User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.5182 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Chicago JoeThome's best finish in MVP voting was actually 2003 when he finished 4th in the NL behind 2 "steroid users" (Bonds, Sheffield) and Albert Pujols.
"Weird-assed" is an excellent word for this article. The excerpt seemed to be lacking context, so I actually read the whole article, and, yeah, "weird-assed". I'm still not sure what his point is with respect to Thome. That he's an example of how easy it is to hit home runs in "the steroid era"? Or an example of a guy who should have been a natural all-time great superstar who was overshadowed by steroid users?
Well, Ralph Kiner won seven home run titles. I don't see anybody seriously suggesting he's a more dominant player than A-Rod or Bonds (whether or not either of them juiced).
It's also ironic that most of the recent members played in a league that was roughly twice as large as Ruth's.
Oh, come on, let's make the HoF be about black ink, just for fun.
Help??? ;)
During this 15-year stretch, eight other AL players hit 30 home runs 20 times between them, two players hit 40 home runs 5 times, and one player had one 50-HR season.
In a 13-year stretch between 1996-2008, Jim Thome hit 30 home runs 12 times, hit 40 home runs 6 times, and hit 50 home runs once.
Forget the 30 home run level. During the 1996-2008 period, 25 different AL players hit 40 home runs 57 times, and five players hit 50 home runs eight times. Which made it juuuussssst a little tougher for Thome (or anyone) to match Ruth's 12 career home run titles.
As an example, he said how Palmeiro was an example of a guy whose 500 HR muddied that landmark because he used PED to get there. In the next breath, he said how the guys who achieved 3000 hits legitimately earned their place in history, because it takes a lot more than PED to do it.
I kept waiting for the host to point out that Palmeiro also has 3000 hits, but he never did.
[9] That wouldn't have been such a tough one for the Elias guy to field -- turn 25 of Palmeiro's steroid-fueled HR into warning track outs and he doesn't get to 3,000. OTOH, maybe without the PED suspension he doesn't get drummed out of the league and gets to 3,000 after another season or two.
Ruth hit over 50 homers 4 times. Griffey twice, Bonds once, Sosa 3 times. Thome did it once. Aaron never. Aaron should be kicked out of the HOF.
It's phrased badly, but I think he's trying to make the point that the 500 HR club seems less mystical to him now (not as magical an achievement) than the 3,000 hit club, given the recent influx of members into the former club.
And I'd say that feels right. Since the late 90s, 500 hasn't seemed such a biggie.
I'm still impressed with 600. PEDs be damned.
Another way of looking at it: Babe Ruth's margins of victory over the second-place finisher in his dozen home run titles were 0, 19, 35, 35, 12, 19, 28, 13, 27, 11, 8, and 0. He finished in second place four times, including seasons of 110 and 98 games.
Griffey's margins of victory for his four HR titles were 2, 12, 7, and 1. A-Rod's margins were 3, 5, 5, 1 and 8. Aaron's margins were 3, 0, 4 and 2.
Any more than we do about Greg Maddux or Derek Jeter, or whatever other random name you want to throw out there.
-------------------------
It's also ironic that most of the recent members played in a league that was roughly twice as large as Ruth's.
And had a zillion times as many other power hitters to compete against for yearly leadership boards. And a coke to Gonfalon.
Sorry, I forgot that with your inside contacts you've got plenty of concrete information to back up your comment. Maybe you might want to share some of that information with us, or are we playing the Unattributed Sources game?
Read everything before my first post.
By that I guess you mean this:
That's a rather rambling paragraph (does he mean Ted Williams?), but if all you were doing was waxing sarcastic yourself, then I apologize, though putting quotes around the "know" would have made your point clearer.
Show me one shred of randomness from that. One ####### shred. Jesus.
Show me one shred of randomness from that. One ####### shred. Jesus.
Well, I guess we're back to Maddux and Jeter, since it's ####### asinine to assume that they weren't "one of them," either.
But I do agree that the article was ####### stupid, even though a lot of ####### idiots out there are possibly going to buy into that ####### "how do we know?" line when ####### Thome comes up on the ####### HoF ballot.
