Gelflog noted last week that sportswriters were penning worshipful columns about St. Louis Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols (19 homers and counting) without bothering to learn anything new about him. USA Today columnist Jon Saraceno wrote, "He cares less about personal accolades and individual statistics than he does the bottom line for playing the game: winning. …
He has talent. A work ethic. And the humility not to get caught up in what other players do, particularly if it is against the law or unwritten rules of sportsmanship."

How does Saraceno know all this? It's unclear; he doesn't give any indication of having interviewed Pujols, or anyone else, or of having done any reporting beyond unearthing the conventional wisdom: Pujols is clean, Pujols is pure, Pujols is next to God.

Even Pujols's hometown columnists don't seem to be exerting themselves beyond the heavy lifting of other newspapers for the most-obvious storylines. In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Bryan Burwell writes, "imagine how wonderful it would be if a man who is not built like some outsized, muscle-bound Marvel comic book character could carve out a piece of legitimacy in the record books with a run at Ruth (60) and Roger Maris (61)." But then Burwell says the suspicion that has greeted Bonds's assault on Babe Ruth's career mark might envelop even Pujols. Yes, it might, because our sportswriters haven't bothered to dig beyond the obvious and tell us something concrete about their new hero.