A-ROD:"More than one party benefits with me gone,its not my teammates+not YANKEE fans!"..what does he mean, how could this play out?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to J-BAY's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

    In response to Hingham Hammer's comment:

     

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    at the time of arods new deal

    even those in RSN who hated him

    talked about how glad they were that

    a clean arod was going to break bonds numbers

    not that he was a user too

     

     



            Morning Zac,

     

     

               Good memory.

               I was one of them.

              Only hated Arod because he played for ny and not boston.

             


    thanks HH

    the new thing now coming out of  RSN ( posters I respect like JB & BT)

    is that yanks new they were signing a user so they could

    celebrate him breaking bonds record

     

     

     




    Zac, you don't think they even questioned or considered it? I'd be shocked if they didn't. I doubt they cared, as long as it was never became known

     

     

     



    Exactly right J. No way they didnt know, or at least no way they didnt at least look the other way on purpose.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    do you deny most fans including RSN

    were talking about a clean arod replacing bonds

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Baseball fans were hoping he was clean, because having Bonds as the HR king is unpleasant to think about.

    I doubt anyone was convinced A-Rod was clean.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Since Giambi's 2 yr numbers were 69 HRs in 863 ABs, I believe you're exaggerating just a little. Ironically, Ortiz had 101 HRs for the same 2 seasons, and in a much more difficult park for Lefty power guys. Those 101 Hrs were in 1159 ABs, spanning more than his first 7 seasons combined, which was 89 HRs in 1925 ABs. 

    No, that part makes it even transparent.

    He stopped hitting at the end of 2003.  Between the start of 2004 through the middle of June, 2005, he had a .215 average, with 16 HRs in 404 ABs,and a .716 OPS.  That's almost 1.5 years.

    In his next 606 ABs, he hits 60 HRs, with a .273 average and a 1.052 OPS.

    So basically, at the age of 35, Giambi turned into Babe Ruth.

    Like I have always said, for the true believer, there is really no discussion or fact patterns.

     

     



    Although there is a vein of truth to the Giambi side of the ledger (assuming no injury was involved, and I believe there was), an admitted PEDer later on, the context is exaggerated & ridiculous, especially taking into account the Ortiz #s as stated. Your silence on that part of the conversation is deafening.  Speaking of, what was he in the beginning? Pete Rose?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ortiz was 21 years old in the beginning.  Ages 21-24 he didn't hit much, or display much power.  25-26 he hit 1 HR every 18.8 ABs.  Ages 27 - 31 he peaked.  That's a very natural career trajectory.  Chris Davis is on a similar path.

    Besides, Giambi was juicing from the get-go.  Nobody thinks he started using PEDs when he got to the Bronx.  So why would Ortiz have started in Boston?  Who else in baseball do you point to and say "this guy must have been clean from 1997 - 2002"?  

     

     

     



    Ortiz has been a superior hitter in the early 2010s vs the early 2000s. This includes 2013 and 2003.

    Age-wise, compare that to virtually all of the greats in the game. 

    Is that what you call a natural progression ?

     

     

     

     

     

    Sure, but in the early 2000s he was facing roided up pitchers.  As soon as the game started cleaning itself up you saw the kind of special talent Ortiz really was.  

    Only the clean players enjoyed improved stats after testing went into place - because the level of competition surrounding them fell back down to earth.  Who knows what Ortiz's stats should have been like in 2003 - 2004.

     

    And just to prove to you I'm not a hopeless homer, I think Jorge Posada is in that same category.  His best year came in 2007 at age 35 - not because he was dirty, but because the rest of the league was suddently clean(er).

     



    While this was likely a small factor, you've got to be kidding yourself, and me. Regardless, go look at his normalized measures OPS+, OPS#, or WAR then for the seasons in mention, because the difference is still quite large.

    And let's not forget that while Ortiz may indeed be a special talent, he failed his own drug test, and while we don't know exactly why and what for, followed it up with a doozy of a cockamie excuse that took him almost a week to come up with, while hiding behind the skirts of the PA. Keep in mind the PED whispers were there beforehand, whether you admit it or not. Those whispers (ala Piazza, and assuming they stay whispers only) could delay his HOF entry.

    Finally, I always suspected Posada myself, and mentioned this several times here; now you're using him as an alibi 

     

     



    There were whispers about everybody.  Ortiz didn't hide behind anything - he was stonewalled by the players union, which was protecting the cheaters in the game by keeping the results confidential at all costs, despite everybody and his grandmother having access to "the list".  Ortiz wasn't allowed to even know what he allegedly tested positive for.  And MLB did state that there were at least 8 false positives on that list.

     

     

    If OPS was deflated due to juiced pitching, OPS+ was doubly deflated due to the juiced hitters throughout the league.  If your comps are all juicing, your adjusted totals are going to be that much lower. 

    It seems to me If Ortiz was dirty in 2003, his current success would be harder to explain.  He would have to either be as good now naturally as he was ten years ago on steroids, or he would have to be the cleverest of all cheaters.

     

     



    Or, he could be doing some clever designer steroid. As far as him not knowing what he tested positive for, I find that hard to believe. I'm also tired of accusing him; the point was I didn't agree with your 27-31 career arc, for whatever reason that's the case.  

    As far as OPS+ goes, it would be deflated due to the juicing hitters, but inflated due to the juicing pitchers, effectively limiting each other; and yet, when you consider the fact that there's a direct correlation to PED-usage and runs scored, the Ortiz numbers.are if anything, counter to your point, that is, a higher raw or normalized OPS or similar# s when there is less PED-usage are even higher due to the lesser use, substantiated by the fact that fewer runs were scored in the 2010 time period; note the highest ERAs in league history were during the late 90s, which was apparently the peak of PED usage. So the PED effect on pitchers appears to have a far less impact on the #s than it does on the hitters. Regardless, I believe these adjustments are minor compared to the Ortiz improvement, and even discussing this excuse as the reason, especially given your claim in general is the reverse to what has been seen, is just more posturing.

     



    There are always outliers, but a 37-year-old losing 90 OPS (or 8 OPS+) off his career best is a normal career arc.  That's about where Ortiz sits right now.

    I didn't really follow your second paragraph, but essentially my theory is that pitchers saw less benefit from PEDs.  They could throw a little harder, but they were still bound by the laws of physics.  We didn't see anybody throwing 110MPH during the steroid era the way we saw guys launching balls into the moon behind the plate.

    The impact on pitchers, I think, was more that hall of famers or even just very good pitchers who should have been declining were able to stay effective, or even improve, later into their careers.  So Ortiz had to face a young Tim Hudson as well as a Roger Clemens pitching as if he were Tim Hudson's age.  So overall, offensive numbers were up, and therefore OPS+ was down, but if you were a clean hitter in this era, your stats were deflated.  

