Yaz vs Beltre
craig44
Posts: 11,350 ✭✭✭✭✭
Time for a player comparison. the two players being examined are Captain Carl and Adrian Beltre. Both had very long careers with lots of GP and AB. To start: Yaz had 3419 hits, 646 2b, 59 3b, 452 HR, .285/.379/.462/.841 and ops+ 130 WAR 96.5
Beltre had 3166 H, 636 2b, 38 3b, 477 hr, .286/.339/.480/.819 OPS+ 116 WAR 93.5
Yaz had almost exactly 1000 more AB than Beltre did.
I initially thought this would be a slam dunk for Carl, but after looking at the numbers, they are remarkably close, although Yaz played through the 2nd dead ball era so his OPS + gets a boost.
Offensively, Yaz does have the advantage in rate stats. But... Beltre makes up ground by playing a more important position very very well. I think they are very evenly matched overall. I think that having an all time great 3baseman for 20 years may be the way to go.
what do you think?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Comments
For some reason Beltre is not a household name. Much like Thome, Jeff Kent and a few others. And their card prices and appeal seem to go with this lack of attention.
Without knowing much, Yaz is an easy pick for collecting. As far as playing, Beltre had a really good career. The stats presented above are no joke. Beltre and Miggy are very close. But Miggy always got more attention.
I think being in the playoffs and series really help with collecting/investing and the over notoriety of a player. Yaz played in a bunch of playoff games and some world series games. Plus the triple crown didn't hurt.
Didn't Beltre sign a massive contract after his steroid filled season? Like that season put him on the map if I remember correctly
Yaz
yes he did.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Try phrasing it this way: "Yaz played through the 2nd dead ball era so every one of his stats, except for OPS+, takes a big hit." OPS+ never gets a "boost" in any era; stats other than OPS+ go up and down in every era, which is why we need OPS+.
Beltre was a fine player, but he was no Yaz. In career value terms only, the gap isn't enormous, but their peak values are miles apart. Yaz's peak was at the heart of the deadball era; when he hit .301 in 1968, that was incredible. And while LF is where every other team hides their worst fielder, LF in Fenway is unique and very difficult, and Yaz played it very, very well.
And that's ignoring the near certainty that Beltre was a roider.
....
Giving Rice some love. I like it. 😂
Dallas actually posted a players batting average? 😱
So what effect did a dead ball era have on batting avg? Should still be a lot of ringing line drives, you can’t tell me a bunch of warning track fly balls dropped anyones avg. much.
In the previous dead ball era there seemed to be a lot of high batting avg. .301 just doesn’t seem real impressive.
Beltre was certainly not great in Seattle. There were times he was not very good in the middle of his career.
Ditto for Yaz. Regardless of era, .255 with 15 homers for a corner outfielder is terrible. Yes, he still walked a lot, but...
The first deadball era was caused by the ball, which was dead.
The second deadball era was caused by pitcher's mounds built up to three feet high, an expanded strike zone, enormous new stadiums with acres of foul territory, longer fences, and higher walls. So, yes, warning track fly balls were more common and did drop players' averages some. The huge surge in strikeouts and weak ground balls from pitches raining down from Mt. Olympus lowered them a lot more. Foul pops that today would be caught by a fan in the 10th row were instead caught by the catcher or an infielder which lowered averages some more.
Carl Yastrzemski in 1968, with his 23/74/.301 slash line was better - no, a lot better - than Adrian Beltre in even his best pharmaceutically enhanced season. From 1967-1970 Yastrzemski was the best player in baseball by a substantial margin, a claim Beltre likely can't make for any month, let alone any year.
Beltre was a fine player and, had that not been primarliy the result of cheating, I'd say he was a solid, bona fide Hall of Famer. But he was not Carl Yastrzemski; the vast majority of Hall of Famers were not as great as Carl Yastrzemski.
It boggles the mind that people don't understand how the game has changed.
If you are going to accuse Beltre of cheating, the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. Otherwise you are baselessly libeling a players career on pure speculation. As far as I know, there is no hard evidence, failed tests or admissions of guilt against Beltre. If you are planning on using statistical "evidence" to base your claim on, then you had better open up the floodgates, because a whole bunch of players are going to be "guilty" of PED use.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Hitting goes to Yaz by quite a bit.
Fielding goes to Beltre by quite a bit.
