PDA

View Full Version : Jose Bautista: Clean or PED User?



Pages : [1] 2

Johnny Footstool
08-01-2011, 05:25 PM
Would Bautista be able to purchase the same PEDs in Cincinnati that he is currently using in Toronto? That would be a big factor in the deal, I would think.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 05:34 PM
Would Bautista be able to purchase the same PEDs in Cincinnati that he is currently using in Toronto? That would be a big factor in the deal, I would think.

So you have proof that he is doing so?

Sorry, but simply because a guy gets really good out of nowhere doesn't mean he is cheating. There is absolutely NOTHING out there that links him to anything of the sort other than people thinking he has to be.

Strikes Out Looking
08-01-2011, 05:36 PM
So you have proof that he is doing so?

Sorry, but simply because a guy gets really good out of nowhere doesn't mean he is cheating. There is absolutely NOTHING out there that links him to anything of the sort other than people thinking he has to be.

As someone who usually believes certain players are doing illegal things, my PEDar doesn't go off with Bautista.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 05:40 PM
So you have proof that he is doing so?

Sorry, but simply because a guy gets really good out of nowhere doesn't mean he is cheating. There is absolutely NOTHING out there that links him to anything of the sort other than people thinking he has to be.

This x100. Trying to accuse players with no hint of evidence outside of stats is the worst kind of speculation.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 05:42 PM
This x100. Trying to accuse players with no hint of evidence outside of stats is the worst kind of speculation.

Guys at 29 years old don't naturally go from hitting homers in 2.8% of their plate appearances to 8% of their plate appearances and boost slugging from .410 for their career to over .630.

That's probably not natural. We saw this a lot in the PED era, and for a long time, people assumed the best and that it was unfair to speculate. As it turns out, it was perfectly fair to speculate because if it walked like a duck, quacked like a duck... it was probably a duck. And further, it wound up being a duck, usually.

Caveat Emperor
08-01-2011, 05:47 PM
Thing is -- even if he is using (which I doubt, at this point) he obviously has found a way to do it without getting caught. So, any risk of drop-off in production is probably negligible.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 05:53 PM
Guys at 29 years old don't naturally go from hitting homers in 2.8% of their plate appearances to 8% of their plate appearances and boost slugging from .410 for their career to over .630.

That's probably not natural. We saw this a lot in the PED era, and for a long time, people assumed the best and that it was unfair to speculate. As it turns out, it was perfectly fair to speculate because if it walked like a duck, quacked like a duck... it was probably a duck. And further, it wound up being a duck, usually.

I'm not up for another extended argument about this topic. If he doesn't look any stronger than he did four years ago, what exactly are these steroids doing to his body?

Brutus
08-01-2011, 05:55 PM
I'm not up for another extended argument about this topic. If he doesn't look any stronger than he did four years ago, what exactly are these steroids doing to his body?

There is a lot more to power than 'looking' stronger or being overly muscular. Power is about hand-eye coordination, bat speed, energy, being sharp (and not fatigued), feeling healthy as well as bone density and muscle mass.

Any number of these factors in total could trigger a dramatic increase in production. But these things don't typically happen naturally at 29 out of the blue.

AtomicDumpling
08-01-2011, 05:56 PM
Guys at 29 years old don't naturally go from hitting homers in 2.8% of their plate appearances to 8% of their plate appearances and boost slugging from .410 for their career to over .630.

That's probably not natural. We saw this a lot in the PED era, and for a long time, people assumed the best and that it was unfair to speculate. As it turns out, it was perfectly fair to speculate because if it walked like a duck, quacked like a duck... it was probably a duck. And further, it wound up being a duck, usually.

It has been well-documented that he drastically changed his approach at the plate before last season and it paid off tremendously. Bautista doesn't have the physical appearance of a PEDs user, nor did he suddenly bulk up or improve his strength and athleticism between 2009 and 2010. So I think it is inappropriate to suggest he has been cheating.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 05:57 PM
It has been well-documented that he drastically changed his approach at the plate before last season and it paid off tremendously. Bautista doesn't have the physical appearance of a PEDs user, nor did he suddenly bulk up or improve his strength between 2009 and 2010. So I think it is inappropriate to suggest he has been cheating.

HGH by all accounts would not have the same appearance that pure anabolic steroids would.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 06:00 PM
There is a lot more to power than 'looking' stronger or being overly muscular. Power is about hand-eye coordination, bat speed, energy, being sharp (and not fatigued), feeling healthy as well as bone density and muscle mass.

Any number of these factors in total could trigger a dramatic increase in production. But these things don't typically happen naturally at 29 out of the blue.

I understand there's secondary benefits, such as energy, but I refuse to believe that anything beyond marginal improvement can be achieved without making the obvious increase in muscular strength. Feeling peppy in August didn't make Bautista a 50 homerun hitter.

jojo
08-01-2011, 06:01 PM
HGH by all accounts would not have the same appearance that pure anabolic steroids would.

Forget the huge supposition that Bautista is actually using HGH, the notion that HGH is an effective PED to begin with is highly controversial.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 06:06 PM
Forget the huge supposition that Bautista is actually using HGH, the notion that HGH is an effective PED to begin with is highly controversial.

No it's really not. But your position is that an anti-doping agent, who's job it is to downplay steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, would be outwardly honest about whether or not it's a drug that would impact performance. So there's no sense in having that debate.

After all, ask yourself: if the anti-doping establishment governing olympic and amateur sports didn't find HGH to help performance, why is it banned?

jojo
08-01-2011, 06:15 PM
No it's really not. But your position is that an anti-doping agent, who's job it is to downplay steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, would be outwardly honest about whether or not it's a drug that would impact performance. So there's no sense in having that debate.

After all, ask yourself: if the anti-doping establishment governing olympic and amateur sports didn't find HGH to help performance, why is it banned?

My position is pretty simple.....side with science and the science doesn't support your claims.

Why arent Olympic athletes allowed to use HGH? Because the governing body doesn't want 8 year old Chinese gymnasts being given them.... again this debate has been had and your assertion that HGH is a PED for adult baseball players is not supported by the science.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 06:34 PM
My position is pretty simple.....side with science and the science doesn't support your claims.

Why arent Olympic athletes allowed to use HGH? Because the governing body doesn't want 8 year old Chinese gymnasts being given them.... again this debate has been had and your assertion that HGH is a PED for adult baseball players is not supported by the science.

Science does, you just are picking and choosing which science you want to be evidence of support.

757690
08-01-2011, 06:37 PM
Synthetic HGH hasn't been around long enough to know its full effect, I wouldn't trust the science one way or the other.

However, so far, it generally has helped reduce your body fat, making you leaner and quicker. It hasn't yet been shown to make anyone stronger, however, it possibly could increase your bat speed, if used in co-ordination with the right workout regimen. But that is all hypothetical.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Bautista had discovered something that isn't tested yet, that increases performance. But I will assume that he hasn't until actual evidence is provided that supports that.

reds44
08-01-2011, 06:41 PM
It's so blatantly obvious that Bautista is juicing. I don't know how anybody could say otherwise with a straight face.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 06:51 PM
It's so blatantly obvious that Bautista is juicing. I don't know how anybody could say otherwise with a straight face.

Provide me something that makes it obvious. I want a link to him buying or using juice. Not "well he didn't use to do so well, so this must be the only possible explanation for it".

jojo
08-01-2011, 06:52 PM
Science does, you just are picking and choosing which science you want to be evidence of support.

No. You are. Spend more time reading the literature. But again this has been discussed already.

reds44
08-01-2011, 06:57 PM
Provide me something that makes it obvious. I want a link to him buying or using juice. Not "well he didn't use to do so well, so this must be the only possible explanation for it".
You show me an example of a guy who has ever gone from not having a single .760+ OPS year to all of a sudden OPSing 1.000 at the age of 29.

It does not happen. Changing your swing does not do that.

Reds/Flyers Fan
08-01-2011, 07:03 PM
It's so blatantly obvious that Bautista is juicing. I don't know how anybody could say otherwise with a straight face.

This is so unfair. You know, it has been possible throughout the history of baseball for players to become superstars.

You wouldn't trade Joey Votto for Jose Bautista, that's fine and fair. But to implicate Bautista soley based on his increased production is just wrong.

camisadelgolf
08-01-2011, 07:03 PM
It's obvious that Jose Bautista is guilty of juicing because his numbers got so much better. Instead of offering Votto--who may have started juicing in 2009 when you closely examine the numbers, but it's not obvious enough to know for sure--maybe the Reds should offer both Brandon Phillips and Drew Stubbs since they're clearly juicing, too. BP was crap before 2006, and Stubbs never hit for power in the minors. It's amazing what HGH has done for those guys.

By the way, none of this can be debated. It's fact. Just because. Drastic improvement = juicing 100% of the time as evidenced by some clinical studies I'll make up after I eat dinner.

edit:
Here are some other juicers . . .
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/o'doule01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/vanceda01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wilheho01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/nathajo01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/moyerja01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/stewada01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/leiteal01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/daviscu01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cruzne02.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/werthja01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsra05.shtml

marcshoe
08-01-2011, 07:11 PM
I remember when George Foster started juicing in '75.

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:23 PM
Brandon Phillips has a career .747 OPS. Comparing his jump to Jose Bautista's is laughable. Phillips also figured thngs out at age 25, not age 29.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 07:23 PM
You show me an example of a guy who has ever gone from not having a single .760+ OPS year to all of a sudden OPSing 1.000 at the age of 29.

It does not happen. Changing your swing does not do that.

Really? Dave Sappelt went from a guy in Low A who OPS'd .714 to a guy who went on to OPS .964 in AA the next season because he drastically overhauled his swing. Dave says that the changes led to better timing, which meant he was able to use his entire body at the point of impact rather than just his arms. Bautista has essentially said the same thing. So yes, changing your swing absolutely can have an effect on going from sub par to very good.

Heck, Zack Cozart did the same thing. Coming out of college he was an "all arms" swing guy, by his own admission. Now he uses his entire body and he has gone from a guy with no power to a guy with solid power.

Yes, Bautista's power went to an incredible place. But that doesn't automatically mean he is cheating.

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:24 PM
I remember when George Foster started juicing in '75.
Again, he was 26, not 29. Big big difference.

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:25 PM
Really? Dave Sappelt went from a guy in Low A who OPS'd .714 to a guy who went on to OPS .964 in AA the next season because he drastically overhauled his swing. Dave says that the changes led to better timing, which meant he was able to use his entire body at the point of impact rather than just his arms. Bautista has essentially said the same thing. So yes, changing your swing absolutely can have an effect on going from sub par to very good.

Heck, Zack Cozart did the same thing. Coming out of college he was an "all arms" swing guy, by his own admission. Now he uses his entire body and he has gone from a guy with no power to a guy with solid power.

Yes, Bautista's power went to an incredible place. But that doesn't automatically mean he is cheating.
Again, more guys who are in their early to mid 20's. Show me another guy who at the age of 29 or later made this kind of jump and did it cleanly.

I'm asking you for one guy.

camisadelgolf
08-01-2011, 07:28 PM
Again, more guys who are in their early to mid 20's. Show me another guy who at the age of 29 or later made this kind of jump and did it cleanly.

I'm asking you for one guy.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/o'doule01.shtml

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:31 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/o'doule01.shtml
A guy who played in the 1930's had 64 Abs before he was 31.

I'm going to assume he was fighting a war or something back then which is why he didn't have more success sooner.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 07:33 PM
Again, more guys who are in their early to mid 20's. Show me another guy who at the age of 29 or later made this kind of jump and did it cleanly.

I'm asking you for one guy.

What difference does age make? Benefiting from a swing adjustment isn't exclusive to prospects.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 07:34 PM
Brandon Larson AAA 2002 (Age 26), hit .340 with 25 HR and 1.059 OPS in 80 games. He came up to the big club and flopped. Went back down in 2003 and hit .323 with 20 HR and 1.001 OPS in 72 games. Came back to the show and flopped again. Rinse and repeat. He never proved he could hit major league pitching when given the opportunity repeatedly.

Yonder Alonso (Age 24) in AAA this year through 91 games: .296, 12 HR, .860 OPS. Larson's production at 2 years older was more productive than what Alonso has done thus far in one of his best minor league seasons. I agree with you that Yonder shows better discipline and has a much better SO history. If you compare those numbers I don't think I am way off line here.

I am not trying to compare Alonso to Larson by any stretch of the imagination. I was using Larson as an example and simply pointing out that minor league success doesn't always translate to the bigs. Alonso could end up a AAAA player just like Brandon for all we know at this point. I don't believe that he will given his much better low ball track record than Larson's as you pointed out, but my main point is that you can't assume production no matter how probable the success might seem.

I just think that this trade would be risky because you haven't seen Alonso prove what many assume his production would be as an everyday first baseman in the majors. Say Bautista's numbers wouldn't slide as a Reds LF. What if Alonso didn't produce for 2 years? Then you just shifted the problem from LF to 1B and swapped your youth and upside. And I am generously leaving out the speculation that Corcinco is in the trade as well.

Brandon Larson's career K/BB through age 25: 661/169 (3.91)
Yonder Alonso's career K/BB through today: 203/148 (1.37)

I don't care what Larson showed he could put up in the minors. His plate discipline, or lack there of, showed us, or should have, that he had next to no chance of doing anything close to it in the majors. It told us, or should have, that he can probably hit a fastball (see the power), but had no clue what to do with an off speed pitch (see the tons of strikeouts without many walks and the low average).

Using Brandon Larson to suggest minor league success doesn't equal major league success is not actually making any kind of point, especially when you aren't trying to compare it to a player with similar tools and skillsets.

RedlegJake
08-01-2011, 07:35 PM
So Bautista made the changes in his swing and approach at 29 in order to save his career. You're saying because he's two or three years older than the other examples given that's impossible? I choose to believe he is clean. You don't. We disagree. That's fine. I just think you've closed your mind to any other possibility - maybe because you champion Votto, and wouldn't want to see this trade done?

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:36 PM
What difference does age make? Benefiting from a swing adjustment isn't exclusive to prospects.
It's a simple question. Show me a guy who had the track record of being bad that Bautista did and then magically found some solution at age 29 that wasn't steroids.

I'm just supposed to believe something that literally has never happened before is happening cleanly now after the steroid era we are coming out of no?

No thanks.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 07:37 PM
Again, more guys who are in their early to mid 20's. Show me another guy who at the age of 29 or later made this kind of jump and did it cleanly.

I'm asking you for one guy.

What does age have to do with learning to use your entire body in your swing as opposed to your arms alone?

Dave Sappelt made his turnaround because he changed his swing, not because he changed the number he put on the "Age" line of a job application.

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:38 PM
So Bautista made the changes in his swing and approach at 29 in order to save his career. You're saying because he's two or three years older than the other examples given that's impossible? I choose to believe he is clean. You don't. We disagree. That's fine. I just think you've closed your mind to any other possibility - maybe because you champion Votto, and wouldn't want to see this trade done?
Sappelt and Cozart both changed their swings in the minor leagues. Bautista went through the minor leagues and 4 different major league teams and he decided oh here, let me try this, and went from a guy who never had a slugging above .420 to a guy who has posted .617 and .656 slugging percentages the last two years?

How is that believable?

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:39 PM
What does age have to do with learning to use your entire body in your swing as opposed to your arms alone?

Dave Sappelt made his turnaround because he changed his swing, not because he changed the number he put on the "Age" line of a job application.
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you can't find an answer to my question, which tells me all I need to know.

You don't think Bautista ever had a coach that told him to use his entire body in his swing before he got to Toronto? Really? REALLY?

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 07:44 PM
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you can't find an answer to my question, which tells me all I need to know.

