It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baseball: Who do you think used/uses steroids?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I think Barry Boinds uses em.When he was in PIttsburg he was so small and now he's a huge monster.STEROIDS!!He hits a homer almost everytime he's at bat.Thats suspicouse.*cough steroids cough*




posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I think a better question would be, "Who do you think uses/used steroids, HGH or some other artificial means of giving himself better bat speed than he otherwise could ever have?"

Here's my answer: A majority of MLB players over the past 20 years, including the three most obvious ones: McGwire, Sosa and my good friend Bonds.

While playing Internet poker, I met a guy who pitched briefly (and none to well) in the Phillies' organization. He's now in Japan. He says "you wouldn't believe it" if you (i.e., me) knew the scope of the use of HGH and steroids, including by him, and you wouldn't believe how far back it goes.

He says one other thing, and I'll repeat it here just because he says it: The Latin players are the most notorious cheats and the sources of almost all of it. I think that cr@p. McGwire and Bonds don't look too Latin to me. Neither do Giambi and Sosa. Or Caminti. Or this guy in Japan.

B.H.N.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
First of all... I'm not saying Bonds never took them. But from knowing someone close that took steroids and other supplements, I don't really see the same effects. My uncle Phil took steroids and other substances as a body builder in North Carolina, even winning the Mr. North Carolina title a few times. And then speaking from my own baseball experience, I don't see why someone can't hit the ball like that off of steroids. I am very weak upper-body wise, yet I have the most power on my baseball team. I could easily hit 370+ as a Sophomore, and now that I have built up some from this current Basketball season, I'm sure I could hit it even farther. It's not necessarily strength that makes the long-ball. While it helps, it's almost all the technique. I got my swing from my Uncle John who played AAA baseball on the Fresno Grizzlies, and would have made the Majors had he not been struck by a pitch which affected his vision. Anyway, him and my father, who nearly made the Cincinnatti Reds, both taught me the right technique of how how to get a lot of power from the way I swing, not my actual strength.

Basically what I'm trying to say, is that from personal experiences and such, I don't see why Bonds can't be just a naturally good hitter. But I'm not saying he didn't take Steroids either. I'm just simply saying that it is possible that he's doing this under his own power.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Roids is the biggest joke of bb history. Big deal. McGwire, Sosa, Bonds never once were suspended by MLB. So MLB can hold nothing against them. Listen, MLB has cheated forever. And bb knows this, and does not try hard to stop it. It took Congress to get anything going. And finally, after 40 years of players popping greenies (amphetamines) uppers, by the likes of Mays, Maris as examples. Greenies are far more dangerous, and far more rampant then roids were. Roids were around 30-40 years ago as well, just not noticed. Ruth got caught with corked bats. G Perry openly cheated. MLB didn't even BAN roids from MLB till the end of 02. There's no proof anyone hit 1 more hr because of them.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I am not a physician and will not pretend to know whether steroids are more pernicious for one's long-term health than amphetamines. I don't think any other non-physician should presume to do so, either.

And all one need do is look at the last 10 or 15 years to appreciate the absurdity of a suggestion that greenies, etc., are comparable to HGH and steroids in terms of how badly they make the playing field uneven. Artificial energy is nothing like artificial bat speed and the great strength it brings with it, and that's obvious.

Meanwhile....

I already posted a long article about a man who's made a life's work of documenting long home runs. Prior to age 35, Bonds had hit only 3 HR's of over 450 feet, and all were wind-aided. Since the middle of 2000, he has hit 31 HR's of over 450 feet.

You would have to be an idiot to believe that is legitimate.

I am a lifelong Giants fan. I've lived in Nor Cal my entire life, grew up on Willie Mays (who moved to S.F. when I was 5), and continue to root for them despite their having the most despicable superstar since the retirement of Rogers Hornsby. But it is absolutely preposterous to believe that a guy who was 35 and 36 could all of a sudden--PRESTO--become inordinately better than the Hall of Fame player he'd already been for his already-great career.