I had not heard of any steroid allegations until this thread. I read 5 different stories on Beltre and none of them mentioned steroids.
I think it's in very bad taste to throw out unfounded accusations.
One of the articles claimed Beltre was the 3rd best third baseman of all time. I wouldn't go that far, but in contrast Yaz is nowhere near guys like Williams and Musial.
This is a tough comparison, different positions, different era's and one player a superior offensive player and the other better defensively.
I'll pick Yastrzemski because of his offensive dominance from about 1965-70. He was also a good fielder, I think.
Yes, Yaz was a good fielder. But, 3B is certainly more important that LF.
Offensively, there were really 2 Yaz's. pre 30 and post 30. after 30, he really lost the ability to drive the ball. his SLG % were really not good. For fully half of his career, his SLG % was .430. He still was able to get on base at a .370 clip, but extra base hits went way down. Pre 30, He was leading the league in lots of categories and was the best player for a solid 5 years. something happened after 30 that really diminished his abilities.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If we were in a court of law I would agree. But we're not so I don't.
"Baselessly libeling" and "pure" speculation" are at one extreme end of the spectrum, in the same spot as the claim that the Earth is flat. "Hard evidence, failed tests or admissions" are at the other end of the spectrum, in the same spot as the claim that the Earth is round. But what about the 98% of the spectrum in between? I don't know why you feel so strongly that people aren't allowed to express opinions based on less than perfect evidence, but we are and we do. There is a basis for the belief that Beltre cheated and the speculation that he did is far from pure. I promise not to convict him of a crime and put him prison based on the evidence that I see, but I'm not going to promise to wait until something is proven beyond a reasonable doubt before expressing an opinion.
I don't know about "floodgates", but we certainly need a bigger door. The statistical evidence just isn't there for most players, but it is there for quite a few. The number of players against whom the statistical evidence is as strong as it is against Beltre is pretty small, though.
Very true, I saw a lot of Yaz, he was the guy in the AL that was up there with Killebrew for the "best" after Mantle dropped off.
Yaz was weird, he only hit 40 home runs 3 times and he really wasn't a slugger. I think he averaged 16 HR a year in all his other years.
Beltre took about 12 years before he became a good hitter, (excluding 2004). While he was an exceptional fielder, he certainly wasn't leading the league in offense much.
Researching this Beltre had his monster 48 hr season in 2004 then signed a massive contract, he never hit more than 30 HR's previously and only broke the 30hr mark a handful of times after 2011, I'd bet quite a bit of money that he used to get that big contract.
We will never know but I'm fine with saying he most likely used roids.
So you expect anyone to take your claims seriously when you choose to refuse to back them up with any evidence?
blah blah blah...you are filling the void of your lack of evidence with empty word salad. You are making baseless claims, because you refuse to back them up with evidence. That would be because you know there is no evidence. You can have "opinions" all you like, but without a shred of evidence attached, those opinions are worth less than a penny found on the ground.
you talk about "a basis for the belief that Beltre cheated" All you have to go by is statistical "evidence" That is not evidence at all, it is opinion.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yes, and that basis is statistical evidence. And statistical "evidence" is known as statistical evidence (without the bizarre misuse of scare quotes) by people who understand statistics. And the people who do - see perkdog above - just need to look at Beltre's stats to see how strong the evidence is. It is a fact that there is statistical evidence that Beltre cheated. Whether or not that evidence is convincing is an opinion. I am convinced and you apparently are not. We viewed the same evidence and formed different opinions. This forum is one place where people can express those opinions. But this is all so obvious I'm confused what your actual point was.
Yes, just like Yaz must have cheated when he had that run from 1967-70.
thank you for making my point. your "basis" is nothing but conjecture. you "think" Beltre cheated because he had an outlier season. lots of players have had those. lots.
Conjecture is not evidence. it is simply your opinion.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Your first sentence made me laugh, since I still have no idea what your point is. But you're welcome, I guess.
"Nothing but" does not mean what you think it means.
The outlier season is a piece of it. Are you seriously saying you can't see anything else? Does that embarrass you as much as it would embarrass me?
Your Ad Hominem attacks are a sad attempt to shift the focus of your very weak argument. But, that seems to be your SOP when you find yourself trying to defend a weak position. Your thinly veiled personal attacks are juvenile and do not put you in a very favorable light.
Let me try this one more time. I will try to type
v e r y s l o w l y
so you can get it all.
