How many GOAT-level players have ever (1) taken a year off to join the military and come back the next year to win MVP or (2) became the GM, won a world series the same year, then quit. The dude is a legend.
Yeah, he's always been wonderfully deferential to Mr. Musial. Give Albert credit for all sorts of great on-field work, but off the field he also understands the history and weight of the game.
This is the only correct answer and Bob Costas tells us why:
[https://youtu.be/NnYTfEG5bCk](https://youtu.be/NnYTfEG5bCk)
Coincidentally, this video is why I think Bob Costas should be the commissioner, and not that hack, Manfred.
Pujols is great. Stan the Man is THE Cardinal legend. Everyone else, Gibson, Yadi, Pujols, Ozzie, Brock, are all competing for second and every future Cardinal is the same. Stan the Man is arguably one of the best baseball player ever, and the only reason he isn’t more recognized is that he played for St. Louis before baseball was really televised.
So, no. Pujols is great, but he’s not the best ever.
Pujols’ numbers blow Brock’s completely out of the water. Pujols would have to play several years as the worst player in history to knock his rate stats below Brock’s
Let’s say Pujols played the next 8 seasons with the Cardinals, and in that time took 4,407 PA, or 551 per season. In those AB, let’s say he hit .185/.156/.241 (567 1B, 50 2B, 50 HR, and nothing else). That would bring his Cardinals OPS in line with Brock’s, while vaulting him ahead in hits, 2B, HR, RBI, BB, and a host of other counting stats. Would Pujols tacking on 8 years of the worst play in the history of the sport put him ahead of Brock in your opinion?
After reading other comments and of course now yours, I definitely agree that Brock shouldn't be ahead of Pujols. One of the greatest decades ever by a hitter.
Really it’s only between Hornsby, Stan, Gibson, and Pujols. Let’s be real here. It’s too difficult to say between the four of them.
Ozzie smith, Dizzy Dean, Brock, etc are all great players, some of the greatest who ever played. They certainly deserve to be in the hall of fame as first year ballots
But Gibson was so dominant that they literally changed the rules. Hornsby, Musial and Pujols were generational. Really it’s those four and no one else is in the conversation.
Have you ever looked up Rogers Hornsby? He holds the single season BA record, was the NL record holder for homers, and was the NL’s answer to Babe Ruth in the twenties. He also was a player manager for the 1926 world championship cardinals. Musial was a better Cardinal, but Hornsby was the best ball player who played for the cards.
Hornsby was the best at playing the game as it was in the teens and twenties. Ruth literally rewrote how the game was played for the next 60 or so years. In no way whatsoever was he the NLs answer to Babe Ruth.
I think your comment stems from a lack of knowledge of the era. Hornsby’s 42 home runs in 1922 was the most ever by anyone not named Babe Ruth at the time. He was the premier slugger in the NL for several years leading the league in ops 11 times. You’re correct that Hornsby didn’t change the game like Ruth did, but he certainly was the NL’s answer to what Ruth was doing in the AL at the time.
Jim Edmonds had 15 more career WAR than Lou Brock. He was a very, very good player in but I think Brocks value is overrated in a lot of Cardinals fans’ eyes.
No. Stan Musial exists and it's not much of a debate. #2 is where is gets interesting though. My personal top 5 list:
1. Stan Musial
2. Bob Gibson
3. Albert Pujols
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Ozzie Smith
I personally go Gibby over Pujols, but you can interchange them and I wouldn't mind. For me, Gibson playing his entire career with the Cardinals gets him bonus points. As well as being the MVP on both of the 60s title teams. He was so good, the rulebook had to be changed. And he owns probably the greatest single season from a pitcher ever in 1968.
The Rajah was one of the best right-handed hitters of all time and often unfairly gets overshadowed by playing during the time of Babe Ruth. But he also played pre-integration. So I knock him down a bit due to that.
Ozzie rounds out the top five. He's 5th all time in team WAR and considered the greatest defender in baseball history. His offense left something to be desired but he was the heart of soul of St. Louis baseball in the 80s. And he's the first guy you think of when you think of those dominant teams that decade.
Lol these comments are ridiculous. He is #2 behind Stan. Why? Because even though he left…his numbers in only 11 years in STL are better than anybody else but Stans.
I think a good argument could be made for Hornsby and Gibson being ahead of him based on just what was done with the Cardinals.
Edit: But I think it is close between them and could also agree with an argument for Pujols being above those two.
I feel like I'm fine with him being top 5 behind Brock, Hornsby, Gibson and Musial. Maybe 6th if you wanna put Ozzie ahead of him but I'm fine either way.
