Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

Posted on: January 24, 2012 4:25 pm
 


By Matt Snyder


Two superstar first basemen helped lead NL Central teams into the playoffs in 2011. In 2012, each will be playing in the American League.

Albert Pujols signed a whopping 10-year, $254 million contract to leave St. Louis and head to the Angels. Several weeks later (today), Prince Fielder accepted a nine-year, $214 million deal to join the Detroit Tigers.

We long had this matchup slated to run at some point in this Would You Rather Have series, but wanted to hold off until the dollar figures were known. Obviously if Fielder signed for half what Pujols did -- especially being younger -- he'd be the choice. But we now have contracts that are essentially apples to apples, as they're close enough in average annual value. 

Would You Rather Have
The case for Pujols

Ever since Barry Bonds retired, Pujols has been either the consensus best player in baseball or the runner-up (at times Alex Rodriguez was considered superior). Pujols has won three MVPs and finished in the top 10 of MVP voting every single season of his career -- and the top five all but one time. He already has 445 home runs and sports an absurd 1.037 career OPS (170 OPS-plus).

On top of all the considerable damage Pujols can do with his bat, he's a well-rounded player. He's widely regarded as an exceptional baserunner and an above average defender. He's certainly a much better defender than Fielder, so leave the puns alone.

Pujols also doesn't have the weight concerns many attach to Fielder.

The case for Fielder

He's no slouch with the bat himself. In only six full seasons -- and change -- Fielder has 230 homers and a .929 OPS. Last season he hit 38 home runs and drove home 120. For the third consecutive season, Fielder drew more than 100 walks, too, so his plate discipline can rival that of Pujols. And Fielder does have three top-four finishes in MVP voting in the past five seasons.

Despite concerns about weight, Fielder trumps Pujols in the durability category. Prince has only missed one game in the past three seasons combined. In his six full seasons, Fielder has averaged 160 games played. And that's a segue to the age issue.

Prince Fielder is only 27 -- he'll turn 28 this May. Albert Pujols just turned 32. And Pujols' contract is one year longer.

So, obviously Pujols would have been the choice for this past decade, but what about the decade to come?

Our call

I'm sticking with Pujols in a ridiculously difficult choice. Each player probably switches to designated hitter around the same time and I'll take Pujols' defense as the separation point in the next few years.

Fan Vote:



For more baseball news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnBaseball on Twitter, subscribe to the RSS feed and "like" us on Facebook.
Comments

Since: Jan 11, 2012
Posted on: January 25, 2012 3:01 pm
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

Pujols already starting to slide. By WAR, he is about equal to Prince now. Pujols will be better 31-35, but Prince will be 27-31 at that time, and less likely to fall off. They will be about the same those 4 years. The back 5-6, Fielder in his early 30s vs Pujols in his late 30s and early 40s... advantage Prince.

For just 2012, okay Pujols. But it is only going to be 1 or 2 years away from when Prince will not only be cheaper, but better the rest of the way.



Since: Oct 14, 2006
Posted on: January 25, 2012 2:21 pm
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

At primetime



Since: Oct 21, 2006
Posted on: January 25, 2012 2:20 pm
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

You Tiger fans are funny.

First off, I get you are excited that you got Fielder.  I would be too! I just don't like the contract.  The point of the entire thread was to compare one bad contract to another.  In my opinion, the Tigers made a worse contract than the Angels.


I'll address a few points:

What have you been smoking??? Pujols cant even hold the jock of Mays, Aaron, Musial, Ruth, or Williams let alone you saying being a comparable hitter.
Um. You are evidentially smoking something better than I have been.  Pujols first 11 years as a hitter are UNPARALLELED in baseball history.  In other words, not only is he comparable to the guys in that list, but through the first 11 years of his career, he is BETTER.

 
First go back to school and learn how to spell or at least use spell check then go learn about the game of baseball because Pujols is a very good player and will be elected into the Hall of Fame but not even in the same class as the players you mentioned.

Always a good insult.  I don't agree with what someone said so let's atttack his spelling on the internet bulletin board.  Not counting apostrophes, I misspelled a total of one word in my last post.  I bet your Detroit based education can't even figure out which one it was.

First of all Prince Fielder is a much better talent then Cecil Fielder was.
Don't disagree, but they have the same body and genes.

Cecil had a good season as a 33 year old
13 HR, 61 RBI, and .260 a good season?  For a catcher maybe......


few things you don't understand because you're too much of a hater to really get it
I like Prince Fielder.  I don't dislike the Tigers.  Not a hater. But please, enlighten me as to what I don't understand....


Bottom line is I believe Fielder and Pujols will decline at roughly the same rate.  Pujols will continue to produce for longer than the average player because that's what you see the ALL-Time greats do.  The ALL-Time greats gave average player production into their 40's.  Even though Prince is younger, his genetics will cause him to decline earlier.

But who cares?  The bottom line is will he help bring the Tigers a championship before that decline?  Maybe. If so then yeah he was worth the money (to the fans anyway). 



Since: Oct 14, 2006
Posted on: January 25, 2012 2:20 pm
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

How do you figure? Seriously what is the logic? It is not stats and it is not fielding. His first 11 years are in the top 3 of all hitters anyway you look at it. If you are predicting a lack of longevity then maybe, maybe not.