YOU stated that your "opinion" or "basis" for Beltre using PED rests solely on statistical evidence.
I reject that "opinion" as inaccurate as many players have had outlier seasons or short stretches in their careers and are not generally considered as PED users.
Similarly, there are many players who played at a very high level in the advanced stages of their careers and are not considered by the masses as PED users.
To be intellectually consistent, at least in your view, all of those statistical outliers need to be considered as PED users.
I will be eagerly awaiting your ad hominem response...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The problem with WAR is it gives equal validity to both the offense and the defense. Defensive measurements simply don't have the same validity as the offensive.
Beltre 93.5 WAR
Brett 88.6 WAR
Boggs 91.4 WAR
Chipper 85.3 WAR
Beltre tops all of them, but his WAR is achieved much more through his defensive measurements and in MLB the pitcher is 85% of the defense. Also, the defensive measurements are sketchy in that by simply getting more balls hit to you, then you will amass better defensive stats(as long as you can field the routine ball which 99% of MLB starters and reserves can).
Run Expectancy. Runs created above league average player on offense.
Beltre 241
Brett 539
Boggs 464
Chipper 686
There is simply no way Beltre was getting to that many more balls than Chipper would have gotten to, to erase that enormous offensive gap between the two in where Beltre ends up with a higher WAR. I don't even think there are enough balls in play hit anywhere near third base to allow Chipper to have a chance to close that gap...which means the defensive measurement isn't accurate.
The greater probabiliy/reality is that Beltre simply got more balls that were playable hit in his direction.
I know Yaz isn't a third basement, but like the third basemen listed here, Yaz's WAR is achieved primarily from his offense and thus has more validity.
OK, I'll play.
Beltre had played for 5+ seasons with an OPS+ of 97. Then he played one season with an OPS+ of 163. Then he played five more seasons, through age 30, with an OPS+ of 101. Key factors that apply here: the "fluke" season came after three or more full seasons; his OPS+ in that season was 50%+ higher than it was in the 3+ seasons preceding it and the 3+ seasons following it.
You said there are "lots" of players who have done something similar.
Name one.
Beltre's OPS+ through age 30 was 105. Beltre's OPS+ after age 30 was 130. Key factors that apply here: he has at least five full seasons through age 30 and at least five full seasons after age 30; his increase in OPS+ after age 30 is more than 20%.
You said there are "many" players who have done something similar.
Name one.
The Real Test: name someone, besides Beltre, who has done both.
I'm not aware of anyone who has had a fluke, or "outlier", season to the degree Beltre did, but if there is one I'm sure you'll let me know. But that one season, while damning, isn't the primary reason why Beltre stands out so starkly as a likely cheater - it's the improvement after age 30. You say players have played "at a high level" after age 30, and that is certainly true. But that's not the issue. The issue is how much Beltre improved after age 30. That is not something "many" players have done; it's something very few players in history have done. The few who have were, as a rule, putrid hitters for several years and then figured out how to hit sometime in their 20's and got consistently better after that. But Beltre figured out how to hit at age 25, then forgot how to hit for five years, then figured it out again. Had Beltre hit well at age 26-30, then I'd let it go. It's not common for a player to finally figure out how to hit in his sixth full season, but similar things have happened. Not figuring out how to hit until full season #12 after age 30, and then hitting well through age 38, is very, very rare.
The combination of a fluke season surrounded by long stretches of awfulness/mediocrity and an enormous step up after age 30 is, as far as I know, unique in baseball history. Steroid use is consistent with all of the evidence, and would explain everything. I think it is by far the most likely explanation. Once you have provided the names of the "lots"/"many" players I'm forgetting, I'll be happy to rethink my position.
Beltre does have an odd statistical profile.
Breaking it down:
If Beltre took them to have his huge year in LA to earn a contract(which he succeeded in doing), then he would have had to have stopped taking them for a while after his huge year because he couldn't hit very well in Seattle....and then when he didn't land a big contract(settling on a one year deal in Boston) he would have had to take them that year again in Boston where he had an excellent year to land a big multi year deal...and then continued on taking them with Texas.
Certainly plausible but will never know.
Eric Gagne is an admitted user and he did say that 80% of his Dodger teammates were using when he was.
@dallasactuary
Cal Ripken: great couple of seasons followed by a number of subpar seasons then an all time great season at age 30, then he totally forgot to how to hit, then a great season at age 38
Robin Yount: went 6 years and couldnt hit for power. then all the sudden discovers the secret for a few years. then kind of forgets again, then rediscovers how and then forgets again.