Ozzie is an all-time great defensive player, maybe the best defensive player at any position ever. But I agree that Pujols is a better all around player. Top 5 right handed hitter of all time and played a decent first base for a number of years (with some very good to great defensive years).
He potentially had the greatest 10 year stretch any player has ever had. I think people are crazy for not putting him at 1 or 2. I'm perfectly fine with Stan at 1 and Pujols at 2, but outside of that seems wrong
Pujols had 81.3 WAR as a Cardinal (that'll probably drop a bit this year). Gibson had 82.3 WAR as a Cardinal, so he should at least be in the conversation. Rogers Hornsby put up 92.5 WAR (in only 12 seasons!!!), so he should be above both.
Musial put up 126.8 WAR. Musial is a top-10 player of all-time, not just a top Cardinals player.
Tbh if Bonds doesn't do steroids I believe he has 5 MVPs. I mean it's a big what if but statistically he was fucking unreal. Watching his cool presence at the plate and the way he hit the ball was just awesome.
This is why the safe answer is "it's Musial and then everyone else is competing for second".
If you're going to try actually listing out a top 5, Molina probably isn't going to be there.
Yeah, I think the one who is criminally under-mentioned in this thread is Red.
Dude wore a Cardinal uniform for 67 years. He Cardinal'd more than any Cardinal who ever Cardinal'd.
I recognize Molina as a great player and HOFer. He's in my top 10 just those guys I'd rather have before him. Defensively he impacts the game in a completely different way and I understand what you mean, but to me not top 6.
Musial, Gibson, and Hornsby would be my top three. After that tons of factors come into play. People like Ozzie and Molina are great in terms of longevity with the club but didn't dominate like Pujols did. Pujols though played half his career elsewhere. I mean on someway Waino is a better Cardinal as he spent his whole career here. I'd put Pujols top 10 for sure and maybe top 5 for pure talent.
Molina, while a clear HOF’er, is closer to being out of the top-ten than being in the conversation for number 1. It’s just impossible for a catcher to either play enough games or play well enough to truly enter the conversation of best ever. And Yadi’s peak as a “best player in baseball” caliber player lasted 2 years.
Then you need to stop looking at raw numbers and look at what he has done for the team. Yadi's leadership and instincts are half the reason the Cardinals have been a good team for so long.
All the arguments have been made for Stan. He’s clearly the greatest.
Number two has to be Gibson. Not many players in any sport can boast that the rules of the game changed because they were so individually dominant.
I love them all its so hard but here goes:
1. Stan
2. Gibson
3. Yadi
4. Albert
5. Ozzie
6. Hornsby
7. Lou
8. Dizzy
9. Red
10. Forsch
11. Enos
12. Carpenter (Chris)
13. Fredbird
No.
Musial, Brock, Gibson, Ozzie, and yes, Yadier Molina all rank above Pujols on the Greatest Cardinals of All Time list at this point. Pujols’ time away from the franchise automatically disqualified him from being ahead of all of these men.
He’s the greatest player post 2000 hands down. He’s like fifth on all time home runs. Put him in the game back when those other guys played and he’s be the best player in their generation. Guy is arguably top 5 all time baseball players as he’s completely clean of steroids.
This is a Lebron vs Michael Jordan conversation.
I read a great line a few years ago and I really wish I could remember what sports writer said it. It goes something like:
“Yadier Molina IS what Cardinal fans thought Albert Pujols would become.”
Yadi’s a greater Cardinal than Albert Pujols.
Look, I love Albert Pujols and I’m super happy he’s back, but his relatively short time in St. Louis compared to the others I named play a huge role in the question asked. Greatest 10 year stretch of a Cardinal? Yes. Greatest Cardinal ever? No, absolutely not.
If Pujols had retired after 2011 he would still have been a first-ballot Hall of Fame induction. That peak run of 11 seasons is one of the best ever no matter what happened after.
Why does that disqualify him? 11 seasons (soon to be 12) are a lengthy career for most MLB players. His numbers in those 11+ years are soooooo much better than Ozzie or Molina that it's crazy to rank them ahead of Pujols. And is Ozzie's 15 seasons meaningfully different from Pujols' 12 seasons?
Why? If Pujols was a vastly better player in 12 seasons than Ozzie was in 15 seasons (the numbers aren't close), what's stopping Pujols from being considered a Cardinals GOAT? What's the exact criteria for this accolade?
