Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
I might have missed it, but has anyone mentioned Fenway? Adrian gos there and his numbers jump dramatically, that seems to be very understandable.
Then he goes to a very good team in Texas with a couple of great hitters and maintains his great hitting in another hitters park (thin air and lack of foul territory).
It also looks like LA and Seattle are 2 of the 3 hardest parks to hit in.
It seems to me that these factors could certainly explain why he hit so well late in his career.
I was accused of something I do didn't do as a child and fortunately the truth came out before I got a beating from my father.
Since then, I like to see a little proof before making accusations.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@> @JoeBanzai said:
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
I might have missed it, but has anyone mentioned Fenway? Adrian gos there and his numbers jump dramatically, that seems to be very understandable.
Then he goes to a very good team in Texas with a couple of great hitters and maintains his great hitting in another hitters park (thin air and lack of foul territory).
It also looks like LA and Seattle are 2 of the 3 hardest parks to hit in.
It seems to me that these factors could certainly explain why he hit so well late in his career.
I was accused of something I do didn't do as a child and fortunately the truth came out before I got a beating from my father.
Since then, I like to see a little proof before making accusations.
Beltre hit better on the road in his year at Fenway.
Looks like Beltre was better at home in his Texas years. I just eye balled it though.
So far nobody has found a player though to match Beltre's extreme change as a hitter(not using just one or two parts of hitting)
@JoeBanzai said:
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
I might have missed it, but has anyone mentioned Fenway? Adrian gos there and his numbers jump dramatically, that seems to be very understandable.
Then he goes to a very good team in Texas with a couple of great hitters and maintains his great hitting in another hitters park (thin air and lack of foul territory).
It also looks like LA and Seattle are 2 of the 3 hardest parks to hit in.
It seems to me that these factors could certainly explain why he hit so well late in his career.
I was accused of something I do didn't do as a child and fortunately the truth came out before I got a beating from my father.
Since then, I like to see a little proof before making accusations.
This is a very good alternate explanation for Beltre's inconsistent career. You well illustrate that there can be factors other than PEDs for players having outlier seasons or stretches in their careers.
I also agree about people having actual proof before making defamatory truth statements that are actually opinions.
@> @JoeBanzai said:
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
I might have missed it, but has anyone mentioned Fenway? Adrian gos there and his numbers jump dramatically, that seems to be very understandable.
Then he goes to a very good team in Texas with a couple of great hitters and maintains his great hitting in another hitters park (thin air and lack of foul territory).
It also looks like LA and Seattle are 2 of the 3 hardest parks to hit in.
It seems to me that these factors could certainly explain why he hit so well late in his career.
I was accused of something I do didn't do as a child and fortunately the truth came out before I got a beating from my father.
Since then, I like to see a little proof before making accusations.
>
Beltre hit better on the road in his year at Fenway.
>
Two home runs. Pretty similar OPS, but yes, a little better on the road.
>
Looks like Beltre was better at home in his Texas years. I just eye balled it though.
>
He also had Josh Hamilton and Nelson Cruz in the same lineup. When Cruz was here in Minnesota, Cruz was noted for his hard work on his hitting as an older guy, maybe he learned it from Beltre? Maybe Beltre learned it from Cruz, maybe Beltre saw Hamilton's career implode and said to himself " I'm not going to let that happen to me".
>
So far nobody has found a player though to match Beltre's extreme change as a hitter(not using just one or two parts of hitting)
>
>
Cruz, had two of his best seasons here at the age of 38 & 39. All but one of Nelson's greatest years came during the years he was 34-39.
All of Beltre's top seasons (except for one) came when he was in his 30's.
Puckett didn't learn how to drive the ball until he was 26 and had one of his best years at the age of 34.
Not being able to find another player with the same career hitting ark as Beltre doesn't prove anything.
I see posters here use "park factor" all the time to detract batters, but here we just ignore it?
Going to a better team in an easier ballpark to hit in is just as compelling as the possibility he "juiced". Especially when the first two parks rank in the top 3 as hardest to hit in.
In my opinion.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@> @JoeBanzai said:
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
I might have missed it, but has anyone mentioned Fenway? Adrian gos there and his numbers jump dramatically, that seems to be very understandable.
Then he goes to a very good team in Texas with a couple of great hitters and maintains his great hitting in another hitters park (thin air and lack of foul territory).
It also looks like LA and Seattle are 2 of the 3 hardest parks to hit in.
It seems to me that these factors could certainly explain why he hit so well late in his career.
I was accused of something I do didn't do as a child and fortunately the truth came out before I got a beating from my father.
Since then, I like to see a little proof before making accusations.
>
Beltre hit better on the road in his year at Fenway.
>
Two home runs. Pretty similar OPS, but yes, a little better on the road.
>
Looks like Beltre was better at home in his Texas years. I just eye balled it though.
>
He also had Josh Hamilton and Nelson Cruz in the same lineup. When Cruz was here in Minnesota, Cruz was noted for his hard work on his hitting as an older guy, maybe he learned it from Beltre? Maybe Beltre learned it from Cruz, maybe Beltre saw Hamilton's career implode and said to himself " I'm not going to let that happen to me".
>
So far nobody has found a player though to match Beltre's extreme change as a hitter(not using just one or two parts of hitting)
>
>
Cruz, had two of his best seasons here at the age of 38 & 39. All but one of Nelson's greatest years came during the years he was 34-39.
All of Beltre's top seasons (except for one) came when he was in his 30's.
Puckett didn't learn how to drive the ball until he was 26 and had one of his best years at the age of 34.
Not being able to find another player with the same career hitting ark as Beltre doesn't prove anything.
I see posters here use "park factor" all the time to detract batters, but here we just ignore it?
Going to a better team in an easier ballpark to hit in is just as compelling as the possibility he "juiced". Especially when the first two parks rank in the top 3 as hardest to hit in.
In my opinion.
Could be some factors there. Could be coincidence. I don't know.
The message board days could be numbered. I may be getting more yard work and household projects done if that is the case. It's been a slice everyone. Good luck in your endeavors and may everyone find peace and happiness.
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."
Given that everyone here - every sentient being here, anyway - already knows that every post made by everyone is the opinion of the poster, your suggestion that we add "in my opinion" to each and every post is absurd. That you'd like us to put "opinion" in bold text is hysterical. With condolences to whatever is being harmed by the extreme twisting of your panties, no.
And Gwynn is hardly considered lily-white on the PED subject, but he does generally get the benefit of the doubt. In any event his OPS+ after age 30 increased less than 5% over his OPS+ through age 30, so he's got a whole lot more doubt to benefit from than Beltre and his juice-fueled 24%.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Aside from the statistical evidence. What credence is given to Eric Gagne's assertion that 80% of his Dodger teammates were taking PED? He didn't name names, but doesn't that move the needle toward "more likely" in regard to Beltre?
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."
Given that everyone here - every sentient being here, anyway - already knows that every post made by everyone is the opinion of the poster, your suggestion that we add "in my opinion" to each and every post is absurd. That you'd like us to put "opinion" in bold text is hysterical. With condolences to whatever is being harmed by the extreme twisting of your panties, no.
