2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: Red and Blue Ball Mark

Roger that, thank you Rick.

[Birdbats]

Re: Red and Blue Ball Mark

I can't take issue with anything in the PSA/DNA letter regarding the M356C bat discussed in this thread. But, before discussing specifics, let's look bigger picture.

Albert's preferred Louisville Slugger model was the I13L, usually with the cupped end. I have Albert's LS order records through May 2005 and count 240 I13L bats shipped to him between 2004 and 2005 (the era consistent with the M356C in this thread). During the same period, I count 24 M356C bats. Half of those M356C bats were shipped in early 2004 and likely have the "Select Maple" center brand variation, like this bat:



The remaining 12 bats likely have the M9 center brand variation. Of those 12 bats, only 3 (ordered 4/12/05) are 34" long; the other 9 are 34.5" long. Again, my records for Albert end early in the 2005 season, but based on the information I have (and the fact that laser-etched barrels didn't last long into the 2005 season), it's possible he received as few as 3 bats that have the same specs and the bat in this thread. That fact alone makes the odds that he used it pretty long. But, let's ignore that and move forward.

Anecdotal evidence I've heard suggests Pujols gave away most of the M356 bats he received because it was not a model he liked. I've been told he gave several to Mike Matheny, who preferred the M356. This photo shows a laser-etched M356 Pujols bat caked with Matheny's pine tar:



I also know an unused M356 model was used for a photo shoot for the 2004 Cardinals yearbook, and an autographed, unused M356 once hung in Al Hrabosky's restaurant.



So, we know Albert didn't receive many M356 bats; I've been told by people who would know that he didn't care much for the model; and there are multiple known instances of him giving them away. None of this rules out the possibility that Pujols used the M356 discussed in this thread. But, it certainly is relevant to the discussion.

Next, you have to consider the use characteristics. I agree that the tar buildup on the lower handle near the knob is inconsistent with what I'd expect to see on a Pujols bat. Here are two photos of two Pujols bats from 2004 and 2005 (both have team LOAs). Note the pine tar pattern -- especially near the knob -- and the presence of marks made by the on-deck weight:





As Pujols collectors know, Albert started using a heavier coat of pine tar in late 2008 and really slathered it on in 2009. The photo below shows a 2009 Pujols bat with maybe the most pine tar I've ever seen on a Pujols bat. Even so, look how clean the area is where he grips the bat:



I have seen my share of Pujols bats, and I know the folks at PSA/DNA have also. I have to agree with them -- when you see a tar buildup where Albert grips the bat, that's a good indication someone else used the bat.

If you accept PSA/DNA's educated opinion (remember, it's just an opinion -- nobody has proof of who used the bat), then you have to accept the statement that use by Pujols cannot be confirmed. It's entirely possible that Pujols did use the bat -- perhaps in a game, in BP or in the cages. But, once somebody else adds their characteristics to a bat, it covers up the characteristics that may have existed prior.

On the whole, this bat has many characteristics that you'd want to see in a Pujols bat. I want to see seam marks and ink transfer on the right-hand hitter's side; I want to see red paint transfer from the bat box at Busch II; I want to see light tar on the upper handle. However, it doesn't seem to have the bat weight marks I'd expect to see, and it does have a buildup of pine tar in a place that's inconsistent with known exemplars.

Based on what I see in the photos, I'd have to agree with PSA/DNA's letter. It could have been used by Pujols, but that can't be stated with certainty because there's evidence that someone else used it. Whether it was used by this batter instead of Pujols or in addition to Pujols, nobody can say. The letter is as clear as it can be. It doesn't say it was used exclusively by someone other than Pujols -- just that it shows something that's inconsistent with Pujols exemplars.

As for the Marucci bat on eBay referenced in post #13 of this thread, it's one of four bats I reviewed belonging to the seller. I wrote letters on all four bats expressing they didn't have Pujols' characteristics -- specifically, a lack of pine tar during a period when Albert was using it liberally. The dark wood near the knob on this particular Marucci bat appears to be some kind of staining, not pine tar. Looks like inferior wood (two of the other bats also had wood discoloration). Here's the letter I wrote about the bat currently on eBay: http://webpages.charter.net/birdbats...008252008b.pdf

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: Red and Blue Ball Mark

Jeff, thank you for taking the time to respond to this. It's very interesting. My primary issue with the PSA/DNA letter was the inaccurate statements in the description. It certainly seemed like they didn't examine the bat in reference to the details they mentioned, saw the handle, copied and pasted.