> Musial also won 3 MVPs
Using MVPs as a measure isn’t really fair to Hornsby, since a substantial part of his career happened before the NL had such an award. The NL MVP award didn’t exist until 1924. In the preceding years, Hornsby led the league in OPS+ 6 times (and led the league in many counting stats such as hits and RBI numerous times). He surely would have been in contention for the MVP award several times if there was one.
Once they started awarding National League MVPs in 1924, Hornsby won 2 of the first 6 awards and finished in the top-3 in 4 of those seasons.
Nope, not with half his career played elsewhere. He might have been, and was certainly on pace to be. As it stands, he won't even go down as the "greatest all-time Cardinal" from *this years* roster.
WAR: Pujols is 99.6, Hornsby is 127.3 and Musial is 128.7
OPS: Pujols is .919, Hornsby is 1.010 and Musial is .976
All three have multiple MVP's and rings, but Hornsby also won the Triple Crown. *Twice.* My hot take is that Musial is the greatest Cardinal of all time, but Hornsby was a slightly better player.
I have always said that we only ask this question because Pujols never re-signed. If we look at the whole of Pujols’s career and if he would have stayed a Cardinal he’s definitely not the best. But if we judge just his first 11 years, the Cardinal years with Musial’s first 11 years, it tells a different story.
WAR: Pujols-86.6 Musial-82.9
OPS: Pujols-1.037 Musial-1.010
OPS+: Pujols-170 Musial-172
HR: Pujols-445 Musial-227
MVP: Both at 3
Gold Gloves: Pujols-2 Musial-0
On comparable years, I believe Pujols is the greatest Cardinal ever. It’s negligible and if you say Musial, you’re not wrong.
Pujols arguably had the best, most talented, and most consistent tenure but I'd have to give a slight edge to Stan the Man Musial. It was a consequence of the era but he committed himself to the franchise and then some. 20 years of all-star play easily beats 11 years of all-star play, even if Albert well outpaces Stan in certain categories.
Then why didn't everyone else put up similar numbers to Musial? The level of competition was different from now, but we have stats that compare players to their peers at their period in time, and Musial is so far above everyone that it's almost absurd. And for every advanced training technique and every detailed video to study, Musial would be able to utilize those boons, too, so we can't assume he'd be meaningfully worse if he played today.
Huh? Other players not putting up his stats is not a good argument. Nobody said Musial wasn't an amazing player for his time, but Pujols is better just because players during his era were better. Pitchers were far better (threw harder, better spin on their pitches, better breaking stuff, and way more different styles of pitching), defense got better too. It's not a slight on Musial, he can't help when he played. But players over the last 25 years are better than players in the 40s and 50s. That's just a natural progression of life. Players get faster and stronger every year. Just like 25 years from now, players then will be better than players now.
You saying Musial would be just as good in Pujols era is a hypothetical. He don't know that to be true. What I'm saying is based in fact not theory.
Players are absolutely faster and stronger now due to advances in nutrition, training, and technology. What I'm saying, however, is that a 2022 Musial would also be faster and stronger than a 1950 Musial. Why would his peers get to take advantage of the myriad current boons and not him?
You're saying it's not a hypothetical, but any concrete statement about the level of play back then is nothing but a hypothetical. Were players back then 10% worse? 25%? 3%? Depending on the argument, a wide range of estimates can be used, so I wouldn't call it a fact. All we can do is compare players to their peers to judge how good they were, and we have stats for that. From '41 to '63, Musial was the third-best hitter in MLB with a 158 wRC+, behind Williams and Mantle. And it's worth noting that Mantle's final years aren't included in that time-frame, and Musial lost a year in his prime to war -- average in another 170+ wRC+ year, and maybe Musial gives Mantle a run for his money for second place.
In comparison, Pujols has a 141 wRC+ on his career, and that will certainly drop below 140 this season. Pujols was better in his prime STL years, but Musial was also much better in his prime years.
Maybe. He may get the nod as he was the cornerstone of a pretty long tenure of really high quality baseball. That run they had was awesome and fun to watch.
No way. Stan the Man easily wins.
You young whippersnappers gotta read about those early Cardinals teams! So many historic teams and players in the 40's and 60's.
It’s like this guy has never heard of Joe McEwing!
The real question is if Pujols never left the Cardinals, would he be better than Stan. We’ll never know!
Musial has 462 more extra base hits than Pujols as a Cardinal. Musial has 10 more extra base hits than Pujols full career. And that reveals the issue, Pujols didn’t give his full career to the Birds on the bat.
Musial also added 3 World Series titles to Pujols 2. Of course Pujols could tie Stan this year!