And Gwynn is hardly considered lily-white on the PED subject, but he does generally get the benefit of the doubt. In any event his OPS+ after age 30 increased less than 5% over his OPS+ through age 30, so he's got a whole lot more doubt to benefit from than Beltre and his juice-fueled 24%.
There are opinions and there are accusations. There is a difference. You are accusing a player of one of the worst trespasses a baseball player can be accused of based only on your opinion.
I reject defaming someone based only on opinion. You can have an opinion about who you think is the greatest hitter, first baseman, pitcher, quarterback, 3rd base coach or whoever and not defame their careers with your conjecture about possible PED use. You dont have to speculate about McGwire or ARod. They admitted. other players have tested positive. No need to speculate.
Again, no "panty twisting" on my part. I am sorry these discussions get you all stressed out or emotional. I think they are fun.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Aside from the statistical evidence. What credence is given to Eric Gagne's assertion that 80% of his Dodger teammates were taking PED? He didn't name names, but doesn't that move the needle toward "more likely" in regard to Beltre?
I guess so, maybe, possibly.
I didn't see/read where he said that, was it an offhand remark, or a serious statement that he had carefully observed his teammates and knew for sure 8 out of 10 were using?
How about the fact that the accusations of Beltre using with Texas? MLB was testing regularly and by this time had things figured out a little better and he never tested positive.
He might have used, but in this case I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Aside from the statistical evidence. What credence is given to Eric Gagne's assertion that 80% of his Dodger teammates were taking PED? He didn't name names, but doesn't that move the needle toward "more likely" in regard to Beltre?
I guess so, maybe, possibly.
I didn't see/read where he said that, was it an offhand remark, or a serious statement that he had carefully observed his teammates and knew for sure 8 out of 10 were using?
How about the fact that the accusations of Beltre using with Texas? MLB was testing regularly and by this time had things figured out a little better and he never tested positive.
He might have used, but in this case I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Aside from the statistical evidence. What credence is given to Eric Gagne's assertion that 80% of his Dodger teammates were taking PED? He didn't name names, but doesn't that move the needle toward "more likely" in regard to Beltre?
I wouldn't give it any credence with regard to any individual players. Gagne didnt name names. It would pretty much be speculation.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Aside from the statistical evidence. What credence is given to Eric Gagne's assertion that 80% of his Dodger teammates were taking PED? He didn't name names, but doesn't that move the needle toward "more likely" in regard to Beltre?
I wouldn't give it any credence with regard to any individual players. Gagne didnt name names. It would pretty much be speculation.
No, he didn't name names. He did say with good certainty that 80% did them.
Paul LoDuca later admitted to using them.
Robin Ventura kind of chuckled at the thought of him doing them.
Perhaps Gagne didn't want to throw anyone specifically under the bus so he left names out...but that is a pretty high percentage from a first hand player using them.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Aside from the statistical evidence. What credence is given to Eric Gagne's assertion that 80% of his Dodger teammates were taking PED? He didn't name names, but doesn't that move the needle toward "more likely" in regard to Beltre?
I guess so, maybe, possibly.
I didn't see/read where he said that, was it an offhand remark, or a serious statement that he had carefully observed his teammates and knew for sure 8 out of 10 were using?
How about the fact that the accusations of Beltre using with Texas? MLB was testing regularly and by this time had things figured out a little better and he never tested positive.
He might have used, but in this case I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
It is in Gagne's autobiography.
>
He got caught, Beltre didn't.
If you are going to write a book and discuss it, go ahead and name names.
Did he write it to justify his own use?
I wouldn't say he has a lot of credibility here.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Aside from the statistical evidence. What credence is given to Eric Gagne's assertion that 80% of his Dodger teammates were taking PED? He didn't name names, but doesn't that move the needle toward "more likely" in regard to Beltre?
I guess so, maybe, possibly.
I didn't see/read where he said that, was it an offhand remark, or a serious statement that he had carefully observed his teammates and knew for sure 8 out of 10 were using?
How about the fact that the accusations of Beltre using with Texas? MLB was testing regularly and by this time had things figured out a little better and he never tested positive.
He might have used, but in this case I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
It is in Gagne's autobiography.
>
He got caught, Beltre didn't.
If you are going to write a book and discuss it, go ahead and name names.
Did he write it to justify his own use?
I wouldn't say he has a lot of credibility here.
Absolutely misery loves company, so there is some motive for him there.
There were other known Dodger teammates that got caught. I wouldn't say he has no credibility. Not everyone gets caught and when you have several that did, then I wouldn't discount what he says.
"As USA Today's Gabe Lacques points out, Paul Lo Duca, Kevin Brown, Todd Hundley, Matt Herges, Mike Judd and Chris Donnels were all named in the 2007 Mitchell Report that associated 89 players with PED use. (You can read the list of names here.) Gagne and Herges admitted to steroid use to USA Today after the Mitchell Report was released.
Of course, seven players doesn't constitute 80 percent of the roster. But the Mitchell Report undoubtedly missed some names too. Was Guillermo Mota—suspended in 2006 and 2012 for PED use—taking steroids when he was on the Dodgers from 2002 to 2004?"
People said the same thing about Canseco initially with his allegations.
There are opinions and there are accusations. There is a difference. You are accusing a player of one of the worst trespasses a baseball player can be accused of based only on your opinion.
I reject defaming someone based only on opinion. You can have an opinion about who you think is the greatest hitter, first baseman, pitcher, quarterback, 3rd base coach or whoever and not defame their careers with your conjecture about possible PED use. You dont have to speculate about McGwire or ARod. They admitted. other players have tested positive. No need to speculate.
Again, no "panty twisting" on my part. I am sorry these discussions get you all stressed out or emotional. I think they are fun.
Well, "accusation" is a legal term, and I already said I wouldn't charge him with a crime. So, no, I'm not accusing him.
Am I "defaming" him? Technically, yes. Near as I can understand what you're saying now, I am free to express positive opinions about anyone, but not negative opinions. I can say Mr. X is the greatest pitcher, but I can't say Mr. Y is the worst pitcher, because that would be defaming Mr. Y. If, say, Gil Hodges has a reputation as a great first baseman, then it would be defamation to say that he was not, in fact, great and I couldn't say that. Or, based on what you said earlier, I could say it but only if I clearly identified it as my opinion. Do I have that right?
In re "stressed out" and "emotional", trust me, I am having a blast. I'd have packed it in long ago if I weren't.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
Mauer's 2007 was only 19% better than his 2004 (by OPS+). And three of the next four seasons after 2007 he was 140 or better.
What David ( @craig44 ) apparently doesn't understand is that most evidence is statistical. DNA evidence is statistical. Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. Personal confessions are done for all sorts of reasons. For example, it is only statistical evidence that shows Rose bet on baseball. There is only a high probability that the betting slips, or whatever, are genuine, and Rose may have wanted to appear a "big man" when he "confessed". I think regardless of anything else, it's pretty clear he didn't think his "lifetime" ban would really be for life.