You don't think Bautista ever had a coach that told him to use his entire body in his swing before he got to Toronto? Really? REALLY?

I don't think they ever got it to work. You can go look at the videos. He never had the balance at the plate that he has had with Toronto. You can continue to ignore the evidence if you want and try to say it is something else that there is literally zero evidence of if you want. I just don't want you on any jury that is deciding my fate.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 07:45 PM
It's a simple question. Show me a guy who had the track record of being bad that Bautista did and then magically found some solution at age 29 that wasn't steroids.

I'm just supposed to believe something that literally has never happened before is happening cleanly now after the steroid era we are coming out of no?

No thanks.

Probably can't find one, and I won't try. I'll just say for me, I'm not going to rule out natural anomalies because of something that happened fifteen years ago.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 07:45 PM
Sappelt and Cozart both changed their swings in the minor leagues. Bautista went through the minor leagues and 4 different major league teams and he decided oh here, let me try this, and went from a guy who never had a slugging above .420 to a guy who has posted .617 and .656 slugging percentages the last two years?

How is that believable?

What does where they made the changes at have to do with anything?

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:47 PM
It has to do with everything. Again, Bautista has had coaches looking at him his entire career. Figuring something out and going from a below average player to a GREAT hitter at the age of 29 does not happen.

And nobody is arguing that he didn't change his swing. He just changed his swing and added some medical help.

RedlegJake
08-01-2011, 07:48 PM
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you can't find an answer to my question, which tells me all I need to know.

You don't think Bautista ever had a coach that told him to use his entire body in his swing before he got to Toronto? Really? REALLY?

Quite likely he did. And quite likely he just never believed that coach before his career was literally on the line. Most players lose their careers and never see the light come on. George Brett learned a whole new approach and saved his career when Charley Lau taught him to totally change his approach at the plate. Brett has said Lau's advice was nothing new but it wasn't until he was getting cut that his brother Ken told him to quit being stupid and try Lau's advice. He went from the "other" Brett brother to superstar overnight. Without a brother he probably would have kept stubbornly believing his old way was the right way and ignoring the coaches. Athletes are incredibly stubborn about their methods - especially once they reach the higher levels. Remember all the talk about Bailey's stubborness when he came up? Coaches advice gets ignored more than just about anyone's but a parent's...

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:51 PM
George Brett OPS'd .802 as a 22 year old, .905 as a 24 year old, and 1.118 as a 26 year old. A pretty normal progression for a player. Nice story, not a valid comparison though.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 07:52 PM
It has to do with everything. Again, Bautista has had coaches looking at him his entire career. Figuring something out and going from a below average player to a GREAT hitter at the age of 29 does not happen.

And nobody is arguing that he didn't change his swing. He just changed his swing and added some medical help.

Age has nothing to do with being able to find balance in your swing.

And you really need to stop saying he DID take steroids or some other PED. You don't know that. You think that. There is a huge difference, especially when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest it.

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:54 PM
Age has nothing to do with being able to find balance in your swing.

And you really need to stop saying he DID take steroids or some other PED. You don't know that. You think that. There is a huge difference, especially when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest it.
There's plenty of evidence, look at the numbers. He did steroids. What's going to happen to me if I continue to say it?

RedlegJake
08-01-2011, 07:56 PM
You'll believe what you want, but as Doug has said and others, you simply shouldn't accuse someone of criminal acts without evidence. It makes you look very unfair and close minded as a person. Nothing happens if you continue to say it. It only lessens my value in your fairness. And I say that wishing I didn't have to.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 07:56 PM
There's plenty of evidence, look at the numbers. He did steroids. What's going to happen to me if I continue to say it?

It'll probably just drag out this stupid argument more.

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:57 PM
It'll probably just drag out this stupid argument more.
Well done lol

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 07:57 PM
There's plenty of evidence, look at the numbers. He did steroids. What's going to happen to me if I continue to say it?

Well, if they really wanted to, you could be sued over it for starters. And sorry, improved baseball numbers is not evidence that someone is cheating.

reds44
08-01-2011, 07:58 PM
You'll believe what you want, but as Doug has said and others, you simply shouldn't accuse someone of criminal acts without evidence. It makes you look very unfair and close minded as a person. Nothing happens if you continue to say it. It only lessens my value in your fairness. And I say that wishing I didn't have to.
I think he did steroids. Does it matter if I say "I think" he did it or "he did it." You know what I mean. Pretty much everything said on this board is an opinion, I don't need to clarify what I'm saying because we're talking about steroids.

RedlegJake
08-01-2011, 07:58 PM
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you can't find an answer to my question, which tells me all I need to know.

You don't think Bautista ever had a coach that told him to use his entire body in his swing before he got to Toronto? Really? REALLY?

Quite likely he did. And quite likely he just never believed that coach before his career was literally on the line. Most players lose their careers and never see the light come on. George Brett learned a whole new approach and saved his career when Charley Lau taught him to totally change his approach at the plate. Brett has said Lau's advice was nothing new but it wasn't until he was getting cut that his brother Ken told him to quit being stupid and try Lau's advice. He went from the "other" Brett brother to superstar overnight. Without a brother he probably would have kept stubbornly believing his old way was the right way and ignoring the coaches. Athletes are incredibly stubborn about their methods - especially once they reach the higher levels. Remember all the talk about Bailey's stubborness when he came up? Coaches advice gets ignored more than just about anyone's but a parent's...

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 07:59 PM
In 1920 Babe Ruth hit more HR's by himself than every TEAM in the American League except his own. Was he clearly using steroids?

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:00 PM
Well, if they really wanted to, you could be sued over it for starters. And sorry, improved baseball numbers is not evidence that someone is cheating.
Yeah, for some reason I don't think Jose Bautista is going to come calling for me for saying he did steroids on redszone.

And tell that to Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Brady Anderson and on and on and on.

Reds/Flyers Fan
08-01-2011, 08:01 PM
In 1920 Babe Ruth hit more HR's by himself than every TEAM in the American League except his own. Was he clearly using steroids?

Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 08:01 PM
Yeah, for some reason I don't think Jose Bautista is going to come calling for me for saying he did steroids on redszone.

And tell that to Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Brady Anderson and on and on and on.

You mean all of those guys who have actual evidence of cheating? You know, actual admittance to it or being linked to trainers who are known to have supplied steroids to players?

If you want to show me something like that on Bautista, I am all ears. But it hasn't happened.

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:02 PM
In 1920 Babe Ruth hit more HR's by himself than every TEAM in the American League except his own. Was he clearly using steroids?
Again, he OPS'd .966 as a 23 year old and 1.114 as a 24 year old. That's not blowing away your previous career high of OPS by almost .240 points randomly as a 29 year old.

camisadelgolf
08-01-2011, 08:04 PM
Jose Bautista is swinging at better pitches than he ever has before. There has been no increase in how often he's swinging--it's just that he's simply swinging at better pitches. Instead of swinging at balls, he's swinging at strikes. Instead of hitting the ball on the ground as a result of being late in his swing, he's hitting flyballs--many of which leave the park because of his impressive physical tools (that he has always had). Also, it used to be that he'd watch strikes on the inside part of the plate because he knew he couldn't hit them and swing at balls outside because that's where he wanted them. But now that he's opening up his stance to see the ball better and planting his front foot faster for better timing, he can use his strength and athleticism much more. It's a lesson that even Joey Votto has talked about learning when he was in the minors, but for whatever reason, no one was able to teach it to Bautista until he got to Toronto.

He's also striking out looking much less often than he did early in his career. It's as if he can see the ball better than he could before. This is what happens when you change your batting stance at the suggestion of a hitting coach who suggests you need to see the ball better.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 08:04 PM
In 1920 Babe Ruth hit more HR's by himself than every TEAM in the American League except his own. Was he clearly using steroids?

Obviously...you know, unless you can present a corresponding player with an equivalent performance. :D

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2011, 08:05 PM
Yeah, for some reason I don't think Jose Bautista is going to come calling for me for saying he did steroids on redszone.

And tell that to Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Brady Anderson and on and on and on.

You have NO PROOF. NONE.

Hypothesize all you want.

The only thing laughable is acting like a know-it-all without a single ounce of proof.

There are much more difficult things to believe in life than a baseball player monumentally improving at age 29.

Again, hypthesize... fine.... it is very unexpected and is very much a misnomer. Heck, I can see why a team would make it difficult to trade their MVP for a guy who came out of nowhere for the reasons that you have suggested. But if this were debate was as simple as you make it out to be, then Casey Anthoney would be in jail, and Bautista would be suspended for 50 games because he improved more than the history of baseball suggested he should have.

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:07 PM
Who is acting like they know it all? It's a conversation about baseball for the love of God.

In this day and age, it's hard to believe a guy could do something that, as far as anyone on here knows, never has been done before without the help of some sort of steroid or HGH.

You disagree. That's fine. Welcome to a debate about baseball.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 08:09 PM
No. You are. Spend more time reading the literature. But again this has been discussed already.

I did read the literature. And I even referenced one article in the previous discussion showing the effects on bone healing and density, and I've also provided acknowledgment that I've seen other studies on the subject.

Believe as you wish. If you want to believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny, that's your prerogative. But me... I'll stick with the reality of modern medicine.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 08:09 PM
Who is acting like they know it all? It's a conversation about baseball for the love of God.

In this day and age, it's hard to believe a guy could do something that, as far as anyone on here knows, never has been done before without the help of some sort of steroid or HGH.

You disagree. That's fine. Welcome to a debate about baseball.

Except plenty of players have done this, just at a younger age. And it isn't because they aged into it and developed better physical tools, but because they found out what worked with their swing. Bautista just didn't find his "right swing" until later.

Dan
08-01-2011, 08:10 PM
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you can't find an answer to my question, which tells me all I need to know.

You don't think Bautista ever had a coach that told him to use his entire body in his swing before he got to Toronto? Really? REALLY?

Being told, and having the maturity to accept, the capacity to understand, and the talent to put the skill change into action are very different things.

Still would rather have had a package with Lind, Thames, and Lawrie.

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:13 PM
Except plenty of players have done this, just at a younger age. And it isn't because they aged into it and developed better physical tools, but because they found out what worked with their swing. Bautista just didn't find his "right swing" until later.
Why is he the first person in baseball history to take until 29 to find his "right swing?" Why has literally every other player found it earlier or not at all?

Where there is smoke there is fire.

puca
08-01-2011, 08:13 PM
Again, more guys who are in their early to mid 20's. Show me another guy who at the age of 29 or later made this kind of jump and did it cleanly.

I'm asking you for one guy.

Rual Ibanez made a pretty crazy transformation at age 30.

Nelson Cruz didn't become a star until he was 28.

But maybe they are PED guys too.


Now let me challange you.

Name me one player other than Votto that was drafted as a catcher, is from Canada and became a MVP firstbaseman.


I don't think you will find one knowlegable person that actually believes PEDS can change you from a bad baseball player into a great one.

Tom Servo
08-01-2011, 08:15 PM
You guys, Cal Ripken Jr did steroids. How is it possible to have never missed a single game for all those years due to injury? How many players before him played in as many games as he did? Show me evidence of one guy who played in more games than him. Cal Ripken Jr was on steroids, obviously.

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:16 PM
I don't think you will find one knowlegable person that actually believes PEDS can change you from a bad baseball player into a great one.
Brady Anderson disagrees.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 08:16 PM
You show me an example of a guy who has ever gone from not having a single .760+ OPS year to all of a sudden OPSing 1.000 at the age of 29.

It does not happen. Changing your swing does not do that.

I did the research for us all, fortunately. And you are absolutely, positively correct... with one qualifier.

For those interested, I went back 40 years to 1970 and looked up every player at the age of 28 or above that had the biggest gains in slugging percentage from their previous career averages. I did this by going through the top 50 in slugging for each year, then used Baseball Reference's player profile page to highlight the previous years so it would calculate the slugging for that selection.

I then subtracted the difference of their career slugging prior to that season and that year's slugging to find which players had the biggest gains. In the last 40 years, only 3 players had a bigger gain (Barry Bonds in 2001, Brady Anderson in 1996 and Luis Gonzalez in 2001). Additionally, only three players were within 30 points of having as big a gain as Bautista did, and all three (Ken Caminiti, Larry Walker and Mark McGwire) occurred during the 1996-2001 steroid explosion.

Here is the list (the top 30 I found). You have to go back to Derrek Lee in 2006 and Jim Hickman in 1970 to find anyone else within 30 points of Bautista outside of the aforementioned doping all-stars.


PLAYER PREV GAIN DIFF. YEAR AGE
Barry Bonds 0.567 0.863 0.296 2001 36
Brady Anderson 0.393 0.637 0.244 1996 32
Luis Gonzalez 0.460 0.688 0.228 2001 33
Jose Bautista 0.398 0.617 0.219 2010 29
Ken Caminiti 0.403 0.621 0.218 1996 33
Larry Walker 0.510 0.720 0.210 1997 30
Mark McGwire 0.523 0.730 0.207 1996 32
Derrek Lee 0.474 0.662 0.188 2005 29
Jim Hickman 0.395 0.582 0.187 1970 33
Sammy Sosa 0.469 0.647 0.178 1998 29
Ellis Burks 0.467 0.639 0.172 1996 31
George Foster 0.462 0.631 0.169 1977 28
Davey Johnson 0.378 0.546 0.168 1973 30
Tommy Harper 0.354 0.522 0.168 1970 29
Edgar Martinez 0.460 0.628 0.168 1995 32
Carlos Pena 0.459 0.627 0.168 2007 29
Bret Boone 0.413 0.578 0.165 2001 32
Dante Bichette 0.457 0.620 0.163 1995 31
Terry Pendleton 0.356 0.517 0.161 1991 30
Paul O'Neil 0.443 0.603 0.160 1994 31
Lee Lacy 0.362 0.518 0.156 1978 30
Jermaine Dye 0.469 0.622 0.153 2006 32
Jay Bell 0.406 0.557 0.151 1999 33
Jason Giambi 0.497 0.647 0.150 2000 29
Alan Trammel 0.403 0.551 0.148 1987 29
Joe Morgan 0.430 0.576 0.146 1976 32
Bobby Grich 0.394 0.537 0.143 1979 30
Bill Mueller 0.399 0.540 0.141 2003 32
Rod Carew 0.437 0.570 0.133 1977 31
Bernard Gilkey 0.431 0.562 0.131 1996 29

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:16 PM
You guys, Cal Ripken Jr did steroids. How is it possible to have never missed a single game for all those years due to injury? How many players before him played in as many games as he did? Show me evidence of one guy who played in more games than him. Cal Ripken Jr was on steroids, obviously.
Look! More irrelevant snarky comments!

Cal Ripken did this his entire career. He also didn't get magically better at baseball when he was 29.

AtomicDumpling
08-01-2011, 08:20 PM
Bautista finally became a great hitter when he stopped listening to his hitting coaches. He was always told to tone down his swing and hit the ball to all fields. It wasn't until the Toronto coaches gave him permission to let it rip any way that felt good that he finally found his groove. Now he yanks his bat through the zone and tries to pull everything -- and it works great for him! There are lots of articles about this subject on the www for your reading pleasure.

You can't go wrong with Votto or Bautista. Both are great hitters and a joy to watch.

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:23 PM
Hickman is the guy, Brutus. If he played now a days I would think he did steroids too.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 08:24 PM
Why is he the first person in baseball history to take until 29 to find his "right swing?" Why has literally every other player found it earlier or not at all?

Where there is smoke there is fire.

Every other player didn't. Not every other player had the tools to make the jump that he did even if they were able to find the right swing.

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:25 PM
Every other player didn't. Not every other player had the tools to make the jump that he did even if they were able to find the right swing.
He's the first (well second but when Hickman did it, it was more of a one time thing) in baseball history to do it.

