Contemporaries of each other and, in their prime, most dominant hitters in their respective leagues. Obviously, both are first ballot HOFers. Whose prime was better?
Miguel Cabrerra or Albert Pujols?
- Thread starter gamecockcat
- Start date
I don’t believe they are even on the same level. Pujols is 32 all time war. Miggy is over 100. Pujols prime seasons were truly remarkable and under appreciated.
Pujols has been more consistent for longer. Particularly age 34+ seasons. Sure, his average and obp has suffered but the dude is still hitting 20+ homers a season. I don’t agree that Miggy was better longer. He fell off a cliff at age 34 and beyond. Granted, plenty of injuries aided the decline.
Pujols has been more consistent for longer. Particularly age 34+ seasons. Sure, his average and obp has suffered but the dude is still hitting 20+ homers a season. I don’t agree that Miggy was better longer. He fell off a cliff at age 34 and beyond. Granted, plenty of injuries aided the decline.
Pujols by a mile. I can’t believe anyone would suggest otherwise.
I feel like Miguel Cabrera’s best year was every bit as good as Pujols’s best year, but then Pujols had like 9 years that we’re just as good.
MC BA .311, AP .297
162 game avg
AP 5 more HRS, 5 more RBIs
Doubles equal
MC BA and OBP higher than AP
I think AP was better but not by a mile. Don't forget Cabrerra won the Triple Crown and 2 MVP awards. Not as cut and dried as you'd think, imo.
162 game avg
AP 5 more HRS, 5 more RBIs
Doubles equal
MC BA and OBP higher than AP
I think AP was better but not by a mile. Don't forget Cabrerra won the Triple Crown and 2 MVP awards. Not as cut and dried as you'd think, imo.
The question asked “in their prime”. IMO Pujols’ prime was longer and better than Cabrerra’s. We’re talking two first ballot HOFers and all time greats here, so you can’t really go wrong either way.
Cabrerra had a 7-year stretch where he hit .332 with 3 batting titles in addition to 30+ HRs, 100+ RBIs, 30+ 2Bs, etc. His career BA is .311 and he hasn't topped .300 in 5 years. Guessing prior to aging, his career BA was closer to .320 or better. Pretty good 'prime', I'd say. But, I, too, think Pujols has an overall edge but it's closer than some think, imo. Certainly, during their prime, both were the dominant hitters in their respective league and for several years.
At similar point in their careers, you're probably right. And Trout's only, what, 30? He could still have 5+ monster years. If he stays healthy, he very well may surpass both. And he's played on crap teams his whole career. Sucks for him.
Pujols won 3 MVPs, could've/would've won 2 more if Barry Bonds hadn't gone full Roids in the early 2000s, then got bested in 2 other years by other-worldy years put up by Joey Votto and Ryan Howard. Just an incredible decade-long run with the Cardinals. Cabrera has his own great run, and that Triple Crown year was unreal, but I have to go with Albert. I would love to have known if his career numbers would have been greater and by how much had he not chased the money to Anaheim, but he's as close to another unanimous choice for the HoF as there is.
I think Trout is a HoF as well, but he needs to get and stay healthy.
I think Trout is a HoF as well, but he needs to get and stay healthy.