Suffice it to say that nobody would ever be convicted in craig44's world. Can I PROVE that the DNA evidence wasn't contaminated? Can I PROVE that the video of the defendant shooting the victim wasn't altered? Can I PROVE that the 10 witnesses who swear they saw him do it aren't all lying? Well, no I can't. Then finding him guilty would be pure speculation; case dismissed.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Suffice it to say that nobody would ever be convicted in craig44's world. Can I PROVE that the DNA evidence wasn't contaminated? Can I PROVE that the video of the defendant shooting the victim wasn't altered? Can I PROVE that the 10 witnesses who swear they saw him do it aren't all lying? Well, no I can't. Then finding him guilty would be pure speculation; case dismissed.
you truly are the king of hyperbole. Joe has already illustrated that the statistical "evidence" that you think you see so clearly can be interpreted differently.
as far as the word accusation being specifically a "legal" term, that is incorrect. it can be used as a legal term, but it is also very commonly used in everyday complaints or disagreements.
@daltex said:
What David ( @craig44 ) apparently doesn't understand is that most evidence is statistical. DNA evidence is statistical. Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. Personal confessions are done for all sorts of reasons. For example, it is only statistical evidence that shows Rose bet on baseball. There is only a high probability that the betting slips, or whatever, are genuine, and Rose may have wanted to appear a "big man" when he "confessed". I think regardless of anything else, it's pretty clear he didn't think his "lifetime" ban would really be for life.
There's a difference between evidence and proof; when a player has an unusually great season, that could be evidence of steroid use, but it's not proof, it could be for a variety of reasons.
When you fail a drug test, that's proof. There can me mitigating circumstances, but the burden of proof is then on the accused to offer evidence supporting his innocence.
When your name, handwriting and fingerprints are on a document, that's proof. Not necessarily beyond a doubt, but proof.
The FBI has betting slips with Rose's name, fingerprints and handwriting on them.
"High probability"? Yes 100% would be considered high.
I wonder what would have happened if the people investigating Pete had been "mandatory reporters" on his alleged involvement with underage girls.
The best thing that ever happened to Pete was his ban, he's more famous and probably even financially better off this way.
Didn't Pete spend 6 months in jail because of tax evasion? Must have been some PROOF there.
I THINK Pete realized he was going to look real bad if everything he did came out, so he decided to accept a ban to keep the report from being published. He probably figured he could get in later. He's delusional if he thinks that when he tries to circumvent the agreement, the information is not going to come out.
He's an absolute horror of a human being. I hope he NEVER gets in.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
Mauer's 2007 was only 19% better than his 2004 (by OPS+). And three of the next four seasons after 2007 he was 140 or better.
Not even close.
OPS+ is effected by walks and Mauer was a HUGE base on balls guy.
If you just use numbers generated by actually hitting the ball, Mauer's year really jumps out. Especially HRs, more than twice as many as in any other season.
Beltre hit as many as 36 HR in a year, so 48 isn't nearly as much of a jump.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
Mauer's 2007 was only 19% better than his 2004 (by OPS+). And three of the next four seasons after 2007 he was 140 or better.
Not even close.
OPS+ is effected by walks and Mauer was a HUGE base on balls guy.
If you just use numbers generated by actually hitting the ball, Mauer's year really jumps out. Especially HRs, more than twice as many as in any other season.
Beltre hit as many as 36 HR in a year, so 48 isn't nearly as much of a jump.
Well, I was going by @dallasactuary 's criteria. Surely home runs aren't the only determining criteria. Mauer's slugging percentage in 2004 was only 16% worse than his in 2007, and in fact every year between 2004 and 2013 was within the 43% Beltre standard. If you use slugging percentage for Beltre and the rest of @dallasactuary 's criteria, 2004 is a 30.5% outlier.
It's really impossible, until you do the arithmetic with some other players who had tremendous outlier seasons, to see just how big 30%, or 43% is. For example, Brady Anderson's, um, interesting 1996 season was a 20% outlier in OPS+, and a 33% outlier in slugging.
@perkdog said:
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.
Than by that logic Yaz must have been using them as well which was before testing and PEDs were known to be used. He hit 40 HRs 3 times in a 4 year span and didnt even break 20 15 years of his career. In fact he never even broke 30 other than those 3 years. Beltre has more 20+ Hr seasons and 30+ Hr seasons than Yaz
Its silly to accuse someone of something because of a career year
@perkdog said:
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.
Than by that logic Yaz must have been using them as well which was before testing and PEDs were known to be used. He hit 40 HRs 3 times in a 4 year span and didnt even break 20 15 years of his career. In fact he never even broke 30 other than those 3 years. Beltre has more 20+ Hr seasons and 30+ Hr seasons than Yaz
Its silly to accuse someone of something because of a career year
I don't care if it's silly or not.
I stand by my opinion of saying Beltre used and Yaz didn't.
I'm entitled to my opinion and couldn't care less who agrees with me or not, that's my bottom line.
Using HR to determine an "outlier" season just doesn't work. Bert Campaneris hit more than 3 times as many HR one year as he hit in any other year, and it wasn't even his best season as a hitter, let alone 30% or 40% better than his next-best season.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
Mauer's 2007 was only 19% better than his 2004 (by OPS+). And three of the next four seasons after 2007 he was 140 or better.
Not even close.
OPS+ is effected by walks and Mauer was a HUGE base on balls guy.
If you just use numbers generated by actually hitting the ball, Mauer's year really jumps out. Especially HRs, more than twice as many as in any other season.
Beltre hit as many as 36 HR in a year, so 48 isn't nearly as much of a jump.
Well, I was going by @dallasactuary 's criteria. Surely home runs aren't the only determining criteria. Mauer's slugging percentage in 2004 was only 16% worse than his in 2007, and in fact every year between 2004 and 2013 was within the 43% Beltre standard. If you use slugging percentage for Beltre and the rest of @dallasactuary 's criteria, 2004 is a 30.5% outlier.
It's really impossible, until you do the arithmetic with some other players who had tremendous outlier seasons, to see just how big 30%, or 43% is. For example, Brady Anderson's, um, interesting 1996 season was a 20% outlier in OPS+, and a 33% outlier in slugging.
I use my criteria.
Mauer walked a lot, Beltre did not.
If someone is suggesting Beltre used steroids and say it's because of a jump in hitting, then you should probably ignore walks.
In comparing him to Mauer, a guy who walked a lot, it makes more sense to look at SLG and HR not OPS+.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
Using HR to determine an "outlier" season just doesn't work. Bert Campaneris hit more than 3 times as many HR one year as he hit in any other year, and it wasn't even his best season as a hitter, let alone 30% or 40% better than his next-best season.
Of course it works.
Beltre hit a HR every 12.4 AB in his big year. His next two good years he was at 16.8 & 15.2.
Mauer's best year he was at a HR for every 18.7, his next best years were every 40 & 46.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@perkdog said:
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.
