Well, the NL's record of futility continues, and I, being an NL guy, am disappointed this morning. I thought the top 4 in the NL lineup would be revved up to prove themselves, and there are no four other guys that you want revved up besides Hanley, Utley, the King, and the Hebrew Hammer. Alas, there is one other guy you want apparently, Carl Crawford. That catch was ridiculous.
Still props need to be extended for the first half turned in by last night's man of the hour (and the only bright spot on my dismal fantasy team). For some perspective, let's note that Vernon Wells signed a 7 year, $126 million contract in 2006 after coming off a season where he went .303/32/106. Albert Pujols, AFTER 90 GAMES!!!, has this line: .332/32/87. That is inhuman (and frankly, inhumane to NL pitchers). What's more, the guy has absolutely no protection in his lineup, which makes his performance even more remarkable.
Still, as we at SLAE like to look at the big picture (and, as Longhorns fans, have a decidedly what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude), I have to ask where El Hombre ranks in the Pantheon of greatest baseball players ever. Is he one of the top 5 players ever, as his stats would suggest? He has made the playoffs 5 of his 9 years. He has won 7 out of 11 postseason series, and hit a collective .323/13/35 in those series. However, he has only 1 World Series title (compared to a guy like Jeter who has 4). His performance at such an early age puts him alongside guys like Foxx, Aaron, DiMaggio, Mantle, and Gehrig....and yet I feel like there is just something separating those guys from Albert. Am I wrong? Am I swayed by the "romance" of old-time baseball?
For that matter, is it fair to judge baseball players along the same lines (championships) as we would, say, quarterbacks or basketball stars? Baseball is the ultimate individual game (pitcher versus hitter), but at the same time it is the ultimate team game (a hitter generally has four chances total to really change a game). So how will Albert be remembered?
