truly believe that the 2010 Japanese Series winner would easily win 100+ games in the US majors of 1930.

I'll take your word for it, because you know alot more about this than me. What about the fact that so many more great athletes play other sports now? Like football, basketball etc.

[scOtt]

I think talent today is vastly superior to that of Ruth's time, and better than at any point in the past. Expansion hasn't kept pace with the growth of population, much less the growth of the player pool from foreign sources. Ruth played at a time when you only had 16 teams, but the American population was not much over 100M (of which only 80%(?) were of the race necessary to play MLB). Today 30% or 40% of the MLB players are foreign-born, and the US population is over 300M, all of whom are eligible.

I think that if you wanted to replicate the playing quality from 1927 you'd have to expand to about 60 or 70 MLB teams in a short period of time. I truly believe that the 2010 Japanese Series winner would easily win 100+ games in the US majors of 1930.

That's interesting. If there were 60 or 70 teams, how good would Albert and other stars look?

[CanadianOriole]

Is there any tool that translates MLB performance to AAA? I would wildly guess Pujols to be good for about .380/.550/.800 or thereabouts in a full season of AAA. In this 60+ team league he'd get half his AB's against what is currently AAA calibre competition - so it's safe to say he'd record some astronomical numbers.

[tilgaham]

I wouldn't even talk with him. To sign that man away from Saint Louis is just wrong. How much does an extra 20-40million really matter when you've made a quarter of a billion dollars? Some things are more important than money. It will be a sad day for baseball if Albert Pujols leaves the Cardinals.

[cindyluvsbrady]

I love him:)

[MrOrange82]

Well, if you wanted to buy the production he's given over the last decade (about 73 wins above replacement) on the FA market, that's about how much it would have cost. Actually, a little less.

It's truly amazing that Pujols has already racked up 80 WAR in the first half of his career. He could retire right now and comfortably sit with some of the best players in the hall of fame. He is athletic enough that it's not out of the realm of possibility to see him accumulate 150 wins above replacement when he retires. In fact I think there's a good chance of it. He's even got a chance to top Bonds' 169 WAR.

By the way, to justify this contract from a FA market perspective, Pujols would have to be worth about 7 WAR a year for the next decade. I know it sounds absurd, but he's actually only fallen short of that mark once in his career, during his "sophomore slump" season, in which his defense took a slight hit according to UZR and he 'only' posted a .955 OPS with 35 home runs. There aren't too many teams who could afford that contract and still do what it takes to surround him with enough talent to build a consistent winner, but one of the higher payroll teams will get him and they will be very happy.

Contract talks aside, I just hope everyone truly appreciates what an honor it is to be able to watch Albert Pujols play baseball.

I haven't read through the rest of the thread, so I don't know if this has been said, but...

The bolded is the major issue, IMO. His production might be "worth" it when dollar values are assigned to wins above replacement, but the magnitude of the commitment for most payrolls would be prohibitive of putting together a winning/good team.

From a more personal perspective, I don't think it makes sense for anyone to make that much money doing anything...let alone playing a game.

From an even more personal perspective, I've met the guy a few times (no, not in fanfest/autograph signing situations), and he's a huge -------. There are specifics I won't air out here, but talent doesn't equal class.

Certainly, though, watching him from a detached distance is an experience like few others baseball-related.

[srock]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUvU4gH1GI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUvU4gH1GI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Add this to this of things I wish I knew in High School.