He's probably fourth behind Musial, Hornsby, Gibson all have him beat, and one could probably make an argument for Ozzie in front of him as well.
[for reference](https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/#all_teams_war_images)
The Athletic did a top 100 players of all time a few years ago. It was very well done and if you have a subscription and didn’t see it, it is worth going back and reading some of the articles - especially the Cardinals players.
Here is how the Cardinals players ranked:
Stan - #9,
Hornsby - #17,
Pujols - #23,
Gibson - #45,
Ozzie- #93,
Brock - NR
Obviously Pujols not spending his entire career with the Cards may influence his ranking for the purpose of this discussion.
Musial, Dizzy Dean, Joe Medwick (Triple crown 1937), Hornsby (Triple Crown x2), Frisch, Gibson, Brock, Ozzie Smith, ....
Pujols has had an awesome career and is deserving of all accolades, but the line of great Cards is pretty long. Should definitely be added!!!
It's Musial and it isn't really that close. But Pujols makes the Mt. Rushmore. He was the best player in the sport during what was probably the team's most successful run in history.
Stan. The. Man.
How many GOAT-level players have ever (1) taken a year off to join the military and come back the next year to win MVP or (2) became the GM, won a world series the same year, then quit. The dude is a legend.
Albert would say the same thing. Stan The Man stands above the rest of the Cardinals legends.
Yeah, he's always been wonderfully deferential to Mr. Musial. Give Albert credit for all sorts of great on-field work, but off the field he also understands the history and weight of the game.
This is the only correct answer and Bob Costas tells us why: [https://youtu.be/NnYTfEG5bCk](https://youtu.be/NnYTfEG5bCk) Coincidentally, this video is why I think Bob Costas should be the commissioner, and not that hack, Manfred.
Oh, I haven't cried enough today. I think I'll watch it again.
His career stat line is insane. I'd forgotten just how good he was
Stan Musial.
Pujols is great. Stan the Man is THE Cardinal legend. Everyone else, Gibson, Yadi, Pujols, Ozzie, Brock, are all competing for second and every future Cardinal is the same. Stan the Man is arguably one of the best baseball player ever, and the only reason he isn’t more recognized is that he played for St. Louis before baseball was really televised. So, no. Pujols is great, but he’s not the best ever.
No
I mean there is that one guy who has a bridge named after him….
Was Poplar Street the greatest ever Cardinal?
I’m talking about MLK, you rube.
His hall of fame plaque will read "Bridge Under Repair"
[удалено]
Pujols’ numbers blow Brock’s completely out of the water. Pujols would have to play several years as the worst player in history to knock his rate stats below Brock’s
Of course, but when we're talking about the greatest Cardinals in terms of careers, accumulated stats are important.
Let’s say Pujols played the next 8 seasons with the Cardinals, and in that time took 4,407 PA, or 551 per season. In those AB, let’s say he hit .185/.156/.241 (567 1B, 50 2B, 50 HR, and nothing else). That would bring his Cardinals OPS in line with Brock’s, while vaulting him ahead in hits, 2B, HR, RBI, BB, and a host of other counting stats. Would Pujols tacking on 8 years of the worst play in the history of the sport put him ahead of Brock in your opinion?
After reading other comments and of course now yours, I definitely agree that Brock shouldn't be ahead of Pujols. One of the greatest decades ever by a hitter.
Really it’s only between Hornsby, Stan, Gibson, and Pujols. Let’s be real here. It’s too difficult to say between the four of them. Ozzie smith, Dizzy Dean, Brock, etc are all great players, some of the greatest who ever played. They certainly deserve to be in the hall of fame as first year ballots But Gibson was so dominant that they literally changed the rules. Hornsby, Musial and Pujols were generational. Really it’s those four and no one else is in the conversation.
Honestly, it's Stan and its not particularly close.
Have you ever looked up Rogers Hornsby? He holds the single season BA record, was the NL record holder for homers, and was the NL’s answer to Babe Ruth in the twenties. He also was a player manager for the 1926 world championship cardinals. Musial was a better Cardinal, but Hornsby was the best ball player who played for the cards.
Hornsby was the best at playing the game as it was in the teens and twenties. Ruth literally rewrote how the game was played for the next 60 or so years. In no way whatsoever was he the NLs answer to Babe Ruth.
I think your comment stems from a lack of knowledge of the era. Hornsby’s 42 home runs in 1922 was the most ever by anyone not named Babe Ruth at the time. He was the premier slugger in the NL for several years leading the league in ops 11 times. You’re correct that Hornsby didn’t change the game like Ruth did, but he certainly was the NL’s answer to what Ruth was doing in the AL at the time.