Tony Gwynn: pre age 32 slash line: .327/.381/.433 post age 32 slash line: .356/.400/.500 and "learned how to hit HRs in his mid 30s
Wade Boggs: figured out how to hit HRs in 1987. must have been the rabbit ball right? it took him the previous FOUR seasons to hit that many. after that season, it took him another 4 seasons to hit as many as he did in 87. Yup, rabbit ball.
How about the amazing Jim Hickman and his fantastic 1970 season?
Hmmmm, I wonder how Tommy Harper learned to hit so well during his 1970 season?
Fred Lynn learned and forgot how to hit a couple of times. He sure did have an outlier in 1979 didnt he?
Keith Hernandez had a couple of outlier years as well
Dave Parker had it, lost it, had it again, then lost it.
Will Clark was pretty good at hitting home runs, then he forgot how, then he remembered at the very end of his career.
Randy Johnson sure got better and had some amazing seasons in his 30s-40s
Nolan Ryan had some pretty good seasons at an advanced age as well.
These guys must all be PED users.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Its gonna take a whole lot of work to break down every person above(and then some) and in the end, we are never going to know. That's why I've pretty much just ignored the PED aspect. It is a never ending journey of mazes, loops, and mirrors.
I am just about there myself, with the ignoring PED aspect. Unless there is hard evidence, failed test, admission, it is all conjecture. No matter how "sure" Dallas is of his statistical evidence, it is simply conjecture.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Craig, seriously, I asked you to find players that met two specific conditions and you didn't even try. When I throw up my hands and give up because you won't even try to answer my questions you then pronounce that I am afraid to debate you because my argument is weak. I see how ridiculous that is every time you do it - and you do it a lot - and I have to believe that everyone else here sees how ridiculous it is, too.
So, I laid out some very specific information that informed my conclusion that Beltre cheated. Are you going to address any of it or not? You asked for my POV on why I think Beltre cheated. I laid it out clearly. You ignored what I wrote. You invented entirely different standards to define fluky seasons and improvement beyond age 30 and found players who met your standards, not my standards. Why ask me why I think Beltre cheated if you are going to ignore my answer? How can you not understand why I throw up my hands and walk away from debates with you when you ALWAYS ignore my answers?
I asked you to name players that met certain, specific standards. Name them. If you can't, then you understand why I think Beltre cheated. You don't have to agree, but I at least need evidence (lacking so far) that you even understand the argument I'm making. It ain't fear that makes me walk away; it's frustration.
{Specific example: Cal Ripken does have a fluky season at age 30, but it was only a little better than a couple of his prior seasons; it was not close to a Beltre level fluke. But more importantly, Ripken's OPS+ through age 30 was 126; after that it was 97. Cal Ripken is not in the same universe as the conditions I laid out that implicate Beltre. Neither are any of the others you mentioned. Well, sorta kinda Randy Johnson, but he is not free of PED allegations so he doesn't work anyway.}
are you speculating that Beltre entered the league, played good defense and hit decently, took all the PED's for his first contract year and got a big contract. Then he came off PED for many years only to have his worst statistical season in his second contract year? Then go back on PED after only being offered a one year contract, get signed, and then decide to stay on PED for most of the rest of his career? Does that sound plausible to you?
It does not sound plausible to me. But again, this is ALL just conjecture. You can never PROVE PED use by simply analyzing statistics. I can NEVER prove that any player did not use. You may THINK you know, you may FEEL pretty sure, but ultimately you are simply defaming players careers with speculation.
There are certainly many personal reasons players have career best years, career worst years, bounce back or are inconsistent that we will never know about. But defaming careers because you THINK they may have used is not the answer.
Why did Wade Boggs hit over 20% of his career home runs in one season? Why did Tony Gwynn become a better hitter after age 32 as his body became much less athletic? How did Randy Johnson get so much better in his 30's than he was in his 20's? Why were Fred Lynn and Robin Younts careers so inconsistent? Why was Paul Molitor so much better in his 30's?
These are all questions I do not have the definitive answer to. And if you are honest with yourself, neither do you. As we do not know the answers to these questions, it is not fair to cast aspersions and defame careers with nothing but opinion and speculation.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Just to be clear, your answer is "no", you will not be addressing any of what I wrote in direct response to your request. That's what I thought.
