He doesn't have to plead with me.(Manny's stats in parentheses are his first eight seasons -- I'll take 1995-2002)
Batting Average --> Pujols .334 -- Manny .314 (.322)
The edge goes to Pujols because 20 points is a fairly healthy margin (although Pujols could feasibly have his average drop 30 points, but I doubt it considering he plays a position where guys tend to age gracefully). As for their first eight seasons, Pujols is just slightly better.
BABIP --> Pujols .323 -- Manny .344 (.359)
What does this tell us? It seems to indicate that when Manny puts the bat on the ball, he hits it harder, farther, and with better control than Pujols. Is that absolutely true? Probably not, luck, as with BA, plays a role, but this is a pretty significant sample size. However, Pujols is entering his peak and his BABIP may rise much closer to Manny's. However, at the same time, Manny had a much higher BABIP.
OBP --> Pujols .425 -- Manny .411 (.418)
Pujols does get on a bit more, but when looking at the difference in BA and OBP, Manny achieves an almost 100 point difference while Pujols gets 90 points. This is too close to call.
BB% --> Pujols 13.2 -- Manny 13.7 (11.3)
This accounts for why Manny is a tad better than Pujols at drawing walks, which indicates good discipline and pitch recognition. However, this and OBP can change for Pujols considering he is entering his peak years and has no protection in the lineup. He will be walked more often, and he was almost 2 percentage points better than Manny by his eighth season.
K% --> Pujols 11.1 -- Manny 21.9 (22.9)
This is probably the biggest difference between the two. Pujols has never struck out more than 100 times, and only once has he struck out 70 or more times (93 in his rookie season). Manny has only struck out less than 100 times once in a full season (145 or more games). Pujols has the clear edge here and even more of one after eight seasons.
SLG --> Pujols .624 -- Manny .593 (.612)
Slugging is a little harder than BA to compare because 30 points can be made up easier by hitting a few more doubles, triples, or home runs and having the ridiculously skewed numbers really screw with the comparison. However, Pujols is a bit better, and again considering he's going into his prime, this should go up even more, giving him more of an advantage. However, Manny was close after eight seasons (I guess aging catches up?).
ISO --> Pujols .289 -- Manny .279 (.289)
I don't have a lot of experience with this metric, but the numbers seem awfully close to give a clear winner. It's even identical after eight seasons.
OPS --> Pujols 1.049 -- Manny 1.004 (1.030)
Wow, that's a really small difference and one that doesn't indicate much of a difference, especially after eight years). If this is the be-all-end-all stat that most people use, then these guys really are that close.
LD% --> Pujols 20.0% -- Manny 22.4%
Again, if you're a fan of pure hitting, Manny again has the advantage. He hits more line drives than Pujols. If you want to base this on only when he hits, Manny is the winner, but hitting isn't always about hitting, is it? Also, how does one define
O-Swing% --> Pujols 19% -- Manny 21.9%
This is the metric for how many times a player swings at a pitch outside the strike zone. Pujols seems to have better plate discipline than Manny. I would use the Z-Swing% (percentage of times a player swings at a pitch in the strike zone), but just because it's in the zone, it doesn't make it a good pitch to swing at, making the metric a little more difficult.
Other less interesting stats:
HR --> Pujols 39.625 -- Manny 36.286 (1995-2008)
Obviously per season
2B --> Pujols 42.75 -- Manny 34.571 (1995-2008)
H --> Pujols 191.375 -- Manny 164.643 (1995-2008)
You can take this for what it's worth. However, Pujols has an ever-so-slight edge on most things, but the real clincher is the strikeouts. Pujols just puts the bat on the ball more often. Add in the other stuff, and Pujols is, indeed, the better hitter. Feel free to disagree, but I don't think many will. Please, don't add on Pujols fielding. I'm talking about hitting. Oh, who am I kidding? No one cares about defense.
3 comments:
Manny also played in Jacobs Field and Fenway Park, two notorious hitter's parks, in a league which generates more offense.
Albert played his first six seasons in old Buscsh Stadium, which was not a hitters park, in a lower-scoring leauge.
Remember, differences are everyhting. Sometimes, the only thing.
Great stat analysis confirming observation. Misses a "good eye" metric: BB/K ratio. (.5 acceptable, 1.0 great, anything above outstanding).
Also, it's all about run production, so try my made-up stat of Runs Produced Average (runs + rbi/PA) (not AB so doesn't favor walks). As Ron points out, there are league and park and team considerations, so calculate Runs Produced% compared to team RP%.
Peter Fadde
Ron,
I thought about including the field differences, but I'm not sure how you can really say how much of a difference they make. Therefore I left it out. However, just looking at it makes the case that Pujols is indeed better. However, in regard to league, are the pitchers better or worse in either league? I'm not really sure that they are (even though ERA's tend to go down for pitchers in the NL, that's more of a by-product of the DH and such, isn't it?).
Peter,
Nice to meet you. You bring up an interesting point I thought about. The reason I left out BB/K is that I got ahead of myself. I was thinking that BB/K was essentially BB%/K% (it isn't), but either way, I was thinking you essentially look at both BB% and K% to realize that Pujols has the better ratio. I should have included it, but I was slightly afraid of being repetitive. As for run production, I thought about it as well. But my question is do runs and RBI really tell me if either is a better hitter? Both are really determined by who hits in front of and behind both hitters. They aren't really a direct result of "their" hitting. You could talk about BA with RISP, but I think a hitter's ability is better measured by taking a look at all at-bats instead of one in which people give it some sort of credibility for showing how "clutch" someone is. It doesn't show how "clutch" someone is. It's just a trivial stat showing that someone came through or didn't come through in a given instance. Getting a lot of runs and RBI show that a guy can hit and get on base, but they don't necessarily directly correlate to a better hitter. I hope my thinking made sense. Feel free to argue.
Post a Comment