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Since Giambi's 2 yr numbers were 69 HRs in 863 ABs, I believe you're exaggerating just a little. Ironically, Ortiz had 101 HRs for the same 2 seasons, and in a much more difficult park for Lefty power guys. Those 101 Hrs were in 1159 ABs, spanning more than his first 7 seasons combined, which was 89 HRs in 1925 ABs. 

    No, that part makes it even transparent.

    He stopped hitting at the end of 2003.  Between the start of 2004 through the middle of June, 2005, he had a .215 average, with 16 HRs in 404 ABs,and a .716 OPS.  That's almost 1.5 years.

    In his next 606 ABs, he hits 60 HRs, with a .273 average and a 1.052 OPS.

    So basically, at the age of 35, Giambi turned into Babe Ruth.

    Like I have always said, for the true believer, there is really no discussion or fact patterns.

     

     



    Although there is a vein of truth to the Giambi side of the ledger (assuming no injury was involved, and I believe there was), an admitted PEDer later on, the context is exaggerated & ridiculous, especially taking into account the Ortiz #s as stated. Your silence on that part of the conversation is deafening.  Speaking of, what was he in the beginning? Pete Rose?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ortiz was 21 years old in the beginning.  Ages 21-24 he didn't hit much, or display much power.  25-26 he hit 1 HR every 18.8 ABs.  Ages 27 - 31 he peaked.  That's a very natural career trajectory.  Chris Davis is on a similar path.

    Besides, Giambi was juicing from the get-go.  Nobody thinks he started using PEDs when he got to the Bronx.  So why would Ortiz have started in Boston?  Who else in baseball do you point to and say "this guy must have been clean from 1997 - 2002"?  

     

     

     



    Ortiz has been a superior hitter in the early 2010s vs the early 2000s. This includes 2013 and 2003.

    Age-wise, compare that to virtually all of the greats in the game. 

    Is that what you call a natural progression ?

     

     

     

     

     

    Sure, but in the early 2000s he was facing roided up pitchers.  As soon as the game started cleaning itself up you saw the kind of special talent Ortiz really was.  

    Only the clean players enjoyed improved stats after testing went into place - because the level of competition surrounding them fell back down to earth.  Who knows what Ortiz's stats should have been like in 2003 - 2004.

     

    And just to prove to you I'm not a hopeless homer, I think Jorge Posada is in that same category.  His best year came in 2007 at age 35 - not because he was dirty, but because the rest of the league was suddently clean(er).

     



    While this was likely a small factor, you've got to be kidding yourself, and me. Regardless, go look at his normalized measures OPS+, OPS#, or WAR then for the seasons in mention, because the difference is still quite large.

    And let's not forget that while Ortiz may indeed be a special talent, he failed his own drug test, and while we don't know exactly why and what for, followed it up with a doozy of a cockamie excuse that took him almost a week to come up with, while hiding behind the skirts of the PA. Keep in mind the PED whispers were there beforehand, whether you admit it or not. Those whispers (ala Piazza, and assuming they stay whispers only) could delay his HOF entry.

    Finally, I always suspected Posada myself, and mentioned this several times here; now you're using him as an alibi 

     

     



    There were whispers about everybody.  Ortiz didn't hide behind anything - he was stonewalled by the players union, which was protecting the cheaters in the game by keeping the results confidential at all costs, despite everybody and his grandmother having access to "the list".  Ortiz wasn't allowed to even know what he allegedly tested positive for.  And MLB did state that there were at least 8 false positives on that list.

     

     

    If OPS was deflated due to juiced pitching, OPS+ was doubly deflated due to the juiced hitters throughout the league.  If your comps are all juicing, your adjusted totals are going to be that much lower. 

    It seems to me If Ortiz was dirty in 2003, his current success would be harder to explain.  He would have to either be as good now naturally as he was ten years ago on steroids, or he would have to be the cleverest of all cheaters.

     

     



    Or, he could be doing some clever designer steroid. As far as him not knowing what he tested positive for, I find that hard to believe. I'm also tired of accusing him; the point was I didn't agree with your 27-31 career arc, for whatever reason that's the case.  

    As far as OPS+ goes, it would be deflated due to the juicing hitters, but inflated due to the juicing pitchers, effectively limiting each other; and yet, when you consider the fact that there's a direct correlation to PED-usage and runs scored, the Ortiz numbers.are if anything, counter to your point, that is, a higher raw or normalized OPS or similar# s when there is less PED-usage are even higher due to the lesser use, substantiated by the fact that fewer runs were scored in the 2010 time period; note the highest ERAs in league history were during the late 90s, which was apparently the peak of PED usage. So the PED effect on pitchers appears to have a far less impact on the #s than it does on the hitters. Regardless, I believe these adjustments are minor compared to the Ortiz improvement, and even discussing this excuse as the reason, especially given your claim in general is the reverse to what has been seen, is just more posturing.

     

     



    There are always outliers, but a 37-year-old losing 90 OPS (or 8 OPS+) off his career best is a normal career arc.  That's about where Ortiz sits right now.

     

    I didn't really follow your second paragraph, but essentially my theory is that pitchers saw less benefit from PEDs.  They could throw a little harder, but they were still bound by the laws of physics.  We didn't see anybody throwing 110MPH during the steroid era the way we saw guys launching balls into the moon behind the plate.

    The impact on pitchers, I think, was more that hall of famers or even just very good pitchers who should have been declining were able to stay effective, or even improve, later into their careers.  So Ortiz had to face a young Tim Hudson as well as a Roger Clemens pitching as if he were Tim Hudson's age.  So overall, offensive numbers were up, and therefore OPS+ was down, but if you were a clean hitter in this era, your stats were deflated.  

     

     

    1)

    Regarding deflated stats due to PEDs, while your example is good, I still maintain there is minimal impact, and you're doing it to support a wayward argument.




    2)

    Compare Ortiz at 26 vs 36; now at 27 vs 37. 

    Do the same for Mantle, Mays, Dimaggio, E. Matthews, Ott, Foxx, Musial, Hornsby, Speaker, Ruth, Yaz, TW. (If they were retired in the later yrs, just use the last yr; in the case of military service, take your pick on the closest representative season, In TWs case, I admit he was a freak).

    Get back to me.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Since Giambi's 2 yr numbers were 69 HRs in 863 ABs, I believe you're exaggerating just a little. Ironically, Ortiz had 101 HRs for the same 2 seasons, and in a much more difficult park for Lefty power guys. Those 101 Hrs were in 1159 ABs, spanning more than his first 7 seasons combined, which was 89 HRs in 1925 ABs. 