They should buy into that "line," because it's far from idiotic.
So what do they do with that non-knowledge-based knowledge? Blackball Thome and Pujols or give the more knowledge-based juicers like McGwire a pass? I'm not about to get into a general steroids discussion, but you could take that "line" in two completely different directions.
The specter of Andy demanding evidence before one is labeled a steroids user is laughable.
But why would Larry need to provide "concrete information" to support the comment that "we don't know that Thome didn't/doesn't use"? The comment is valid on its face; it covers all possible outcomes, and states nothing with certainty other than "we don't know."
If Thome hasn't used, only Thome knows that, unless he has a shadow that follows him around 24/7.
Yes, it is asinine to assume that. Now you're starting to get it.
Larry made no declaration other than "we don't know."
Since you've engaged in your own irrational thinking on the subject of steroids, it's kind of comical to see you bemoan that other fellow steroids jihadists are irrational.
Sorry about that. I was actually talking about Matt Williams.
Funny, Ray, but my Islamist tendencies have led me to speculate about how many players, exactly? It's probably the shortest list of speculatees than you can find anywhere on BTF---but don't burden yourself with actual facts, when innuendo is so cheap to come by.
Of course you steroid sowhat?ists always feel that you have a free pass on speculating about anyone you want---all you have to do is add "and I don't care if he did" and that magically waves all the stench away. I'm sure that this would be a big consolation to players like Thome.
Also, this surprised me:
Jim Thome, age 39: 575 career home runs
Jason Giambi, age 39: 412 career home runs
That's a surprisingly big gap.
I'm not sure we really disagree. I agree that this could go in different directions. There's simply no easy solution to the steroids problem. But assuming that Thome was clean is just as stupid as assuming he was a juicer.
Thomas is a perfect "peak" candidate in that most of his value is tied up in a 7-year peak, while Thome's value (in WAR) is more evenly dispersed:
........PEAK NON PEAK PeakPa NonPeakPaThomas 46.0 29.9 4549 5529
Thome 37.7 31.1 4314 5349
Thomas still has more PA than Thome, though he got a much quicker start.
I've found that if I try to type _all_ the reasons why Andy is wrong about something, my fingers start cramping up.
Not really; even without looking, I knew intuitively that Thome came up earlier than Giambi, and that Thome has really had only one lost season, while Giambi has had a few.
There's also the matter of home run rate; even a relatively small difference in home run rate can result in a difference of dozens of home runs over the course of 15-20 years.
(1) All Thome did was hit home runs.
(1a) No MVPs, no rings.
(2) Home run hitters are suspect, becuse of you-know-what.
(3) And Thome wasn't even that much of a home run hitter, since he only led the league once!
(4) He's out.
Ask yourself this: If you were Thome, how would you have reacted to Larry's initial comment? To me that's the central question. It's like saying "How do we know that Larry isn't a sex offender?" when not one person has ever produced a shred of testimony or evidence to back it up, other than noting that Larry lives in an "era" where sex offenses are commonplace. It's just a cheap and way too easy rhetorical device.
Both my sleep and my dinner will be utterly destroyed by this crushing rebuke on the part of BTF's most respected statesman. Do have some mercy on this poor old man.
I think the main reason people don't suspect Thomas is because he was one of the most outspoken individuals calling for drug testing when few others in the sport, player or athlete, wanted to acknowlege its existence. And, as reasons go, that's a pretty damn good one.
You're right that those are reasons writers have used in the past (at least in print). However, there's also:
1) "Thome is one of the nicest guys in baseball. In the words of Woody Paige, 'I would vote for him even if he weren't deserving.'"
EDIT: Minor correction to the Paige quote, which is in regards to Goose Gossage.
The key is when is the speculation brought up? If you say to me, "Thome has never tested positive, nor has he any close associations that are linked to PEDs, therefore I will consider his HOF candidacy without any PED penalty", then I'm cool with that. If someone says, "Thome hit 575 HR and was clean" then he is already speculating - he's speculating that Thome is clean. Not just that he doesn't know so he'll give the benefit of the doubt. Name any MLB player who played after 1975 or so and if you tell me "He IS clean" then I know you're speculating. It's much more proper to state that you don't know and won't penalize without some evidence. But that isn't the same as saying "clean" at all.