Than by that logic Yaz must have been using them as well which was before testing and PEDs were known to be used. He hit 40 HRs 3 times in a 4 year span and didnt even break 20 15 years of his career. In fact he never even broke 30 other than those 3 years. Beltre has more 20+ Hr seasons and 30+ Hr seasons than Yaz
Its silly to accuse someone of something because of a career year
I don't care if it's silly or not.
I stand by my opinion of saying Beltre used and Yaz didn't.
I'm entitled to my opinion and couldn't care less who agrees with me or not, that's my bottom line.
Yaz averaged under 20 HRs his career. Yaz jumping into the 40s briefly when he rarely ever broke 20 in his career is FAR more of an outlier than Beltre who was generally close to 30 and broke 30 several times
I'm not going to accuse either of anything and frankly I dont care either way as part of being an elite athlete is taking things and its been going on forever. Theres just no way it can be argued that Beltre had to have used because of performance and Yaz didnt when Yazs seasons are far far more of a career outlier
@Basebal21 said:
Theres just no way it can be argued that Beltre had to have used because of performance and Yaz didnt when Yazs seasons are far far more of a career outlier
But, of course, Yaz's seasons AREN'T more of a career outlier than Beltre's seasons, they are an outlier in only one stat - HR. Yaz did have his peak in his late 20's/early 30's, placing him in the company of approximately everyone else, and he built up to that peak and then declined from it, also placing him in the company of approximately everyone else. And he did hit a lot more HR in a few of those peak seasons. But those seasons weren't any better compared to what came before as most anyone else's peak is compared to what came before - except in HR. In one of those 40 HR seasons - 1969 - Yaz was less effective than he had been in 1963 when he hit 14 HR, and a lot less effective than he had been in 1968 when he hit 23.
So yes, there is a way - a way backed by all of the relevant information - to argue that Beltre used and Yaz didn't. The only way to avoid seeing that is to focus on a single stat and blind yourself to everything else. I understand that you are doing this; what I don't understand is why you are doing this.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai, per your thought, I did a quick check into Beltre's home/road splits in Texas while he was a Ranger(as a player not Chuck Norris).
These totals aren't exact, I only did a a quick yearly total tabulation/division and then accounted for the few years where he had less at bats than others(and did an estimate adjustment instead of tabulating every single year's worth of events).
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @JoeBanzai, per your thought, I did a quick check into Beltre's home/road splits in Texas while he was a Ranger(as a player not Chuck Norris).
These totals aren't exact, I only did a a quick yearly total tabulation/division and then accounted for the few years where he had less at bats than others(and did an estimate adjustment instead of tabulating every single year's worth of events).
Home OPS with Texas .938
Road OPS with Texas .795
Could be off a few points either way still.
Looks like his road OPS at the end of his career was 24 points LOWER than his lifetime OPS.
Seems like more evidence that it was the ballpark not steroids.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @JoeBanzai, per your thought, I did a quick check into Beltre's home/road splits in Texas while he was a Ranger(as a player not Chuck Norris).
These totals aren't exact, I only did a a quick yearly total tabulation/division and then accounted for the few years where he had less at bats than others(and did an estimate adjustment instead of tabulating every single year's worth of events).
Home OPS with Texas .938
Road OPS with Texas .795
Could be off a few points either way still.
Looks like his road OPS at the end of his career was 24 points LOWER than his lifetime OPS.
Seems like more evidence that it was the ballpark not steroids.
His road OPS while in Seattle for five years was about .800.
Road OPS while in Texas was about .795.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @JoeBanzai, per your thought, I did a quick check into Beltre's home/road splits in Texas while he was a Ranger(as a player not Chuck Norris).
These totals aren't exact, I only did a a quick yearly total tabulation/division and then accounted for the few years where he had less at bats than others(and did an estimate adjustment instead of tabulating every single year's worth of events).
Home OPS with Texas .938
Road OPS with Texas .795
Could be off a few points either way still.
Looks like his road OPS at the end of his career was 24 points LOWER than his lifetime OPS.
Seems like more evidence that it was the ballpark not steroids.
His road OPS while in Seattle for five years was about .800.
Road OPS while in Texas was about .795.
You made a good observation and point.
Yes, I got .796.
Look how bad he was at home for those 5 seasons, I come up with .713.
The more I see, the LESS it looks like Beltre was a better hitter late in his career.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Beltres home and road career stats are identical. He actually hit more homeruns on the road than at home during his career 240 vs 237. Literally an identical batting average at .286 go down the list from OBP to SLG the numbers are all basically identical. Texas wasnt a fun place to play at either, or umpire, or be a fan at which is why they replaced that stadium so quickly. Field temps were regularly above 100 and often over 110 and even 120 sometimes. It was a hard place to play. Yaz was significantly better at home than on the road.
His big bounce year in 2004 entering his prime after showing a couple years of power saw a significant increase in homeruns across the league. He also did that as a Dodger/ The league can and does juice balls whenever they feel like it. Judge got to spend significant time hitting special balls last year as just one example.
The one bad year he had power wise in Seattle he only played a 111 games and he also took a ground ball to the groin yes dead on and never wore a cup. Thats not something that you can just rub some dirt on and walk it off. I'd struggle too for a while after that.
Entire point though was that the jump in Yaz power is significantly more suspicious than Beltre having a career year one year if people are going to be throwing around accusations towards a player
I think it is very clear at this junction, as other posters have pointed out, that statistical evidence should not be used as a way to defame careers as being suspected of PED influence. As much as Dallas wants statistical evidence to be the death knell to careers, there are many possible reasons for "fluke" years or career inconsistency.
Dallas wants to say the HR should not be the most important number looked at as "statistical evidence" of PED use.
"But, of course, Yaz's seasons AREN'T more of a career outlier than Beltre's seasons, they are an outlier in only one stat - HR"
If you look at Beltre's career, in that fluke 2004 season, Beltre only had Career highs in a couple of stats: HR, SLG (because of the HR output) and BA. The BA was only 10 points better than his second-best season and HR were only 12 better than his second-best season. He had 16 seasons with more 3b and 7 seasons with more 2b than he did in his "fluke" season. An outlier season where he hit 12 more HR than his second best HR season amounts to hitting 2 more HR a month.
2
Other than BA and HR, 04 really wasnt really much of an outlier at all. nothing else was really out of the ordinary.
Wasn't most of the argument for PEDs that they increased power and turned warning track flyballs into home runs especially in the early years of steroids? Seems like a jump in HRs would be the first thing you would look at, all other factors being the same. Yaz's numbers look suspicious given his lack of power the rest of this career.
@fergie23 said:
Wasn't most of the argument for PEDs that they increased power and turned warning track flyballs into home runs especially in the early years of steroids? Seems like a jump in HRs would be the first thing you would look at, all other factors being the same. Yaz's numbers look suspicious given his lack of power the rest of this career.
Robb
yes, a jump in home runs has traditionally been where everyone looks first.
As enjoyable as it is watching you beat into the ground an argument I never made, at some point I would like you to come in from recess and address the argument that I actually made. Since you've been avoiding it for so long, a refresher:
@ dallasactuary said:
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.