There is absolutely no precedent for that kind of thing, and you would have to be naive beyond my considerable powers of description to swallow such a thing. A very fine, combination speed-power, excellent defensive player does not become the second Babe Ruth at an age when all but the best are washed up or at least heading into their decline. And NOBODY becomes exponentionally better at that point, unless he's learned to throw a great knuckleball.

Now.... To repeat: I agree with what Bill James wrote after the 1999 season, by a very happy coincidence. Strictly on the merits of what Bonds had done at that point, and assuming that Bonds' career ended after 1999, he was one of the 20 greatest players in MLB history. (James rated him 14th in MLB history, and 16th in all baseball history, with Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson also ahead of him.) And so unlike the vast majority of baseball fans I know (including Toejam), I would put Bonds in the Hall of Fame, and I would do so in his first year of eligibility, whereas hell would freeze over before I would vote for McGwire or Sosa.

But really, as hard as I have tried to be polite to everyone on this website about everything else, I really can't be very polite about this one. You almost have to believe in things like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy and that fat, bearded guy I saw the other night in the sleigh, if you're going to believe Bonds' last few years are legit. It's every bit that preposterous, and it's an insult to the few truly spectacular hitters in baseball history who did what they did legitimately.

B.H.N.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HOOTIE
Ruth got caught with corked bats.

To my knowledge--and I've read just about as much about Babe Ruth's life and career as almost anyone--he got caught with A corked bat ONCE. I'd be happy to check a respectable reference which says he was thrown out of more than one game, or at least caught in more than one game, for doing so.

And re your statement that there's no proof steroids caused anyone to hit a single extra home run?:

????????????????????

Hootie, I have corresponded with you before on baseball topics. I usually agree with you, admire the depth of your baseball history knowledge, and have never found your opinion on other subjects irrational. But in light of the evidence on Bonds, the ludicrous improvement in what's supposed to be the end of one's career and has instead been the mega-peak, and especially the evidence on his sudden ability to hit tons of home runs for distances he'd never reached before, your denial about him is, in my view, irrational.

And this comment about there being no proof anyone hit one more HR because of steroids? Where have you been for the past 15 years? Second basemen have been hitting opposite field home runs 40 feet over the fence. Career-long mediocre players have become all-stars, and not just one or two of them. Mind-boggling performances are being turned in. Barry Bonds has found not only the Fountain of Eternal Youth, but also Kryptonite. Sammy Sosa turned a mediocre career into a good one, and then into a phenomenal one. So did Ken Caminiti, and then he died real young. Rafael Palmeiro, who improved miraculously in 1993 (his 8th season), got caught cold with a major steroid in him.

And that's maybe, what, 10% of the stories?

Babe Ruth's unbreakable .847 single-season slugging record, which nobody else ever came within a country mile of, got "broken," as did several of his other single-season records--though I am confident they will be restored, or at least that the new "records" will be asterisked.

I think, Hootie, that in the future you will look back at your stance on this as one of willful blindness, perhaps brought on by great affection for one or more players, or by not being able to stomach the thought that baseball is still in the gutter. I can understand not wanting to face that, but this one is just too obvious.

Living where I do, I get to watch virtually every Giants game I want to. BELIEVE ME, in mid-2000, it was obvious something was up with Bonds, because as he fast approached his 36th birthday, he started hitting the bejesus out of the ball, bringing McGwire's recent power to mind. And sure enough, his already legendary bat speed was suddenly a lot faster, and he could get around on ANY pitch, and pull it down that one short fence in Pac Bell Park, and just crush it.

My brother-in-law, who is not a baseball history guy, but loves the Gians just like I do and always has, talked with me about it back in mid-2000. We agreed it was obvious Bonds was using something. Since then, it's gotten a lot more obvious.

But hey, please be clear on this: I'm not singling out Bonds, because he's an a-hole or whatever (and certainly not for his race). I've said repeatedly I would consider barring Sosa and McGwire from the Hall, and were I a voter, I would NEVER vote for either of them, because if you take away the tainted "miraculously improved" stats, you don't have a Hall of Famer.