IOW, if people get to speculate that a player is clean, I can speculate they're not. The best you can say is that you don't know. It sucks for the clean players, it really does. Had they wanted their careers judged without the spectre of PEDs they could have done something about it while they were playing. Again, I can see why a clean player wouldn't do that - hell, I doubt I would have done it. But you don't get to stay quiet and then be 100% clean.
* ala Thomas, as noted above
Jason Giambi, age 39: 412 career home runs
That's a surprisingly big gap.
You should read more of my posts and you won't be surprised as often. :-)
Thome is an on-contact god.
Ruth 406/819, HR/contact of 10.1%
Thome 395/795, HR/contact of 10.4%
When he hit the ball, Thome produced at nearly the same level as Ruth and was slightly more likely to hit a HR. Unless you want to count Ruth or possibly Mantle, the all-time TTO title belongs to Thome or McGwire. They currently represent the maximum a player can achieve with a high K-rate (say 1 per 4 AB or worse) and boy will they hit you lots of HR.
Giambi's a midget next to those two :-)
357/665, HR/contact of 7.7% ... but then he's K'd at only about 1 per 5 AB.
Also on Thome-Giambi, Thome has a 1400 PA advantage which accounts for about 40-50% of the raw HR count gap. Thome got a much earlier start and had about an 1100 PA edge before Giambi became a full-time starter.
They're a nice comparison for how Ks impact the "shape" of a hitter's production:
Thome: 1 K per 3.3 AB, 395/795 on-contact, 10.4% HR/contact, 17.1% BB/PA, 36.0 batting runs per 600 PA
Giambi: 1 K per 4.8 AB, 365/665 on-contact, 7.7% HR/contact, 15.5% BB/PA, 36.7 batting runs per 600 PA
So, Thome hits the ball a lot "harder" (he also has a 20.3% HR/FB) and walks a bit more but they are equally valuable hitters because Giambi's K/AB rate is about 50% better. And for kicks, here's Edgar Martinez:
Edgar: 1 K per 6.0 AB, 374/619 on-contact, 5.1% HR/contact, 14.8% BB/PA, 38.7 batting runs per 600 PA
So Edgar hits worse then either on-contact (slightly beating Giambi on BA), has a much worse HR/contact rate, the worst walk rate ... outproduces them by 2+ runs per 600 PA because of his lower K-rate.
So when you see a young player who K's 1 per 3 or 4 AB, you have to ask yourself if you think he will _hit_ the ball as well (or nearly as well) as Jim Thome. Will he walk as often as Thome? Will he hit it better than Giambi? Thome's K-rate plus Giambi's on-contact rates give you a batter with an overall BA of 254 and SLG of 463. Add in 100 OBP points of walks and, sure, that's a useful player, but not a star. Don't add the walks and you get overall production equivalent to Tony Batista (255/299/453, 92 OPS+ ... he had a decent K-rate actually so I'm just comparing overall rate stats there)."
I thought breaking down was a sure sign of the deleterious affects of steroid use.
Throwing off suspicion -- a sure sign of guilt -- kind of like wagging your finger at a Congressional committee.
And don't forget -- he played college football at Auburn -- very suspicious.
They're all guilty. Burn 'em all.
Except Barry.
Ok, then. Stay away from my mom!
Ok, then. Stay away from my mom!
It must be hard, and very brave, to call your own Mum a sex offender. :)
Fine, but keep your speculation to yourself and your private conversations. Just because others engage in that sort of a thing doesn't mean you have to do it yourself.
The proper thing to do, if one is surrounded by sex offenders and one does not wish to be labeled as such is to clearly condemn the behavior* and help the authorities prosecute it.
* ala Thomas, as noted above
That's the ideal, but it's also unrealistic within the closed culture of baseball.
I can see all sorts of reasons, other than being a sex offender, that would keep one from doing that. But that doesn't mean one is excused if one stays silent.