By the way, your "tell" when you don't understand a topic is that you use the word "prove", or rather "PROVE" to refute an argument. Obviously, I never said that I could prove, excuse me, "PROVE", Beltre juiced. Nobody said that. Nobody needed to say that. There is evidence, strong evidence, that Beltre did something that nobody who didn't juice had ever done in the history of the game. Your tactical decision to shout "LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA" produces an argument that has me stumped; I don't know how to respond and I'm pretty sure there is no point in responding. But the evidence is there whether you acknowledge it or not. Near as I can tell, you would call it "speculation" if I opined that Mario Mendoza juiced, and you'd call it "speculation" if I said Beltre juiced. In your mind - or at least in every single word you've posted here - they are identically the same "speculation" since I can't "PROVE" either one. If you were to acknowledge that they are different in any way it would open the door to examining their statistics and once we do that my reasoning is clear and your need to obfuscate is even clearer.
The test I use in situations like Beltre is this: you are in the presence of a magic oracle that holds all of the knowledge in the universe and will grant you one wish if you can answer one question correctly. If you answer the question wrong, or don't answer at all, it will kill you. It asks you whether or not Adrian Beltre took performance-enhancing drugs. What is your answer? Now here, you can bounce around from one point to another, avoid questions entirely if you don't like or understand them, or any of the other tactics you've been using. But in front of the oracle you have to answer. What would your answer be, and why? Now I'm not a magic oracle and I completely understand that you are not going to answer this question, but if you were remotely intellectually honest you would, and we both know what your answer would be. Everyone here knows what your answer would be. I don't know who you think you're fooling with this "PROVE" charade, but I assure you it's not working.
You will find that some of them had one fluky season, and you will find that some of them stayed the same or got a little bit better in their 30's. What you will not find, no matter how many mazes, loops, or mirrors you work your way through is anyone whose career remotely resembles Beltre's. You'll find Barry Bonds, and Sammy Sosa, and so on, but you won't find any real baseball players.
Brady Anderson is literally the only other guy that I can think of that had such a fluky season like Beltre, Ofcourse I'm very limited with my overall Baseball knowledge,
donde esta el oraculo magico
estoy listo
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I agree and think Beltre's statistical profile is much different than those players listed above. He had the huge contract year surrounded by big chunks of average to bad on both ends. Then he became really good for a sustained time after five years of average and he was old. Definitely more unique.
@craig44 the one aspect I agree with is why Beltre would take steroids for his 2004 contract year, but not for his next contract year? It is possible though that he didn't want to get caught the second contract year since testing was in place at that time. But then that means he took the chance anyway the following year by taking them again. He may have figured it was worth another X million of dollars he was going to get....hence why I said it was plausible....but not a slam dunk by any means.
There is also the possibility that some of those guys Craig pointed out could have juiced at some point too...even some that many believe are clean as a whistle.
Looks like @perkdog and @galaxy27 both posted about Brady Anderson at the same time.
Now that's an anomaly we should be looking into... 🤔
Estaba usando esteroides en 1996.
I like that oracle question
I would answer "Yes" Beltre took them because MLB was saturated with PED use, one of his known teammate users went on record saying that 80% of his teammates took them, and then Beltre's odd statistical profile.
My one wish would be to obtain all the powers of Superman.
Yes, if we are going down the statistical evidence is good enough to defame a players career with speculation of PED use, there are lots of fishy careers out there. Unlike Dallas, I will not do that to a player unless I know from either hard evidence or admission that he used.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Nah, there is no oracle, no one is going to die, there are no wishes being granted, only you speculating about who you THINK may have used PED. there is no prove charade. if you cant prove something, you are speculating.
As far as your mendoza example, you dont know if he juiced either. perhaps he had to use PED just to be good enough to hit .200 point is, you dont know.
when you dont know something to be true, you should not be making statements of truth like "Carl Yastrzemski in 1968, with his 23/74/.301 slash line was better - no, a lot better - than Adrian Beltre in even his best pharmaceutically enhanced season"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I didn't need an oracle to tell me you wouldn't answer my question; you NEVER answer questions when they are at odds with whatever narrative it is you're pushing. That's your right, but you should at least understand why trying to have an actual conversation with you is so unbelievably frustrating.
But your last post made me laugh (you seriously want people to pretend that Mendoza juicing and Beltre juicing are equally likely) so I'll try once more.