I have many questions about this, such as:

1. The tar Matheny used was reddish, but the tar on this bat is brownish and much, much less, right?
2. Which bats make it to the bat rack? Gamers, BP, etc?
3. Does the use match anyone else on the team?
4. The tar on the center is consistent with Pujols, right?
5. Does Pujols write his number on the cup and knob of each and every bat he orders, or just the ones he plans to use?
6. Does the fact that the seams indentations are secured tightly on the sweet spot lead you to believe it was a BP bat?
7. Do Pujols BP bats show evidence of dirt, etc on the handle,maybe like this one:

I've got more, but I don't want to ask too many at once. Again, I greatly appreciate your time. Here's a few more pictures:

This appears to be mud:


The space between:

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: Red and Blue Ball Mark

Correction on the game images from my previous post. That was the 2004 NLCS, not the '08 NLCS.

Evidence Pujols used this bat:

• Pujols ordered the bat
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the cup
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the knob
• The #5 was not crossed out, etc by someone else on either end
• Deep seam indentations were embedded on the right hand hitter side of the barrel
• Seam impressions were on the sweet spot, high avg and power
• Blue ink transfers are present
• Red bat rack streaks are present
• Pine tar on center label consistent for Pujols

Evidence Pujols didn't use this bat:

• Light coat of pine tar to the dirty handle
• No evidence of weight sleeve

[Birdbats]

Re: Red and Blue Ball Mark

I have many questions about this, such as:

1. The tar Matheny used was reddish, but the tar on this bat is brownish and much, much less, right?
2. Which bats make it to the bat rack? Gamers, BP, etc?
3. Does the use match anyone else on the team?
4. The tar on the center is consistent with Pujols, right?
5. Does Pujols write his number on the cup and knob of each and every bat he orders, or just the ones he plans to use?
6. Does the fact that the seams indentations are secured tightly on the sweet spot lead you to believe it was a BP bat?
7. Do Pujols BP bats show evidence of dirt, etc on the handle?

1. Agreed. This bat does not have Matheny's use characteristics.
2. Both... but just because a Pujols bat is in the rack doesn't mean it's not in somebody else's section of the rack.
3. Several of Albert's teammates are known to have used his bats during that period, including Matheny, Hector Luna, Jason Marquis, Yadier Molina and Chris Carpenter. No way to 100% match this bat with any of these players; nothing distinct enough (though we can rule out Matheny).
4. Yes, it's consistent with Pujols. It's also consistent with some other players' bats I own and have seen, especially Hector Luna.
5. To my knowledge, during this period, Pujols wrote his number on both ends of all his bats, whether he'd decided to use them or not. I've heard stories that Albert would reject as many as 9-10 bats out of a shipment of 12 because those bats didn't sound good enough when he held them to his ear and tapped the wood. The rejects were given to others, complete with numbers on the ends.
6. The bat has a significant number of seam indentations. When the surface/grain of a bat has been compromised that many times, some players would opt for another bat with a harder, smoother surface for game use. Don't know if that's the case here, but I wouldn't shocked to learn this was somebody's BP bat.
7. To my knowledge, Albert's BP bats look like his gamers, but with more ball marks.

[Birdbats]

Re: Red and Blue Ball Mark

Evidence Pujols used this bat:

• Pujols ordered the bat
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the cup
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the knob
• The #5 was not crossed out, etc by someone else on either end
• Deep seam indentations were embedded on the right hand hitter side of the barrel
• Seam impressions were on the sweet spot, high avg and power
• Blue ink transfers are present
• Red bat rack streaks are present
• Pine tar on center label consistent for Pujols

Just to play devil's advocate...

• Pujols ordered the bat (Not proof he used it. At that time, he probably used less than half of the bats shipped to him.)
  
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the cup (Again, not proof he used it.)
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the knob (Ditto.)
• The #5 was not crossed out, etc by someone else on either end (Not unusual for one player to use another's bat and not mark out the number.)
• Deep seam indentations were embedded on the right hand hitter side of the barrel (Just means it was used by a righty... or a lefty who bats label down.)
• Seam impressions were on the sweet spot, high avg and power (I have pitcher's bats that show just as much use.)
• Blue ink transfers are present (Nearly all bats have blue ink transfer.)
• Red bat rack streaks are present (Almost every 2005 Cardinals bat has red paint on the barrel end.)
• Pine tar on center label consistent for Pujols (and Hector Luna and other guys, also.)