Coming off the era baseball was just in, I think he is juicing.

My opinion, feel free to disagree.

jojo
08-01-2011, 08:26 PM
I did read the literature. And I even referenced one article in the previous discussion showing the effects on bone healing and density, and I've also provided acknowledgment that I've seen other studies on the subject.

Believe as you wish. If you want to believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny, that's your prerogative. But me... I'll stick with the reality of modern medicine.

I have provided a quote from a world renowned leading expert on this issue that directly refutes your position. I have also repeatedly indicated to you that there is a significant literature on this issue that contradicts your opinion. That youd call Wadler and pubmed/medline Santa and the Easter Bunny is a HUGE tell concerning the misinterpretation of the reality of modern medicine.....

Brutus
08-01-2011, 08:27 PM
Every other player didn't. Not every other player had the tools to make the jump that he did even if they were able to find the right swing.

A jump of 30 points better than the next closest non-steroid player in the last 40 years? I don't buy it. That's such an extreme outlier, and that he's clearly surrounded by known steroid users, it's almost silly to think he's not using.

Jim Hickman was previously the biggest gainer outside of that 1996-2001 explosion. And even he's 30 points less than Bautista.

You're telling me that a mere swing adjustment would produce such extreme results? If that were the case, it would have been done by now or at least it would be near the pack.

Those numbers are pretty self-evident... there's a high probability he's on something.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 08:28 PM
I have provided a quote from a world renowned leading expert on this issue that directly refutes your position. I have also repeatedly indicated to you that there is a significant literature on this issue that contradicts your opinion. That youd call Wadler and pubmed/meddling Santa and the Easter Bunny is a HUGE tell concerning the misinterpretation of the reality of modern medicine.....

You produced a quote by a guy that wants to downplay the usage as to not promote it for the athletes he's trying to keep from using. Clearly you can recognize the conflict of interest.

And you didn't show anything that contracts my position. I provided a link to a study that did show there to be a big impact using HGH. You haven't provided anything to discredit that.

reds44
08-01-2011, 08:29 PM
A jump of 30 points better than the next closest non-steroid player in the last 40 years? I don't buy it. That's such an extreme outlier, and that he's clearly surrounded by known steroid users, it's almost silly to think he's not using.

Jim Hickman was previously the biggest gainer outside of that 1996-2001 explosion. And even he's 30 points less than Bautista.

You're telling me that a mere swing adjustment would produce such extreme results? If that were the case, it would have been done by now or at least it would be near the pack.

Those numbers are pretty self-evident... there's a high probability he's on something.
This.

Johnny Footstool
08-01-2011, 08:30 PM
So you have proof that he is doing so?

Sorry, but simply because a guy gets really good out of nowhere doesn't mean he is cheating. There is absolutely NOTHING out there that links him to anything of the sort other than people thinking he has to be.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

His performance profile is very similar to known PED users like Luis Gonzalez and Bret Boone.

It's easier to believe he's using PEDs than to believe that he's the single most unique player in the history of the game.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 08:30 PM
A jump of 30 points better than the next closest non-steroid player in the last 40 years? I don't buy it. That's such an extreme outlier, and that he's clearly surrounded by known steroid users, it's almost silly to think he's not using.

Jim Hickman was previously the biggest gainer outside of that 1996-2001 explosion. And even he's 30 points less than Bautista.

You're telling me that a mere swing adjustment would produce such extreme results? If that were the case, it would have been done by now or at least it would be near the pack.

Those numbers are pretty self-evident... there's a high probability he's on something.
You are assuming that the swing adjustment isn't done for other players (and it is), but not everyone just the bat speed/power to hit those types of baseballs that Bautista does. Some guys do and maybe they find the right swing for them much earlier than they do.

If Ken Griffey Jr had been taught from day one to be a slap hitter but then around age 29 someone said "You know, if you did this you could be much better" and he learned the swing we all know he has, do you think he wouldn't have been a 40+ HR guy? Of course he would, because he has the bat speed/power to be that guy and the swing he had clearly was conducive to being that. But what if he never knew that swing until later in his career because other people were trying to teach him other swings?

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 08:32 PM
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

His performance profile is very similar to known PED users like Luis Gonzalez and Bret Boone.

It's easier to believe he's using PEDs than to believe that he's the single most unique player in the history of the game.

Bret Boone got HUGE. Not comparable to Bautista who hasn't changed in size. Gonzo didn't, so maybe a better comp to use if you want to go down that road. I don't. Until there is actual evidence out there, I am going to believe that the guy has passed multiple drug tests over the last two seasons.

Roy Tucker
08-01-2011, 08:32 PM
I'm going to start calling him Yonder Driessen.

That was my first thought too.

I would have done the trade. It makes too much sense....

1.) I don't think Votto will re-sign with the Reds. I'm sure the Reds waved a boatload of $$$ at him this last off-season and he turned it down. He's all but gone IMO.
2.) It solves the LF problem with a bang. Big time. Hugely.
3.) Gives Alonso a great shot at 1B.

Now, yeah, Alonso might be a second Danny Driessen and Bautista might be PED-driven, but that's why they pay GMs the big bucks.

Plus, I heard Blue Jay fans do a "jo-se, jose, jose, jo-se" at his every AB when the Jays were in town to the tune of soccer anthem "Ole Ole" and GABP would have loved that. ;)

Brutus
08-01-2011, 08:36 PM
You are assuming that the swing adjustment isn't done for other players (and it is), but not everyone just the bat speed/power to hit those types of baseballs that Bautista does. Some guys do and maybe they find the right swing for them much earlier than they do.

If Ken Griffey Jr had been taught from day one to be a slap hitter but then around age 29 someone said "You know, if you did this you could be much better" and he learned the swing we all know he has, do you think he wouldn't have been a 40+ HR guy? Of course he would, because he has the bat speed/power to be that guy and the swing he had clearly was conducive to being that. But what if he never knew that swing until later in his career because other people were trying to teach him other swings?

No one thought Bautista had the bat speed/power to do it until he did it. That's kind of revisionist history. Everyone is looking at what he's doing now as proof that he had the ability to do it before. But no one thought he could do it before.

It's pretty telling that the top six on that list, way out ahead of the pack, are all suspected steroid users and Bautista is in that company. I'm sorry but I buy him doing something that few others have done. But I don't buy that he had some unbelievable unique ability to be an extreme outlier when he was never ever recognized as a great talented prior to this explosion. You're acting like he was thought of as some great prospect. He wasn't. He was a utility player thought of as no more than a 15-20 homer guy with a .270 average. That was his expected ceiling.

That he became this superstar hitter isn't indicative of harnessing some untapped potential. No one being intellectually honest with themselves thought he had this potential before the last two seasons. Not a single soul. It's simply revising history.

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2011, 08:47 PM
There's plenty of evidence, look at the numbers. He did steroids. What's going to happen to me if I continue to say it?

It's because when saying things like this as a matter of fact, it makes it very difficult to respect your side of a "baseball discussion".

But oh well, as much as I apprently don't know how to have a baseball discussion, you don't know what evidence is or why it makes you appear condescending when you put fourth opinions as if they are a basis for fact.

Oh well. Continue debating with your "evidence".

Sea Ray
08-01-2011, 08:47 PM
I don't get why the Reds would be forced to throw in a top prospect in this deal. Why isn't the reigning NL MVP enough for Bautista?

fearofpopvol1
08-01-2011, 08:50 PM
I don't get why the Reds would be forced to throw in a top prospect in this deal. Why isn't the reigning NL MVP enough for Bautista?

Compare Bautista's numbers to Votto's as well as the fact that Bautista is locked up longer for reasonable money and it becomes clear.

AtomicDumpling
08-01-2011, 08:50 PM
Bautista has denied using PEDs, saying that he had been tested four times this season, pointing out that you see a lot more hittable pitches batting third for the Blue Jays than eighth for the Pirates, and explaining that the power surge was mainly two-fold: He was finally getting regular playing time after being pegged as a utility player for most of his career, and Blue Jays coaches had tinkered with his swing.

Sports Illustrated’s Cliff Corcoran backs up Bautista’s swing claim, reminding readers that the slugger finished 2009 on a tear once he made the adjustment. “After having hit just three home runs through September 5, he went deep 10 times over the final month of the 2009 season.”

It’s a shame that Bautista had to hit his 50 home runs in 2010 instead of 1980. The steroids accusations hurt, but the general sense of “meh” among baseball fans is even more bewildering. “Is there room in baseball for an out-of-the-blue home run feel-good story?” ESPN.com’s Jerry Crasnick asks. Unfortunately for Bautista, the answer currently looks like “not yet.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2010/09/24/bautistas-50th-homer-brings-near-silence/

jojo
08-01-2011, 08:52 PM
You produced a quote by a guy that wants to downplay the usage as to not promote it for the athletes he's trying to keep from using. Clearly you can recognize the conflict of interest.

And you didn't show anything that contracts my position. I provided a link to a study that did show there to be a big impact using HGH. You haven't provided anything to discredit that.

Here is just one of many Santas and Easter bunnies that you some how missed when doing your study on modern medicine:

Liu et al 2008. "Systematic review: the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance."

A survey of 44 trials from 1966 to 2007 yielded this conclusion:


Claims that growth hormone enhance physical performance are not supported by the literature

These authors further occluded that based upon the literature they surveyed, growth hormone may worsen exercise capacity.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 08:53 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2010/09/24/bautistas-50th-homer-brings-near-silence/

MLB doesn't test for HGH though. So that he was tested doesn't really tell us much.

Sea Ray
08-01-2011, 08:59 PM
Compare Bautista's numbers to Votto's as well as the fact that Bautista is locked up longer for reasonable money and it becomes clear.

We don't know yet that Bautista's locked up for reasonable money. My guess is he won't be worth $15mill at the end of his contract so I'd say the length of the contract is a deterrent. Votto is cheaper and is entering his prime while Bautista is likely exiting his prime.

I would have to think about a one for one trade but having to throw in a top pitching prospect...no way! Sounds like that's the way Walt felt as well

Raisor
08-01-2011, 09:00 PM
That was my first thought too.

I.) I don't think Votto will re-sign with the Reds. I'm sure the Reds waved a boatload of $$$ at him this last off-season and he turned it down. He's all but gone IMO.



I keep seeing the like, but I just don't think we have enough information yet to know this one way or the other

If I was Joey I'd wait too.

savafan
08-01-2011, 09:17 PM
It's a simple question. Show me a guy who had the track record of being bad that Bautista did and then magically found some solution at age 29 that wasn't steroids.

I'm just supposed to believe something that literally has never happened before is happening cleanly now after the steroid era we are coming out of no?

No thanks.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/esaskni01.shtml

Orenda
08-01-2011, 09:23 PM
We don't know yet that Bautista's locked up for reasonable money. My guess is he won't be worth $15mill at the end of his contract so I'd say the length of the contract is a deterrent. Votto is cheaper and is entering his prime while Bautista is likely exiting his prime.

I would have to think about a one for one trade but having to throw in a top pitching prospect...no way! Sounds like that's the way Walt felt as well

i was thinking the same thing. The thought of throwing in a prospect just irks me a bit. Toronto has been fortunate enough to have gotten out of some bad contracts recently but that didn't stop them from giving Bautista, an out of nowhere guy, a deal into his age 35 season. 14 million is a lot of money for Cincy to pay if a guy isnt producing/ injured/ declining.

reds44
08-01-2011, 10:01 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/esaskni01.shtml
Uh, wut?

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2011, 10:04 PM
Uh, wut?

Ya, that was a horrible example. Esasky had a pretty good,mainly uncharacteristic year.

Then he was done.

Not at all comparable to Wowtista.

RedsManRick
08-01-2011, 10:39 PM
With Bautista, it should be noted that scouts raved about him. He wasn't exactly a punch & judy hitter either, with ISOs of .185, .160, .168, .173. He's also always showed very good plate discipline. His power surge has been paired with fewer strikeouts and even more walks on top of an already good walk rate. Being more selective is going to lead to more balls in play of a higher quality.

In terms of plate approach, firstly here's an article: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/24/altered-swing-mechanics-key-to-jose-bautistas-home-run-binge/ This isn't just revisionist history. And just because a lot guys make adjustments that don't work doesn't mean that making adjustments can't have significant results. if you look at his spray charts, you can see the big shift in balls pulled.

Guys who turned on the power in their late 20's, early 30's. I think my favorites are noted roid heads Carl Yastrzemski & Stan Musial, who established themselves as more of doubles hitters before finding the big homer numbers:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kentje01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/i/ibanera01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/palmera01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/biggicr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sauerha01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/downibr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yastrca01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/musiast01.shtml

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Bautista was doing something. But to suggest that it's so out of history as to be impossible is just being ignorant to history -- and suggests that history can never be made except in tiny increments. It wasn't that long ago we had this exact same conversation about Usain Bolt.

marcshoe
08-01-2011, 10:43 PM
Great post, Rick.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 10:47 PM
With Bautista, it should be noted that scouts raved about him. He wasn't exactly a punch & judy hitter either, with ISOs of .185, .160, .168, .173. He's also always showed very good plate discipline. His power surge has been paired with fewer strikeouts and even more walks on top of an already good walk rate. Being more selective is going to lead to more balls in play of a higher quality.

In terms of plate approach, firstly here's an article: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/24/altered-swing-mechanics-key-to-jose-bautistas-home-run-binge/ This isn't just revisionist history. And just because a lot guys make adjustments that don't work doesn't mean that making adjustments can't have significant results. if you look at his spray charts, you can see the big shift in balls pulled.

Guys who turned on the power in their late 20's, early 30's. I think my favorites are noted roid heads Carl Yastrzemski & Stan Musial, who established themselves as more of doubles hitters before finding the big homer numbers:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kentje01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/i/ibanera01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/palmera01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/biggicr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sauerha01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/downibr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yastrca01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/musiast01.shtml

Don't get me, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Bautista was doing something. But to suggest that it's so out of history as to be impossible is just being ignorant to history -- and suggests that history can never be made except in tiny increments. It wasn't that long ago we had this exact same conversation about Usain Bolt.

This is a phenomenal post. :thumbup:

Brutus
08-01-2011, 10:52 PM
With Bautista, it should be noted that scouts raved about him. He wasn't exactly a punch & judy hitter either, with ISOs of .185, .160, .168, .173. He's also always showed very good plate discipline. His power surge has been paired with fewer strikeouts and even more walks on top of an already good walk rate. Being more selective is going to lead to more balls in play of a higher quality.

In terms of plate approach, firstly here's an article: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/24/altered-swing-mechanics-key-to-jose-bautistas-home-run-binge/ This isn't just revisionist history. And just because a lot guys make adjustments that don't work doesn't mean that making adjustments can't have significant results. if you look at his spray charts, you can see the big shift in balls pulled.

Guys who turned on the power in their late 20's, early 30's. I think my favorites are noted roid heads Carl Yastrzemski & Stan Musial, who established themselves as more of doubles hitters before finding the big homer numbers:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kentje01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/i/ibanera01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/palmera01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/biggicr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sauerha01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/downibr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yastrca01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/musiast01.shtml

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Bautista was doing something. But to suggest that it's so out of history as to be impossible is just being ignorant to history -- and suggests that history can never be made except in tiny increments. It wasn't that long ago we had this exact same conversation about Usain Bolt.