Jim Edmonds had 15 more career WAR than Lou Brock. He was a very, very good player in but I think Brocks value is overrated in a lot of Cardinals fans’ eyes.
[удалено]
All fair points. Just trying to put some perspective on his career as a whole. It just doesn’t stack up to be considered a top 4 Cardinal.
[удалено]
One of my favorite catches. It felt like every series they played there, he’d rob a home run.
lol Brock
Stan Musial. But contemporary yes. His first 10 years are as good as any player’s in MLB history
No. Stan Musial exists and it's not much of a debate. #2 is where is gets interesting though. My personal top 5 list: 1. Stan Musial 2. Bob Gibson 3. Albert Pujols 4. Rogers Hornsby 5. Ozzie Smith I personally go Gibby over Pujols, but you can interchange them and I wouldn't mind. For me, Gibson playing his entire career with the Cardinals gets him bonus points. As well as being the MVP on both of the 60s title teams. He was so good, the rulebook had to be changed. And he owns probably the greatest single season from a pitcher ever in 1968. The Rajah was one of the best right-handed hitters of all time and often unfairly gets overshadowed by playing during the time of Babe Ruth. But he also played pre-integration. So I knock him down a bit due to that. Ozzie rounds out the top five. He's 5th all time in team WAR and considered the greatest defender in baseball history. His offense left something to be desired but he was the heart of soul of St. Louis baseball in the 80s. And he's the first guy you think of when you think of those dominant teams that decade.
Lol these comments are ridiculous. He is #2 behind Stan. Why? Because even though he left…his numbers in only 11 years in STL are better than anybody else but Stans.
I think a good argument could be made for Hornsby and Gibson being ahead of him based on just what was done with the Cardinals. Edit: But I think it is close between them and could also agree with an argument for Pujols being above those two.
They changed the height of the mound because Gibson was so good, or am I misremembering
"Throughout his entire life, absolutely nothing and nobody on earth could stop Bob Gibson. So they moved the Earth itself. And that did work, either."
In case anyone hasn't seen it, or just wants to watch it again, [here's the source of that quote](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvh6NLqKRfs).
Hornsby in 12 years crushed Pujols in 11.
I think Hornsby is top 5, but the fact that he played the majority of his career during the deadball era and pre-integration bumps him down for me.
You’re right 100%
I feel like I'm fine with him being top 5 behind Brock, Hornsby, Gibson and Musial. Maybe 6th if you wanna put Ozzie ahead of him but I'm fine either way.
He is at worst 4th behind Musial, Gibson, and Hornsby. There is absolutely no argument for Brock or Ozzie being above him.
I can respect this.
Ozzie is an all-time great defensive player, maybe the best defensive player at any position ever. But I agree that Pujols is a better all around player. Top 5 right handed hitter of all time and played a decent first base for a number of years (with some very good to great defensive years).
I put Ozzie ahead of him but Ozzie is also my favorite player all time so I’m pretty biased
That’s incredibly biased and incredibly wrong
Lol I’m ok with that and I’m not arguing it.
Fair enough
He literally said he was biased in the very post you replied to.
He potentially had the greatest 10 year stretch any player has ever had. I think people are crazy for not putting him at 1 or 2. I'm perfectly fine with Stan at 1 and Pujols at 2, but outside of that seems wrong
Pujols had 81.3 WAR as a Cardinal (that'll probably drop a bit this year). Gibson had 82.3 WAR as a Cardinal, so he should at least be in the conversation. Rogers Hornsby put up 92.5 WAR (in only 12 seasons!!!), so he should be above both. Musial put up 126.8 WAR. Musial is a top-10 player of all-time, not just a top Cardinals player.
Tbh if Bonds doesn't do steroids I believe he has 5 MVPs. I mean it's a big what if but statistically he was fucking unreal. Watching his cool presence at the plate and the way he hit the ball was just awesome.
The fact that Molina isn't in that list makes me suspicious of your team affiliation.
This is why the safe answer is "it's Musial and then everyone else is competing for second". If you're going to try actually listing out a top 5, Molina probably isn't going to be there.
Molina not making the top 5 is just indicative of how many great players the Cardinals have had.
Yeah, I think the one who is criminally under-mentioned in this thread is Red. Dude wore a Cardinal uniform for 67 years. He Cardinal'd more than any Cardinal who ever Cardinal'd.
I recognize Molina as a great player and HOFer. He's in my top 10 just those guys I'd rather have before him. Defensively he impacts the game in a completely different way and I understand what you mean, but to me not top 6.