If I say, "Adrain Beltre juiced", you jump down my throat. But why is it better to say "Based on the evidence I see, in my opinion it is overwhelmingly likely that Adrian Beltre juiced". In the first case, I am stating as truth something that can't be proven. In the second, I am merely stating an opinion. If you object to my stating an opinion, identified as an opinion, then you aren't a serious person worthy of my attention and I can stop pretending you are one. But on what planet is it reasonable to get as panty-twisted offended as you are by statement 1, and not get offended by statement 2. This makes no sense. None of what you are saying makes any sense.
If I were to troll back through the archives here, how many examples do you think I would find of you stating as truth something you can't prove to be true? 100? 1,000? More? If the oracle asked me that, I'd say "more". You would, too. You have hitched your argument here to a position that is laugh-out-loud ridiculous, and I'm pretty certain you are the only one who doesn't realize it.
It was a lot more than "a little better than a couple of his prior seasons". His OPS was .184 and .222 higher than the previous two seasons and at least .052 higher than EVERY full season he played, exceeded only by the .952 in his "totally didn't do steroids" half year at age 38. His home run total exceeded every other season in his career by 21% or more and exceeded the average of the 2 seasons before and after by 70%. His OPS+ exceeded every other season by 11% or more. His oWAR exceeded every other season by 19% or more. Highest average, OBP, slugging, homers and total bases in any full season and off by 1 for hits and doubles.
I think it's fair to say Ripken's 1991 was a big, big outlier in his career.
OK, but if Ripken's outlier season was "big" - OPS+ of 162 when he had previous seasons of 144 and 146 - then what word are we to use for Beltre - OPS+ of 163 with best previous seasons of 114 and 102? I'm willing to use whatever word you prefer for Ripken, but I am not willing to use the same word for Beltre.
Focusing on seasons up to age 30, because it becomes apples to oranges after that since Beltre started juicing again, Ripken was a very good hitter (OPS+ of 123 outside his "fluke" season) with one great season 12% better than his second best season. Beltre was an average hitter (OPS+ of 99 outside his "fluke" season) with one great season 43% better than his second best season.
I'm not going to do it, but I imagine I could find dozens of hitters, possibly hundreds, who compare close enough to RIpken to group them together under the heading of having had a "big" fluke season. In Beltre's group - under some word other than "big - would be ..... Beltre. Probably someone else, but it would be a very short list.
Challenge for the board: find anyone who played 10 years or more with a 10-year stretch (of full seasons) with a best OPS+ 43% or more better than his second-best season.
Challenge accepted! I looked at all seasons were a player qualified for the batting title and had an OPS+ of 170 or better. I ignored defunct leagues and 2023. Findings: no one was even close.
Norm Cash and Jim Gentile were 35% and 29% better in 1961 than any other year. DJ LeMahieu was 31% better in his "full" 2020. There was some guy named Cy Seymour who, if you interpret "full season" very loosely had a 1905 35% better than his second best 1904, but it's hard to add seven full seasons as a hitter to three as a pitcher (that is, qualified for the ERA title) and get ten. And anyway, he's not particularly close to 43%.
I had no idea even for players like Jose Bautista or Tommy Holmes how modest their outlier seasons really were.
I didn't mention Beltre even once in my post.
Again, ad hominem attacks. Does it make you feel good? Smarter?
Second, my "panties" are most certainly not twisted over a message board discussion. I am not sure why you get all hysterical over these things. I find them quite fun and relaxing. An aside, if you will, from the stresses of daily life.
Third, I will reject a statement of ______________________ player juiced if it is not provable. Using statistical evidence is not provable. you may think it to be true, believe strongly that it is true, but ultimately, that is exactly what it is. A belief. An opinion. I reject when people make truth claims based on opinion.
I would agree that your second option is certainly more accurate, "Based on the evidence I see, in my opinion it is overwhelmingly likely that Adrian Beltre juiced."
Stating "Adrian Beltre juiced" is an unprovable, defamatory truth statement, where you cannot prove the "truth" you can only opine on it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If statistical evidence is the standard, I wonder why Tony Gwynn is considered to be lily-white when it comes to PED?
He had a marked improvement after his age 32 season, both in average and slugging.
all this while he gained considerable weight and his knees started to fail. If statistical evidence is the standard, shouldnt we consider Mr. Padre a Juicer?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.