Is that with or without steroids?

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Albert takes steroids. The real question concerns his age. He is listed as 26, but this is doubtful. Nevertheless, the man is a marvel. I really do not like the Cardinals, but I'm grateful to know that I will be able to witness a career that should be one of the greatest. If he ups his walk totals just a bit, he really will be in the Ruth/Williams/Gehrig/Bonds category of hitters.

Is that with or without steroids?

I dont know if this is an earnest question or a snide & rude one; however, a quick look at current photos doesnt show that Albert has any of the telltale signs of steroid usage.

Also, until the recent change in testing policy using steroids was not against MLB policy. Albert's production hasnt dropped off since the random testing started.

The steroid reference had to do with Bonds, not Pujols.

According to government attorneys, BALCO founder Victor Conte has identified the designer steroid THG as “the clear.” A testosterone-based ointment was identified as “the cream.” Olympic sprinter Tim Montgomery testified that Conte used flaxseed oil containers to send “the clear” to athletes. According to a transcript of Bonds’ Dec. 4, 2003, testimony reviewed by the Chronicle, prosecutors confronted the slugger with documents allegedly detailing the steroids he used — “the cream,” “the clear,” human growth hormone, Depo-Testosterone, insulin and a drug for female infertility that can be used to mask steroid use.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594

Of course Bonds juiced, and the only people who don't believe that are pretty big S.F. Fans.

But the way Pujols is playing right now, he's almost as deadly without steroids as Bonds was with them. That's saying something.

I'm still talking to the dictionaries about trying to get the word "Pujols" accepted as a verb describing what he did to that Brad Lidge Slider in game 5 of the NLCS last year.

The steroid reference had to do with Bonds, not Pujols.

You didnt reference Bonds.

I didn't reference anyone - I assumed that, given the absence of any connection of any of the other players to steroid use, the reference would have been clear.

LaRussa said "best hitter in baseball," and my question was whether that was with or without steroids, and the reference to steroids had to do with Bonds.

[just to be ABSOLUTELY clear :)]

With or without steroids? Who cares. While it's understandable that some consider steroid use to be cheating, one should consider that sports has always been about body enhancement.

The kind of exercise regimens most athletes go through today weren't even considered a century ago. Neither are the studying techniques such as endlessly watching video games of swings -- Tony Gwynn's favorite -- nor were the Lasik eye surgeries that incidentally improve eyesight enough to improve batting average, even as it also allows a player to drop their glasses.

Athletes of a century ago used their own forms of performance enhancement. Ty Cobb and his sharpened spikes. Babe Ruth and his corked bats. The average person of 2006 also does all sorts of performance enhancement from Lasik (better eyesight) to using Viagra (better bedroom performance).

In all cases, their use doesn't actually make you better. As Reason magazine's Dawn Perry noted, even with steroids, a player must still have a sweet swing and fantastic technique to hit over 300. Steroids simply allows you to build up muscle mass quickly without overly exhausting yourself. A player with bulging biceps, but not flexibility of movement, isn't going to be much of a threat at the plate.

Just one quibble with Alex. Granted, Pujols has to maintain (near) this pace for another five years before he can be considered in a league with the other guys mentioned. But his walks totals will have nothing to do with it. Even if he begins drawing less walks now than before (which isn't likely to happen--with little power protection in the lineup, he's going to start getting the bigtime Bonds treatment as early as this week), he'll still be in that league with those other hitters if he keeps it up.

It's not as if a relative lack of walks is a flaw in his game. First, his low strikeout totals are very similar to those of the other guys. It's not as if he's substituting strikeouts for walks. Second, Pujols drew the most intentional walks in the NL last year and 6th most total walks. And his walk totals have increased every year of his career--he drew nearly a hundred last season.

But you also have to remember that the guy gets 190-plus hits every year. He's averaging 30-40 more hits per year than Bonds. The reason Pujols doesn't have even more walks than he does is because he hits everything. He probably won't catch Williams in walks. Williams was a statistical freak in almost every category, which is why he's the greatest hitter in the game's history. Walks was no exception. But Albert's comparable with most of the others.

I understand what you mean. And I'm not saying that his relatively low walk totals are a flaw in his game. What I am saying is that the huge walk totals of Williams/Ruth/Gehrig/Bonds were a tremendous asset to their games.

What I should have said is that while Pujols is certainly a tremendous hitter, if he wishes to join the ultra-elite, his OBP needs to be higher. It's quite high now: .418 for his career. But Williams' OBP was .482. Ruth: .474. Gehrig: .447. Bonds: .442. There is a very big difference between .482 and .418. Of course, Ruth/Williams/Gehrig all played in a different era, so if we wanted to be exact, we'd have to start comparing eras...

So, I'm just saying Pujols needs to boost his OBP a bit if he wishes to retire in that company. Granted, he is near perfect as it is. And while it's early, his OBP this year is over .500...

"consider steroid use to be cheating"

Lots consider steroid use to be cheating.

"The average person of 2006 also does all sorts of performance enhancement from Lasik (better eyesight) to using Viagra (better bedroom performance)."

But "the average person of 2006" isn't competing in vision performance or sexual performance over time in either category. ;)

But comparing one athlete of one given period to another is always a bit of a guess. To say that a pudgy guy like Babe Ruth couldn't compete with an Albert Pujols? Well, there was Andres Galaragga, who wasn't exactly Mr. Thin. On the other hand, could Pujols play in an era when the competition not only included Ruth, but Rodgers Hornsby, Hack Wilson, Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker?

The reality is that athletes are always competing over a period of time with a standard that actually doesn't really stand the test of time. Stadiums are different; the current layout of a Major League ballpark today is quite different than that of 1918. So is the equipment, especially given the amount of time making bats that are a little more aerodynamic or made of lighter materials; the average ballplayer of today isn't wearing thick cotton pajamas as his predecessor did a century ago.

The records are artificial because standards also differ from era to era. Ty Cobb probably could have hit as many home runs as Ruth did -- and likely more -- but played most of his career in the era where triples were far more prized. .

All of this makes a difference in performance. Based on some standards, any change since 1900 could be considered performance-enhancing and therefore, cheating. But at the end of the day, all sports, including baseball, require skill. You have to swing the bat just right and at the exact speed; pitching style is important too. And you can't throw games, which by the way, is real cheating. Steroids don't make a bad player better. Being a lawyer, you should be able to see that.

I agree with those who point to Pujols' performance since the steroid scandal as evidence that he probably didn't use them. He will benefit from the scandal though as he'll face a lot fewer juiced pitchers at least for a while.

Pujols certainly has a rather unfortunate phonetical pronunciation spelling of his name on espn.com . . .
see here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6619

Good points, Rishawn. I've always been troubled by one type of medical procedure (steroid use) being considered cheating, but others, (Lasik, "Tommy John-surgery") are not. Is there really a difference? I am not aware of the incidence of Lasik amongst hitter, but I know that a lot of pitcher's careers have enjoyed dramatic improvements after the "performance enhancing" surgery.

It's true. I'm older than 26. Click on my url for proof!

ucfengr...only 1 of those is illegal in the United States.

Balta--Steroid use is not illegal in the US. When I was an Army pharmacy tech, I used to legally fill steroid perscriptions all the time and I assume the patients legally took them. It is against the rules in most sports, but that was my question. Why are certain types of performance enhancing medical procedures approved of, but others not? Is there any real moral difference between getting a performance boost from Lasik or "Tommy John" surgery or from steroid use?