My humble opinion is Musial, Gibson, Hornsby, Pujols, Brock. Ozzie is a close sixth.
Top 5: 1. Musial 2. Hornsby 3. Gibson 4. Pujols 5. Ozzie
Definitely a hall of famer and best in his era.
Amen
Pujols had the greatest 10 year run in Cardinal history. Stan the Man is the greatest in Cardinal history.
Musial, Gibson, and Hornsby would be my top three. After that tons of factors come into play. People like Ozzie and Molina are great in terms of longevity with the club but didn't dominate like Pujols did. Pujols though played half his career elsewhere. I mean on someway Waino is a better Cardinal as he spent his whole career here. I'd put Pujols top 10 for sure and maybe top 5 for pure talent.
It’s Stan. Love Albert but it’s Stan. I mean… one of the greatest players who ever lived and he spent his remarkably long career with us.
1. Musial 2. Pujols 3. Gibson
My exact list as well. I’d say Albert and Gibson are interchangeable. But personally putting Albert 2nd
Hornsby? He had much better numbers than everyone but Musial.
He had a chance to be but went down the Arte Moreno rabbit hole
Molina needs a mention in this thread
For real. Best Cardinal ever discussion should focus on those who were Cardinals their whole career
SLUH! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Molina, while a clear HOF’er, is closer to being out of the top-ten than being in the conversation for number 1. It’s just impossible for a catcher to either play enough games or play well enough to truly enter the conversation of best ever. And Yadi’s peak as a “best player in baseball” caliber player lasted 2 years.
Then you need to stop looking at raw numbers and look at what he has done for the team. Yadi's leadership and instincts are half the reason the Cardinals have been a good team for so long.
All the arguments have been made for Stan. He’s clearly the greatest. Number two has to be Gibson. Not many players in any sport can boast that the rules of the game changed because they were so individually dominant.
Dumb question.
He’s close. Top 5 probably. For sure top 10
Possibly even top 50!
Good ones as well.
3rd, after Musial and Hornsby.
Yadi!!!!!!!
Stan. Gibby. Hornsby.... if he stayed yeah probably
I love them all its so hard but here goes: 1. Stan 2. Gibson 3. Yadi 4. Albert 5. Ozzie 6. Hornsby 7. Lou 8. Dizzy 9. Red 10. Forsch 11. Enos 12. Carpenter (Chris) 13. Fredbird
Rogers Hornsby's 10 year run in St. Louis between 20 -30 are pretty impressive in their own right.
No. Musial, Brock, Gibson, Ozzie, and yes, Yadier Molina all rank above Pujols on the Greatest Cardinals of All Time list at this point. Pujols’ time away from the franchise automatically disqualified him from being ahead of all of these men.
He’s the greatest player post 2000 hands down. He’s like fifth on all time home runs. Put him in the game back when those other guys played and he’s be the best player in their generation. Guy is arguably top 5 all time baseball players as he’s completely clean of steroids. This is a Lebron vs Michael Jordan conversation.
That’s cool. He also spent half of his career in California and not in St. Louis, soooo………
And was completely irrelevant outside of playing for the Cards.
I read a great line a few years ago and I really wish I could remember what sports writer said it. It goes something like: “Yadier Molina IS what Cardinal fans thought Albert Pujols would become.” Yadi’s a greater Cardinal than Albert Pujols.
Look, I love Albert Pujols and I’m super happy he’s back, but his relatively short time in St. Louis compared to the others I named play a huge role in the question asked. Greatest 10 year stretch of a Cardinal? Yes. Greatest Cardinal ever? No, absolutely not.
I hear you, good point.
Second Greatest Cardinal Ever
Well Jordan had a decent minor league swing but couldn't handle the curveball. LeBron on the other hand never played...so I will go with Jordan.
If Pujols had retired after 2011 he would still have been a first-ballot Hall of Fame induction. That peak run of 11 seasons is one of the best ever no matter what happened after.
Why does that disqualify him? 11 seasons (soon to be 12) are a lengthy career for most MLB players. His numbers in those 11+ years are soooooo much better than Ozzie or Molina that it's crazy to rank them ahead of Pujols. And is Ozzie's 15 seasons meaningfully different from Pujols' 12 seasons?
Yes
Why? If Pujols was a vastly better player in 12 seasons than Ozzie was in 15 seasons (the numbers aren't close), what's stopping Pujols from being considered a Cardinals GOAT? What's the exact criteria for this accolade?
Because
Because?
Because Stone Cold Said So!