Ignorant of history? Rick, did you see the numbers I posted in this thread? On the contrary, history is on my side of the argument...

here the numbers are again if you missed them (this is players with the biggest single-season gain in slugging relative to their previous career averages, at 28 years old or above and dating back to 1970):



PLAYER PREV GAIN DIFF. YEAR AGE
Barry Bonds 0.567 0.863 0.296 2001 36
Brady Anderson 0.393 0.637 0.244 1996 32
Luis Gonzalez 0.460 0.688 0.228 2001 33
Jose Bautista 0.398 0.617 0.219 2010 29
Ken Caminiti 0.403 0.621 0.218 1996 33
Larry Walker 0.510 0.720 0.210 1997 30
Mark McGwire 0.523 0.730 0.207 1996 32
Derrek Lee 0.474 0.662 0.188 2005 29
Jim Hickman 0.395 0.582 0.187 1970 33
Sammy Sosa 0.469 0.647 0.178 1998 29
Ellis Burks 0.467 0.639 0.172 1996 31
George Foster 0.462 0.631 0.169 1977 28
Davey Johnson 0.378 0.546 0.168 1973 30
Tommy Harper 0.354 0.522 0.168 1970 29
Edgar Martinez 0.460 0.628 0.168 1995 32
Carlos Pena 0.459 0.627 0.168 2007 29
Bret Boone 0.413 0.578 0.165 2001 32
Dante Bichette 0.457 0.620 0.163 1995 31
Terry Pendleton 0.356 0.517 0.161 1991 30
Paul O'Neil 0.443 0.603 0.160 1994 31
Lee Lacy 0.362 0.518 0.156 1978 30
Jermaine Dye 0.469 0.622 0.153 2006 32
Jay Bell 0.406 0.557 0.151 1999 33
Jason Giambi 0.497 0.647 0.150 2000 29
Alan Trammel 0.403 0.551 0.148 1987 29
Joe Morgan 0.430 0.576 0.146 1976 32
Bobby Grich 0.394 0.537 0.143 1979 30
Bill Mueller 0.399 0.540 0.141 2003 32
Rod Carew 0.437 0.570 0.133 1977 31
Bernard Gilkey 0.431 0.562 0.131 1996 29


I'm not being ignorant of history. On the contrary, history shows that Bautista is an extreme outlier unlike any other -- except those others that have been shown to be using performance-enhancing drugs. He stands not in the company of others who "found" their power in their 30's, but rather in the company of those who "found" enhancements to aid their production.

These numbers speak awfully loud. Not only am I not being ignorant of the history, I'm touting history as the exact reason why it's dreadfully obvious Bautista is not natural.

Also, for the record, Jose Bautista never once cracked Baseball America's top-100 prospect list:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/all-time.html

If scouts ever "raved" about him, BA certainly didn't get the memo.

jojo
08-01-2011, 10:57 PM
Nice post Rick.

reds44
08-01-2011, 11:02 PM
With Bautista, it should be noted that scouts raved about him. He wasn't exactly a punch & judy hitter either, with ISOs of .185, .160, .168, .173. He's also always showed very good plate discipline. His power surge has been paired with fewer strikeouts and even more walks on top of an already good walk rate. Being more selective is going to lead to more balls in play of a higher quality.

In terms of plate approach, firstly here's an article: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/24/altered-swing-mechanics-key-to-jose-bautistas-home-run-binge/ This isn't just revisionist history. And just because a lot guys make adjustments that don't work doesn't mean that making adjustments can't have significant results. if you look at his spray charts, you can see the big shift in balls pulled.

Guys who turned on the power in their late 20's, early 30's. I think my favorites are noted roid heads Carl Yastrzemski & Stan Musial, who established themselves as more of doubles hitters before finding the big homer numbers:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kentje01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/i/ibanera01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/palmera01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/biggicr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sauerha01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/downibr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yastrca01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/musiast01.shtml

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Bautista was doing something. But to suggest that it's so out of history as to be impossible is just being ignorant to history -- and suggests that history can never be made except in tiny increments. It wasn't that long ago we had this exact same conversation about Usain Bolt.
The first two names on that list are Jeff Kent and Raul Ibanez. I rest my case.

Oh third guy is Rafel Palmero!

Superdude
08-01-2011, 11:02 PM
Ignorant of history? Rick, did you see the numbers I posted in this thread? On the contrary, history is on my side of the argument...

here the numbers are again if you missed them (this is players with the biggest single-season gain in slugging relative to their previous career averages, at 28 years old or above):



PLAYER PREV GAIN DIFF. YEAR AGE
Barry Bonds 0.567 0.863 0.296 2001 36
Brady Anderson 0.393 0.637 0.244 1996 32
Luis Gonzalez 0.460 0.688 0.228 2001 33
Jose Bautista 0.398 0.617 0.219 2010 29
Ken Caminiti 0.403 0.621 0.218 1996 33
Larry Walker 0.510 0.720 0.210 1997 30
Mark McGwire 0.523 0.730 0.207 1996 32
Derrek Lee 0.474 0.662 0.188 2005 29
Jim Hickman 0.395 0.582 0.187 1970 33
Sammy Sosa 0.469 0.647 0.178 1998 29
Ellis Burks 0.467 0.639 0.172 1996 31
George Foster 0.462 0.631 0.169 1977 28
Davey Johnson 0.378 0.546 0.168 1973 30
Tommy Harper 0.354 0.522 0.168 1970 29
Edgar Martinez 0.460 0.628 0.168 1995 32
Carlos Pena 0.459 0.627 0.168 2007 29
Bret Boone 0.413 0.578 0.165 2001 32
Dante Bichette 0.457 0.620 0.163 1995 31
Terry Pendleton 0.356 0.517 0.161 1991 30
Paul O'Neil 0.443 0.603 0.160 1994 31
Lee Lacy 0.362 0.518 0.156 1978 30
Jermaine Dye 0.469 0.622 0.153 2006 32
Jay Bell 0.406 0.557 0.151 1999 33
Jason Giambi 0.497 0.647 0.150 2000 29
Alan Trammel 0.403 0.551 0.148 1987 29
Joe Morgan 0.430 0.576 0.146 1976 32
Bobby Grich 0.394 0.537 0.143 1979 30
Bill Mueller 0.399 0.540 0.141 2003 32
Rod Carew 0.437 0.570 0.133 1977 31
Bernard Gilkey 0.431 0.562 0.131 1996 29


I'm not being ignorant of history. On the contrary, history shows that Bautista is an extreme outlier unlike any other -- except those others that have been shown to be using performance-enhancing drugs. He stands not in the company of others who "found" their power in their 30's, but rather in the company of those who "found" enhancements to aid their production.

These numbers speak awfully loud. Not only am I not being ignorant of the history, I'm touting history as the exact reason why it's dreadfully obvious Bautista is not natural.

You're missing the point though.....right here courtesy of RMR------> "Don't get me, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Bautista was doing something. But to suggest that it's so out of history as to be impossible is just being ignorant to history -- and suggests that history can never be made except in tiny increments."

I don't think anyone is saying he is for sure clean, but human beings are unique unpredictable creatures. History and statistics may be able to round up steroid users to a certain degree, but "dreadfully obvious" is a strong word for a pretty meager argument.

savafan
08-01-2011, 11:03 PM
Ya, that was a horrible example. Esasky had a pretty good,mainly uncharacteristic year.

Then he was done.

Not at all comparable to Wowtista.

He was done thanks to a disease, not because of a decline in ability.

Brutus
08-01-2011, 11:05 PM
You're missing the point though.....right here courtesy of RMR------> "Don't get me, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Bautista was doing something. But to suggest that it's so out of history as to be impossible is just being ignorant to history -- and suggests that history can never be made except in tiny increments."

I don't think anyone is saying he is for sure clean, but human beings are unique unpredictable creatures. History and statistics may be able to round up steroid users to a certain degree, but "dreadfully obvious" is a strong word for a pretty meager argument.

He said people are being ignorant of history. Ignorant of what? No one outside of the 1996-2001 steroid explosion has come remotely close to doing what Bautista has done. So I frankly think it's not only not ignorant of history to say something is up, but it's almost ignorant to believe Bautista, someone that never once was even a top-100 prospect, had this underlying talent that allowed him to be such a historical outlier at 29 years old naturally.

It would be one thing if he were supposed to be the next big thing and just got a late start. But that wasn't even the case. He was never a prospect, he was only marginally productive, and did something that no player in the history of baseball (outside of the steroid era) has come close to doing.

That should send up large flares by itself.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying doubles hitters can't become home run hitters. It happens. It has happened.

But looking at that list, we see guys add 50, 75, 100, 120 points to their slugging. Not 218 points. That just does not happen on a naturally-occurring basis at 29 years old.

Superdude
08-01-2011, 11:16 PM
He said people are being ignorant of history. Ignorant of what? No one outside of the 1996-2001 steroid explosion has come remotely close to doing what Bautista has done. So I frankly think it's not only not ignorant of history to say something is up, but it's almost ignorant to believe Bautista, someone that never once was even a top-100 prospect, had this underlying talent that allowed him to be such a historical outlier at 29 years old naturally.

It would be one thing if he were supposed to be the next big thing and just got a late start. But that wasn't even the case. He was never a prospect, he was only marginally productive, and did something that no player in the history of baseball (outside of the steroid era) has come close to doing.

That should send up large flares by itself.

I'm not denying the flares. Bautista's career is an extreme outlier that certainly deserves a closer look, but accomplishing something that seemed impossible is not incriminating evidence by itself. No one's ever thrown 105MPH. Why is Chapman allowed to defy history?

Brutus
08-01-2011, 11:26 PM
I'm not denying the flares. Bautista's career is an extreme outlier that certainly deserves a closer look, but accomplishing something that seemed impossible is not incriminating evidence by itself. No one's ever thrown 105MPH. Why is Chapman allowed to defy history?

Well, there probably were pitchers (Nolan Ryan) that touched that kind of speed in the past, but there isn't the technology we have today to know that for certain.

But the difference is that Aroldis throws 105 because he's always had the ability to do that.

We're talking about someone going from being a .700 OPS guy to an 1.100 OPS guy at 29 years old. It's not that someone can't have that kind of talent, it's that someone doesn't just magically get it in the middle of their prime.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 11:30 PM
Well, there probably were pitchers (Nolan Ryan) that touched that kind of speed in the past, but there isn't the technology we have today to know that for certain.

But the difference is that Aroldis throws 105 because he's always had the ability to do that.

We're talking about someone going from being a .700 OPS guy to an 1.100 OPS guy at 29 years old. It's not that someone can't have that kind of talent, it's that someone doesn't just magically get it in the middle of their prime.

Again though, you are pretending that a swing can't make that difference. What would have happened if Griffey was taught his entire life to be a slap hitter and then at age 28 some coach came along and showed him the swing he used in reality and he perfected that swing. Would he then not be able to hit 40-50 HR's? Of course he would.

jojo
08-01-2011, 11:32 PM
Again though, you are pretending that a swing can't make that difference. What would have happened if Griffey was taught his entire life to be a slap hitter and then at age 28 some coach came along and showed him the swing he used in reality and he perfected that swing. Would he then not be able to hit 40-50 HR's? Of course he would.

Exactly. And these changes in JB's game are well documented too. Those that argue his numbers are impossible ignore a tangible change that offers a plausible explanation.

savafan
08-01-2011, 11:39 PM
Ya, that was a horrible example. Esasky had a pretty good,mainly uncharacteristic year.

Then he was done.

Not at all comparable to Wowtista.

Fair enough. Check out these guys, who all became better hitters after the age of 29:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/aaronha01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/larkiba01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ripkeca01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/vaughgr01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/ansonca01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carewro01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dawsoan01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/eckerde01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gwynnto01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/henderi01.shtml

dabvu2498
08-02-2011, 12:09 AM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/o'doule01.shtml

There are outliers everywhere.

That said, it wouldn't shock me if Bautista has "juiced" in some way shape or form, but I'm certainly not ready to pass judgment based solely on his numbers.

RedsManRick
08-02-2011, 12:16 AM
Ignorant of history? Rick, did you see the numbers I posted in this thread? On the contrary, history is on my side of the argument...

here the numbers are again if you missed them (this is players with the biggest single-season gain in slugging relative to their previous career averages, at 28 years old or above and dating back to 1970):



PLAYER PREV GAIN DIFF. YEAR AGE
Barry Bonds 0.567 0.863 0.296 2001 36
Brady Anderson 0.393 0.637 0.244 1996 32
Luis Gonzalez 0.460 0.688 0.228 2001 33
Jose Bautista 0.398 0.617 0.219 2010 29
Ken Caminiti 0.403 0.621 0.218 1996 33
Larry Walker 0.510 0.720 0.210 1997 30
Mark McGwire 0.523 0.730 0.207 1996 32
Derrek Lee 0.474 0.662 0.188 2005 29
Jim Hickman 0.395 0.582 0.187 1970 33
Sammy Sosa 0.469 0.647 0.178 1998 29
Ellis Burks 0.467 0.639 0.172 1996 31
George Foster 0.462 0.631 0.169 1977 28
Davey Johnson 0.378 0.546 0.168 1973 30
Tommy Harper 0.354 0.522 0.168 1970 29
Edgar Martinez 0.460 0.628 0.168 1995 32
Carlos Pena 0.459 0.627 0.168 2007 29
Bret Boone 0.413 0.578 0.165 2001 32
Dante Bichette 0.457 0.620 0.163 1995 31
Terry Pendleton 0.356 0.517 0.161 1991 30
Paul O'Neil 0.443 0.603 0.160 1994 31
Lee Lacy 0.362 0.518 0.156 1978 30
Jermaine Dye 0.469 0.622 0.153 2006 32
Jay Bell 0.406 0.557 0.151 1999 33
Jason Giambi 0.497 0.647 0.150 2000 29
Alan Trammel 0.403 0.551 0.148 1987 29
Joe Morgan 0.430 0.576 0.146 1976 32
Bobby Grich 0.394 0.537 0.143 1979 30
Bill Mueller 0.399 0.540 0.141 2003 32
Rod Carew 0.437 0.570 0.133 1977 31
Bernard Gilkey 0.431 0.562 0.131 1996 29


I'm not being ignorant of history. On the contrary, history shows that Bautista is an extreme outlier unlike any other -- except those others that have been shown to be using performance-enhancing drugs. He stands not in the company of others who "found" their power in their 30's, but rather in the company of those who "found" enhancements to aid their production.

These numbers speak awfully loud. Not only am I not being ignorant of the history, I'm touting history as the exact reason why it's dreadfully obvious Bautista is not natural.

Also, for the record, Jose Bautista never once cracked Baseball America's top-100 prospect list:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/all-time.html

If scouts ever "raved" about him, BA certainly didn't get the memo.

Forgive me for the "ignorant" comment. Clearly you have a perspective on history. My comment was brash. That said, setting the bar at 28 is unnecessarily limiting your sample in the interest of making a a pretty specific point. I understand why you chose it, but the evidence around performance peaks suggest that the curve is not uniform from player to player and that it's actually pretty flat at the top during a guy's prime. What happens if you lower the bar to 27?

You have a guy who couldn't get regular playing time under a single coach until he was in his late 20's, is it a surprise he developed later? A guy who in extremely sporadic playing time put a .190/.254/.224 line over 127 PA before the age of 25, dragging that career slugging down 15 points. Drop him those 15 points and he's below Mark McGwuire and doesn't look quite so crazy. Getting better is not just a function of getter older. Is busting out when you're 26 or 27 or 28 really that different from doing it when you're 29? And when I look at the guys on the top of that list, I see 36, 32, 33, 33, etc. You have to get down to Derrek Lee to find another guy 29 or younger (noted cheater, Derrek Lee) and then down to George Foster to find a guy who did it at 28. Bautista had about 3 seasons worth of PA under his belt before his breakout. That's not really comparable to the 6, 7, 10 years some of these other guys had. There's a difference a "late bloomer" at 28 and a guy going to the next level at 33.

