Joe Posnanski on Albert Pujols

The cynicism of these responses floors me.

Anybody who has followed Posnanski knows that he looks for and wants to tell a story about somebody he really believes in. He did it with Priest Holmes. He did it with Buck O'Neil. He did it with Mike Sweeney. He's done it with Tom Watson. He just about did it with Allard Baird until he called for Baird's job, just like he just about did it with Tony Muser until he called for Muser's job.

So A) He wants to believe in people and B) the people he wants to believe in typically don't let him down and C) even when they do let him down, they let him down on the field; they are not scoundrels and D) it is often their goodness or some other endearing quality he's writing about, so it's not like he looks bad against their lack of success. E) As far as I know, he's never fawned over Clemens, Bonds, etc.

What is wrong with that?

Sometimes it seems like Posnanski's the last columnist who really loves sports and believes in the magic of sports. It doesn't keep him from writing negatively when warranted and hasn't ever. But given the choice, he'd rather write something inspiring than a hatchet job.

Say Pujols is dirty. How bad does Posnanski really look? Seems to me it's Pujols who looks really bad. And if it does happen, Posnanski would likely write a very poignant column about his and others' disappointment and he'd probably write it better than anybody else.

Maybe this is the issue for me. All these responses seem to be asking, oh, what if he's wrong about Pujols or, he better hope he's not wrong about Pujols. But two things on that. A) He never said Pujols was clean. B) Who cares if he's right or not? His job is to tell the story and tell it well. And Posnanski's been doing that better than almost everybody for a very long time.

 

I completely agree with this, with one caveat: Bob Ryan and Mike Wilbon are in this group, too. And it's what makes their writing so great.

Disagree here. It does make Posnanski look bad, especially amongst his peers (which this board is mostly comprised of.) The reaction and perspective here is rightfully going to be different than it might be among the general public. If that "floors" you, you're probably on the wrong board.

 

Perhaps it makes him look bad. I think it makes Pujols look worse of the two.

But if Pujols ever used steroids, who's to say he's going to come clean anyway? The clean side of things is the story Pujols wishes to share. I don't know how much you could end up blaming Posnanski, or any other writer, if the evidence doesn't end up being there during the interviewing and the research and he can't write a story that shows he was in fact using steroids.

 

I think "wanting to believe" in something, and reporting and writing a story to that end, is pretty naive at best, and damned dishonest at worst.
If Mitch Albom had written this treacle, taking Pujols at his word specifically for the purposes of a story you've already determined to write, we'd never stop killing him.

 

The point was for Pujols to answer the steroid whispers. I thought it was well-written, but I also thought it was predictable. What else is he going to say, other than, "people will either believe me or they won't"? To me, that's an acknowledgment on some level that no one is above reproach, and that the only evidence we really have is circumstantial -- like how the player lives his non-baseball life. Writing that story is a fair risk for Posnanski to take; he has to know that if Pujols tests positive, it's summer of '98 and Rafael Palmeiro all over again. If Pujols never tests positive, Posnanski can say he at least broached the subject.

 

He was a 13th-round pick in 1999, so that means a few hundred players were drafted ahead of him.

In 2000 he slugged .565 and had an OPS of .953 in low Class A ball.

In 2001 he slugged .610 and had an OPS of 1.013 in the major league.

In hindsight, the summer of Sammy and Mark looks pretty obvious. How does this look in hindsight?

Lord knows I never reached the status of SI, but if I did, I probably would have chosen a different player to feature like this.

 

"Wanting to believe" was tricky enough back when everyone wanted that and few had been exposed as unworthy of the belief. At least after Jim Bouton turned scribbler.

"Wanting to believe" now, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, goes beyond the search for a good story into a needless quest (even the public doesn't "believe" anymore), part stubborn and part naive, and risks heading into fiction writing. So invoking Albom is a nice play.

Sports can be entertaining and interesting and healthy for those who pursue it without enhancements. But sports isn't magical. Heck, even magic isn't magical, with that masked rat on TV giving away all the trade secrets.

 

Not unusual at all.

Couple points:

1. Guys develop as they age, often in stops and starts, particularly at that young of an age. There's a long history of players being better major leaguers than minor leaguers.

2. In college, I remember getting a C in a "blow-off class" and acing a tough one. Why? Because the"blow-off class" absolutely bored me to tears, whereas the tough one engaged me intellectually every single day.

I know it's not exactly the most admirable approach, but human nature is what it is. It is not inconceivable that someone like Pujols would lock it in to the next level when the bright lights came on.

 

How many times has a player jumped like this from Class A to the majors?

This does not happen every year.

 

Bingo. The story reads like something Albom would write (although Mitch would have added a gallon of syrup.)

It's fine to want to believe in Pujols, but the tone of this is a little too adoring.

 

He didn't go directly from Class A to the majors. He stepped up that same season to High A, then finished up in AAA, where he hit something like .360 in the playoffs.

Oh, he also hit 17 homers and drove in 84 runs in 109 games in Low A, and was named the league's MVP. When you mention only his slugging and OPS numbers, especially in comparison to his 2001 stats, it makes it seem like he didn't necessarily have a good season in 2000.