You stop Bonds' career in mid-2000, just flat erase everything he did after that (as I would), and you've still got one of the 20 best players ever, and a first-round Hall inductee. His sins since then have not involved throwing any games, so I'd sure as hell put him in the Hall, and I'd do it in his first year of eligibility.

For a rebuttal on that last point, write Toejam.

B.H.N.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I repeat, MLB never once suspended Bonds. So they have no case to hold him out of HOF, or eras certain years. MLB encouraged roid use. You can't blame the players if MLB didn't care. MLB didn't ban them until the end of 2002. So Bonds, even if he did roids in 01-02, count. It wasn't illegal by MLB standards. Again, there's no proof anyone hit more hrs. Since you say Bonds hit more because of roids, how many more, 1,50,100? You are merely guessing, with no proof whatsoever. Ruth corked once. Who knows how many times he did. Cheating is cheating. A person taking a test is no better if he copies 1 answer, or 10. And greenies are far more dangerous, and rampant then roids. They were a big problem. MLB didn't ban them until this year. Tons of guys took roids. Wheres the proof it helped Michael Morse, Ryan Franklin, Alex Sanchez?



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Dear HOOTIE,

You are merely regurgitating your conclusory, medically unfounded statement that greenies are worse than steroids. In terms of their effects upon the game and its integrity, there's no way that's true and no serious person would make such a statement.

Now, as drugs, you are probably right. I'm a longtime criminal lawyer, and ANY criminal lawyer with longtime experience will tell you that the worst of all drugs is methamphetamine--by far. You can debate all day about what's the #2 worst drug--crack, booze, heroin, etc.--but crank is #1 by an enormous margin and if you ever find some goon offering/selling it to someone you love, either call the police or stick a 12 gauge in his/her stomach and make it clear that next time you'll pull the trigger. Since cranksters are notoriously paranoid (in the clinical sense) and prone to fits of violence, I recommend choice #1.

So, if you are talking about as a drug, amphetamines--which ain't that far from methamphetamine--are probably worse. Steroids can put people in a state of rage, and in the cases of several ballplayers, have done precisely that, but it's probably true that amphetamines are worse.

But for their effects on the game? No way, not close, and it's a joke to want to debate the point. You say greenies and other speed have been in baseball since, what, 1955? OK, let's compare the number of great hitting records set from 1955 to 1990 (35 years), to the number set in 15 scant years, from 1990 to 2005. And you're the other guy on this site who probably knows the most about those records. It's a joke--and you KNOW it.

Yeah, you're right, the greedheads at MLB didn't do anything about it until they were forced to. They shamelessly looked the other way in the face of the obvious, and watched the turnstiles go crazy to undo what THEY had done in 1994. So what? Possession and use of anabolic steroids has always been a crime, as far as I know. Now, obviously possession of HGH--which my friend in Japan tells me is the really rampant drug and has been for some time--has not been illegal for any length of time, even if it is illegal now (which I don't know). But here's a little secret many people realize:

Except for the 13th Amendment's ban on the ownership of slaves, the Constitution is almost entirely directed at the prohibition of government actions. For example, it doesn't say I have to grant you free speech; it says the government can't abridge your right to free speech. And yeah, it applies to public schools, public roads, etc., but it doesn't apply to Major League Baseball, which is why players and announcers get fined for calling putrid umpiring putrid.

So the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause doesn't apply to the record books. And there's no reason a commissioner--though I'll grant you that Buddy Boy, even assuming he constitutes a "commissioner," is ill-suited to be the one--cannot take retroactive action and punish the hell out of guys who engaged in what obviously was cheating.

I mean, jeez, suppose you took something that made you 50 pounds heavier overnight, and the pounds were all muscle, and it improved your vision 100%, and your bat speed 100%. Do you suppose it would be obvious to you that you were cheating by gaining an enormous unfair edge? Do you suppose, as you launched one 480-foot home run after another (or in McGwire's case, one 500+ foot HR after another), and as the crowd went wild with adoration and denial, the poobahs at MLB might instantly know what the hell was going on?