I look at the top of the list and I see a lot of guys who juiced or suspected of such. I have no doubt that many guys on that list got help, but simply being on that list doesn't make guilty nor does it mean that we should simply assume that you are. That's smoke, but that's not fire.

There's an argument to be made that Bautista is a case for questioning our suspicions about some guys. Maybe what Bautista is doing should make us go back and wonder if maybe Luis Gonzalez actually was clean. Maybe Brady Anderson was too. Clearly there are some known cheaters on that list. But there are some who you're just assuming are. There's a bit of circular reasoning here where we first assume that everybody who achieves this feat is guilty of cheating and then use that assumption as the basis for saying nobody has ever done it while clean. Why not treat Bautista like another data point suggesting you don't have to cheat to have a breakout like that?

Even then, I'm not dismissing the possibility that Bautista is taking something. I might even put money on it were I forced to bet on it. But I'm absolutely not willing to convict a guy when the only evidence is circumstantial. I don't dispute that what's done is absolutely incredible. Maybe too incredible. But so is a 105 mph fastball. Sometimes a guy just comes along and does something better than anybody else before him.

I'm skeptical. But there's a long ways between skeptical and acting like I know what the natural limits of human accomplishment are. There was a point in time where people said the 4 minute mile was impossible, that the man's lungs would explode. If there's one thing we should have learned from the history of athletic performance it's that records are made to be broken. And yes, it also says that the science of cheating will almost always be one step ahead of the science of catching cheaters. But I'll keep my cart behind the horse.

blumj
08-02-2011, 12:21 AM
I think one of those links was a mistake, Eck never got much better at hitting.

AtomicDumpling
08-02-2011, 12:43 AM
Jose Bautista before PEDs:http://3.media.sportspickle.cvcdn.com/80/15/abb9ea204284725cccae228f519d842f.jpg

Jose Bautista after PEDs:http://images.athlonsports.com/d/23429-1/Jose-Bautista-steroids.jpg

signalhome
08-02-2011, 12:50 AM
Jose Bautista before PEDs:http://3.media.sportspickle.cvcdn.com/80/15/abb9ea204284725cccae228f519d842f.jpg

Jose Bautista after PEDs:http://images.athlonsports.com/d/23429-1/Jose-Bautista-steroids.jpg

:laugh:

Thanks for that, it was much-needed.

AtomicDumpling
08-02-2011, 12:52 AM
Sorry, those were the wrong pictures. Here are the correct ones...

Before: http://img1.wantitall.co.za/images/ShowImage.aspx?ImageId=2007-Upper-Deck-Baseball-Card-407-Jose-Bautista-Pirates-Mint-Condition-Shipped-in-Protective-Display|51gf0YWuB9L.jpghttp://www.bestsportsphotos.com/images/t_25343_06.jpg


After: http://www.baseball-cards-and-collectibles.com/images/Jose-Bautista.jpghttp://thebackpagelive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/imgres2.jpg

kaldaniels
08-02-2011, 01:06 AM
Jose Bautista before PEDs:http://3.media.sportspickle.cvcdn.com/80/15/abb9ea204284725cccae228f519d842f.jpg

Jose Bautista after PEDs:http://images.athlonsports.com/d/23429-1/Jose-Bautista-steroids.jpg

Out of morbid curiousity I really want to know what exactly is under that Blue Jays logo. :confused:

camisadelgolf
08-02-2011, 01:19 AM
Out of morbid curiousity I really want to know what exactly is under that Blue Jays logo. :confused:
Muscle.

fearofpopvol1
08-02-2011, 01:24 AM
We don't know yet that Bautista's locked up for reasonable money. My guess is he won't be worth $15mill at the end of his contract so I'd say the length of the contract is a deterrent. Votto is cheaper and is entering his prime while Bautista is likely exiting his prime.

I would have to think about a one for one trade but having to throw in a top pitching prospect...no way! Sounds like that's the way Walt felt as well

He's locked up for longer and given his level of production this year and last, it's absolutely reasonable money. Cheaper than what Votto will get paid past his contract with the Reds for sure. It's not like Bautista will be 40 when his contract ends and he hasn't show any signs of slowing down. It's the fact that Bautista is under control longer is why the prospect comes in.

Now, my preference, assuming this deal was real, would have been to keep Corcino and try to go with almost anyone else, but if Corcino gets it done and we keep Alonso, sign me up.

AtomicDumpling
08-02-2011, 01:25 AM
Out of morbid curiousity I really want to know what exactly is under that Blue Jays logo. :confused:

His bat?

Wheelhouse
08-02-2011, 05:44 AM
This x100. Trying to accuse players with no hint of evidence outside of stats is the worst kind of speculation.

Yes, I agree. But A) the poster is not a judge and is not held to the same kind of burden as a court. The poster is a fan, and players make a lot of money off of fans, who by definition have opinions about players, good or bad, and B) all of the guys who were thought to be using PEDs in the 90's, and MORE, were using them. I, for one, however, do not think Bautista is using. I do believe Pujols and others use HGH to recover from injury, which is not detectable in a urine test.

savafan
08-02-2011, 06:49 AM
I think one of those links was a mistake, Eck never got much better at hitting.

Yeah... I was tired

Sea Ray
08-02-2011, 07:53 AM
He's locked up for longer and given his level of production this year and last, it's absolutely reasonable money. Cheaper than what Votto will get paid past his contract with the Reds for sure. It's not like Bautista will be 40 when his contract ends and he hasn't show any signs of slowing down. It's the fact that Bautista is under control longer is why the prospect comes in.

Now, my preference, assuming this deal was real, would have been to keep Corcino and try to go with almost anyone else, but if Corcino gets it done and we keep Alonso, sign me up.

Getting tied into such a commitment is not appealing to a team like the Reds. It's a huge risk, one that they've never undertaken before.

Mario-Rijo
08-02-2011, 08:57 AM
Forgive me for the "ignorant" comment. Clearly you have a perspective on history. My comment was brash. That said, setting the bar at 28 is unnecessarily limiting your sample in the interest of making a a pretty specific point. I understand why you chose it, but the evidence around performance peaks suggest that the curve is not uniform from player to player and that it's actually pretty flat at the top during a guy's prime. What happens if you lower the bar to 27?

You have a guy who couldn't get regular playing time under a single coach until he was in his late 20's, is it a surprise he developed later? A guy who in extremely sporadic playing time put a .190/.254/.224 line over 127 PA before the age of 25, dragging that career slugging down 15 points. Drop him those 15 points and he's below Mark McGwuire and doesn't look quite so crazy. Getting better is not just a function of getter older. Is busting out when you're 26 or 27 or 28 really that different from doing it when you're 29? And when I look at the guys on the top of that list, I see 36, 32, 33, 33, etc. You have to get down to Derrek Lee to find another guy 29 or younger (noted cheater, Derrek Lee) and then down to George Foster to find a guy who did it at 28. Bautista had about 3 seasons worth of PA under his belt before his breakout. That's not really comparable to the 6, 7, 10 years some of these other guys had. There's a difference a "late bloomer" at 28 and a guy going to the next level at 33.

I look at the top of the list and I see a lot of guys who juiced or suspected of such. I have no doubt that many guys on that list got help, but simply being on that list doesn't make guilty nor does it mean that we should simply assume that you are. That's smoke, but that's not fire.

There's an argument to be made that Bautista is a case for questioning our suspicions about some guys. Maybe what Bautista is doing should make us go back and wonder if maybe Luis Gonzalez actually was clean. Maybe Brady Anderson was too. Clearly there are some known cheaters on that list. But there are some who you're just assuming are. There's a bit of circular reasoning here where we first assume that everybody who achieves this feat is guilty of cheating and then use that assumption as the basis for saying nobody has ever done it while clean. Why not treat Bautista like another data point suggesting you don't have to cheat to have a breakout like that?

Even then, I'm not dismissing the possibility that Bautista is taking something. I might even put money on it were I forced to bet on it. But I'm absolutely not willing to convict a guy when the only evidence is circumstantial. I don't dispute that what's done is absolutely incredible. Maybe too incredible. But so is a 105 mph fastball. Sometimes a guy just comes along and does something better than anybody else before him.

I'm skeptical. But there's a long ways between skeptical and acting like I know what the natural limits of human accomplishment are. There was a point in time where people said the 4 minute mile was impossible, that the man's lungs would explode. If there's one thing we should have learned from the history of athletic performance it's that records are made to be broken. And yes, it also says that the science of cheating will almost always be one step ahead of the science of catching cheaters. But I'll keep my cart behind the horse.

He had 1400+ PA's at ages 25-27, 600+ at age 26 alone, that IMO would be mid 20's so yeah he did get plenty of regular playing time and never cleared 16 HR's and now all of a sudden he hits 50ish a year? I personally don't really care what he has done, but I ain't gonna be the sucker who finds out he can't continue to do it for some strange reason down the road.

IslandRed
08-02-2011, 09:08 AM
Quick summary of my thoughts:

* If he ever flunks a PED test, I won't be shocked.

* So far as we know, there's no such thing as a PED that can turn a 15-homer guy into a 50-homer guy. If there was, more than one guy in baseball would be taking it.

Sea Ray
08-02-2011, 09:41 AM
Quick summary of my thoughts:

* If he ever flunks a PED test, I won't be shocked.

* So far as we know, there's no such thing as a PED that can turn a 15-homer guy into a 50-homer guy. If there was, more than one guy in baseball would be taking it.

Don't stop there. Is he worth risking $14mill/yr for the next four years? That's the big question

Johnny Footstool
08-02-2011, 09:45 AM
Exactly. And these changes in JB's game are well documented too. Those that argue his numbers are impossible ignore a tangible change that offers a plausible explanation.

Bret Boone had some well-documented changes to his game, too. Back in 2001-2002, there were several articles describing how Edgar Martinez helped Boone change his approach and swing. And I do believe those changes were real. They just weren't the only changes Boonie made.

Nearly every PED user publicly credited his success to some sort of coaching changes, be it approach, swing mechanics, or workout regime.

I would *love* to believe this is the best feel-good story in MLB history. But based on the past 10-15 years of MLB history, I think it's naive to believe in Bautista when there are so many red flags.

Homer Bailey
08-02-2011, 10:08 AM
Don't stop there. Is he worth risking $14mill/yr for the next four years? That's the big question

Absolutely.

And those that are accusing Bautista of steroids, riddle me this: How is he the only one getting away with this? How is he beating the drug tests? Surely you must have some explanation as to how he is the only one in the current MLB that is experiencing any type of unexpected rise in production. So are we really to believe that he is the only one that is able to circumvent MLB testing?

cumberlandreds
08-02-2011, 10:18 AM
Absolutely.

And those that are accusing Bautista of steroids, riddle me this: How is he the only one getting away with this? How is he beating the drug tests? Surely you must have some explanation as to how he is the only one in the current MLB that is experiencing any type of unexpected rise in production. So are we really to believe that he is the only one that is able to circumvent MLB testing?

There are always new drugs being developed that can avoid detection by these tests. Olympians have been doing this for decades. I'm not saying Bautista is doing a new steriod drug or anything else but this is an ongoing battle that will have be fought. I always find it amusing when Selig or anyone else says the steriod drug problem is beaten. It's not and probably never will be unless they throw up their hands and say "Go at it boys. Roid up all you want."

RedsManRick
08-02-2011, 11:59 AM
Bret Boone had some well-documented changes to his game, too. Back in 2001-2002, there were several articles describing how Edgar Martinez helped Boone change his approach and swing. And I do believe those changes were real. They just weren't the only changes Boonie made.

Nearly every PED user publicly credited his success to some sort of coaching changes, be it approach, swing mechanics, or workout regime.

I would *love* to believe this is the best feel-good story in MLB history. But based on the past 10-15 years of MLB history, I think it's naive to believe in Bautista when there are so many red flags.

That's what I take issue with. There is only 1 red flag, his performance. Nothing else suggests he's cheating. No unsavory connections (we know of). No suspicious changes to his body.

Just because cheaters used the changed-approach story as an alibi doesn't mean that changing one's approach is an invalid reason for improvement.

Bautista has 1 red flag, getting insanely good, very quickly in his late 20s. And I completely agree that's a BIG flag, enough of one to ask questions and look closer. But final judgement should be based on what we find when we get answers and a closer look. And at least up to now, the additional evidence supports the clean conclusion.

I think it would be naive to simply take his word for it and walk away convinced that he's clean. But I think it's presumptuous to say that there is literally nothing he can do to clear his name, that his performance alone is enough to convict him.

osuceltic
08-02-2011, 12:13 PM
Ask yourself this: If the Reds traded Joey Votto for Bautista this offseason, and in spring training Bautista tested positive for PEDs or his name turned up in Part 2 of the Mitchell Report, how would you feel?

Which word would fit best? Foolish or gullible? Maybe "stupid" is a better fit.

I'm guessing "shocked" would not be near the top of the list.

Personally, I try to avoid being a sucker.

Roy Tucker
08-02-2011, 12:15 PM
That's what I take issue with. There is only 1 red flag, his performance. Nothing else suggests he's cheating. No unsavory connections (we know of). No suspicious changes to his body.

Just because cheaters used the changed-approach story as an alibi doesn't mean that changing one's approach is an invalid reason for improvement.

Bautista has 1 red flag, getting insanely good, very quickly in his late 20s. And I completely agree that's a BIG flag, enough of one to ask questions and look closer. But final judgement should be based on what we find when we get answers and a closer look. And at least up to now, the additional evidence supports the clean conclusion.

I think it would be naive to simply take his word for it and walk away convinced that he's clean. But I think it's presumptuous to say that there is literally nothing he can do to clear his name, that his performance alone is enough to convict him.

Well-stated. :thumbup:

It's a thorny issue. I remember when Pete Schourek had a breakout year in 1995. When asked how it happened, he said that Don Gullett told him to throw harder.

Caveat Emperor
08-02-2011, 12:29 PM
Personally, I try to avoid being a sucker.

On the other hand, if he plays his entire career clean and hits another 250 HRs over the next 8 seasons, I think the confidence that you at least "weren't a sucker" would be small condolence.

osuceltic
08-02-2011, 12:33 PM
On the other hand, if he plays his entire career clean and hits another 250 HRs over the next 8 seasons, I think the confidence that you at least "weren't a sucker" would be small condolence.

How many pre-PED guys had that kind of post-30 career. If he's not a PED guy, can we expect anything like that over the next eight seasons?

Raisor
08-02-2011, 12:36 PM
Joey just seems to me to be a safer bet for future success.

Caveat Emperor
08-02-2011, 12:40 PM
Joey just seems to me to be a safer bet for future success.

Agreed -- but he also seems like a safer bet to be in some other city when that success occurs.

camisadelgolf
08-02-2011, 01:03 PM
Jose Bautista is the only professional athlete to discover magical steroids that exponentially increase one's production without showing up as a positive in testing. There's a reason you see no other examples of this right now: Jose Bautista is the only baseball player made of magic, and only he can safely control the magical steroids that he's obviously taking since it's the only logical explanation. We all know it has nothing to do with completely changing his batting stance and hitting philosophies.[/thread]

cumberlandreds
08-02-2011, 01:16 PM
Ask yourself this: If the Reds traded Joey Votto for Bautista this offseason, and in spring training Bautista tested positive for PEDs or his name turned up in Part 2 of the Mitchell Report, how would you feel?

Which word would fit best? Foolish or gullible? Maybe "stupid" is a better fit.

I'm guessing "shocked" would not be near the top of the list.

Personally, I try to avoid being a sucker.