Since: May 28, 2007
Posted on: January 25, 2012 2:00 pm
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

primetime,what have you been smoking?look into numbers.pujols is on pace to overwelm the stats of all those you mentioned in h.r.,r.b.i.slugging perc.,ave. and ops.the only one who pujols isn't way ahead of statistically is ruth.when it's said and done the only thing that will keep pujols from being a top 5 all time hitter is a smoking gun with ped use.you act like he'll be a fringe hofer.you realize he had 30 homers and 100 r.b.i.'s 10 straight years?i'm a cub fan(ughh)who doesn't even like pujols,but you can't deny his greatness.



Since: Aug 28, 2006
Posted on: January 25, 2012 12:39 pm
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

That was stated PERFECT.... Good Job




Since: Aug 28, 2006
Posted on: January 25, 2012 12:37 pm
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

What have you been smoking??? Pujols cant even hold the jock of Mays, Aaron, Musial, Ruth, or Williams let alone you saying being a comparable hitter. First go back to school and learn how to spell or at least use spell check then go learn about the game of baseball because Pujols is a very good player and will be elected into the Hall of Fame but not even in the same class as the players you mentioned.



Since: Jul 30, 2009
Posted on: January 25, 2012 11:49 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

I just don't get all the people ignoring a 5 year age difference.  Pujols is constantly hurt (which does kind of add to his legend seeing as how he plays through most of the injuries and still put up these insane number), but Prince has played in 160 games three years in a row. 

3 years ago, no contest, Pujols by a long margin, but when you're looking at a 10 year deal, don't you think there's a better chance at getting 5 close to career average years from Prince then Pujols at this point?

Defense???  People are making the case based on defense?  Both these guys are first basemen for crying out loud.  They won't even be playing defense within three years. 




Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: January 25, 2012 10:55 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

Hmm.  Lets look at genetics.  Cecil Fielder was basically done as a force by age 33 and out of baseball by 34.  Prince has the same body type.  At age 28, will he even provide 5 good years to the Tigers? 

Do you have access to google.com on your computer?  Maybe look a few things up before you type crap like you just typed...

First of all Prince Fielder is a much better talent then Cecil Fielder was.  He's only 27 and has already hit 100 plus rbi's 4 times in his career, 4 of his last 5 seasons.   By the time Cecil was the age Prince is today, he only had one 100 rbi season.  Second of all Cecil only had 5 100 rbi seasons in his career, Prince already has 4 and is sure to tie his dad at 5 at the age of 28.  Also Cecil never once had a .400 OBP in his career, actually he never came close to .400.   Prince has had a .400 plus OBP 3 seasons in a row, not too bad.

Cecil had a good season as a 33 year old, as long as Prince does well as a 33 year old the deal is just fine.  That would mean Prince puts up awesome numbers for 6 years, good enough for me.  I know you're looking at the last 3 years as a waste but there are a few things you don't understand because you're too much of a hater to really get it.  First of all, years 7, 8 and 9 don't mean squat.  Those years may be worth 24 million per year on paper but teams will also be bringing in a lot more money in 7 or 8 or 9 years down the road.  The other thing is there is no hard cap in MLB, so what's the big deal about the last 3 years going to waste?  Finally, if the Tigers can win one world series the additional revenue the Ilitch's will bank more then makes up for a lot of that salary.  And if the Tigers can make the playoffs 4 or 5 times in the next 6 seasons ( not tough to do in the central) the owners pocket a ton of cash in playoff home games, the players see pennies of that money.

Don't worry about the Tigers or Ilitch man.... he's got more money then we'll ever dream of having.  Prince's 24 million per season is nothing more then just a drop in the bucket for Ilitch.  If this was going to affect Ilitch or the Tigers growth as a team they wouldn't have signed him.  

In all my time on boards like this, I can't remember people being so negative about such a wonderful acquisition in my life.  The Tigers should be applauded and complimented for this move, not insulted like some of you idiots are doing out there.

By the way, Pujols is a first ballot hall of famer so obviously he's had a much better career then Fielder or anybody else so far in baseball.  That being said, isn't he 5 years older then Prince is?   If you think that doesn't matter you're a fool..... it matters. For this year coming up if I had a gun to my head yeah, I choose Pujols.  But for 9 or 10 years?  Hummmmmmm, I think I'll take the player that's 5 years younger thanks. 



Since: Oct 21, 2006
Posted on: January 25, 2012 10:20 am
 

Would You Rather Have: Pujols or Fielder?

Prince is going to be a monster in Detroit, and will be for years to come. Pujols is about to start breaking down.

Hmm.  Lets look at genetics.  Cecil Fielder was basically done as a force by age 33 and out of baseball by 34.  Prince has the same body type.  At age 28, will he even provide 5 good years to the Tigers?

Pujols, on the other hand, is a comparable hitter to guys like Mays, Aaron, Musial, Ruth or Williams.

All of those guys stayed productive up to 40.  They fell off a bit sure, but at 40 that group averaged around .285 25 HR.  As Poo is going to go down as a player like the ones mentioned, I can see him still getting those kind of numbers in 8 years. 

Fielder in 8 years?  He'll be at home on the couch eating a few dozen foot long veggie subs watching the Tigers on TV while he collects his awesome gauranteed money!

 




The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com