Yet it also doesn't excuse speculating about that person's sex offenses in public, unless you have some evidence to back it up, beyond his silence about others.
The key is when is the speculation brought up? If you say to me, "Thome has never tested positive, nor has he any close associations that are linked to PEDs, therefore I will consider his HOF candidacy without any PED penalty", then I'm cool with that.
And if you look at what I've said on every thread where Thome's name has come up, that's been exactly my position. I'm not "speculating" that he's clean; I'm assuming that he's clean in the absence of any credible testimony or other evidence to the contrary---an assumption that precludes any "how do we know?" innuendo as an interim debating tactic.
If someone says, "Thome hit 575 HR and was clean" then he is already speculating - he's speculating that Thome is clean. Not just that he doesn't know so he'll give the benefit of the doubt. Name any MLB player who played after 1975 or so and if you tell me "He IS clean" then I know you're speculating. It's much more proper to state that you don't know and won't penalize without some evidence. But that isn't the same as saying "clean" at all.
Fair enough, but see above. I don't like speculating one way or the other, in the absence of any credible testimony or other evidence. That goes for Thome and it goes for Sosa.
IOW, if people get to speculate that a player is clean, I can speculate they're not. The best you can say is that you don't know. It sucks for the clean players, it really does. Had they wanted their careers judged without the spectre of PEDs they could have done something about it while they were playing. Again, I can see why a clean player wouldn't do that - hell, I doubt I would have done it. But you don't get to stay quiet and then be 100% clean.
To me that's just a bit too harsh, requiring a player to rat out a teammate in order to get the presumption of innocence.
Amen to that, but it's all in the ratings and the clicks.
Yet, here we are. It's life, if you associate with gangsters, people will wonder if you are one yourself. If you're lucky, it's just people on internet message boards. If you're unlucky, it's the rival gang down the street. If you (or MLB) want me to shut up and keep my speculations to myself, that's cool. But if I'm not allowed to speculate about players, the game, etc. don't expect me to hang around just to watch.
Do you keep this line with speculation about injuries? People at BBTF all the time suggest a pitcher's mechanics doom him to injury at any moment. Given the industry, I'd think a 27 year old Cy Young candidate would rather have people wondering if he's on PEDs than that his arm is about to fall off.
Anyway, the thread isn't just about you. The article we're linked to pretty clearly implies that Thome is clean. I think it's perfectly fair to give a penalty for players we know juiced. But that doesn't mean the others get an additional bump.
The thing about Ruth in my mind is that while he may have been the most valuable player in history, he may not have been the best: he had an innovator's edge that allowed him to surpass everyone else by enormous amounts that wouldn't exist at any other point in history. If Ruth were just about the only guy uppercutting, he would have almost no competition for home run or SLG titles, and his SLG+ would be huge because no one else could slug. If Ruth were the only guy hitting home runs, pitchers wouldn't bother to learn how to prevent home runs, so hitting home runs would be relatively easy for him, and pitchers would probably just compensate by walking him, driving up his OBP. I wouldn't be surprised if Ruth had overlapped with Williams or Bonds (after pitchers had learned some ways to deal with sluggers, like throwing more sinkers or sliders and keeping the ball down), his relative rate stats would be far worse, and he wouldn't win nearly as many home run titles.
An analogy could be how the first guys trading with an options model made a fortune on options and convertible bonds, but if they had the same technology today they would be just about the least sophisticated guys around.
No it's not. The central question is why you couldn't just read and understand Larry's post in the context of the thread, instead of in the context of your own meta-agenda. And the secondary question is why you continue to insist on your own reading even after the intended meaning has been spelled out for you.
It's like saying "How do we know that Larry isn't a sex offender?"
No it's not. It's more like saying, "Boy, this article doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?"
At the risk of further chastisement, may I ask where I've suggested any such bump for Thome? I'd vote him into the Hall of Fame even if I thought the juicers' stats were 100% legit.
