The Man and The Machine
Stan Musial’s legacy has come under discussion with the All-Star festivities taking place in St. Louis. Dave Brown at Yahoo! Sports asks why the guy isn’t more celebrated. Joe Posnanski is easily one of baseball’s most popular writers — widely read by fans of sabermetrics and superb writing alike — has repeatedly hammered Musial’s nail into our memory banks as one of the best ever to play. Still, the message seems to have either been ignored or largely forgotten until this week.
Present day fans of the Cardinals are spoiled much like fans of the Musial days. Sure, the Cardinals have some holes, and yeah, they’ve only won a single World Series with Pujols, but I’m guessing none of them would trade the experiences with Albert Pujols for another world title. Not because they don’t care about winning or anything silly like that, but because Pujols is as close to a deity as baseball has right now. He’s the type of player that, even if you can’t afford him in talent or dollars, teams should send their scouts to watch. To appreciate.
Few would argue Pujols’ placement amongst the all-time greats. He is only 29-years-old and it’s hard to see Pujols sliding off the mountain top anytime soon. He is beyond the point of being discussed as a potential legend, he is one. He’s a player we’ll tell our grandchildren about in the same tone – with the same exuberance and respect – as the older generations talk about Musial. That makes it only fitting that the two share more than a team in common:
Pujols’ line acts like a shadow to that of Musial’s. Think about how many players outhit Pujols through age 29. Five? Maybe six? Hitting better than Pujols is the baseball equivalent of outmaneuvering Alexander the Great or outwitting Kurt Vonnegut. It happens, but not too often. Musial and Pujols have nearly identical wOBA, but Musial racked up 7,320 plate appearances after turning 30-years-old. Will Pujols? Can he hold the same level of performance if he does? Probably not, and that’s why we should think of Stan Musial in higher terms than we do.
Print This Post
Very nice post about two excellent hitters and, by all accounts, class acts. It was mind-boggling to hear Pujols say that he wasn’t the best player in the game, even if it is just societally-necessitated humility.
musial’s .514 wOBA season was pretty absurd!
I agree with Nathan on all points. Musial’s wOBA’s are downright insane, yet I can’t remember the last time his name was brought up when discussing the greats with some friends of mine. The reminder is welcome.
Pujols is probably the greatest player I’ll see in my lifetime, and I’m thankful that he can serve as a role model to younger people about the tradition and pride of the sport.
My grandkids will hear this story from earlier this year:
Against Washington on a Thursday night in May, Daniel Cabrera ran the count to 3-1 (of course) against Pujols with first base open and one out (Rasmus occupied third). I mention to my friend sitting next to me — a girl and baseball novice — the misfortune of watching Pujols in certain circumstances, mainly, that he won’t get pitched to. Having watched Cabrera throughout the season until that point, it occurred to me that in fact it was likely he had no idea where the ball was going. As he wound up, I quickly told my friend to pay attention. Pujols unloaded on the 90mph fastball and deposited it into the Cardinals bullpen in left. Behind the plate, the ball appeared as if it was still going up when it hit. Anyway, never has a play stuck in my mind like that: the sheer predictability of his performance reminds me of the greatness of Woods and Federer, if you’ll excuse the comparison.
you never saw bonds play? that sucks.
I’m 27. I can easily say I saw Bonds *hit*. I didn’t see him play too much.
uzr likes barry just fine up until 06 fwiw
I was sort of under the impression that hitting was a big part of playing baseball (which is why we are talking so much about Stan and Albert, isn’t it?). Still, it’s a shame you never got to see Bonds on the bases or in the field, especially when he was younger. Thank goodness it’s all on tape.
Never saw Barry in person, but recall watching him throughout the late 1990’s and 2000’s. I’m not that young, sadly (25). Also, the Nats Cards game was Apr 30, not in early May. Apologies.
@Kincaid
I saw Bonds throw during Game 7 of the ‘92 NLCS. Epic. Couldn’t even get Sid Bream at the plate.
I saw Bonds hit a HR into the upper deck of Yankee Stadium (for a moment I thought it was going to do a Reggie Jackson and take out part of the architecture) off Ted Lilly in his first AB on June 8, 2002. It was pretty funny because although it was the top of the first and the stadium wasn’t yet full, the crowd was razzing and booing him pretty good until he hit that shot; then the noise instantly changed to a Keanu Reeves-like “Whooooah”
Interesting, but the praise for Pujols gets a little hyperbolic. This is the same language used for the likes of A-Rod, Bonds, McGwire, etc.
As baseball fans, we’ve lived in a fine, if not “tainted” era of offensive prowess. It has been an honor to watch Bonds, Big Mac, and A-Rod hit in their primes. It’s questionable how such numbers were attained, but there’s no doubt these players had talent, and I don’t have any reason to take that type of credit away from them.
Pujols as a hitter is in a league of his own though, and it is becoming scary evident as we continue to watch him pile up the production.
I will go ahead and say it right now: Pujols is, at present, at least the second-best right-handed hitter of all time. The only one I’d rank ahead of him: Rogers Hornsby. And Pujols is very close to Hornsby IMO.