This where Jocketty really earns his money. Before pulling off a trade like this he has to do some thorough investigation to make sure Bautista is "clean". If there is anything at all that hints at PED use then there's no way he could make this trade. Tough thing to do but you couldn't leave any stone unturned for this to happen. He basically has to prove innocence which can be an even tougher thing to do.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 01:17 PM
Jose Bautista is the only professional athlete to discover magical steroids that exponentially increase one's production without showing up as a positive in testing. There's a reason you see no other examples of this right now: Jose Bautista is the only baseball player made of magic, and only he can safely control the magical steroids that he's obviously taking since it's the only logical explanation. We all know it has nothing to do with completely changing his batting stance and hitting philosophies.[/thread]
I wish you were a mod and then truly ended the thread right there. It would have made my day :lol:

Caveat Emperor
08-02-2011, 01:19 PM
The amusing thing about all this is that Bautista can never prove a negative -- he can't ever prove he ISN'T using steroids, because the other side will just say "he's doing something that beats the tests / they can't test for."

I feel kinda sorry for the guy if, indeed, he is clean.

camisadelgolf
08-02-2011, 01:27 PM
Maybe this isn't the most relevant comment, but I at least want to mention it. Bronson Arroyo has openly stated that he takes supplements. Some of the ones he used to take are now illegal, so he stopped taking them. Athletes will look for any edge they can. Maybe they're competitive or something. Anyway, there's a fine line between cheating and beating the system.

camisadelgolf
08-02-2011, 03:00 PM
By the way, you know those magical steroids I talked about? Through modern science, we've been able to identify exactly when Bautista started taking them. In all of 2009, Bautista hit 13 home runs. He hit 3 of them over the first 5 months of the season, but the other 10 were during the last 4 weeks of the season. There's no way a change in swing/approach can explain such a sudden change in offensive production. THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS MAGIC STEROIDS.

Brutus
08-02-2011, 03:23 PM
By the way, you know those magical steroids I talked about? Through modern science, we've been able to identify exactly when Bautista started taking them. In all of 2009, Bautista hit 13 home runs. He hit 3 of them over the first 5 months of the season, but the other 10 were during the last 4 weeks of the season. There's no way a change in swing/approach can explain such a sudden change in offensive production. THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS MAGIC STEROIDS.

It's no more silly than discovering some magic swing adjustment that no player in the history of baseball has apparently discovered...

I don't think anyone questions the change in approach. But the change in approach alone doesn't explain someone with a .730 OPS at nearly 1,800 plate appearances becoming an 1.100 OPS bat at 29 years old.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 03:27 PM
It's no more silly than discovering some magic swing adjustment that no player in the history of baseball has apparently discovered...


Other players have found such swings. They have just found them earlier.

Again, if Ken Griffey Jr were brought up his whole life to be a slap hitter then at the age of 27 a coach taught him the swing that we all know and love, would he have been unable to be a 40-50 HR guy without taking steroids?

Brutus
08-02-2011, 03:33 PM
Other players have found such swings. They have just found them earlier.

Again, if Ken Griffey Jr were brought up his whole life to be a slap hitter then at the age of 27 a coach taught him the swing that we all know and love, would he have been unable to be a 40-50 HR guy without taking steroids?

Not to that degree. And also, if you look at Bautista's stance and video of his swing, there's not too many differences between now and in Pittsburgh. Heck, the "before and after" photos in this thread show his hands and elbows are in virtually the same spot.

Point is, you either have that kind of talent or you don't. No swing change is suddenly going to give you the talent to hit 1.100 OPS by itself. He was never a top-100 prospect and was already 29 years old. He did not have 50-home run talent. Perhaps he had 30-homer talent and the slight changes helped with that. But he isn't doing all this strictly with those changes. That's never been done before outside of the steroid era, and it's not a coincidence the only ones who did it are either shown or believed to be on the take.

camisadelgolf
08-02-2011, 03:35 PM
It's no more silly than discovering some magic swing adjustment that no player in the history of baseball has apparently discovered...

I don't think anyone questions the change in approach. But the change in approach alone doesn't explain someone with a .730 OPS at nearly 1,800 plate appearances becoming an 1.100 OPS bat at 29 years old.
Exactly. There's no way altering your swing to help every aspect of your hitting (the timing, view of the ball, ability to turn on balls that would normally be watched for strikes, etc.) could be the main explanation for such a drastic change in production at the age of 29.

That's right. The answer is magical steroids, and that's all we need to know. Normal steroids would have resulted in a gradual increase, but not these steroids. These magical steroids will take a hitter who hits 3 home runs over the first 5 months of the season and turn him into a mega superstar that can hit 10 home runs in a month and continue that pace indefinitely. The naysayers will try to tell you that Bautista never had a hitting coach who made these specific changes to his swing, but don't let them fool you. It's magical steroids that suddenly took effect in September of 2009.

jojo
08-02-2011, 03:35 PM
I don't think anyone questions the change in approach. But the change in approach alone doesn't explain someone with a .730 OPS at nearly 1,800 plate appearances becoming an 1.100 OPS bat at 29 years old.

How can anyone possibly argue such a generality with definitive authority especially when claiming the only other possibility is criminal behavior?

bucksfan2
08-02-2011, 03:38 PM
Other players have found such swings. They have just found them earlier.

Again, if Ken Griffey Jr were brought up his whole life to be a slap hitter then at the age of 27 a coach taught him the swing that we all know and love, would he have been unable to be a 40-50 HR guy without taking steroids?

Who? Who goes from being a weak hitter to an absolute beast after over 1800 plate attempts?

Im not saying Bautista is on anything but there are a lot of questions surrounding his power. Its a huge question mark if you ask me. And I would not be willing to give up someone who is younger and the face of my franchise to take on that risk.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 03:43 PM
Not to that degree. And also, if you look at Bautista's stance and video of his swing, there's not too many differences between now and in Pittsburgh. Heck, the "before and after" photos in this thread show his hands and elbows are in virtually the same spot.

So if Ken Griffey Jr had a different swing from ages 5-26 but used the exact swing he actually had at age 27 on, you are telling me that he wouldn't have replicated what he actually did? If you are telling me that, what on Earth are you basing that on other than the fact that it hurts your point you want to be making?

camisadelgolf
08-02-2011, 03:49 PM
http://youtu.be/z0AlTsey6MI
Seriously, watch this. Just keep in mind that the adjustments he made, "evidence" bordering on proof, etc. are euphemisms for steroids.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 03:50 PM
Who? Who goes from being a weak hitter to an absolute beast after over 1800 plate attempts?


Quit worrying about the sample size. Worry about guys who went from weaker hitters to much better hitters with a swing change. You see it all the time in the minor leagues and plenty of times it has nothing to do with the player aging. Dave Sappelt is a perfect example. He went from a low .700 OPS player to a .900 OPS player between the last two seasons by making changes to his swing that do exactly what Bautista's swing is supposed to be doing. Shifting his weight to the right spot at the right time, allowing him to use his body correctly at the moment that the bat meets the ball. Watching Sappelt in Dayton, I didn't think he had much of a chance. His swing was a mess and his power wasn't much to look at. Watching him the last two season I wonder if he isn't the best pure hitter we have in the minor leagues and his power is pretty good (down this year since he has come back from an oblique injury). He didn't get better because he started writing a different number next to "Age" on forms, he got better (and a lot better) because he improved his balance at the plate at the point where the bat is coming through the zone.

Bautista found that method later in his career. It isn't impossible. It doesn't usually happen this late for guys because they often try a lot of things by this age because they have probably been through at least 8 batting coaches at this point (between college/multiple teams in the minors/multiple teams in the majors). But why is it so hard to believe that he could have found that at a later age than other guys?

Brutus
08-02-2011, 04:06 PM
How can anyone possibly argue such a generality with definitive authority especially when claiming the only other possibility is criminal behavior?

Odd positioning considering we've been there, done that in regards to the defensive stances of people not wanting to believe steroids were rampant in baseball 10 years ago. Many folks had their heads buried in the sand for 5-10 years about baseball players using steroids, and people that were convinced they were on steroids were given the same rebuttals as this tired one you just gave me.

Now ask Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, Barry Bonds, Ken Caminiti (R.I.P.), Mark McGwire and the many, many people involved in the steroid era about "criminal behavior."

Caminiti testified before congress that it was his observation that probably over 50% of players were using steroids. Given how drastically run scoring has gone down since testing began leads one to believe he was probably right.

While clearly testing has diminish the ability to gain an advantage, it's doubtful the culture is as such there aren't players trying new things. Even if a lot of things wouldn't go unnoticed by testing, there are many other substances out there that would not (and HGH is obviously one of them as it's not even tested for).

Brutus
08-02-2011, 04:13 PM
So if Ken Griffey Jr had a different swing from ages 5-26 but used the exact swing he actually had at age 27 on, you are telling me that he wouldn't have replicated what he actually did? If you are telling me that, what on Earth are you basing that on other than the fact that it hurts your point you want to be making?

Doug, no offense... but that not a single player came within 30 points of the improvement that Bautista made in the past 40 years, sans the 5-year period where rampant steroid use pervaded the game helps my point so much that the idea of a mere swing adjustment could help someone increase their power four-fold is total bunk.

Rick is correct that many people have made swing adjustments. I did the research that corroborates that. But clearly swing adjustments alone don't make a mediocre baseball player into a great baseball player. If they did, it would have been done before now. Jim Hickman, Tommy Harper, etc., these guys made huge gains and Bautista blows them away.

This whole swing adjustment argument is ridiculous. Swing adjustments don't make mediocre players into great players. If they did, we would have seen more evidence of it by now as clearly the Toronto Blue Jays of all organizations dont' have some magic secrets the rest of the baseball world has been missing for the last several decades.

bucksfan2
08-02-2011, 04:18 PM
Quit worrying about the sample size. Worry about guys who went from weaker hitters to much better hitters with a swing change. You see it all the time in the minor leagues and plenty of times it has nothing to do with the player aging. Dave Sappelt is a perfect example. He went from a low .700 OPS player to a .900 OPS player between the last two seasons by making changes to his swing that do exactly what Bautista's swing is supposed to be doing. Shifting his weight to the right spot at the right time, allowing him to use his body correctly at the moment that the bat meets the ball. Watching Sappelt in Dayton, I didn't think he had much of a chance. His swing was a mess and his power wasn't much to look at. Watching him the last two season I wonder if he isn't the best pure hitter we have in the minor leagues and his power is pretty good (down this year since he has come back from an oblique injury). He didn't get better because he started writing a different number next to "Age" on forms, he got better (and a lot better) because he improved his balance at the plate at the point where the bat is coming through the zone.

Bautista found that method later in his career. It isn't impossible. It doesn't usually happen this late for guys because they often try a lot of things by this age because they have probably been through at least 8 batting coaches at this point (between college/multiple teams in the minors/multiple teams in the majors). But why is it so hard to believe that he could have found that at a later age than other guys?

Wouldn't it shock you if Brandon Phillips all of a sudden became a 1.000 OPS bat?

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 04:23 PM
This whole swing adjustment argument is ridiculous. Swing adjustments don't make mediocre players into great players. If they did, we would have seen more evidence of it by now as clearly the Toronto Blue Jays of all organizations dont' have some magic secrets the rest of the baseball world has been missing for the last several decades.

Sorry, but I will take the words of a former pro scout that the swing changes indeed can make the difference with someone like Bautista over your words that they can't.

And the Blue Jays don't have some secret that other teams don't. They don't even have some secrets that the lowly Pirates don't. They did however get a guy to buy into something that the Pirates weren't able to.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 04:25 PM
Wouldn't it shock you if Brandon Phillips all of a sudden became a 1.000 OPS bat?

Yes. He swings at a lot of really bad pitches.

Patrick Bateman
08-02-2011, 04:34 PM
It's no more silly than discovering some magic swing adjustment that no player in the history of baseball has apparently discovered...

I don't think anyone questions the change in approach. But the change in approach alone doesn't explain someone with a .730 OPS at nearly 1,800 plate appearances becoming an 1.100 OPS bat at 29 years old.

Isn't it possible that late round draft picks were really .500-.600 OPS bats if not for swing adjustments and stuff? And then some of those guys turn into .800+ OPS guys somehow? How is that?

Maybe Bowtista really was a .730 OPS prospect, who never really tweaked his swing moving up the chain and when he finally made proper adjustments that he saw the same type of gain?

Look, either side of the argument saying anything definitively is wrong to do so. In every aspect of life, there are misnomers to the general rule. Is it not at the very least possible, that Bautista is the first guy to improve by THIS much at his age? You cannot tell me that it is not scientifically possible for that to happen. You do not have any facts to support that claim. You have evidence to suggest that it is very very unlikely. That is all.

Look at the Guiness Book of World records. There are much more difficult things to believe in that book than a 29 year old making a swing adjustment and improving his skills more than any other player has before. There has to be a first for everything. Why can't this be a first?

Brutus
08-02-2011, 04:39 PM
Sorry, but I will take the words of a former pro scout that the swing changes indeed can make the difference with someone like Bautista over your words that they can't.

And the Blue Jays don't have some secret that other teams don't. They don't even have some secrets that the lowly Pirates don't. They did however get a guy to buy into something that the Pirates weren't able to.

I'll take actual history over the words of a pro scout...

That numbers don't support that position.

osuceltic
08-02-2011, 04:43 PM
Jose Bautista is the only professional athlete to discover magical steroids that exponentially increase one's production without showing up as a positive in testing. There's a reason you see no other examples of this right now: Jose Bautista is the only baseball player made of magic, and only he can safely control the magical steroids that he's obviously taking since it's the only logical explanation. We all know it has nothing to do with completely changing his batting stance and hitting philosophies.[/thread]

How many steroid users tested positive? Fewer than you think. But there was enough evidence -- largely due to the Mitchell Report -- that it was clear they were able to mask their PED use.

Bautista was smart -- he started after the Mitchell investigation was completed and when everyone more or less lost interest.

camisadelgolf
08-02-2011, 05:13 PM
Since some of you are such experts on this whole thing, exactly which substances is Bautista taking? And why was there no gradual improvement leading into what he is now? And where can I get these steroids?

savafan
08-02-2011, 05:26 PM
I'll throw out another example:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/o%27neipa01.shtml

IslandRed
08-02-2011, 05:28 PM
Playing around on the ESPN home run tracker: http://www.hittrackeronline.com/

Compared to most top home-run hitters this year, his average distance per homer is actually on the low side for someone who doesn't have a home field short porch to help out (e.g. Granderson). By way of comparison, his average dinger is about the same as Jay Bruce and shorter than Joey Votto's. What he's doing better than anyone is pulling the ball:

http://www.hittrackeronline.com/detail.php?id=2011_21&type=hitter

17 of the 31 home runs are dead-pull shots, in or on the 15-degree arc line. Most of the top HR hitters (aside from the aforementioned short-porch-aided guys) have more of a scatter to their graph.

I suppose this is the sort of thing that could be construed either way.

Johnny Footstool
08-02-2011, 05:51 PM
That's what I take issue with. There is only 1 red flag, his performance. Nothing else suggests he's cheating. No unsavory connections (we know of). No suspicious changes to his body.

Lack of success in the majors.
Sudden, unprecedented improvement in production.
Age at which the improvement occurs.
Similarities in performance to recent PED users.
And yes, the big one -- his ridiculous stats.

Those are all red flags.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 05:52 PM
I'll take actual history over the words of a pro scout...

That numbers don't support that position.

Except your actual history is not looking at the data for what you are arguing. You are arguing that swing changes can't be why he is this good all of a sudden, but you aren't looking at players who have made swing changes, just players who drastically improved.