    No, that part makes it even transparent.

    He stopped hitting at the end of 2003.  Between the start of 2004 through the middle of June, 2005, he had a .215 average, with 16 HRs in 404 ABs,and a .716 OPS.  That's almost 1.5 years.

    In his next 606 ABs, he hits 60 HRs, with a .273 average and a 1.052 OPS.

    So basically, at the age of 35, Giambi turned into Babe Ruth.

    Like I have always said, for the true believer, there is really no discussion or fact patterns.

     

     



    Although there is a vein of truth to the Giambi side of the ledger (assuming no injury was involved, and I believe there was), an admitted PEDer later on, the context is exaggerated & ridiculous, especially taking into account the Ortiz #s as stated. Your silence on that part of the conversation is deafening.  Speaking of, what was he in the beginning? Pete Rose?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ortiz was 21 years old in the beginning.  Ages 21-24 he didn't hit much, or display much power.  25-26 he hit 1 HR every 18.8 ABs.  Ages 27 - 31 he peaked.  That's a very natural career trajectory.  Chris Davis is on a similar path.

    Besides, Giambi was juicing from the get-go.  Nobody thinks he started using PEDs when he got to the Bronx.  So why would Ortiz have started in Boston?  Who else in baseball do you point to and say "this guy must have been clean from 1997 - 2002"?  

     

     

     



    Ortiz has been a superior hitter in the early 2010s vs the early 2000s. This includes 2013 and 2003.

    Age-wise, compare that to virtually all of the greats in the game. 

    Is that what you call a natural progression ?

     

     

     

     

     

    Sure, but in the early 2000s he was facing roided up pitchers.  As soon as the game started cleaning itself up you saw the kind of special talent Ortiz really was.  

    Only the clean players enjoyed improved stats after testing went into place - because the level of competition surrounding them fell back down to earth.  Who knows what Ortiz's stats should have been like in 2003 - 2004.

     

    And just to prove to you I'm not a hopeless homer, I think Jorge Posada is in that same category.  His best year came in 2007 at age 35 - not because he was dirty, but because the rest of the league was suddently clean(er).

     



    While this was likely a small factor, you've got to be kidding yourself, and me. Regardless, go look at his normalized measures OPS+, OPS#, or WAR then for the seasons in mention, because the difference is still quite large.

    And let's not forget that while Ortiz may indeed be a special talent, he failed his own drug test, and while we don't know exactly why and what for, followed it up with a doozy of a cockamie excuse that took him almost a week to come up with, while hiding behind the skirts of the PA. Keep in mind the PED whispers were there beforehand, whether you admit it or not. Those whispers (ala Piazza, and assuming they stay whispers only) could delay his HOF entry.

    Finally, I always suspected Posada myself, and mentioned this several times here; now you're using him as an alibi 

     

     



    There were whispers about everybody.  Ortiz didn't hide behind anything - he was stonewalled by the players union, which was protecting the cheaters in the game by keeping the results confidential at all costs, despite everybody and his grandmother having access to "the list".  Ortiz wasn't allowed to even know what he allegedly tested positive for.  And MLB did state that there were at least 8 false positives on that list.

     

     

    If OPS was deflated due to juiced pitching, OPS+ was doubly deflated due to the juiced hitters throughout the league.  If your comps are all juicing, your adjusted totals are going to be that much lower. 

    It seems to me If Ortiz was dirty in 2003, his current success would be harder to explain.  He would have to either be as good now naturally as he was ten years ago on steroids, or he would have to be the cleverest of all cheaters.

     

     



    Or, he could be doing some clever designer steroid. As far as him not knowing what he tested positive for, I find that hard to believe. I'm also tired of accusing him; the point was I didn't agree with your 27-31 career arc, for whatever reason that's the case.  

    As far as OPS+ goes, it would be deflated due to the juicing hitters, but inflated due to the juicing pitchers, effectively limiting each other; and yet, when you consider the fact that there's a direct correlation to PED-usage and runs scored, the Ortiz numbers.are if anything, counter to your point, that is, a higher raw or normalized OPS or similar# s when there is less PED-usage are even higher due to the lesser use, substantiated by the fact that fewer runs were scored in the 2010 time period; note the highest ERAs in league history were during the late 90s, which was apparently the peak of PED usage. So the PED effect on pitchers appears to have a far less impact on the #s than it does on the hitters. Regardless, I believe these adjustments are minor compared to the Ortiz improvement, and even discussing this excuse as the reason, especially given your claim in general is the reverse to what has been seen, is just more posturing.

     

     



    There are always outliers, but a 37-year-old losing 90 OPS (or 8 OPS+) off his career best is a normal career arc.  That's about where Ortiz sits right now.

     

    I didn't really follow your second paragraph, but essentially my theory is that pitchers saw less benefit from PEDs.  They could throw a little harder, but they were still bound by the laws of physics.  We didn't see anybody throwing 110MPH during the steroid era the way we saw guys launching balls into the moon behind the plate.

    The impact on pitchers, I think, was more that hall of famers or even just very good pitchers who should have been declining were able to stay effective, or even improve, later into their careers.  So Ortiz had to face a young Tim Hudson as well as a Roger Clemens pitching as if he were Tim Hudson's age.  So overall, offensive numbers were up, and therefore OPS+ was down, but if you were a clean hitter in this era, your stats were deflated.  

     

     

    1)

    Regarding deflated stats due to PEDs, while your example is good, I still maintain there is minimal impact, and you're doing it to support a wayward argument.




    2)

    Compare Ortiz at 26 vs 36; now at 27 vs 37. 

    Do the same for Mantle, Mays, Dimaggio, E. Matthews, Ott, Foxx, Musial, Hornsby. (If they were retired in the later yrs, just use the last yr; in the case of military service, take your pick).

    Get back to me.



    You're going back a long ways - age 37 in 2013 isn't the same as age 37 in 1950.  And obviously none of these guys were DHs.

    If we take modern examples,

    Edgar Martinez had an OPS+ of 158 at age 37, 133 at age 27 - 25 points higher.

    Harold Baines was 19 points higher. 

    Raul Ibanez was 50 points higher.

    Tony Gwynn was 2 points lower.

    Chili Davis +20 points.

    Dwight Evans +21 points.

    It's far from unheard of.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Since Giambi's 2 yr numbers were 69 HRs in 863 ABs, I believe you're exaggerating just a little. Ironically, Ortiz had 101 HRs for the same 2 seasons, and in a much more difficult park for Lefty power guys. Those 101 Hrs were in 1159 ABs, spanning more than his first 7 seasons combined, which was 89 HRs in 1925 ABs. 