You asked me why I thought Beltre was a cheater.
I told you why I thought Beltre was a cheater.
You invented out of whole cloth a completely different argument that, in theory, could be used to identify a cheater.
You attacked that argument.
You declared victory over the strawman you had built and destroyed.
Had it ended there, you might actually have fooled someone into thinking you had done something worthwhile. But you then had to drag my name back into your fever swamp and declare that you had achieved victory over the argument that I had made.
The only way to defeat my argument is to address my argument, no matter how much it scares you. You want to circle back after that and relive your glory days of debunking your own argument, be my guest; I'll leave you to it. Either way, leave my name out of it until you find the backbone to address my argument.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@fergie23 said:
Wasn't most of the argument for PEDs that they increased power and turned warning track flyballs into home runs especially in the early years of steroids? Seems like a jump in HRs would be the first thing you would look at, all other factors being the same. Yaz's numbers look suspicious given his lack of power the rest of this career.
Robb
I would say it would be more accurate to say the early years of testing and attention being brought to them. That 90s/2000s group of players wasnt the first time they were being used it was just when attention was brought to it. Mantle got an infection from "dr feel good" shots and theyve been used in baseball and other sports forever. Testing is the new thing that changed.
But yes you are correct the big argument against them is turning fly outs into homeruns with the added strength. They arent going to improve hand eye coordination or make someone that cant hit a slider be able to do so, but it was the surge in the number of homeruns that led to the attention on them and supplements. There were some other reasons for the power surge at the time like guys taking weight lifting seriously and expansion teams diluting the pitching talent, but if it wasnt for the HRs no one would have ever said anything.
The reaction overall was really overblown. Many of the writers were overcompensating for turning a blind eye after the strike of 1994 where the home run chases brought baseball back to life. A decade or so later I guess they felt guilty or just wanted clicks and really made it a massive issue that they themselves were complacent in
@dallasactuary said:
As enjoyable as it is watching you beat into the ground an argument I never made, at some point I would like you to come in from recess and address the argument that I actually made. Since you've been avoiding it for so long, a refresher:
@ dallasactuary said:
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.
You asked me why I thought Beltre was a cheater.
I told you why I thought Beltre was a cheater.
You invented out of whole cloth a completely different argument that, in theory, could be used to identify a cheater.
You attacked that argument.
You declared victory over the strawman you had built and destroyed.
Had it ended there, you might actually have fooled someone into thinking you had done something worthwhile. But you then had to drag my name back into your fever swamp and declare that you had achieved victory over the argument that I had made.
The only way to defeat my argument is to address my argument, no matter how much it scares you. You want to circle back after that and relive your glory days of debunking your own argument, be my guest; I'll leave you to it. Either way, leave my name out of it until you find the backbone to address my argument.
While finding a "comp" for Beltre is not germane to my argument, I will play.
as a Boston sports fan, Rico Petrocelli comes to mind. He had a big outlier season in 1969. I am sure you know all about that one. his OPS+ that season was 168. The previous 4 seasons, his OPS+ was 98 for an increase of 72% in 69'. The 4 seasons following, 1970-1973, his OPS+ was 112 for a decrease of 50%
Does this mean Rico used PED in 1969?
My position is that you should not use statistical "evidence" to automatically jump to the conclusion of PED use. You really have no basis to do so. there could be a myriad of reasons players have career years/outlier years that don't necessarily include PED use.
Perhaps he got married or divorced, moved to a new city, had a death in the family, connected with a coach who really spoke to him, used different equipment, changed teams, changed stadiums, got healthy, got injured, got better teammates, got worse teammates, finally "figured it out"... I could go on and on...
you however immediately jump to the conclusion of PED use armed with nothing more than an unexplained jump in OPS+ or some other statistic. All because apparently, you are unable to fathom any other reason a player can have a season or group of seasons that don't seem to fit with the rest of his career.
@Brick said:
I'm certainly no detective but I wonder why someone would use PEDs one year and have a tremendous season and not continue year after year.
I agree. It doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't Beltre have used in the seasons prior to 2004? That is exactly the reason people shouldn't jump to the conclusion of PED use based simply off from statistical "evidence"
there are so many factors that could have been in play.
@craig44 said:
unless there is an admission of guilt or actual evidence of PED use, I think we just have to take the statistics at face value.
Looks to me that the statistics regarding his later career "improvement" actually point to the fact that he did NOT use steroids.
He achieved a higher OPS+ because of his home OPS+. He went from two of the hardest parks to hit in to two of the easier parks. Texas might not compare with Boston, but he was on a very good team with some very good hitters.
His big year in LA does look a little odd, but I think a lot of players have big years with a contract coming up. Could he have used? Not enough evidence for me.
@Brick said:
I'm certainly no detective but I wonder why someone would use PEDs one year and have a tremendous season and not continue year after year.
A "smart" cheater would do exactly that. Get a big contract, then stop cheating so he doesn't get caught.
Bonds, Sosa and McGwire all got addicted to the fame or the drug or both and eventually people realized they had become mutants.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Petrocelli is a good example for test 1 (and there are only a small handful so good for you for finding one of them), but of course he fails test 2 and the real test - the one that convinces me - passing 1 and 2.
@craig44 said:
unless there is an admission of guilt or actual evidence of PED use, I think we just have to take the statistics at face value.
"Have to" is an odd choice of words, because, obviously, we don't "have to" do anything. I do feel something of a compulsion to think for myself, so your admonition that I'm not allowed to do that is really easy to ignore. And the way you use "actual evidence" as if "statistical evidence" was not just one form of "actual evidence" is cute. Wrong, but cute.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Based on reading the info above, if the 657 plate appearances for Beltre in 2004 come nowhere near close to providing any meaningful evidence, then it should be time to stop pointing to Mike Trout's FIFTEEN post season plate appearances and attempting to make ANY type of thought or correlation about those
@dallasactuary said:
Petrocelli is a good example for test 1 (and there are only a small handful so good for you for finding one of them), but of course he fails test 2 and the real test - the one that convinces me - passing 1 and 2.
@craig44 said:
unless there is an admission of guilt or actual evidence of PED use, I think we just have to take the statistics at face value.
"Have to" is an odd choice of words, because, obviously, we don't "have to" do anything. I do feel something of a compulsion to think for myself, so your admonition that I'm not allowed to do that is really easy to ignore. And the way you use "actual evidence" as if "statistical evidence" was not just one form of "actual evidence" is cute. Wrong, but cute.
Why do you default to PED use as the cause for statistical anomalies? I rattled off a dozen alternate causes and there are tons more. Many players have had crazily inconsistent stat lines. There have been many career/outlier seasons.
Is it possible that Adrian Beltre, of all people, had the biggest outlier season in the history of baseball? Sure it is. Even if that is true, how can you be SO SURE PED were the cause? there could be 100 alternate reasons for his 2004 season. Or anyone elses for that matter, but your default is PED. You have no idea if he used PED. you think you do, but you dont. Then you make truth statements based on what you think/believe. Then you admittedly defame careers based on your assumptions.