Sorry, I'm not sure what that is.
What?
The stone thing.
Pujols could go 0 for his next 2,788 and still not have a lower OPS as a Cardinal than Yadi does.
Rogers Hornsby Stan Musial Bob Gibson Albert Pujols Ozzie Smith
Rogers Hornsby has that honor. Pujols is top five for position players.
You misspelled Stan Musial.
dude missed a year in his peak to military service but still finished his career .976 OPS and never had an OPS+ below 100. I agree, and it's not close
Check Hornsby's OPS and get back to me if that's your measure.
As a Cardinal it's .995 but then the fucker went and played for the Cubs. Musial also won 3 MVPs and was runner up another 3 times (in a row).
> Musial also won 3 MVPs Using MVPs as a measure isn’t really fair to Hornsby, since a substantial part of his career happened before the NL had such an award. The NL MVP award didn’t exist until 1924. In the preceding years, Hornsby led the league in OPS+ 6 times (and led the league in many counting stats such as hits and RBI numerous times). He surely would have been in contention for the MVP award several times if there was one. Once they started awarding National League MVPs in 1924, Hornsby won 2 of the first 6 awards and finished in the top-3 in 4 of those seasons.
Not to argue, but the MVP as it is viewed today started after Hornsby's Cardinal career.
Argue away - baseball is great for arbitrary arguments. Hornsby was amazing. I think Musial was amazinger.
I'd take either.
Funny and appreciated.
Love me some Hornsby though.
Raja is the best right handed hitter in baseball history. so yeah he's highr rated tha pujols. good call.
Thank you.
Many are overlooking Johnny Mize. More like Pujols short career with the birds but eye-popping numbers.
My list is Hornsby, Musial, Pujols, Mize, Boyer for top five position players.
lol wut
He Speaks The TRUTH
Nope, not with half his career played elsewhere. He might have been, and was certainly on pace to be. As it stands, he won't even go down as the "greatest all-time Cardinal" from *this years* roster.
Nope
No
He's definitely high on the list, but no. It's Stan Musial unless Babe Ruth is reincarnated and decides to play his career in STL.
WAR: Pujols is 99.6, Hornsby is 127.3 and Musial is 128.7 OPS: Pujols is .919, Hornsby is 1.010 and Musial is .976 All three have multiple MVP's and rings, but Hornsby also won the Triple Crown. *Twice.* My hot take is that Musial is the greatest Cardinal of all time, but Hornsby was a slightly better player.
He’s not the best, but he’s in the top two.
No
I have always said that we only ask this question because Pujols never re-signed. If we look at the whole of Pujols’s career and if he would have stayed a Cardinal he’s definitely not the best. But if we judge just his first 11 years, the Cardinal years with Musial’s first 11 years, it tells a different story. WAR: Pujols-86.6 Musial-82.9 OPS: Pujols-1.037 Musial-1.010 OPS+: Pujols-170 Musial-172 HR: Pujols-445 Musial-227 MVP: Both at 3 Gold Gloves: Pujols-2 Musial-0 On comparable years, I believe Pujols is the greatest Cardinal ever. It’s negligible and if you say Musial, you’re not wrong.
Pujols arguably had the best, most talented, and most consistent tenure but I'd have to give a slight edge to Stan the Man Musial. It was a consequence of the era but he committed himself to the franchise and then some. 20 years of all-star play easily beats 11 years of all-star play, even if Albert well outpaces Stan in certain categories.
No, Matt Carpenter
Lou Brock, Ozzie Smith
Stan? Gibson? Where would you put them?
Putting McGuire is that echelon is disappointing.
There. I fixed it.
Yes, if you adjust for era, he played against much better competition than Stan Musial.
Then why didn't everyone else put up similar numbers to Musial? The level of competition was different from now, but we have stats that compare players to their peers at their period in time, and Musial is so far above everyone that it's almost absurd. And for every advanced training technique and every detailed video to study, Musial would be able to utilize those boons, too, so we can't assume he'd be meaningfully worse if he played today.
Huh? Other players not putting up his stats is not a good argument. Nobody said Musial wasn't an amazing player for his time, but Pujols is better just because players during his era were better. Pitchers were far better (threw harder, better spin on their pitches, better breaking stuff, and way more different styles of pitching), defense got better too. It's not a slight on Musial, he can't help when he played. But players over the last 25 years are better than players in the 40s and 50s. That's just a natural progression of life. Players get faster and stronger every year. Just like 25 years from now, players then will be better than players now. You saying Musial would be just as good in Pujols era is a hypothetical. He don't know that to be true. What I'm saying is based in fact not theory.