    No, that part makes it even transparent.

    He stopped hitting at the end of 2003.  Between the start of 2004 through the middle of June, 2005, he had a .215 average, with 16 HRs in 404 ABs,and a .716 OPS.  That's almost 1.5 years.

    In his next 606 ABs, he hits 60 HRs, with a .273 average and a 1.052 OPS.

    So basically, at the age of 35, Giambi turned into Babe Ruth.

    Like I have always said, for the true believer, there is really no discussion or fact patterns.

     

     



    Although there is a vein of truth to the Giambi side of the ledger (assuming no injury was involved, and I believe there was), an admitted PEDer later on, the context is exaggerated & ridiculous, especially taking into account the Ortiz #s as stated. Your silence on that part of the conversation is deafening.  Speaking of, what was he in the beginning? Pete Rose?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ortiz was 21 years old in the beginning.  Ages 21-24 he didn't hit much, or display much power.  25-26 he hit 1 HR every 18.8 ABs.  Ages 27 - 31 he peaked.  That's a very natural career trajectory.  Chris Davis is on a similar path.

    Besides, Giambi was juicing from the get-go.  Nobody thinks he started using PEDs when he got to the Bronx.  So why would Ortiz have started in Boston?  Who else in baseball do you point to and say "this guy must have been clean from 1997 - 2002"?  

     

     

     



    Ortiz has been a superior hitter in the early 2010s vs the early 2000s. This includes 2013 and 2003.

    Age-wise, compare that to virtually all of the greats in the game. 

    Is that what you call a natural progression ?

     

     

     

     

     

    Sure, but in the early 2000s he was facing roided up pitchers.  As soon as the game started cleaning itself up you saw the kind of special talent Ortiz really was.  

    Only the clean players enjoyed improved stats after testing went into place - because the level of competition surrounding them fell back down to earth.  Who knows what Ortiz's stats should have been like in 2003 - 2004.

     

    And just to prove to you I'm not a hopeless homer, I think Jorge Posada is in that same category.  His best year came in 2007 at age 35 - not because he was dirty, but because the rest of the league was suddently clean(er).

     



    While this was likely a small factor, you've got to be kidding yourself, and me. Regardless, go look at his normalized measures OPS+, OPS#, or WAR then for the seasons in mention, because the difference is still quite large.

    And let's not forget that while Ortiz may indeed be a special talent, he failed his own drug test, and while we don't know exactly why and what for, followed it up with a doozy of a cockamie excuse that took him almost a week to come up with, while hiding behind the skirts of the PA. Keep in mind the PED whispers were there beforehand, whether you admit it or not. Those whispers (ala Piazza, and assuming they stay whispers only) could delay his HOF entry.

    Finally, I always suspected Posada myself, and mentioned this several times here; now you're using him as an alibi 

     

     



    There were whispers about everybody.  Ortiz didn't hide behind anything - he was stonewalled by the players union, which was protecting the cheaters in the game by keeping the results confidential at all costs, despite everybody and his grandmother having access to "the list".  Ortiz wasn't allowed to even know what he allegedly tested positive for.  And MLB did state that there were at least 8 false positives on that list.

     

     

    If OPS was deflated due to juiced pitching, OPS+ was doubly deflated due to the juiced hitters throughout the league.  If your comps are all juicing, your adjusted totals are going to be that much lower. 

    It seems to me If Ortiz was dirty in 2003, his current success would be harder to explain.  He would have to either be as good now naturally as he was ten years ago on steroids, or he would have to be the cleverest of all cheaters.

     

     



    Or, he could be doing some clever designer steroid. As far as him not knowing what he tested positive for, I find that hard to believe. I'm also tired of accusing him; the point was I didn't agree with your 27-31 career arc, for whatever reason that's the case.  

    As far as OPS+ goes, it would be deflated due to the juicing hitters, but inflated due to the juicing pitchers, effectively limiting each other; and yet, when you consider the fact that there's a direct correlation to PED-usage and runs scored, the Ortiz numbers.are if anything, counter to your point, that is, a higher raw or normalized OPS or similar# s when there is less PED-usage are even higher due to the lesser use, substantiated by the fact that fewer runs were scored in the 2010 time period; note the highest ERAs in league history were during the late 90s, which was apparently the peak of PED usage. So the PED effect on pitchers appears to have a far less impact on the #s than it does on the hitters. Regardless, I believe these adjustments are minor compared to the Ortiz improvement, and even discussing this excuse as the reason, especially given your claim in general is the reverse to what has been seen, is just more posturing.

     

     



    There are always outliers, but a 37-year-old losing 90 OPS (or 8 OPS+) off his career best is a normal career arc.  That's about where Ortiz sits right now.

     

    I didn't really follow your second paragraph, but essentially my theory is that pitchers saw less benefit from PEDs.  They could throw a little harder, but they were still bound by the laws of physics.  We didn't see anybody throwing 110MPH during the steroid era the way we saw guys launching balls into the moon behind the plate.

    The impact on pitchers, I think, was more that hall of famers or even just very good pitchers who should have been declining were able to stay effective, or even improve, later into their careers.  So Ortiz had to face a young Tim Hudson as well as a Roger Clemens pitching as if he were Tim Hudson's age.  So overall, offensive numbers were up, and therefore OPS+ was down, but if you were a clean hitter in this era, your stats were deflated.  

     

     

    1)

    Regarding deflated stats due to PEDs, while your example is good, I still maintain there is minimal impact, and you're doing it to support a wayward argument.




    2)

    Compare Ortiz at 26 vs 36; now at 27 vs 37. 

    Do the same for Mantle, Mays, Dimaggio, E. Matthews, Ott, Foxx, Musial, Hornsby. (If they were retired in the later yrs, just use the last yr; in the case of military service, take your pick).

    Get back to me.

     



    You're going back a long ways - age 37 in 2013 isn't the same as age 37 in 1950.  And obviously none of these guys were DHs.

     

    If we take modern examples,

    Edgar Martinez had an OPS+ of 158 at age 37, 133 at age 27 - 25 points higher.

    Harold Baines was 19 points higher. 

    Raul Ibanez was 50 points higher.

    Tony Gwynn was 2 points lower.

    Chili Davis +20 points.

    Dwight Evans +21 points.

    It's far from unheard of.

     

     




    Yes, but it's not the norm

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Since Giambi's 2 yr numbers were 69 HRs in 863 ABs, I believe you're exaggerating just a little. Ironically, Ortiz had 101 HRs for the same 2 seasons, and in a much more difficult park for Lefty power guys. Those 101 Hrs were in 1159 ABs, spanning more than his first 7 seasons combined, which was 89 HRs in 1925 ABs. 