It is as if every time you see a car accident, you say you think the accident MUST have been the result of OUI. And then make truth statements based on that assumption.
@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
Comments
Anyone look at Joe Mauer?
He had one huge season, (if I remember correctly, it was a "contract" year) where he hit 28 HR and slugged .587. He never hit more than 13 HR in any other year.
He only had one other full year where he (barely) slugged over .500.
His later years of course do not show similarity to Beltre.
I might have missed it, but has anyone mentioned Fenway? Adrian gos there and his numbers jump dramatically, that seems to be very understandable.
Then he goes to a very good team in Texas with a couple of great hitters and maintains his great hitting in another hitters park (thin air and lack of foul territory).
It also looks like LA and Seattle are 2 of the 3 hardest parks to hit in.
It seems to me that these factors could certainly explain why he hit so well late in his career.
I was accused of something I do didn't do as a child and fortunately the truth came out before I got a beating from my father.
Since then, I like to see a little proof before making accusations.
Beltre hit better on the road in his year at Fenway.
Looks like Beltre was better at home in his Texas years. I just eye balled it though.
So far nobody has found a player though to match Beltre's extreme change as a hitter(not using just one or two parts of hitting)
This is a very good alternate explanation for Beltre's inconsistent career. You well illustrate that there can be factors other than PEDs for players having outlier seasons or stretches in their careers.
I also agree about people having actual proof before making defamatory truth statements that are actually opinions.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
>
Two home runs. Pretty similar OPS, but yes, a little better on the road.
>
>
He also had Josh Hamilton and Nelson Cruz in the same lineup. When Cruz was here in Minnesota, Cruz was noted for his hard work on his hitting as an older guy, maybe he learned it from Beltre? Maybe Beltre learned it from Cruz, maybe Beltre saw Hamilton's career implode and said to himself " I'm not going to let that happen to me".
>
>
>
Cruz, had two of his best seasons here at the age of 38 & 39. All but one of Nelson's greatest years came during the years he was 34-39.
All of Beltre's top seasons (except for one) came when he was in his 30's.
Puckett didn't learn how to drive the ball until he was 26 and had one of his best years at the age of 34.
Not being able to find another player with the same career hitting ark as Beltre doesn't prove anything.
I see posters here use "park factor" all the time to detract batters, but here we just ignore it?
Going to a better team in an easier ballpark to hit in is just as compelling as the possibility he "juiced". Especially when the first two parks rank in the top 3 as hardest to hit in.
In my opinion.
Could be some factors there. Could be coincidence. I don't know.
The message board days could be numbered. I may be getting more yard work and household projects done if that is the case. It's been a slice everyone. Good luck in your endeavors and may everyone find peace and happiness.
Given that everyone here - every sentient being here, anyway - already knows that every post made by everyone is the opinion of the poster, your suggestion that we add "in my opinion" to each and every post is absurd. That you'd like us to put "opinion" in bold text is hysterical. With condolences to whatever is being harmed by the extreme twisting of your panties, no.
And Gwynn is hardly considered lily-white on the PED subject, but he does generally get the benefit of the doubt. In any event his OPS+ after age 30 increased less than 5% over his OPS+ through age 30, so he's got a whole lot more doubt to benefit from than Beltre and his juice-fueled 24%.
Aside from the statistical evidence. What credence is given to Eric Gagne's assertion that 80% of his Dodger teammates were taking PED? He didn't name names, but doesn't that move the needle toward "more likely" in regard to Beltre?
There are opinions and there are accusations. There is a difference. You are accusing a player of one of the worst trespasses a baseball player can be accused of based only on your opinion.
I reject defaming someone based only on opinion. You can have an opinion about who you think is the greatest hitter, first baseman, pitcher, quarterback, 3rd base coach or whoever and not defame their careers with your conjecture about possible PED use. You dont have to speculate about McGwire or ARod. They admitted. other players have tested positive. No need to speculate.
Again, no "panty twisting" on my part. I am sorry these discussions get you all stressed out or emotional. I think they are fun.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I guess so, maybe, possibly.
I didn't see/read where he said that, was it an offhand remark, or a serious statement that he had carefully observed his teammates and knew for sure 8 out of 10 were using?
How about the fact that the accusations of Beltre using with Texas? MLB was testing regularly and by this time had things figured out a little better and he never tested positive.
He might have used, but in this case I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
It is in Gagne's autobiography.
I wouldn't give it any credence with regard to any individual players. Gagne didnt name names. It would pretty much be speculation.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No, he didn't name names. He did say with good certainty that 80% did them.
Paul LoDuca later admitted to using them.
Robin Ventura kind of chuckled at the thought of him doing them.
Perhaps Gagne didn't want to throw anyone specifically under the bus so he left names out...but that is a pretty high percentage from a first hand player using them.
>
He got caught, Beltre didn't.
If you are going to write a book and discuss it, go ahead and name names.
Did he write it to justify his own use?
I wouldn't say he has a lot of credibility here.
Absolutely misery loves company, so there is some motive for him there.
There were other known Dodger teammates that got caught. I wouldn't say he has no credibility. Not everyone gets caught and when you have several that did, then I wouldn't discount what he says.
"As USA Today's Gabe Lacques points out, Paul Lo Duca, Kevin Brown, Todd Hundley, Matt Herges, Mike Judd and Chris Donnels were all named in the 2007 Mitchell Report that associated 89 players with PED use. (You can read the list of names here.) Gagne and Herges admitted to steroid use to USA Today after the Mitchell Report was released.
Of course, seven players doesn't constitute 80 percent of the roster. But the Mitchell Report undoubtedly missed some names too. Was Guillermo Mota—suspended in 2006 and 2012 for PED use—taking steroids when he was on the Dodgers from 2002 to 2004?"
People said the same thing about Canseco initially with his allegations.
Well, "accusation" is a legal term, and I already said I wouldn't charge him with a crime. So, no, I'm not accusing him.
Am I "defaming" him? Technically, yes. Near as I can understand what you're saying now, I am free to express positive opinions about anyone, but not negative opinions. I can say Mr. X is the greatest pitcher, but I can't say Mr. Y is the worst pitcher, because that would be defaming Mr. Y. If, say, Gil Hodges has a reputation as a great first baseman, then it would be defamation to say that he was not, in fact, great and I couldn't say that. Or, based on what you said earlier, I could say it but only if I clearly identified it as my opinion. Do I have that right?
In re "stressed out" and "emotional", trust me, I am having a blast. I'd have packed it in long ago if I weren't.
Mauer's 2007 was only 19% better than his 2004 (by OPS+). And three of the next four seasons after 2007 he was 140 or better.
Not even close.
What David ( @craig44 ) apparently doesn't understand is that most evidence is statistical. DNA evidence is statistical. Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. Personal confessions are done for all sorts of reasons. For example, it is only statistical evidence that shows Rose bet on baseball. There is only a high probability that the betting slips, or whatever, are genuine, and Rose may have wanted to appear a "big man" when he "confessed". I think regardless of anything else, it's pretty clear he didn't think his "lifetime" ban would really be for life.