What made Devin Mesoraco go from the guy who OPS'd .710 in Dayton to the guy who hit 26 HR's and .300+ last year across three levels? Well for starters, it was a swing changed in which he lowered his hands that allowed him to get his bat to the zone better. But a guy like that would never make your list because he made the changes at a different age than Bautista did. Same for a guy like Sappelt. Or probably a ton of other guys who just happened to find out what worked better for them at an earlier age.

Johnny Footstool
08-02-2011, 05:54 PM
Except your actual history is not looking at the data for what you are arguing. You are arguing that swing changes can't be why he is this good all of a sudden, but you aren't looking at players who have made swing changes, just players who drastically improved.



The argument isn't about swing changes. It is about whether swing changes *alone* can cause this kind of improvement.

I don't doubt that Bautista changed his approach. Bret Boone did, too.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 05:57 PM
The argument isn't about swing changes. It is about whether swing changes *alone* can cause this kind of improvement.

I don't doubt that Bautista changed his approach. Bret Boone did, too.

Bret Boone also changed his size. Dramatically.

Larkin Fan
08-02-2011, 06:11 PM
Lack of success in the majors.
Sudden, unprecedented improvement in production.
Age at which the improvement occurs.
Similarities in performance to recent PED users.
And yes, the big one -- his ridiculous stats.

Those are all red flags.

Maintaining the same body type pre and post-change. That's a major indicator of not using PEDs.

Brutus
08-02-2011, 06:21 PM
Except your actual history is not looking at the data for what you are arguing. You are arguing that swing changes can't be why he is this good all of a sudden, but you aren't looking at players who have made swing changes, just players who drastically improved.

What made Devin Mesoraco go from the guy who OPS'd .710 in Dayton to the guy who hit 26 HR's and .300+ last year across three levels? Well for starters, it was a swing changed in which he lowered his hands that allowed him to get his bat to the zone better. But a guy like that would never make your list because he made the changes at a different age than Bautista did. Same for a guy like Sappelt. Or probably a ton of other guys who just happened to find out what worked better for them at an earlier age.

Mesoraco is a guy who went from 20 years old to 22 years old and only had 750 career plate appearances prior to 2010. His body is still physically maturing, as most kids continue to do until about 26 (hence entering peak production). Jose Bautista was a full-grown individual at 29 years old, with nearly 4,000 career plate appearances, a .467 minor league slugging and .400 major league slugging, that suddenly had a breakout year more than 150 slugging points he'd ever had in any full professional season. And even in your Mesoraco example... a kid that was still maturing and learning at 22 years old, he went from .399 that year at Dayton to a combined .564 last year. That's 165 slugging points... Bautista was 55 points MORE than that despite being 29 years old!

You're acting like Bautista is the only Major Leaguer that's ever changed his swing. I bet you'll find at least a couple players on every single team every single season that's done it. And it still has never in the history of Major League baseball made a sub-.400 slugger into a plus-.600 slugger without the aid of enhancements.

The great thing about my stats, Doug, is they don't discriminate. They include all players the last 40 years, regardless whether they changed their swings or not. And you can be sure hundreds if not thousands of players have changed their swings even during that time. Yet you're acting like Bautista discovered some magical secret no one else knew about.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 06:23 PM
Mesoraco is a guy who went from 20 years old to 22 years old. His body is still physically maturing, as most kids continue to do until 26. Jose Bautista was a full-grown individual at 29 years old that suddenly had a breakout year. And even in your Mesoraco example... a kid that was still maturing and learning at 22 years old, he went from .399 that year at Dayton to a combined .564 last year. That's 165 slugging points... Bautista was 55 points MORE than that despite being 29 years old!

You're acting like Bautista is the only Major Leaguer that's ever changed his swing. I bet you'll find at least a couple players on every single team every single season that's done it. And it still has never in the history of Major League baseball made a sub-.400 slugger into a plus-.600 slugger without the aid of enhancements.

The great thing about my stats, Doug, is they don't discriminate. They include all players the last 40 years, regardless whether they changed their swings or not. And you can be sure hundreds if not thousands of players have changed their swings even during that time. Yet you're acting like Bautista discovered some magical secret no one else knew about.

For the 4th time, I am not acting like Bautista found some secret others didn't know about. I am saying that he found something later in his career mechanically than most other guys do because he was stubborn about it and didn't listen to his coaches.

And again, just answer the question about Griffey and being a slap hitter. Swings make a difference.

signalhome
08-02-2011, 06:43 PM
Haha, this is just completely going around and around in circles.

To say definitively either way is kind of bogus. The truth is that we really don't know. It's possible, no matter how much you want to believe that his homers are simply the byproduct of good coaching, that he is using banned PEDs and that is what's fueling his production. It's also possible, no matter how unlikely you may find it, that his retooled swing and new approach (as in, pulling every single pitch he sees, regardless of location) has led to his new-found success. I personally tend to agree with the latter, especially since his hit tracker data shows (pointed out by a poster earlier in this thread) that he really doesn't hit the ball further than other power hitters, he simply makes good contact more often. Seems to me that the key isn't that he's found some way to add an extra twenty feet to all his fly balls, but that he's simply found a way to hit those hard fly balls at a higher propensity (as in, pulling everything he sees now). That, plus much better plate discipline than exhibited earlier in his career, is why he's now the best hitter in baseball. I've heard that scouts always raved about his power, and he was just never able to show his full potential on the field, so it isn't as if his home run power came completely out of left field.

However, that's all just my opinion, as none of us know for certain.

AtomicDumpling
08-02-2011, 06:50 PM
Test Subject: Jose Bautista

Increased body mass? -- No
Increased physical strength? -- No
Increased speed? -- No
Increased athleticism? -- No
Increased hostility and aggression? -- No
Mood swings? -- No
Extreme irritability? -- No
Increased acne? -- No
Thinning of hair and baldness? -- No
Has player been tested for steroids? -- Yes, several times.
Increase in HR power? -- Yes
Was any increase in HR power gradual (indicates PEDs) or sudden (indicates natural)? -- Sudden
Did sudden increase occur at beginning of season (could indicate PEDs) or during the season (indicates natural)? -- During
Did sudden in-season increase in HR power coincide with change in approach? -- Yes
Additional indications: Spray charts show sharp increase of balls pulled down the line. No indications of hitting the ball further than before, but he now hits the ball to the closest fence.

Comments: Physical signs of PEDs usage are certain to coincide with any sudden increase in power caused by PEDs. Subtle use of HGH would result in gradual increase in power if any at all. HGH is primarily used due to anecdotal belief that it can speed up recovery from tendon/bone injuries or to reduce fat, no scientific evidence indicates HGH improves strength. There is a well-documented change in hitting philosophy coinciding with the improved performance. Player was an average hitter for years until September 2009 when he experienced a sudden and prolonged power surge.

Conclusion: It is highly unlikely that Jose Bautista is using a banned substance. There are no chemical or physical indications of steroid usage. Power surge was far too sudden to have been caused by HGH.

Brutus
08-02-2011, 07:19 PM
Test Subject: Jose Bautista

Increased body mass? -- No
Increased physical strength? -- No
Increased speed? -- No
Increased athleticism? -- No
Increased hostility and aggression? -- No
Mood swings? -- No
Extreme irritability? -- No
Increased acne? -- No
Thinning of hair and baldness? -- No
Has player been tested for steroids? -- Yes, several times.
Increase in HR power? -- Yes
Was any increase in HR power gradual (indicates PEDs) or sudden (indicates natural)? -- Sudden
Did sudden increase occur at beginning of season (could indicate PEDs) or during the season (indicates natural)? -- During
Did sudden in-season increase in HR power coincide with change in approach? -- Yes
Additional indications: Spray charts show sharp increase of balls pulled down the line. No indications of hitting the ball further than before, but he now hits the ball to the closest fence.

Comments: Physical signs of PEDs usage are certain to coincide with any sudden increase in power caused by PEDs. Subtle use of HGH would result in gradual increase in power if any at all. HGH is primarily used due to anecdotal belief that it can speed up recovery from tendon/bone injuries or to reduce fat, no scientific evidence indicates HGH improves strength. There is a well-documented change in hitting philosophy coinciding with the improved performance. Player was an average hitter for years until September 2009 when he experienced a sudden and prolonged power surge.

Conclusion: It is highly unlikely that Jose Bautista is using a banned substance. There are no chemical or physical indications of steroid usage. Power surge was far too sudden to have been caused by HGH.

All the aforementioned conditions you're speaking of mostly have to do with anabolic steroids and banned substances that, as you said, he'd be tested for. None of those things are being mentioned.

However, HGH would substitute for bone denisity, healthy joints, energy, and some preservation of muscle mass. It simply would pick up on things that the body would otherwise stop producing with age. So if someone suddenly had an excess in HGH, it would absolutely be expected to impact performance.

After all, do you feel as energetic and youthful as you did when you were 20? Probably not. The reason for that, of course, is because your body is producing less naturally occurring HGH. So it stands to reason that if he started taking HGH in 2009, by the next season it absolutely could have impacted his performance. And for that matter, HGH is just one of probably many PEDs that have yet to be banned by Major League Baseball or not tested for.

AtomicDumpling
08-02-2011, 07:22 PM
All the aforementioned conditions you're speaking of mostly have to do with anabolic steroids and banned substances that, as you said, he'd be tested for. None of those things are being mentioned.

However, HGH would substitute for bone denisity, healthy joints, energy, and some preservation of muscle mass. It simply would pick up on things that the body would otherwise stop producing with age. So if someone suddenly had an excess in HGH, it would absolutely be expected to impact performance.

After all, do you feel as energetic and youthful as you did when you were 20? Probably not. The reason for that, of course, is because your body is producing less naturally occurring HGH. So it stands to reason that if he started taking HGH in 2009, by the next season it absolutely could have impacted his performance. And for that matter, HGH is just one of probably many PEDs that have yet to be banned by Major League Baseball or not tested for.

HGH has never been shown to improve performance. The fact he so suddenly spiked his Home Run rate without showing any physical changes whatsoever essentially eliminates any serious consideration of PEDs as the cause in my opinion, especially when another clearly demonstrated alternative is available as there is in this case.

Brutus
08-02-2011, 07:36 PM
HGH has never been shown to improve performance. The fact he so suddenly spiked his Home Run rate without showing any physical changes whatsoever essentially eliminates any serious consideration of PEDs as the cause.

You know how many times it was said that "steroids doesn't help performance" during the early stages of that era?

Either steroids weren't being taken or if they were, it's doubtful it would have made much of a difference. It's the same arguments all over again.

The early persons suggesting the role of steroids were given all these same arguments. They were told it was unfair to point fingers, that it was simply a change in swings, a change in the parks, the mound, the pitchers, etc. All these reasons were given. In the end, it turns out that it was absolutely correct to assume steroids had a huge impact. Now in revisionist history, if someone doesn't get huge all of the sudden, it can't be steroids or another PED. By that token, Luis Gonzalez and Brady Anderson couldn't have been on anything because they were still rail thin when they had their bustout seasons. Yet, no one seems to dispute they were probably on something.

So that Bautista hasn't put on but 10 pounds (according to official rosters) in that time period doesn't preclude him from having been on HGH or something else that's not being tested.

We don't know that HGH does or doesn't help performance because even the people who would know such a thing will tell you that no studies are done as to not be seen as endorsing it. Reputable scientists are hesitant to study it because they don't want to endorse athletes taking such substances, especially since that sort of use is not legal. However, the aspects of HGH that have been study do show that, in fact, bone density and joint health is improved, and subjects have shown to stay in better shape because of the ability to not just work harder/longer, but to recover faster. These indirect aspects of such usage would alone improve one's performance even absent direct impacts.

RedLegSuperStar
08-02-2011, 07:43 PM
Are we really discussing this again in a whole new thread?

You can kind of tell when the season is over when we have to talk steriods/HGH to get us to the Winter Meetings..

IslandRed
08-02-2011, 07:50 PM
A few more data points, for whatever it matters:

2010 -- Bautista's HR/FB rate was 21.7%. Quite high. Not tops in the majors, though; that was (drum roll) Joey Votto. Third? Adam Dunn.

Combine that HR/FB rate with a 54.5% FB rate -- third highest in the show; nearly everyone near the top of that list is a confirmed swing-from-the-heels guy -- and the result: Bomb City.

2011: FB% drops to 46.2% (same as Jay Bruce), which is still around 14th in MLB; HR/FB continues to soar at 24.0%, third best in MLB behind Berkman and Stanton.

Combined with the earlier info from Home Run Tracker, the "how is he doing it" is pretty obvious -- hit a lot of fly balls, hit them solidly, hit them down the line -- apart from the discussion of "how did he become able to do it."

fearofpopvol1
08-02-2011, 07:56 PM
Getting tied into such a commitment is not appealing to a team like the Reds. It's a huge risk, one that they've never undertaken before.

No worse than Votto could be. Votto has not been as good this year as he was last and there is no guarantees he will be here beyond his contract. And, Votto gets expensive fast.

signalhome
08-02-2011, 08:23 PM
A few more data points, for whatever it matters:

2010 -- Bautista's HR/FB rate was 21.7%. Quite high. Not tops in the majors, though; that was (drum roll) Joey Votto. Third? Adam Dunn.

Combine that HR/FB rate with a 54.5% FB rate -- third highest in the show; nearly everyone near the top of that list is a confirmed swing-from-the-heels guy -- and the result: Bomb City.

2011: FB% drops to 46.2% (same as Jay Bruce), which is still around 14th in MLB; HR/FB continues to soar at 24.0%, third best in MLB behind Berkman and Stanton.

Combined with the earlier info from Home Run Tracker, the "how is he doing it" is pretty obvious -- hit a lot of fly balls, hit them solidly, hit them down the line -- apart from the discussion of "how did he become able to do it."

Yep, really great stuff. Like I said earlier, I don't think he's found some way to add twenty or so feet to his fly balls (like with steroids or other PEDs), I think he's simply found a way to consistently make much better contact when he hits the ball (better plate discipline, retooled approach and swing).

jojo
08-02-2011, 09:49 PM
We don't know that HGH does or doesn't help performance

At least you finally admit that you cant proclaim HGH is an effective PED for 30 yo baseball players. I guess that's progress.


Reputable scientists are hesitant to study it because they don't want to endorse athletes taking such substances, especially since that sort of use is not legal. However, the aspects of HGH that have been study do show that, in fact, bone density and joint health is improved, and subjects have shown to stay in better shape because of the ability to not just work harder/longer, but to recover faster. These indirect aspects of such usage would alone improve one's performance even absent direct impacts.

Growth hormone is a very well studied hormone and there is a voluminous body of literature devoted to its biology. World renowned scientists have made it their life's work to study growth hormone and prestigious scientific meetings such as the Gordon Conference series devote specific gatherings for such scientists to discuss their data. It simply is not accurate to suggest that credible scientists refuse to study HGH. It simply isn't a true assertion.

A survey of ALL of the literature indicate that exogenous HGH induces changes in muscle structure and metabolic status that are neither conducive to improved performance nor to improved health status in normal adults. Some studies do indicate there may be positive benefits to taking HGH but generally these effects are very modest and not necessarily conducive to improved performance on the baseball field. Certainly, the literature does not support the kind of effects that some are stating HGH has caused in Bautista. While JB could possibly be using PEDS, science does not support the argument that JB is using HGH. The reality is that a survey of all of the literature suggests that in many respects, HGH might be one of the last things a major league ball player would want to inject into his body.

Any argument that hinges upon the premises that 1) significantly altering stance/swing mechanics could not result in significant changes in performance, and 2) HGH is the cause of the transformation that JB has underwent must be considered a weak argument because the first premise flies in the face of established player develop paradigms and the second premise ignores that the effect of HGH on performance is considered controversial in the scientific community and to the extent that positive effects of HGH have been observed, such effects have been small.

jojo
08-02-2011, 09:55 PM
All the aforementioned conditions you're speaking of mostly have to do with anabolic steroids and banned substances that, as you said, he'd be tested for. None of those things are being mentioned.