    No, that part makes it even transparent.

    He stopped hitting at the end of 2003.  Between the start of 2004 through the middle of June, 2005, he had a .215 average, with 16 HRs in 404 ABs,and a .716 OPS.  That's almost 1.5 years.

    In his next 606 ABs, he hits 60 HRs, with a .273 average and a 1.052 OPS.

    So basically, at the age of 35, Giambi turned into Babe Ruth.

    Like I have always said, for the true believer, there is really no discussion or fact patterns.

     

     



    Although there is a vein of truth to the Giambi side of the ledger (assuming no injury was involved, and I believe there was), an admitted PEDer later on, the context is exaggerated & ridiculous, especially taking into account the Ortiz #s as stated. Your silence on that part of the conversation is deafening.  Speaking of, what was he in the beginning? Pete Rose?

     

     



     

    Ortiz was 21 years old in the beginning.  Ages 21-24 he didn't hit much, or display much power.  25-26 he hit 1 HR every 18.8 ABs.  Ages 27 - 31 he peaked.  That's a very natural career trajectory.  Chris Davis is on a similar path.

    Besides, Giambi was juicing from the get-go.  Nobody thinks he started using PEDs when he got to the Bronx.  So why would Ortiz have started in Boston?  Who else in baseball do you point to and say "this guy must have been clean from 1997 - 2002"?  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Curt Schilling Says Red Sox Officials Urged Him To Consider PEDs

    http://deadspin.com/5982461/cu.....sider-peds

    In 2009, Lou Merloni told of a spring training meeting, where a doctor brought in by the team taught players how to use steroids the right way:

    RedSox – The PEDs Doctor:

    He sat there for one hour and told us how to properly use steroids while I’m with the Boston Red Sox, sitting there with the rest of the organization, and after this I said, ‘What the heck was that?’ And everybody on the team was like, ‘What was that?’ And the response we got was, ‘Well, we know guys are taking it, so we want to make sure they’re taking it the right way.’ … Where did that come from? That didn’t come from the Players Association.”

     

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Since Giambi's 2 yr numbers were 69 HRs in 863 ABs, I believe you're exaggerating just a little. Ironically, Ortiz had 101 HRs for the same 2 seasons, and in a much more difficult park for Lefty power guys. Those 101 Hrs were in 1159 ABs, spanning more than his first 7 seasons combined, which was 89 HRs in 1925 ABs. 

    No, that part makes it even transparent.

    He stopped hitting at the end of 2003.  Between the start of 2004 through the middle of June, 2005, he had a .215 average, with 16 HRs in 404 ABs,and a .716 OPS.  That's almost 1.5 years.

    In his next 606 ABs, he hits 60 HRs, with a .273 average and a 1.052 OPS.

    So basically, at the age of 35, Giambi turned into Babe Ruth.

    Like I have always said, for the true believer, there is really no discussion or fact patterns.

     

     



    Although there is a vein of truth to the Giambi side of the ledger (assuming no injury was involved, and I believe there was), an admitted PEDer later on, the context is exaggerated & ridiculous, especially taking into account the Ortiz #s as stated. Your silence on that part of the conversation is deafening.  Speaking of, what was he in the beginning? Pete Rose?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ortiz was 21 years old in the beginning.  Ages 21-24 he didn't hit much, or display much power.  25-26 he hit 1 HR every 18.8 ABs.  Ages 27 - 31 he peaked.  That's a very natural career trajectory.  Chris Davis is on a similar path.

    Besides, Giambi was juicing from the get-go.  Nobody thinks he started using PEDs when he got to the Bronx.  So why would Ortiz have started in Boston?  Who else in baseball do you point to and say "this guy must have been clean from 1997 - 2002"?  

     

     

     



    Ortiz has been a superior hitter in the early 2010s vs the early 2000s. This includes 2013 and 2003.

    Age-wise, compare that to virtually all of the greats in the game. 

    Is that what you call a natural progression ?

     

     

     

     

     

    Sure, but in the early 2000s he was facing roided up pitchers.  As soon as the game started cleaning itself up you saw the kind of special talent Ortiz really was.  

    Only the clean players enjoyed improved stats after testing went into place - because the level of competition surrounding them fell back down to earth.  Who knows what Ortiz's stats should have been like in 2003 - 2004.

     

    And just to prove to you I'm not a hopeless homer, I think Jorge Posada is in that same category.  His best year came in 2007 at age 35 - not because he was dirty, but because the rest of the league was suddently clean(er).

     



    While this was likely a small factor, you've got to be kidding yourself, and me. Regardless, go look at his normalized measures OPS+, OPS#, or WAR then for the seasons in mention, because the difference is still quite large.

    And let's not forget that while Ortiz may indeed be a special talent, he failed his own drug test, and while we don't know exactly why and what for, followed it up with a doozy of a cockamie excuse that took him almost a week to come up with, while hiding behind the skirts of the PA. Keep in mind the PED whispers were there beforehand, whether you admit it or not. Those whispers (ala Piazza, and assuming they stay whispers only) could delay his HOF entry.

    Finally, I always suspected Posada myself, and mentioned this several times here; now you're using him as an alibi 

     

     



    There were whispers about everybody.  Ortiz didn't hide behind anything - he was stonewalled by the players union, which was protecting the cheaters in the game by keeping the results confidential at all costs, despite everybody and his grandmother having access to "the list".  Ortiz wasn't allowed to even know what he allegedly tested positive for.  And MLB did state that there were at least 8 false positives on that list.

     

     

    If OPS was deflated due to juiced pitching, OPS+ was doubly deflated due to the juiced hitters throughout the league.  If your comps are all juicing, your adjusted totals are going to be that much lower. 

    It seems to me If Ortiz was dirty in 2003, his current success would be harder to explain.  He would have to either be as good now naturally as he was ten years ago on steroids, or he would have to be the cleverest of all cheaters.

     

     



    Or, he could be doing some clever designer steroid. As far as him not knowing what he tested positive for, I find that hard to believe. I'm also tired of accusing him; the point was I didn't agree with your 27-31 career arc, for whatever reason that's the case.  

    As far as OPS+ goes, it would be deflated due to the juicing hitters, but inflated due to the juicing pitchers, effectively limiting each other; and yet, when you consider the fact that there's a direct correlation to PED-usage and runs scored, the Ortiz numbers.are if anything, counter to your point, that is, a higher raw or normalized OPS or similar# s when there is less PED-usage are even higher due to the lesser use, substantiated by the fact that fewer runs were scored in the 2010 time period; note the highest ERAs in league history were during the late 90s, which was apparently the peak of PED usage. So the PED effect on pitchers appears to have a far less impact on the #s than it does on the hitters. Regardless, I believe these adjustments are minor compared to the Ortiz improvement, and even discussing this excuse as the reason, especially given your claim in general is the reverse to what has been seen, is just more posturing.

