Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Albert Pujols vs Mel Ott

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Albert Pujols vs Mel Ott

    Despite his career not being over yet, I think Pujols is already better than Ott. I believe his peak is better, and while Ott has an edge over him in longevity, I believe Pujols will be closing that gap soon enough. I also give Pujols a boost because I believe he dominated a more competitive league.
    24
    Albert Pujols
    87.50%
    21
    Mel Ott
    12.50%
    3

  • #2
    I believe that Mel Ott is one of the most underrated players(except here). I have Mel Ott around 20th all-time. This guy was incredible at getting on base. However, I have Pujols ranked even higher due to a steep league quality adjustment. Pujols is closer to 10th all time on my list.

    Comment


    • #3
      Mel Ott rocks!


      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

      Comment


      • #4
        I have Pujols edging out Ott by a slim margin.
        "(Shoeless Joe Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." -- Connie Mack

        "I have the ultimate respect for Whitesox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Redsox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country."--Jim Caple, ESPN (Jan. 12, 2011)

        Comment


        • #5
          I love Ott and consider him underrated generally speaking, but Pujols is one of the greatest hitters ever, and for good measure is a fine fielder and, considering his large frame, a pretty remarkable baserunner. He's not far ahead of Ott, but he is ahead of him. Depends how quickly he declines, but in that lineup he might have a few magical seasons yet ahead of him.
          Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

          1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

          Comment


          • #6
            Ott was great, had a cannon arm along with other talents. But yeah Pujols is better.

            Comment


            • #7
              Are people forgetting that Ott played 2730 games? Thats about 900(!) more games than Pujols has to date.

              This is kind of like comparing Hank Aaron to Jimmie Foxx. Almost exactly the same, in fact. Most people would pick Aaron.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by willshad View Post
                Are people forgetting that Ott played 2730 games? Thats about 900(!) more games than Pujols has to date.

                This is kind of like comparing Hank Aaron to Jimmie Foxx. Almost exactly the same, in fact. Most people would pick Aaron.
                Except Ott was never as good as Aaron. And Pujols has way more HR power than Ott did. Pujols is only 36 home runs behind Ott in about 900(!) fewer games to date.
                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                  Except Ott was never as good as Aaron. And Pujols has way more HR power than Ott did. Pujols is only 36 home runs behind Ott in about 900(!) fewer games to date.
                  How exactly was Ott never as good as Aaron? They had the exact same OPS+ for their career...through age 33 or so, they were basically the exact same player, stat wise.

                  Home run power is not the only way to rate a hitter. Adam Dunn also has more home run power than Ott. Pujols doesn't have the patience at the plate that Ott did. neither did Aaron for that matter.

                  Pujols has better rate stats now, but come back in 6 or 7 years when he has played as many games as Ott played.
                  Last edited by willshad; 12-18-2012, 01:21 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by willshad View Post
                    How exactly was Ott never as good as Aaron? They had the exact same OPS+ for their career...through age 33 or so, they were basically the exact same player, stat wise.
                    Aaron faced better pitchers. Aaron had shorter fences in Atlanta, but didn't play his whole career there. Check the home/road splits- Ott definitely took advantage of the Polo Grounds. Ott also played during the war (as well as pre-integration). Both had powerful arms and were good baserunners, though Aaron stole more bases, at least when younger. I can see the margin as somewhat thin, but I do think Aaron's clearly better.

                    It does remain to be seen with Pujols, but he's similar to Ott in that he's got good enough power numbers that it's easy to forget he does everything well. Makes him a good comparison to Ott, though unless he's in for a steep decline, I think Pujols will look even better in 6 or 7 years.
                    Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

                    1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by willshad View Post
                      How exactly was Ott never as good as Aaron? They had the exact same OPS+ for their career...through age 33 or so, they were basically the exact same player, stat wise.
                      So their careers ended at age 33? It's pretty obvious Aaron was considered a greater force in his own time than Ott was in his time. Aaron won an MVP Award and finished in the top 3 in the NL MVP voting SEVEN times. Ott never won an MVP and finished in the top 3 only one time. What does this say about Ott? Ott played for the NEW YORK GIANTS, led them to a World Series title in 1933 and two other NL pennants in the 1936-37, won six HR titles, yet he couldn't win a single MVP Award? Ott's teammate Carl Hubbell (a pitcher!) won two NL MVP awards and had another third place finish. It seems to me that the contemporary observers considered Carl Hubbell the more important New York Giant, over Mel Ott.