You KEEP saying there is "no proof" or even "no evidence" anyone hit more HR's, or even that Bonds used, and you blithely ignore what I say in response. You do not understand the concept of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE--and contrary to the nonsense you see on TV, circumstantial evidence is every bit as good as direct evidence. If that weren't true, you and I and every other American could get away with any m*rder that nobody personally witnessed us committing.

The circumstantial evidence against Bonds is overwhelming. That was true even before this HR distance evidence came out. Now, with that evidence, it's so overwhelming I feel like laughing at anyone who says his magical, mystical transmogrification into a Godzillaesque hitter of massive HR's was unaffected by steroids or HGH. It's comical, and coming from someone who is otherwise so knowledgeable and rational about baseball, it's incomprehensible.

Finally, of course I don't know how many extra HR's Bonds picked up, but I'll say this with confidence: The vast majority of his HR's over the last 5 years--not to mention his walks and preposterous on-base percentages, his batting titles, etc.--don't happen without the cheating. You study Bill James, just like I do. You know that age 35 to 40 is either the "decline phase" or the "retirement phase" for players. NOBODY EVER gets massively better than they were before, at that age. You cannot point to a single example of someone who was a great player until age 35, then suddenly became a great great great great player... for the simple reasons that: (1) it's never happened, (2) it's against the laws of nature and physiology, and (3) on this scale of improvement, it's inconceivable--even without the mountain of circumstantial evidence.

Want me to guess what % of Bonds' home runs since mid-2000 should be taken away? OK, I say 70%. But you have seen what Toejam, our baseball-savvy webmaster says: Since there's no way of knowing, erase it all. Now, he says that with regard to Bonds' entire career. I say it since mid-2000. And, unlike every other person I know who accepts the obvious fact Bonds cheated, I say he SHOULD go into the Hall, and I even say he should go in on the first year of eligibility, for what he did legitimately, prior to that first phony HR in mid-2000.

B.H.N.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
one of the rumors circulating around the internet is that Bonds has dropped out of the World Baseball Championship because the world body uses better drug testing procedures than mlb and he doesn't want to be tested by them....while we all know that much of what you read on the net is pure hogwash i think that this is a good example of what barry faces for the remainder of his career, there is only one person who can clean up his image and that person prefers not to do so, for whatever reason



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
originally posted by
GiantsFan


Basically what I'm trying to say, is that from personal experiences and such, I don't see why Bonds can't be just a naturally good hitter. But I'm not saying he didn't take Steroids either. I'm just simply saying that it is possible that he's doing this under his own power.


Well, a lot of things arePOSSIBLE but take the blinders off and stop being a bias fan for a moment. I am more than certain if you do that you will see what the majority of us see. I understand how you feel because when it first came out that Sosa had used banned substances I was in complete denial. After listening to what other people with informed opinions had to say on it I couldn't argue anymore. It sucked to think that the '98 season we all watched in wonder was tanted FOREVER.

Also, I think that both amphetamines and steroids have there own negative effects on the game and the person taking them. I won't be the one to make the determination on whether one is worse than the other because, to me it's a moot point. Steroids have substantial mental and physical effects. I have heard of many cases in which a steroid user up and kills themselves because they cannot continue to feel the way they do. So as I said it is not a comparison we should make because on is not better than the other.

One other thing, just because a governing body hasn't come out and said,"this substance which you all know is ILLEGAL and considered an unfair advantage is now banned" does not mean it is okay to use it. It comes down to morals and class, and without those two things in sports we would have a sports world full of T.O.s, Ron Arrtests, and Barry Bonds'. Instead we are clinging to our Brett Favres, Jerry Rices, and John McEnroes..... oh wait how did that last one get in there,sorry....... for the moral and class aspects. But if things don't change here soon McEnroe just may make a list of likeable guys in sports.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
No way would you get this much different over a short space of time, if you was a pro athlete. Does he look like he got that big naturally, i can always dig out some pictures of Bonds and a few others for you to compare..














posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Very nice visual SpeedFreak. Does anyone need to say anymore about whether or not these guys used steroids. Take any one of them and compare their bodies early in their career and later, you will see the same thing you do with Big Mac.