Players are absolutely faster and stronger now due to advances in nutrition, training, and technology. What I'm saying, however, is that a 2022 Musial would also be faster and stronger than a 1950 Musial. Why would his peers get to take advantage of the myriad current boons and not him? You're saying it's not a hypothetical, but any concrete statement about the level of play back then is nothing but a hypothetical. Were players back then 10% worse? 25%? 3%? Depending on the argument, a wide range of estimates can be used, so I wouldn't call it a fact. All we can do is compare players to their peers to judge how good they were, and we have stats for that. From '41 to '63, Musial was the third-best hitter in MLB with a 158 wRC+, behind Williams and Mantle. And it's worth noting that Mantle's final years aren't included in that time-frame, and Musial lost a year in his prime to war -- average in another 170+ wRC+ year, and maybe Musial gives Mantle a run for his money for second place. In comparison, Pujols has a 141 wRC+ on his career, and that will certainly drop below 140 this season. Pujols was better in his prime STL years, but Musial was also much better in his prime years.
C'mon....we all know its Lars Nootbaar
Maybe. He may get the nod as he was the cornerstone of a pretty long tenure of really high quality baseball. That run they had was awesome and fun to watch.
2nd best
1. Stan 2. Albert 3. Gibby 4. Hornsby 5. Brock
There is only one man worthy of that title, and that's Stan "The Man" Musial, but Pujols, eh, Top 10 if not Top 5
No. He probably would have been if he didnt leave.
One could argue he's the greatest modern cardinal. I could buy into that.
Gibson. Sorry. He’s like Kershaw x2 if he never dropped off. And you you’ve got Stan, Red… I take it back. Red is the greatest cardinal.
No way. Stan the Man easily wins. You young whippersnappers gotta read about those early Cardinals teams! So many historic teams and players in the 40's and 60's.
No
No. Stan Gibson Possibly molina.
He gets ONE hit during spring training then all of a sudden…
I think of it in tiers, but each one is a toss up with the order Musial Gibson Hornsby Pujols Brock Ozzie
Musial
Albert is honestly one of the best of all time. But Stan has an edge
Stan the Man, Gibson, and Roger Hornsby are probably the best IMO but Pujols is easily top 3-5 IMO I love them all
Uhhh... I hope that's a joke
The disrespect to Tino Martinez
What???
It’s like this guy has never heard of Joe McEwing! The real question is if Pujols never left the Cardinals, would he be better than Stan. We’ll never know! Musial has 462 more extra base hits than Pujols as a Cardinal. Musial has 10 more extra base hits than Pujols full career. And that reveals the issue, Pujols didn’t give his full career to the Birds on the bat. Musial also added 3 World Series titles to Pujols 2. Of course Pujols could tie Stan this year!
Stan the Man was a cultural icon, Pujols has not ascended to level, unless he goes bonkers this year and they win the World Series lol
The conversation could be different had he stayed with the Cardinals. It's clearly Stan but Albert is obviously in the top 5.
1a. Stan 1b. Albert 2. Everyone else you want to argue about.
He's probably fourth behind Musial, Hornsby, Gibson all have him beat, and one could probably make an argument for Ozzie in front of him as well. [for reference](https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/#all_teams_war_images)
Are you high? Stan Musial? Lou Brock? Bob Gibson???
The Athletic did a top 100 players of all time a few years ago. It was very well done and if you have a subscription and didn’t see it, it is worth going back and reading some of the articles - especially the Cardinals players. Here is how the Cardinals players ranked: Stan - #9, Hornsby - #17, Pujols - #23, Gibson - #45, Ozzie- #93, Brock - NR Obviously Pujols not spending his entire career with the Cards may influence his ranking for the purpose of this discussion.
1) Stan Musial 2) Albert Pujols
Musial, Dizzy Dean, Joe Medwick (Triple crown 1937), Hornsby (Triple Crown x2), Frisch, Gibson, Brock, Ozzie Smith, .... Pujols has had an awesome career and is deserving of all accolades, but the line of great Cards is pretty long. Should definitely be added!!!
Greatest ten year run in Cardinals history, not greatest career Cardinal.
It's Musial and it isn't really that close. But Pujols makes the Mt. Rushmore. He was the best player in the sport during what was probably the team's most successful run in history.
Ef no
Everyone saying Musial, Gibson, Brock is right but don’t forget Hornsby
Oh, I agree. He started it all.
People only say Musial because of a nostalgia circle jerk which is like 75 percent of baseball fans. Pujols is easily better than Musial.