     

     



    There are always outliers, but a 37-year-old losing 90 OPS (or 8 OPS+) off his career best is a normal career arc.  That's about where Ortiz sits right now.

     

    I didn't really follow your second paragraph, but essentially my theory is that pitchers saw less benefit from PEDs.  They could throw a little harder, but they were still bound by the laws of physics.  We didn't see anybody throwing 110MPH during the steroid era the way we saw guys launching balls into the moon behind the plate.

    The impact on pitchers, I think, was more that hall of famers or even just very good pitchers who should have been declining were able to stay effective, or even improve, later into their careers.  So Ortiz had to face a young Tim Hudson as well as a Roger Clemens pitching as if he were Tim Hudson's age.  So overall, offensive numbers were up, and therefore OPS+ was down, but if you were a clean hitter in this era, your stats were deflated.  

     

     

    1)

    Regarding deflated stats due to PEDs, while your example is good, I still maintain there is minimal impact, and you're doing it to support a wayward argument.




    2)

    Compare Ortiz at 26 vs 36; now at 27 vs 37. 

    Do the same for Mantle, Mays, Dimaggio, E. Matthews, Ott, Foxx, Musial, Hornsby, Speaker, Ruth, Yaz, TW. (If they were retired in the later yrs, just use the last yr; in the case of military service, take your pick on the closest representative season, In TWs case, I admit he was a freak).

    Get back to me.



    Just for fun ...

    Matthews, Mantle and DiMaggio never played past age 36.

    Mel Ott played only 31 games at age 37, but at age 36, his OPS+ was 151.  At age 26, it was 156.

    Mays posted a 156 OPS+ at age 37, just 9 points lower than at age 27.

    Jimmie Foxx was pretty much done by age 34.

    Stan Musial's OPS+ at age 36 was 38 points higher than at age 26.  At age 37, he posted a still impressive 145, but that was not close to his OPS+ of 200 a decade earlier.

    Rogers Hornsby played his last full season at age 33.

    Tris Speaker's OPS+ was 15 points higher at age 37 than 27.

    Babe Ruth's 201 OPS+ was 19 points higher at age 37 than 27.

    Yaz posted a higher OPS at age 36 than 26 (120 vs 119) but only because his age 26 season was sub-par.  

    Ted Williams - what can you say.  The second best OPS+ of his career came at age 38.  He had a higher OPS+ (190) at age 41 than at age 31 or age 21.  

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from michaelsjr. Show michaelsjr's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    So sick and tired of the A-Rod headlines.  He is a cheater and a liar many times over and the media is reporting every word and every move and he is getting to play and collect his money.  It has gotten beyond all reason and he is making a farce of the whole situation.  Digusting and disgraceful to the game and the players and the fans.  His defense is going to be the same old lame "I did it to help my team" which is ludicrous.  He did it to help himself.  He lied to his team.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Since Giambi's 2 yr numbers were 69 HRs in 863 ABs, I believe you're exaggerating just a little. Ironically, Ortiz had 101 HRs for the same 2 seasons, and in a much more difficult park for Lefty power guys. Those 101 Hrs were in 1159 ABs, spanning more than his first 7 seasons combined, which was 89 HRs in 1925 ABs. 

    No, that part makes it even transparent.

    He stopped hitting at the end of 2003.  Between the start of 2004 through the middle of June, 2005, he had a .215 average, with 16 HRs in 404 ABs,and a .716 OPS.  That's almost 1.5 years.

    In his next 606 ABs, he hits 60 HRs, with a .273 average and a 1.052 OPS.

    So basically, at the age of 35, Giambi turned into Babe Ruth.

    Like I have always said, for the true believer, there is really no discussion or fact patterns.

     

     



    Although there is a vein of truth to the Giambi side of the ledger (assuming no injury was involved, and I believe there was), an admitted PEDer later on, the context is exaggerated & ridiculous, especially taking into account the Ortiz #s as stated. Your silence on that part of the conversation is deafening.  Speaking of, what was he in the beginning? Pete Rose?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ortiz was 21 years old in the beginning.  Ages 21-24 he didn't hit much, or display much power.  25-26 he hit 1 HR every 18.8 ABs.  Ages 27 - 31 he peaked.  That's a very natural career trajectory.  Chris Davis is on a similar path.

    Besides, Giambi was juicing from the get-go.  Nobody thinks he started using PEDs when he got to the Bronx.  So why would Ortiz have started in Boston?  Who else in baseball do you point to and say "this guy must have been clean from 1997 - 2002"?  

     

     

     



    Ortiz has been a superior hitter in the early 2010s vs the early 2000s. This includes 2013 and 2003.

    Age-wise, compare that to virtually all of the greats in the game. 

    Is that what you call a natural progression ?

     

     

     

     

     

    Sure, but in the early 2000s he was facing roided up pitchers.  As soon as the game started cleaning itself up you saw the kind of special talent Ortiz really was.  

    Only the clean players enjoyed improved stats after testing went into place - because the level of competition surrounding them fell back down to earth.  Who knows what Ortiz's stats should have been like in 2003 - 2004.

     

    And just to prove to you I'm not a hopeless homer, I think Jorge Posada is in that same category.  His best year came in 2007 at age 35 - not because he was dirty, but because the rest of the league was suddently clean(er).

     



    While this was likely a small factor, you've got to be kidding yourself, and me. Regardless, go look at his normalized measures OPS+, OPS#, or WAR then for the seasons in mention, because the difference is still quite large.

    And let's not forget that while Ortiz may indeed be a special talent, he failed his own drug test, and while we don't know exactly why and what for, followed it up with a doozy of a cockamie excuse that took him almost a week to come up with, while hiding behind the skirts of the PA. Keep in mind the PED whispers were there beforehand, whether you admit it or not. Those whispers (ala Piazza, and assuming they stay whispers only) could delay his HOF entry.

    Finally, I always suspected Posada myself, and mentioned this several times here; now you're using him as an alibi 

     

     



    There were whispers about everybody.  Ortiz didn't hide behind anything - he was stonewalled by the players union, which was protecting the cheaters in the game by keeping the results confidential at all costs, despite everybody and his grandmother having access to "the list".  Ortiz wasn't allowed to even know what he allegedly tested positive for.  And MLB did state that there were at least 8 false positives on that list.

     

     

    If OPS was deflated due to juiced pitching, OPS+ was doubly deflated due to the juiced hitters throughout the league.  If your comps are all juicing, your adjusted totals are going to be that much lower. 