To me it is pretty cut and dry but others appearently don't feel the same way. The pictures would be the only evidence you need but, how about inflated stats, health problems and increased hat sizes. From this point on it's all about morals. I wouldn't judge your character HOOTIE, because I do not know you personally. But saying these guys are not to blame because a blind eye was turned to the problem is ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
TOEJAM,

Re your comment:

It's pretty obvious why Bonds doesn't want to "clean up his image." What I'd like to know is whether MLB (and/or other sports) have a way to test for HGH, and if so, whether past blood or urine samples would be too degraded at this time to be tested for it--and not just for you-know-who. I say test them all, and make ALL the results known, so we know the full extent of the problem.

As for Bonds, in addition to being an intolerable jerk, the guy's a racist with a mile-long hard-on for Babe Ruth, and he's made that clear many times. If he has to lose 60 pounds to play on whatever natural skills he has left at this point in time, I think he'll do it with whatever team will have him, just long enough to surpass Ruth... and then go into one last diatribe against Ruth.

The funny thing is, Bonds' characteristic ignorance has kept him from knowing there is substantial evidence Ruth was part African-American. (I didn't believe it until I saw the ESPN Top 50 Sportsfigures of the Century, and watched the part on Babe Ruth, at #2.) Oh well, his loss is our gain, because we've gotten to see the absolute worst of Bonds where Ruth is concerned.

IA Clonz, Hootie is normally a VERY well-educated person when it comes to baseball, and his Top 10 all-time MLB players list looks generally like mine. There are a few differences, but nothing major, and all of his Top 10's would probably make my Top 20, with only Honus Wagner being questionable. I know how much respect you have for MY knowledge of baseball history, so please trust me about Hootie in this regard. And please don't suggest this may be a matter of Hootie's character, because that's not it. He is either:

(1) Being willfully blind, because he's a huge Bonds fan and/or cannot stand the truth about the last 15-20 years of MLB; or

(2) He does not understand that you don't need direct evidence--that is, eyewitness evidence of someone who saw Bonds use. Instead, it's more than enough to have this mountain of circumstantial evidence--that is, various pieces of evidence which, when put together--not to mention being considered along with common sense), create such a pile of inferences pointing to Bonds' guilt that there is not rational conclusion other than Bonds' guilt.

But as I've said, very few murderers would go down if prosecutors HAD to produce an eyewitness who saw the defendant do the killing. The good news is that where such "direct evidence" is lacking, there's normally a s-load of circumstantial evidence which, when considered together, points exclusively and conclusively to the defendant's guilt.

Do you suppose that the long distance home runs measurer's evidence qualifies? I think, all by itself, that it's enough. Now, put it together with everything else. Game, set, match.

But please realize: This is NOT a matter of any "character" defect on Hootie's part, and it's CERTAINLY not a matter of his not understanding the game and its history. Of everyone I've seen discuss baseball history and the comparative values of various former and current players at this site, he's the only one who comes to my mind that's in my league, and he is absolutely there. Hell, he understands this big new stat, "Runs Created," a lot better than I do, although it seems to me that stat favors hitters in great lineups. But I know now that "runs created" is being viewed in the same light as "adjusted E.R.A." among history junkies, and he's the one who got me started on it.

So, consider this a word on Hootie's behalf. This isn't about any character defect on his part, and it's certainly not about his being ignorant of baseball history. He has a blind spot where Bonds is concerned, just like I had a decades-long blind spot when it came to believing Mays was a better player than Ruth. Not until I read Bill James' explanation of the limited values of dazzling baserunning and great outfield play did I realize a phenomenal hitter is worth more than a "great all-around player." Mays was the ultimate "great all-around player," but, with all due respect to Ted Williams, the Babe was the quintessential "phenomenal hitter."

And Barry, the dude may have corked his bat once, but he sure as hell never did what you've done.

B.H.N.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
B.H.N.