                      Home run power is not the only way to rate a hitter. Adam Dunn also has more home run power than Ott. Pujols doesn't have the patience at the plate that Ott did. neither did Aaron for that matter.
                      Right because Hank Aaron is exactly like Adam Dunn as a hitter. C'mon willshad, I can't believe you actually posted that! Ott was better at drawing walks than Aaron. That's a point for Ott. Aaron was better than Ott at hitting home runs, hitting doubles, getting hits in general, and stealing bases. Their defense were about the same. I just don't see how Ott was as good as Aaron.

                      Pujols has better rate stats now, but come back in 6 or 7 years when he has played as many games as Ott played.
                      Obviously, Pujols will decline. How much he will decline over the next 900 games is anybody's guess.
                      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by toomanyhatz View Post
                        Aaron faced better pitchers. Aaron had shorter fences in Atlanta, but didn't play his whole career there. Check the home/road splits- Ott definitely took advantage of the Polo Grounds. Ott also played during the war (as well as pre-integration). Both had powerful arms and were good baserunners, though Aaron stole more bases, at least when younger. I can see the margin as somewhat thin, but I do think Aaron's clearly better.
                        IMO Aaron had legit 50-55 HR power in his prime seasons in Milwaukee. Put a 1957-1963 Hank Aaron in Fulton County Stadium and I think he has a 60+ HR season.
                        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by willshad View Post
                          Are people forgetting that Ott played 2730 games? Thats about 900(!) more games than Pujols has to date.

                          This is kind of like comparing Hank Aaron to Jimmie Foxx. Almost exactly the same, in fact. Most people would pick Aaron.
                          I acknowledged Ott's current edge in longevity. I still think Pujols has done enough already to be considered superior to Mel Ott.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Pujols almost certainly will end up as the "greater" player, and deservedly so. That said, if his career ended today Ott would legitimately be ahead of him. Pujols' peak is better and more sustained, but Ott played nearly 1000 more games, and played well. Both peak and longevity are important. If Pujols has another season as good as 2012 next year I'll place him about on par with Ott. that's very likely to happen, but I think some of us are getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                              So their careers ended at age 33? It's pretty obvious Aaron was considered a greater force in his own time than Ott was in his time. Aaron won an MVP Award and finished in the top 3 in the NL MVP voting SEVEN times. Ott never won an MVP and finished in the top 3 only one time. What does this say about Ott? Ott played for the NEW YORK GIANTS, led them to a World Series title in 1933 and two other NL pennants in the 1936-37, won six HR titles, yet he couldn't win a single MVP Award? Ott's teammate Carl Hubbell (a pitcher!) won two NL MVP awards and had another third place finish. It seems to me that the contemporary observers considered Carl Hubbell the more important New York Giant, over Mel Ott.


                              Right because Hank Aaron is exactly like Adam Dunn as a hitter. C'mon willshad, I can't believe you actually posted that! Ott was better at drawing walks than Aaron. That's a point for Ott. Aaron was better than Ott at hitting home runs, hitting doubles, getting hits in general, and stealing bases. Their defense were about the same. I just don't see how Ott was as good as Aaron.


                              Obviously, Pujols will decline. How much he will decline over the next 900 games is anybody's guess.
                              Ott led all position players in WAR in the NL 5 times, and finished second another time, and third two more times. he also had 3 fourth place finishes, and a fifth place finish. if he had won MVP all five years he led, would that make him better than Aaron?

                              Ott was every bit as good as Aaron, he just did not play as long. Playing longer does mean Aaron had the better career...but to say that Ott was 'never as good' as Aaron is simply wrong. Like i said, they 're basically the same player through their mid 30s or so. So he was 'as good' as Aaron up until that point. Aaaron had more home run power, and got more hits, but this was basically because he did not walk nearly as much. Ott's advantage in on base percentage makes up for any offensive advantage Aaron has.
                              Last edited by willshad; 12-18-2012, 11:17 PM.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X