    It seems to me If Ortiz was dirty in 2003, his current success would be harder to explain.  He would have to either be as good now naturally as he was ten years ago on steroids, or he would have to be the cleverest of all cheaters.

     

     



    Or, he could be doing some clever designer steroid. As far as him not knowing what he tested positive for, I find that hard to believe. I'm also tired of accusing him; the point was I didn't agree with your 27-31 career arc, for whatever reason that's the case.  

    As far as OPS+ goes, it would be deflated due to the juicing hitters, but inflated due to the juicing pitchers, effectively limiting each other; and yet, when you consider the fact that there's a direct correlation to PED-usage and runs scored, the Ortiz numbers.are if anything, counter to your point, that is, a higher raw or normalized OPS or similar# s when there is less PED-usage are even higher due to the lesser use, substantiated by the fact that fewer runs were scored in the 2010 time period; note the highest ERAs in league history were during the late 90s, which was apparently the peak of PED usage. So the PED effect on pitchers appears to have a far less impact on the #s than it does on the hitters. Regardless, I believe these adjustments are minor compared to the Ortiz improvement, and even discussing this excuse as the reason, especially given your claim in general is the reverse to what has been seen, is just more posturing.

     

     



    There are always outliers, but a 37-year-old losing 90 OPS (or 8 OPS+) off his career best is a normal career arc.  That's about where Ortiz sits right now.

     

    I didn't really follow your second paragraph, but essentially my theory is that pitchers saw less benefit from PEDs.  They could throw a little harder, but they were still bound by the laws of physics.  We didn't see anybody throwing 110MPH during the steroid era the way we saw guys launching balls into the moon behind the plate.

    The impact on pitchers, I think, was more that hall of famers or even just very good pitchers who should have been declining were able to stay effective, or even improve, later into their careers.  So Ortiz had to face a young Tim Hudson as well as a Roger Clemens pitching as if he were Tim Hudson's age.  So overall, offensive numbers were up, and therefore OPS+ was down, but if you were a clean hitter in this era, your stats were deflated.  

     

     

    1)

    Regarding deflated stats due to PEDs, while your example is good, I still maintain there is minimal impact, and you're doing it to support a wayward argument.




    2)

    Compare Ortiz at 26 vs 36; now at 27 vs 37. 

    Do the same for Mantle, Mays, Dimaggio, E. Matthews, Ott, Foxx, Musial, Hornsby, Speaker, Ruth, Yaz, TW. (If they were retired in the later yrs, just use the last yr; in the case of military service, take your pick on the closest representative season, In TWs case, I admit he was a freak).

    Get back to me.

     



    Just for fun ...

     

    Matthews, Mantle and DiMaggio never played past age 36.

    Mel Ott played only 31 games at age 37, but at age 36, his OPS+ was 151.  At age 26, it was 156.

    Mays posted a 156 OPS+ at age 37, just 9 points lower than at age 27.

    Jimmie Foxx was pretty much done by age 34.

    Stan Musial's OPS+ at age 36 was 38 points higher than at age 26.  At age 37, he posted a still impressive 145, but that was not close to his OPS+ of 200 a decade earlier.

    Rogers Hornsby played his last full season at age 33.

    Tris Speaker's OPS+ was 15 points higher at age 37 than 27.

    Babe Ruth's 201 OPS+ was 19 points higher at age 37 than 27.

    Yaz posted a higher OPS at age 36 than 26 (120 vs 119) but only because his age 26 season was sub-par.  

    Ted Williams - what can you say.  The second best OPS+ of his career came at age 38.  He had a higher OPS+ (190) at age 41 than at age 31 or age 21.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    None ever hit 70 homers

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to michaelsjr's comment:

    So sick and tired of the A-Rod headlines.  He is a cheater and a liar many times over and the media is reporting every word and every move and he is getting to play and collect his money.  It has gotten beyond all reason and he is making a farce of the whole situation.  Digusting and disgraceful to the game and the players and the fans.  His defense is going to be the same old lame "I did it to help my team" which is ludicrous.  He did it to help himself.  He lied to his team.



    Exactly, mjr. He's in it for nothing but the money. He knows what the NYY fans and orgainzation think of him. That's all thats left. Play to get paid and hope the amount of the games suspended will be reduced, so he can collect his check. Nelson Cruz also did what was best for him, as opposed to his teammates. He's entering free agency and wants this behind him, while the Rangers are in a pennant race. Bunch of selfish I am's

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    You can never be sure how an arbitrator will rule. Some tend to favor labor over management despite the evidence. There is a good chance that his suspension will be reduced, which could save him a bundle. I am sure he got legal advice as to how to proceed.  I thought that Selig was going to make it a lifetime ban if A-Rod fought the suspension.  What happened to that ?

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Since Giambi's 2 yr numbers were 69 HRs in 863 ABs, I believe you're exaggerating just a little. Ironically, Ortiz had 101 HRs for the same 2 seasons, and in a much more difficult park for Lefty power guys. Those 101 Hrs were in 1159 ABs, spanning more than his first 7 seasons combined, which was 89 HRs in 1925 ABs. 

    No, that part makes it even transparent.

    He stopped hitting at the end of 2003.  Between the start of 2004 through the middle of June, 2005, he had a .215 average, with 16 HRs in 404 ABs,and a .716 OPS.  That's almost 1.5 years.

    In his next 606 ABs, he hits 60 HRs, with a .273 average and a 1.052 OPS.

    So basically, at the age of 35, Giambi turned into Babe Ruth.

    Like I have always said, for the true believer, there is really no discussion or fact patterns.

     

     



    Although there is a vein of truth to the Giambi side of the ledger (assuming no injury was involved, and I believe there was), an admitted PEDer later on, the context is exaggerated & ridiculous, especially taking into account the Ortiz #s as stated. Your silence on that part of the conversation is deafening.  Speaking of, what was he in the beginning? Pete Rose?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ortiz was 21 years old in the beginning.  Ages 21-24 he didn't hit much, or display much power.  25-26 he hit 1 HR every 18.8 ABs.  Ages 27 - 31 he peaked.  That's a very natural career trajectory.  Chris Davis is on a similar path.

    Besides, Giambi was juicing from the get-go.  Nobody thinks he started using PEDs when he got to the Bronx.  So why would Ortiz have started in Boston?  Who else in baseball do you point to and say "this guy must have been clean from 1997 - 2002"?  

     

     

     



    Ortiz has been a superior hitter in the early 2010s vs the early 2000s. This includes 2013 and 2003.

    Age-wise, compare that to virtually all of the greats in the game. 

    Is that what you call a natural progression ?