I guess what I said was not clear and believe me (ask my girlfriend) that is the case a lot of the time. I would never judge a person's character based simply on their view concerning; a) anything regarding baseball or any sport, something so trivial is not a good measuring stick; b) any single topic, the next topic brought up may make me want to the guy's friend. Don't get me wrong there are some (very few, mostly political or religious) subjects I will determine if I like someone or not based on their veiw on that single topic. I just disagree with HOOTIE and I have learned a lesson here. I won't even suggest I may question another man's character based on something like this.

HOOTIE I do apologize if you felt the same as B.H.N. did after reading my post. B.H.N. has told me before that you are a good guy and very knowledgable when it comes to baseball. I do understand your view because it is the very thing that makes me the maddest about the whole thing. Who is to blame? I believe everyone from the top of baseball's chain of command, to every player that used is to blame. Your view that it is only the executives' fault and the players only did what they were able to get away with is where I am baffled.

Also, to my understanding HGH is a substance that is unable to be tested for. Unless they have made progress recently, I believe it is undetectable.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
No offense taken. BHN has his stance, i have mine. I'm not alone btw. Jason Stark wrote a very good article, basically saying what i said. MLB didn't ban roids till after 2002. So they were in a sense, not illegal by MLB standards. And a person would have to be blind to see that MLB, from the commish, to the owners, to the players themselves, took a blind eye to it, and in fact encouraged it. Bonds has never been suspended. Sosa or McGwire either. Mac took andro, which was street legal till last year. I'm much bigger then i was at 22. None of us are going to change our views. I respect yours, i hope you respect mine. Roids is nothing but a media frenzy. It hasn't ruined anything. MLB just set a attendance record. Bonds came back last year, and hit hrs even greater then he had before. Ruth cheated, Aaron, Mays too. Corked bats and greenies. If you penalize the (allege roids boys, take off your admiration for those i mentioned. The HOF is loaded with cheaters. This isn't speculation, it's fact.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
BHN, true on Ruth versus Mays.

BRAA (Batting Runs Above Average)

Ruth 1,455
Mays 1,004

RC/27

Ruth 12.93
Mays 7.86

Ruth created 150 more runs then games played.
Mays created 600 less runs then games played.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Hootie,

PLEASE lay off the silly analogy between Godzillifying oneself for five years and counting, and one game in which Ruth glued together portions of different bats (which, as far as I know, isn't even "corking" to begin with).

And on the stats: Did you not read what I wrote? I said that after years of being in the same denial ALL fans get in, I accepted the obvious and quit my silly, childhood-related belief Mays was better. THAT, b.t.w., happened over 20 years ago. I'm very conversant with the offensive discrepancies between Ruth and Mays, which is why I said no amount of wizadry in the field or good baserunning could make up the difference at the plate.

If you haven't noticed it yet, look at James' huge 2000-2001 book, under 3B. You will see that under ALL the criterion James uses to rate players, Eddie Mathews rates ahead of George Brett. I'll admit that really surprised me. And Mathews rates WELL ahead of Brett in the big one, Win Shares per 162 games. Yet James, who has almost all his hometown Royals' players of the 70's among the Top 100 of all time at their respective positions (no, not Balboni), rates Brett #2 at 3B and Mathews at #3.

Since Mathews career ended in 1968 (the only 500 HR hitter to retire on a WS-winning team, unless it's happened recently), and since he'd been washed for a few years, there aren't many of us who remember the GREAT Mathews of the 1950's and early 1960's, one of the greatest players ever before age 30, despite a horrible home park for the big majority of those years (County Stadium in Milwaukee).

Until I saw James' stats, I had Brett ahead of Mathews, but I surely can't now. And JAMES, the creator of these stats, goes ahead and picks his hometown boy #2, puts Mathews at #3, and (unsurprisingly) says nothing about the obvious problem.

In other words, even the greatest living baseball historian can have willfull blind spots. Mays was so close to home that I had one for 30 years, but I'm long over it, and I'm not sure the standard modern fan view of Mays at #2 (excluding Negro Leaguers) is correct, either.

B.H.N.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
HOOTIE,

I agree, this is something we all seem to be pretty set on. Like I said I understand your view, and I respect the fact you have a right to hold your own opinion.