I'm not trying to be the bad guy here, and I have no affiliation with PSA/DNA. I just want you to understand that different people can interpret the same evidence in different ways. You seem to want unimpeachable proof that your bat was used by Pujols, but nobody can tell you that based on the evidence. The letter basically says it's a Pujols bat that might have been used by Pujols, but shows characteristics suggesting use by someone else. If the letter was more specific than that ("Only Pujols used this bat," "Pujols used the bat first" or "It was used by only one player and it was someone other than Pujols"), those statements wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

You have a nice bat. It's a Pujols model, likely one of just 3 M356C natural 34" M9 bats shipped to him in his first MVP year. It may well have been used by Albert during a game or BP. It has a couple characteristics (lower handle tar and lack of weight marks) that aren't consistent with known Pujols exemplars from that period. It is what it is, and no letter from any third-party authenticator can make it more or less authentic.

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

Jeff, you're a generous man and a great asset to the hobby. I still have questions and will likely post them to this thread at your convenience.

Tony and Jeff, your enthusiasm is contagious.

This forum is loaded with information and obviously a tremendous asset to the hobby.

I collect and process evidence for a living, which may explain some things. I have taken many, many pictures, so I will probably post a few more.

As for PSA, as I have said, I have been submitting pre-war cards for several years. When I received the full letter for the bat and the description didn't include obvious details, I did not trust their final opinion. I will not submit another.

And whoever changed the title of this thread, thank you.

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

Jeff, the right hand hitter's side is warped from contact. That's common?



It seems to me that the barrels of BP bats would be dirtier than strictly game used bats because the balls should be somewhat dirtier than the game balls. The barrel of the M356 is fairly clean.
____________________________________________

This bat looks a lot like my bat in every respect. Since Albert apparently wrote his number over the existing number, isn't it safe to assume he used this bat in BP and/or a game?



Here's a few more pictures:

[lakeerie92]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

It seems to me that the barrels of BP bats would be dirtier than strictly game used bats because the balls should be somewhat dirtier than the game balls. The barrel of the M356 is fairly clean.

Actually the opposite of that is true. Most BP balls are brand new. I have actually caught BP balls that I later got autographed because they looked like a brand new ball.

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

Would it be safe to say that BP balls are used more than game balls? For example, during a game, it seems like the slightest flaw leads to the catcher, pitcher, or batter asking for a new ball. Does that happen in BP too? Does each hitter start each of his hitting sessions with unopened boxes? I'm not trying to be smart, just never knew that if it's the case. I would expect BP balls to cause sloppier looking barrels, with blotchy marks. My Gwynn bats has a few areas like that, and my co-worker has a Murph bat that has those characteristics. Thank you

[Birdbats]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

Actually, game balls are rubbed in mud prior to each game and actually are quite dirty compared to most BP balls. Forgot to mention Renteria also used Pujols' bats (he left the team after 2004). The "warping" to which you refer is caused by the surface of the wood being compressed by repeated contact with baseballs. As I mentioned in a previous post, some players want their game bat barrels to be has hard and smooth as possible (in the old days, players would rub their bats with bones and bottles). Sometimes, when a bat becomes this hammered, it's retired or relegated to BP. Depends on the player.

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

That's very interesting. Thank you

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

Mr. Pujols never wrote his #5 on this Louisville Slugger I13L bat:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Albert-Pujols-St-Louis-Cardinals-Game-Used-LS-Bat-/390240924065?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5adc2bf1a1

[spartanservitto]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

Mr. Pujols never wrote his #5 on this Louisville Slugger I13L bat:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Albert-Pujols-St...item5adc2bf1a1

That bat was more than likely not used by Pujols.

-Tony

[Clutch_Hitter]

Re: 2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

Thanks Tony,

Evidently Pujols didn't write his number on EVERY bat he ordered, but probably just about every bat. Yadier Molina was number 41, so apparently Pujols gave him the bat when he received it without writing his #5 on the knob first.

Therefore, Pujols' #5 written on the knob and barrel end are pieces of circumstantial evidence, albeit small pieces.

It is obvious that Pujols typically used bats with fairly clean handles. Trust me, I've searched through hundreds of photos, and I'm sure others have as well, and there aren't very many Pujols bats with noticeable substance on the handles. People are fairly predictable until circumstances begin to change though.

The summer months here in the southeast US are very hot. It's not uncommon to walk from the front door to mailbox and have a wet shirt when walking back inside, and to play a round of golf requires three or four gloves.

What team(s) had baby blue bat racks in '04? What about black?