Not sure how the WAR fleshes out the RHH…
Joltin’ Joe was a pretty good hitter.
Through the age of 29 Hank Greenberg was better.
Clearly it’s not possible for a hitter to be that consistently good. The only possible explanation is that Musial juiced.
(Isn’t how the tiresome argument always goes these days?)
The cool thing about Barry Bonds is that he won three MVP’s as Bill Bixby before winning four more as Lou Ferrigno. Pujols just gets balder. Not quite as entertaining.
Looking at the three consecutive years Musial finished second in the MVP voting (1949-51), it seems as though he was taken for granted during his playing days as well. Jackie Robinson made a strong case for the MVP in ‘49, as did Roy Campanella in ‘51, but ‘50 was a travesty. Relief pitcher Jim Konstanty? His 23 decisions and 22 saves were a bountiful oddity of fortunate proportions, but not MVP worthy. Yet he won in a landslide.
You could make the case that a few of Bonds’ MVP awards should belong to Pujols.
Which of Bonds’ MVP awards would you argue should have gone to Pujols exactly? Bonds put up the better numbers in every year I looked up.
You can also make the case that Jeff Kent’s (maybe others?) MVP should have gone to Bonds.
I don’t think he’s arguing that Pujols had better numbers than Bonds 2002-2004, but that if Bonds had not juiced, his numbers wouldn’t have been ridiculous and Pujols may have won a few. Of course, nobody knows if Pujols is on anything (sadly, the state we’ve found ourselves in), but, should he turn out to have been clean (will we ever know?), I think it could be argued that he should have won in 2003/4.
No, but you could make a case that Kent’s and Caminiti’s MVP awards should have gone to Bonds.
KG has got it right, should have been more clear I guess. Apparently people forget he’s been linked to PEDs during that time period.
It’s weird how so many Bonds fans have come out of hiding in this topic. Maybe he’s been treated unfairly, but we can’t take his achievements on face value at that point in his career.
I bet some guys here never really see Bonds play. He has every bit of overall greatness as Pujols. Bonds is a great defender(probably should have been a CF), a legendary hitter. He himself would have brought the 09 Nats to 500 baseball. But unless you haven’t heard of, the medical things.
You mean Bonds may have had some magical good at sports substances?
http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=5409&playerid2=1009405&playerid3=&position=1B/3B&page=0&type=full
Sandoval
This isn’t funny. Move on.
I actually thought it was pretty funny! Tongue firmly in cheek.
I laughed.
These Sandoval jokes will never get old.
I think a big reason we don’t celebrate Musial enough is that didn’t quite reach 500 homers (475) and he only hit 30+ six times in 22 seasons. That’s not to diminish his greatness, of course, but baseball fans love to couch greatness in terms of homers. Despite a 559 career slugging percentage, Musial wasn’t a great home run hitter, except from ages 27 to 34. As a side note, I had no idea he led the league in triples five times.
The Man didn’t have that one transcedent or eye-popping skill like Babe’s 714 or Ted’s .400 or Rickey’s 1406 or DiMaggio’s 56; he had a combination of exceptional ones. This is perhaps best evidenced by his 1948 season where he lead the league in everything, just not home runs or stolen bases. The total package creates a transcendent ballplayer, but he’s much easier to overlook because there just isn’t one skill upon which we can hang our hats. Thankfully, metrics like wOBA and Sean’s WAR database are able to give us that one number–that full picture of the sum of his parts.
Musial hit 39 HRs in 1948, one back of Kiner and Mize, who each had 40. However, Musial lost a HR in a rainout. Had that game gone five innings, the HR would have stood and Musial would have won the Triple Crown. As it was, he led the NL in hits, doubles, triples, RBI, runs, average, slugging, OPS,and total bases.
Look at this:
135 runs, 230 hits, 46 doubles, 18 triples, 39 homers, 131 RBI, .376 avg, .450 OBP, .702 SLG, 1.152 OPS, 429 total bases.
429 total bases!!! Second place ( Mize) had 316!
Oh, and Musial struck out 34 times in 694 PA.
That’s up there with Ruth 1921.
Regarding home runs. Musial ranked 6th in MLB history when he retired after the 1963 season.
Ruth 714
Foxx 534
Williams 521
Ott 511
Gehrig 493
Musial 475
Musial isn’t remembered as a prolific home run hitter today. Time has diluted his standing (he’s currently tied for 28th on the all time list with Willie Stargell) to the point he’s only remembered as a great hitter vice a great power hitter; but isn’t the above list interesting?
To be fair, part of Stan Musial’s early greatness has to do with the fact that, during ages 21,22, and 23, he was one of the few top players who was not off serving in WWII. He did serve in 1945, so perhaps it all balances out. but it’s still something to be taken into consideration for such a comparison.
His age 25 to 30 seasons were his best stretch (1946-51). He either won the NL MVP or finished second in 5 of those 6 seasons. He may have benefited facing pitchers who wouldn’t be in the majors if not for the war during the years you mention, however, his statistics after the war, when everyone was back, more than validate the numbers he was putting up in 42-44.
He wasn’t great because the pitching sucked. He was great because he was great.