Suffice it to say that nobody would ever be convicted in craig44's world. Can I PROVE that the DNA evidence wasn't contaminated? Can I PROVE that the video of the defendant shooting the victim wasn't altered? Can I PROVE that the 10 witnesses who swear they saw him do it aren't all lying? Well, no I can't. Then finding him guilty would be pure speculation; case dismissed.
you truly are the king of hyperbole. Joe has already illustrated that the statistical "evidence" that you think you see so clearly can be interpreted differently.
as far as the word accusation being specifically a "legal" term, that is incorrect. it can be used as a legal term, but it is also very commonly used in everyday complaints or disagreements.
You have also admitted to defaming Beltre.
"Am I "defaming" him? Technically, yes."
so, there is that...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
There's a difference between evidence and proof; when a player has an unusually great season, that could be evidence of steroid use, but it's not proof, it could be for a variety of reasons.
When you fail a drug test, that's proof. There can me mitigating circumstances, but the burden of proof is then on the accused to offer evidence supporting his innocence.
When your name, handwriting and fingerprints are on a document, that's proof. Not necessarily beyond a doubt, but proof.
The FBI has betting slips with Rose's name, fingerprints and handwriting on them.
"High probability"? Yes 100% would be considered high.
I wonder what would have happened if the people investigating Pete had been "mandatory reporters" on his alleged involvement with underage girls.
The best thing that ever happened to Pete was his ban, he's more famous and probably even financially better off this way.
Didn't Pete spend 6 months in jail because of tax evasion? Must have been some PROOF there.
I THINK Pete realized he was going to look real bad if everything he did came out, so he decided to accept a ban to keep the report from being published. He probably figured he could get in later. He's delusional if he thinks that when he tries to circumvent the agreement, the information is not going to come out.
He's an absolute horror of a human being. I hope he NEVER gets in.
OPS+ is effected by walks and Mauer was a HUGE base on balls guy.
If you just use numbers generated by actually hitting the ball, Mauer's year really jumps out. Especially HRs, more than twice as many as in any other season.
Beltre hit as many as 36 HR in a year, so 48 isn't nearly as much of a jump.
Thank you. I do try.
Yes, I have. Beltre deserves to be defamed in my opinion and I stepped up.
Well, I was going by @dallasactuary 's criteria. Surely home runs aren't the only determining criteria. Mauer's slugging percentage in 2004 was only 16% worse than his in 2007, and in fact every year between 2004 and 2013 was within the 43% Beltre standard. If you use slugging percentage for Beltre and the rest of @dallasactuary 's criteria, 2004 is a 30.5% outlier.
It's really impossible, until you do the arithmetic with some other players who had tremendous outlier seasons, to see just how big 30%, or 43% is. For example, Brady Anderson's, um, interesting 1996 season was a 20% outlier in OPS+, and a 33% outlier in slugging.
Than by that logic Yaz must have been using them as well which was before testing and PEDs were known to be used. He hit 40 HRs 3 times in a 4 year span and didnt even break 20 15 years of his career. In fact he never even broke 30 other than those 3 years. Beltre has more 20+ Hr seasons and 30+ Hr seasons than Yaz
Its silly to accuse someone of something because of a career year
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I don't care if it's silly or not.
I stand by my opinion of saying Beltre used and Yaz didn't.
I'm entitled to my opinion and couldn't care less who agrees with me or not, that's my bottom line.
Using HR to determine an "outlier" season just doesn't work. Bert Campaneris hit more than 3 times as many HR one year as he hit in any other year, and it wasn't even his best season as a hitter, let alone 30% or 40% better than his next-best season.
I use my criteria.
Mauer walked a lot, Beltre did not.
If someone is suggesting Beltre used steroids and say it's because of a jump in hitting, then you should probably ignore walks.
In comparing him to Mauer, a guy who walked a lot, it makes more sense to look at SLG and HR not OPS+.
Of course it works.
Beltre hit a HR every 12.4 AB in his big year. His next two good years he was at 16.8 & 15.2.
Mauer's best year he was at a HR for every 18.7, his next best years were every 40 & 46.
Yaz averaged under 20 HRs his career. Yaz jumping into the 40s briefly when he rarely ever broke 20 in his career is FAR more of an outlier than Beltre who was generally close to 30 and broke 30 several times
I'm not going to accuse either of anything and frankly I dont care either way as part of being an elite athlete is taking things and its been going on forever. Theres just no way it can be argued that Beltre had to have used because of performance and Yaz didnt when Yazs seasons are far far more of a career outlier
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
But, of course, Yaz's seasons AREN'T more of a career outlier than Beltre's seasons, they are an outlier in only one stat - HR. Yaz did have his peak in his late 20's/early 30's, placing him in the company of approximately everyone else, and he built up to that peak and then declined from it, also placing him in the company of approximately everyone else. And he did hit a lot more HR in a few of those peak seasons. But those seasons weren't any better compared to what came before as most anyone else's peak is compared to what came before - except in HR. In one of those 40 HR seasons - 1969 - Yaz was less effective than he had been in 1963 when he hit 14 HR, and a lot less effective than he had been in 1968 when he hit 23.
So yes, there is a way - a way backed by all of the relevant information - to argue that Beltre used and Yaz didn't. The only way to avoid seeing that is to focus on a single stat and blind yourself to everything else. I understand that you are doing this; what I don't understand is why you are doing this.
@JoeBanzai, per your thought, I did a quick check into Beltre's home/road splits in Texas while he was a Ranger(as a player not Chuck Norris).
These totals aren't exact, I only did a a quick yearly total tabulation/division and then accounted for the few years where he had less at bats than others(and did an estimate adjustment instead of tabulating every single year's worth of events).
Home OPS with Texas .938
Road OPS with Texas .795
Could be off a few points either way still.
Looks like his road OPS at the end of his career was 24 points LOWER than his lifetime OPS.
Seems like more evidence that it was the ballpark not steroids.
His road OPS while in Seattle for five years was about .800.
Road OPS while in Texas was about .795.
You made a good observation and point.
Yes, I got .796.
Look how bad he was at home for those 5 seasons, I come up with .713.
The more I see, the LESS it looks like Beltre was a better hitter late in his career.
Beltres home and road career stats are identical. He actually hit more homeruns on the road than at home during his career 240 vs 237. Literally an identical batting average at .286 go down the list from OBP to SLG the numbers are all basically identical. Texas wasnt a fun place to play at either, or umpire, or be a fan at which is why they replaced that stadium so quickly. Field temps were regularly above 100 and often over 110 and even 120 sometimes. It was a hard place to play. Yaz was significantly better at home than on the road.
His big bounce year in 2004 entering his prime after showing a couple years of power saw a significant increase in homeruns across the league. He also did that as a Dodger/ The league can and does juice balls whenever they feel like it. Judge got to spend significant time hitting special balls last year as just one example.