------------------
No it's not. The central question is why you couldn't just read and understand Larry's post in the context of the thread, instead of in the context of your own meta-agenda. And the secondary question is why you continue to insist on your own reading even after the intended meaning has been spelled out for you.
I've already apologized to Larry if his original post was intended as sarcasm. My point about speculation would remain even if I'd never seen it.
It's like saying "How do we know that Larry isn't a sex offender?"
No it's not. It's more like saying, "Boy, this article doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?"
Well, how do we really know that Larry isn't a sex offender?" There's at as much knowledge about that (i.e., none) as there is that Thome is a juicer. Fair for one, fair for all.
And if you give me a time out for walking and dinner, I'll get back to your bank embezzlements later. I'm sure you'll agree that we live in an era of banking and white collar crime.
That's been more than enough evidence to publicly label a player a PED user in the past.
Precisely. And "more than enough" is wholly accurate. There is quite simply no minimum standard of "evidence" that is necessary. And no limit as to what constitutes "evidence" in the first place. Anything under the sun has qualified. Examples:
"He hit a lot of home runs!"
"He was injured a lot!"
"He was durable!"
"He had a long career!"
"He had a short career!"
"Just look at him!"
"He said he was innocent!"
"He didn't say anything!"
"He stonewalled!"
"He took a drink of water while proclaiming his innocence!"
"OMIGAWWWD CAP SIZE!"
"Come on you know he is a juicer."
In the face of those loose "standards" Andy now claims that there is some standard of evidence that must be met.
Clearly you have mistaken me for another poster. I'm the one who beats his children.
I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been, but what I meant was that Frank Thomas wasn't as suspected because he had a much more natural decline phase and while his power and walk abilities were mostly intact late in his career, his ability to hit for average had totally deserted him, as well as any defensive abilities he previously may have had.
So just the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent?"
Wanna bet?
Precisely. And "more than enough" is wholly accurate. There is quite simply no minimum standard of "evidence" that is necessary. And no limit as to what constitutes "evidence" in the first place. Anything under the sun has qualified. Examples:
"He hit a lot of home runs!"
"He was injured a lot!"
"He was durable!"
"He had a long career!"
"He had a short career!"
"Just look at him!"
"He said he was innocent!"
"He didn't say anything!"
"He stonewalled!"
"He took a drink of water while proclaiming his innocence!"
"OMIGAWWWD CAP SIZE!"
"Come on you know he is a juicer."
In the face of those loose "standards" Andy now claims that there is some standard of evidence that must be met.
Yeah, Ray, that's it. Do you ever get tired of inventing my positions and then pretending that I'm actually arguing them?
OTOH you got one of them right, though I doubt you even know which one it was. Care to guess?
I need to update the humongous countdown sign in my front yard.
I am not commenting on the larger argument, but this doesn't seem to logically follow. If you are going to decrement someone's "numbers", wouldn't there necessarily be an implied increase for someone else? A home run that gets deducted surely improves the statistics of the pitcher who would not otherwise have allowed it, for example? I am not saying it's zero sum per se, but wouldn't you have to make some allowance for this?
It's:
"He didn't say anything!"
I think the "others" he's talking about are players we have no information on. If you know a guy is dirty, you can ding him. If you know a guy is clean, you give him a bump. But you don't give everybody that you don't know about another bump on top of that. Also, you have to be careful not to make two (or more) allowances for the same player. With your example of the clean pitchers, presumably you'd be evaluating them all in a lower run environment if no hitters had ever juiced. So the accounting you're suggesting would give a player a double benefit unless you also made a PED-context adjustment to the league averages. And how on earth would you begin to do that? And why, when adjusting for league and park already puts players on an equal footing?
"He didn't say anything!"
Nope. It was the part about stonewalling, and it was about McGwire. And although he stonewalled in order to avoid prosecution, he wouldn't have had to stonewall if he hadn't been guilty in the first place.
And of course the rest of that crap you attribute to me is sheer fantasy on your part.
Regardless, I don't attribute "the rest of that crap" to you; my point is that your reasons on McGwire were no better than that other crap (same with your Greg Anderson comments re Bonds) and yet you're trying to make a distinction.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main