     

     

     

     

     

    Sure, but in the early 2000s he was facing roided up pitchers.  As soon as the game started cleaning itself up you saw the kind of special talent Ortiz really was.  

    Only the clean players enjoyed improved stats after testing went into place - because the level of competition surrounding them fell back down to earth.  Who knows what Ortiz's stats should have been like in 2003 - 2004.

     

    And just to prove to you I'm not a hopeless homer, I think Jorge Posada is in that same category.  His best year came in 2007 at age 35 - not because he was dirty, but because the rest of the league was suddently clean(er).

     



    While this was likely a small factor, you've got to be kidding yourself, and me. Regardless, go look at his normalized measures OPS+, OPS#, or WAR then for the seasons in mention, because the difference is still quite large.

    And let's not forget that while Ortiz may indeed be a special talent, he failed his own drug test, and while we don't know exactly why and what for, followed it up with a doozy of a cockamie excuse that took him almost a week to come up with, while hiding behind the skirts of the PA. Keep in mind the PED whispers were there beforehand, whether you admit it or not. Those whispers (ala Piazza, and assuming they stay whispers only) could delay his HOF entry.

    Finally, I always suspected Posada myself, and mentioned this several times here; now you're using him as an alibi 

     

     



    There were whispers about everybody.  Ortiz didn't hide behind anything - he was stonewalled by the players union, which was protecting the cheaters in the game by keeping the results confidential at all costs, despite everybody and his grandmother having access to "the list".  Ortiz wasn't allowed to even know what he allegedly tested positive for.  And MLB did state that there were at least 8 false positives on that list.

     

     

    If OPS was deflated due to juiced pitching, OPS+ was doubly deflated due to the juiced hitters throughout the league.  If your comps are all juicing, your adjusted totals are going to be that much lower. 

    It seems to me If Ortiz was dirty in 2003, his current success would be harder to explain.  He would have to either be as good now naturally as he was ten years ago on steroids, or he would have to be the cleverest of all cheaters.

     

     



    Or, he could be doing some clever designer steroid. As far as him not knowing what he tested positive for, I find that hard to believe. I'm also tired of accusing him; the point was I didn't agree with your 27-31 career arc, for whatever reason that's the case.  

    As far as OPS+ goes, it would be deflated due to the juicing hitters, but inflated due to the juicing pitchers, effectively limiting each other; and yet, when you consider the fact that there's a direct correlation to PED-usage and runs scored, the Ortiz numbers.are if anything, counter to your point, that is, a higher raw or normalized OPS or similar# s when there is less PED-usage are even higher due to the lesser use, substantiated by the fact that fewer runs were scored in the 2010 time period; note the highest ERAs in league history were during the late 90s, which was apparently the peak of PED usage. So the PED effect on pitchers appears to have a far less impact on the #s than it does on the hitters. Regardless, I believe these adjustments are minor compared to the Ortiz improvement, and even discussing this excuse as the reason, especially given your claim in general is the reverse to what has been seen, is just more posturing.

     

     



    There are always outliers, but a 37-year-old losing 90 OPS (or 8 OPS+) off his career best is a normal career arc.  That's about where Ortiz sits right now.

     

    I didn't really follow your second paragraph, but essentially my theory is that pitchers saw less benefit from PEDs.  They could throw a little harder, but they were still bound by the laws of physics.  We didn't see anybody throwing 110MPH during the steroid era the way we saw guys launching balls into the moon behind the plate.

    The impact on pitchers, I think, was more that hall of famers or even just very good pitchers who should have been declining were able to stay effective, or even improve, later into their careers.  So Ortiz had to face a young Tim Hudson as well as a Roger Clemens pitching as if he were Tim Hudson's age.  So overall, offensive numbers were up, and therefore OPS+ was down, but if you were a clean hitter in this era, your stats were deflated.  

     

     

    1)

    Regarding deflated stats due to PEDs, while your example is good, I still maintain there is minimal impact, and you're doing it to support a wayward argument.




    2)

    Compare Ortiz at 26 vs 36; now at 27 vs 37. 

    Do the same for Mantle, Mays, Dimaggio, E. Matthews, Ott, Foxx, Musial, Hornsby, Speaker, Ruth, Yaz, TW. (If they were retired in the later yrs, just use the last yr; in the case of military service, take your pick on the closest representative season, In TWs case, I admit he was a freak).

    Get back to me.

     

     



    Just for fun ...

     

     

    Matthews, Mantle and DiMaggio never played past age 36.

    Mel Ott played only 31 games at age 37, but at age 36, his OPS+ was 151.  At age 26, it was 156.

    Mays posted a 156 OPS+ at age 37, just 9 points lower than at age 27.

    Jimmie Foxx was pretty much done by age 34.

    Stan Musial's OPS+ at age 36 was 38 points higher than at age 26.  At age 37, he posted a still impressive 145, but that was not close to his OPS+ of 200 a decade earlier.

    Rogers Hornsby played his last full season at age 33.

    Tris Speaker's OPS+ was 15 points higher at age 37 than 27.

    Babe Ruth's 201 OPS+ was 19 points higher at age 37 than 27.

    Yaz posted a higher OPS at age 36 than 26 (120 vs 119) but only because his age 26 season was sub-par.  

    Ted Williams - what can you say.  The second best OPS+ of his career came at age 38.  He had a higher OPS+ (190) at age 41 than at age 31 or age 21.  

     

     



    Ruth had an off yr in '22; for example the surrounding 4 yrs was 255,238, 239, and 220 And his 201 in '32 was still below his lifetime 206.  

    As a general rule, there is no way on average a 37 yr old is as good as his 27 yr old counterpart. That's why some were already retired or mostly on the pine. Hornsby, Foxx, Mantle, Dimaggio, Banks and Mathews really peaked early. Catchers shouldn't count due to the rigors of the position, but Bench was pretty done, at least defensively at 30. Fisk was from another world, and actually had a bunch of injuries as a youngster; meaning he was healthier in his 40s.

    The 1957 TW season is the best ever season for a 38+ yr old IMO. He was a freak. I don't count Bonds.

    Those guys (Bonds, Clemens, ARod) could have been immortals without doing a drop of those drugs. Now the HOF is closed to them. At least there's some justice.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from CommyContrarianOnTwitter. Show CommyContrarianOnTwitter's posts

    Re: A-ROD:

    LOUDEST cheer of the night in chitown is when a-fraud gets hit.. says a lot! imagine if he gets beaned, full on standing o.. hawe a feeling lackey will do the honors next week !

    COMMY COMMY COMMY COMMY CONTRARIAN, HE COMES AND GOES, HE COMES AND GOES... @commyContrarian on Twitter!

     

Share