The one bad year he had power wise in Seattle he only played a 111 games and he also took a ground ball to the groin yes dead on and never wore a cup. Thats not something that you can just rub some dirt on and walk it off. I'd struggle too for a while after that.
Entire point though was that the jump in Yaz power is significantly more suspicious than Beltre having a career year one year if people are going to be throwing around accusations towards a player
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I think it is very clear at this junction, as other posters have pointed out, that statistical evidence should not be used as a way to defame careers as being suspected of PED influence. As much as Dallas wants statistical evidence to be the death knell to careers, there are many possible reasons for "fluke" years or career inconsistency.
Dallas wants to say the HR should not be the most important number looked at as "statistical evidence" of PED use.
"But, of course, Yaz's seasons AREN'T more of a career outlier than Beltre's seasons, they are an outlier in only one stat - HR"
If you look at Beltre's career, in that fluke 2004 season, Beltre only had Career highs in a couple of stats: HR, SLG (because of the HR output) and BA. The BA was only 10 points better than his second-best season and HR were only 12 better than his second-best season. He had 16 seasons with more 3b and 7 seasons with more 2b than he did in his "fluke" season. An outlier season where he hit 12 more HR than his second best HR season amounts to hitting 2 more HR a month.
2
Other than BA and HR, 04 really wasnt really much of an outlier at all. nothing else was really out of the ordinary.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Wasn't most of the argument for PEDs that they increased power and turned warning track flyballs into home runs especially in the early years of steroids? Seems like a jump in HRs would be the first thing you would look at, all other factors being the same. Yaz's numbers look suspicious given his lack of power the rest of this career.
Robb
yes, a jump in home runs has traditionally been where everyone looks first.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As enjoyable as it is watching you beat into the ground an argument I never made, at some point I would like you to come in from recess and address the argument that I actually made. Since you've been avoiding it for so long, a refresher:
You asked me why I thought Beltre was a cheater.
I told you why I thought Beltre was a cheater.
You invented out of whole cloth a completely different argument that, in theory, could be used to identify a cheater.
You attacked that argument.
You declared victory over the strawman you had built and destroyed.
Had it ended there, you might actually have fooled someone into thinking you had done something worthwhile. But you then had to drag my name back into your fever swamp and declare that you had achieved victory over the argument that I had made.
The only way to defeat my argument is to address my argument, no matter how much it scares you. You want to circle back after that and relive your glory days of debunking your own argument, be my guest; I'll leave you to it. Either way, leave my name out of it until you find the backbone to address my argument.
I would say it would be more accurate to say the early years of testing and attention being brought to them. That 90s/2000s group of players wasnt the first time they were being used it was just when attention was brought to it. Mantle got an infection from "dr feel good" shots and theyve been used in baseball and other sports forever. Testing is the new thing that changed.
But yes you are correct the big argument against them is turning fly outs into homeruns with the added strength. They arent going to improve hand eye coordination or make someone that cant hit a slider be able to do so, but it was the surge in the number of homeruns that led to the attention on them and supplements. There were some other reasons for the power surge at the time like guys taking weight lifting seriously and expansion teams diluting the pitching talent, but if it wasnt for the HRs no one would have ever said anything.
The reaction overall was really overblown. Many of the writers were overcompensating for turning a blind eye after the strike of 1994 where the home run chases brought baseball back to life. A decade or so later I guess they felt guilty or just wanted clicks and really made it a massive issue that they themselves were complacent in
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
While finding a "comp" for Beltre is not germane to my argument, I will play.
as a Boston sports fan, Rico Petrocelli comes to mind. He had a big outlier season in 1969. I am sure you know all about that one. his OPS+ that season was 168. The previous 4 seasons, his OPS+ was 98 for an increase of 72% in 69'. The 4 seasons following, 1970-1973, his OPS+ was 112 for a decrease of 50%
Does this mean Rico used PED in 1969?
My position is that you should not use statistical "evidence" to automatically jump to the conclusion of PED use. You really have no basis to do so. there could be a myriad of reasons players have career years/outlier years that don't necessarily include PED use.
Perhaps he got married or divorced, moved to a new city, had a death in the family, connected with a coach who really spoke to him, used different equipment, changed teams, changed stadiums, got healthy, got injured, got better teammates, got worse teammates, finally "figured it out"... I could go on and on...
you however immediately jump to the conclusion of PED use armed with nothing more than an unexplained jump in OPS+ or some other statistic. All because apparently, you are unable to fathom any other reason a player can have a season or group of seasons that don't seem to fit with the rest of his career.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'm certainly no detective but I wonder why someone would use PEDs one year and have a tremendous season and not continue year after year.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I agree. It doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't Beltre have used in the seasons prior to 2004? That is exactly the reason people shouldn't jump to the conclusion of PED use based simply off from statistical "evidence"
there are so many factors that could have been in play.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
unless there is an admission of guilt or actual evidence of PED use, I think we just have to take the statistics at face value.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Looks to me that the statistics regarding his later career "improvement" actually point to the fact that he did NOT use steroids.
He achieved a higher OPS+ because of his home OPS+. He went from two of the hardest parks to hit in to two of the easier parks. Texas might not compare with Boston, but he was on a very good team with some very good hitters.
His big year in LA does look a little odd, but I think a lot of players have big years with a contract coming up. Could he have used? Not enough evidence for me.
A "smart" cheater would do exactly that. Get a big contract, then stop cheating so he doesn't get caught.
Bonds, Sosa and McGwire all got addicted to the fame or the drug or both and eventually people realized they had become mutants.
Petrocelli is a good example for test 1 (and there are only a small handful so good for you for finding one of them), but of course he fails test 2 and the real test - the one that convinces me - passing 1 and 2.
"Have to" is an odd choice of words, because, obviously, we don't "have to" do anything. I do feel something of a compulsion to think for myself, so your admonition that I'm not allowed to do that is really easy to ignore. And the way you use "actual evidence" as if "statistical evidence" was not just one form of "actual evidence" is cute. Wrong, but cute.
Based on reading the info above, if the 657 plate appearances for Beltre in 2004 come nowhere near close to providing any meaningful evidence, then it should be time to stop pointing to Mike Trout's FIFTEEN post season plate appearances and attempting to make ANY type of thought or correlation about those
@craig44
@dallasactuary
Why do you default to PED use as the cause for statistical anomalies? I rattled off a dozen alternate causes and there are tons more. Many players have had crazily inconsistent stat lines. There have been many career/outlier seasons.
Is it possible that Adrian Beltre, of all people, had the biggest outlier season in the history of baseball? Sure it is. Even if that is true, how can you be SO SURE PED were the cause? there could be 100 alternate reasons for his 2004 season. Or anyone elses for that matter, but your default is PED. You have no idea if he used PED. you think you do, but you dont. Then you make truth statements based on what you think/believe. Then you admittedly defame careers based on your assumptions.
It is as if every time you see a car accident, you say you think the accident MUST have been the result of OUI. And then make truth statements based on that assumption.
Your assumption of causality is not logical.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.