It's pretty funny you and B.H.N. have your own language. BRAA, RC/27, what does the 27 mean, I assume RC is runs created. Is the 27 per 27 innings. I have no clue what Batting Runs Above Average means and only a vague idea what the stat RC entails. If one of you guys feel like taking the time I would really enjoy a post explaining RC ecspecially.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
BHN, yea i read what you wrote. I was only showing everyone else the gap, which i already knew, you knew.

IACLONZ, the job of every hitter is to create runs, right? I'm not talking misleading team dependent stats like runs, or rbis, or stats like BA, which tell you very little. RC paints a pretty good picture of what a hitter really did. If you take a teams runs, let's say 900. Now if you apply the RC formula for each player on team, it will be 90% to 95% of the total 900. This has been done to every team in history, and the accuracy rate is close to 90% to 95%. The simple basic formula is this below. However, there are more complicated ones which include sb, cs, sacs, etc. But it really doesn't change things much from the simple formula.

(Hits + Walks) * (Total Bases) / Plate Appearances

RC/27 is based upon a 9 inning game, which of course has 27 outs. This number tells what a lineup of the same player would score every game.
Mays career RC/27 is 7.86. This means a lineup of 9 Mays would score 7.86 runs per game. Considering that in Mays time, 4 runs a game was around the norm, you can see he's almost 4 runs better then average. A low oba will hamper your RC. Sosa has had a big career, but he's made a ton of outs to get those hrs, so his RC/27 isn't quite as high as one might expect.

BRAA (Batting Runs Above Average)

The number of runs better then a hitter with a 260 EQA (a average hitter), with the same number of outs.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
And all of this is why James' stat of "Percentage Player" is so useful. It has a LOT to do with how often you get on base AND in scoring position, which in turn has a lot to do with how many runs you create. How good a "percentage player" one is depends upon four things:

(1) STOLEN BASE PERCENTAGE, 30% [I think this should be adjusted for different eras myself, because until pretty recently people had no idea how high a rate of success was needed to make steal attempts worthwhile. But James doesn't do that, and as a result, players starting with Mays and Mantle are the real beneficiaries.]

(2) FIELDING PERCENTAGE, COMPARED WITH THE NORM FOR YOUR POSITION DURING YOUR ERA, 30%. This can be misleading, in that, for example, all of Clemente's throwing errors gave him a BELOW-average fielding percentage for his era. Guys who do great on this include Al Kaline, Tris Speaker, Richie Ashburn, Ichiro Suzuki, etc. Curt Flood does much better than Mays.

(3) STRIKEOUT-TO-WALK RATIO, 30%. Clemente is again horrible on this one, and this time he deserves it. He had almost 2 strikeouts per walk, an inexcusable stat for a guy pitchers didn't want to pitch to. As I said on my first post ever at this site, he was a tremendous human being and a very fine player, but the most overrated player of all time. Of all the experts other than Bill James who have done a "Top 100 Players of All Time," Clemente's average place is 12th--not in RF, but of ALL players, ever. That is simply preposterous. He's a hell of a lot closer to the 12th best RF ever than he is to the 12th best player ever.

(4) TOTAL WALKS, PERIOD, 10%. And yes, walks really are worth a total of 40% of being a "percentage player." Which is why Felipe Alou's teams suck, even with the greatest chemically made player of all time (by far).

For those who care, this is Bill James' List of the Top 15 Percentage Players of All Time (an asterisk denotes a Hall of Famer):

15. Luke Appling *
14. Buddy Myer
13. Bill Dickey *
12. Joe DiMaggio *
11. Tony Gwynn (not yet, but is there any doubt?)
10. Barney McCoskey
9. Earl Combs *
8. Willie Kamm
7. Lu Blue
6. Tim Raines (May become the most underrated player ever)
5. Lou Boudreau *
4. Ozzie Smith *
3. Junior Gilliam
2. Maxie Bishop (leadoff hitter for the Foxx/Grove/Cochrane A's)


1. Joe Morgan *



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join