However, HGH would substitute for bone denisity, healthy joints, energy, and some preservation of muscle mass. It simply would pick up on things that the body would otherwise stop producing with age. So if someone suddenly had an excess in HGH, it would absolutely be expected to impact performance.

After all, do you feel as energetic and youthful as you did when you were 20? Probably not. The reason for that, of course, is because your body is producing less naturally occurring HGH. So it stands to reason that if he started taking HGH in 2009, by the next season it absolutely could have impacted his performance. And for that matter, HGH is just one of probably many PEDs that have yet to be banned by Major League Baseball or not tested for.

Just what difference are you arguing there actually was in JB's growth hormone levels at age 20 and age 28 (the year before his power spike began). You're arguing that a player's prime years are tantamount to corresponding with an elderly pituitary.

jojo
08-02-2011, 09:57 PM
Yep, really great stuff. Like I said earlier, I don't think he's found some way to add twenty or so feet to his fly balls (like with steroids or other PEDs), I think he's simply found a way to consistently make much better contact when he hits the ball (better plate discipline, retooled approach and swing).

Yep.

RBA
08-02-2011, 09:58 PM
No proof whatsoever.






He's not wearing a St Louis Cardinals uniform. :)

edabbs44
08-02-2011, 10:03 PM
If I had to wager, my money is on JB doing something nefarious. However, he gets more leeway from me due to the curretn testing structure in place than if he was doing this in 1998.

But for those who believe that this is "natural", I have one question. We have seen these types of transformations before, mostly in recent past. Most have happened under the PED cloud. Have we ever seen anything like this where PEDs were likely not in use?

Yaz, Winfield, etc have nothing on this guy. He is putting up steroid stats in a pitchers era after doing mostly nothing in his career.

He is currently at a 1.115 OPS. Here are the players who have put up OPSs in that range in the last 25 years:

Bonds
McGwire
Thomas
Bagwell
Sosa
Walker
Helton
Manny
Belle
Giambi
Delgado
Thome
L Gonzalez
Pujols

And those guys all had their seasons in the heyday of PEDs.

AtomicDumpling
08-03-2011, 12:32 AM
If I had to wager, my money is on JB doing something nefarious. However, he gets more leeway from me due to the curretn testing structure in place than if he was doing this in 1998.

But for those who believe that this is "natural", I have one question. We have seen these types of transformations before, mostly in recent past. Most have happened under the PED cloud. Have we ever seen anything like this where PEDs were likely not in use?

Yaz, Winfield, etc have nothing on this guy. He is putting up steroid stats in a pitchers era after doing mostly nothing in his career.

He is currently at a 1.115 OPS. Here are the players who have put up OPSs in that range in the last 25 years:

Bonds
McGwire
Thomas
Bagwell
Sosa
Walker
Helton
Manny
Belle
Giambi
Delgado
Thome
L Gonzalez
Pujols

And those guys all had their seasons in the heyday of PEDs.

Some of those guys were huge, muscle-bound freaks, unlike Bautista.
Some of those guys played in pre-humidor Coors Field, unlike Bautista.
Some of those guys were just fantastic hitters, like Bautista.

RedsManRick
08-03-2011, 12:37 AM
Playing around on the ESPN home run tracker: http://www.hittrackeronline.com/

Compared to most top home-run hitters this year, his average distance per homer is actually on the low side for someone who doesn't have a home field short porch to help out (e.g. Granderson). By way of comparison, his average dinger is about the same as Jay Bruce and shorter than Joey Votto's. What he's doing better than anyone is pulling the ball:

http://www.hittrackeronline.com/detail.php?id=2011_21&type=hitter

17 of the 31 home runs are dead-pull shots, in or on the 15-degree arc line. Most of the top HR hitters (aside from the aforementioned short-porch-aided guys) have more of a scatter to their graph.

I suppose this is the sort of thing that could be construed either way.

This is what I find most interesting. It's not like he's suddenly crushing the ball 500 feet oppo. He's just yanking the ball down the line with frightening regularity.

RedsManRick
08-03-2011, 12:40 AM
All the aforementioned conditions you're speaking of mostly have to do with anabolic steroids and banned substances that, as you said, he'd be tested for. None of those things are being mentioned.

However, HGH would substitute for bone denisity, healthy joints, energy, and some preservation of muscle mass. It simply would pick up on things that the body would otherwise stop producing with age. So if someone suddenly had an excess in HGH, it would absolutely be expected to impact performance.

After all, do you feel as energetic and youthful as you did when you were 20? Probably not. The reason for that, of course, is because your body is producing less naturally occurring HGH. So it stands to reason that if he started taking HGH in 2009, by the next season it absolutely could have impacted his performance. And for that matter, HGH is just one of probably many PEDs that have yet to be banned by Major League Baseball or not tested for.

By your logic, he should have been hitting 50 homers when he was younger? If HGH just restores you to a younger you, why did the younger Bautista not crush the ball?

RedsManRick
08-03-2011, 12:45 AM
An interesting though regarding his pulling the ball. If you hit the ball in the air a lot and you're pulling it, you're going to hit a ton more fly balls than the regular player. Perhaps his rise in average is in part due to having a much greater percentage of the balls he doesn't square up leave the field of play. If you're going up the middle and you're a little ahead of it, you just fly out to your pull field, a little behind and you fly out the other way. If you're going down the line and you pull it, foul ball.

Put another way, he could be getting more chances than most guys. I'd be curious to see if he's actually hitting more fouls than most guys. He is working very long PA (4.2 P/PA), but he's always done that.

Also, what's the correlation between HR distance and HR rate?

Roy Tucker
08-03-2011, 08:13 AM
You're arguing that a player's prime years are tantamount to corresponding with an elderly pituitary.

I now have a new name for my mythical rock band. Thanks!

;)

edabbs44
08-05-2011, 07:55 AM
Some of those guys were huge, muscle-bound freaks, unlike Bautista.
Some of those guys played in pre-humidor Coors Field, unlike Bautista.
Some of those guys were just fantastic hitters, like Bautista.

And some of those guys came out of nowhere to put up superhuman numbers, like Bautista.

I have a theory. We are currently in an era where basically anything is possible when it comes to technological and medicinal advances. We have also seen, over the past 20 or so years, a number of examples of athletes doing things we have never seen before. Most of the baseball players fitting this description have been outed. It is difficult to believe that the others are clean. It's possible, but probably unlikely.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 09:43 AM
And some of those guys came out of nowhere to put up superhuman numbers, like Bautista.

I have a theory. We are currently in an era where basically anything is possible when it comes to technological and medicinal advances. We have also seen, over the past 20 or so years, a number of examples of athletes doing things we have never seen before. Most of the baseball players fitting this description have been outed. It is difficult to believe that the others are clean. It's possible, but probably unlikely.

It is also possible, but unlikely that Bautista, if he were to be "dirty" would be the only one who knows about whatever it is that he would be using. No one else has really busted out at all over the past two seasons except one guy. You think the people out there making things that would boost performance wouldn't be trying to get it in the hands (making plenty of money) of other people?

puca
08-05-2011, 10:24 AM
Following on with doug's line of reasoning.

To those you absolutely think Bautista is using something that cannot be detected or is not being test for, do you think he is the only one using? That would be unlikely unless he cooks it up himself.

So who else is on your suspect list?

jojo
08-05-2011, 10:42 AM
Following on with doug's line of reasoning.

To those you absolutely think Bautista is using something that cannot be detected or is not being test for, do you think he is the only one using? That would be unlikely unless he cooks it up himself.

So who else is on your suspect list?

Every pitcher in the majors.... hitting seems way down. :)

Mario-Rijo
08-05-2011, 12:20 PM
I'll say this I do believe that the proper mechanics can make all the difference in the world. People have seen how extremely different Jay Bruce is when he is "right" and I also believe Heisey is a tweak or 2 away from being pretty doggone good himself. But if Jose is legit then his numbers are bound to decline and in short order because pitchers will come up with a way to attack the guy. Heck off speed in and hard stuff away ought to take a chunk out of his production at some point if he is heavily relying on pulling the ball (which it sounds like). Just keeping him off balance is the answer and getting him out of that launching pad add to a decline.

But no man has really proven to be anywhere near their peak good after 34-35 (sans PEDs) at most so this whole Votto for Bautista talk is crazy for that reason alone IMO.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 03:11 PM
I'll say this I do believe that the proper mechanics can make all the difference in the world. People have seen how extremely different Jay Bruce is when he is "right" and I also believe Heisey is a tweak or 2 away from being pretty doggone good himself. But if Jose is legit then his numbers are bound to decline and in short order because pitchers will come up with a way to attack the guy. Heck off speed in and hard stuff away ought to take a chunk out of his production at some point if he is heavily relying on pulling the ball (which it sounds like). Just keeping him off balance is the answer and getting him out of that launching pad add to a decline.

But no man has really proven to be anywhere near their peak good after 34-35 (sans PEDs) at most so this whole Votto for Bautista talk is crazy for that reason alone IMO.

But Bautista is so good right now that he is likely to out produce Votto for the rest of Votto's contract, and even in a decline, he is still likely to be very good at 34-35 because of where he is at right now.

Mario-Rijo
08-05-2011, 04:11 PM
But Bautista is so good right now that he is likely to out produce Votto for the rest of Votto's contract, and even in a decline, he is still likely to be very good at 34-35 because of where he is at right now.

If we are trying to win then why trade your best player for someone else's when you probably do not have to. People are so concerned one of the players we deal off will be great but they don't have a problem trading off one who already is because they assume he is on the way out, again assumption.

Make a blockbuster offer to Toronto (who has been in prospect collecting mode for a couple of years now) for a handful of top prospects not named Mesoraco and that doesn't touch the core of the team. If they pass, they pass the Reds can move on to whoever the next Carlos Quentin, Nelson Cruz or Jose Bautista is. Let them use some of their evaluation skills for a change.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 04:16 PM
If we are trying to win then why trade your best player for someone else's when you probably do not have to. People are so concerned one of the players we deal off will be great but they don't have a problem trading off one who already is because they assume he is on the way out, again assumption.

Because their best player is a lot better than ours? Even if Votto were signed as long as Bautista is, I would do the trade because Jose Bautista is simply better than Joey Votto and it isn't really all that close.

Again, Jose Bautista has a the same gap in OPS between he and Votto as Votto has between himself and Miguel Cairo. Joey Votto is playing like a perennial all star. Jose Bautista is playing like Babe Ruth.

Mario-Rijo
08-05-2011, 04:23 PM
Because their best player is a lot better than ours? Even if Votto were signed as long as Bautista is, I would do the trade because Jose Bautista is simply better than Joey Votto and it isn't really all that close.

Again, Jose Bautista has a the same gap in OPS between he and Votto as Votto has between himself and Miguel Cairo. Joey Votto is playing like a perennial all star. Jose Bautista is playing like Babe Ruth.

And Joey Votto is just entering his prime and can get better himself. Just look at what he did with just a little protection/help last year. I'm just not of the mind to deal away great young players for slightly better older players. Again all for going after the guy but that deal can be done for less than Votto, much less. Or it can't and we can move on to another more feasible option where we don't lose anything or much of anyway.

osuceltic
08-05-2011, 04:27 PM
Because their best player is a lot better than ours? Even if Votto were signed as long as Bautista is, I would do the trade because Jose Bautista is simply better than Joey Votto and it isn't really all that close.

Again, Jose Bautista has a the same gap in OPS between he and Votto as Votto has between himself and Miguel Cairo. Joey Votto is playing like a perennial all star. Jose Bautista is playing like Babe Ruth.

This year. Who had the higher OPS+ last year? The year before? Before that? Before that?

Talk about buying high.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 04:34 PM
And Joey Votto is just entering his prime and can get better himself. Just look at what he did with just a little protection/help last year. I'm just not of the mind to deal away great young players for slightly better older players. Again all for going after the guy but that deal can be done for less than Votto, much less. Or it can't and we can move on to another more feasible option where we don't lose anything or much of anyway.

Bautista isn't slightly better than Votto. He is incredibly better than Votto.



This year. Who had the higher OPS+ last year? The year before? Before that? Before that?
I am not concerned about anything prior to 2010 with Bautista. It is clear that he is a different player now than he was at any time before that. You know it and I know it, so I am not sure why it matters.

And as for last year, Votto was incredibly good. He was still barely better than Bautista in OPS+. This year? Well, it isn't even close. Bautista has a 179 OPS+ the last two seasons. Votto is at 165. Toss in a few extra seasons.... not able to understand why people are hesitant to make the trade aside from the "we know Votto" factor because he is "our" guy.

osuceltic
08-05-2011, 04:47 PM
Bautista isn't slightly better than Votto. He is incredibly better than Votto.


I am not concerned about anything prior to 2010 with Bautista. It is clear that he is a different player now than he was at any time before that. You know it and I know it, so I am not sure why it matters.

And as for last year, Votto was incredibly good. He was still barely better than Bautista in OPS+. This year? Well, it isn't even close. Bautista has a 179 OPS+ the last two seasons. Votto is at 165. Toss in a few extra seasons.... not able to understand why people are hesitant to make the trade aside from the "we know Votto" factor because he is "our" guy.

Age difference, limited track record, PED suspicions, reluctance to buy high. That's why. The rest of us can't understand why you can't understand that.

Mario-Rijo
08-05-2011, 05:02 PM
Bautista isn't slightly better than Votto. He is incredibly better than Votto.

Your opinion and I might say one that is just a shade too early to make. Votto has always been better than him. So he is outperforming him a great deal this year, last time I checked 3 months isn't a big enough sample size. My opinion is if this guy is relying heavily on pulling the ball his success will not continue at near this rate.


I am not concerned about anything prior to 2010 with Bautista. It is clear that he is a different player now than he was at any time before that. You know it and I know it, so I am not sure why it matters.

And as for last year, Votto was incredibly good. He was still barely better than Bautista in OPS+. This year? Well, it isn't even close. Bautista has a 179 OPS+ the last two seasons. Votto is at 165. Toss in a few extra seasons.... not able to understand why people are hesitant to make the trade aside from the "we know Votto" factor because he is "our" guy.

What OSUceltic said. But it's interesting you state that you are not concerned about anything prior to 2010, sure makes your case that you aren't.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 05:18 PM
Age difference, limited track record, PED suspicions, reluctance to buy high. That's why. The rest of us can't understand why you can't understand that.
There are no PED suspicions, at least not with any actual evidence at all. We have been through that in this thread. Aside from people just thinking "well that's unpossible" of course.

Limited track record means nothing. The guy has 1000 Plate Appearances in a row with a .400+ OBP and a .630+ SLG.

Reluctance to buy high.... why does it matter if you are getting the better player? You can't go back in time and buy low, so buying high means little here. Buy because the guy is a GREAT player. Who cares if his value is at its highest. You aren't going to be able to get a better player than him. Going against acquiring the best player in the game because you are buying high is silly. Of course you are buying high, the guy is the best player in the game right now. Would you also be opposed to acquiring Roy Halladay because you would be buying high?

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 05:20 PM
Your opinion and I might say one that is just a shade too early to make. Votto has always been better than him. So he is outperforming him a great deal this year, last time I checked 3 months isn't a big enough sample size. My opinion is if this guy is relying heavily on pulling the ball his success will not continue at near this rate.


He has 1125 plate appearances since the start of 2010. Pitchers don't take that long to find a weakness in a guy.

Brutus
08-05-2011, 05:25 PM
There are no PED suspicions, at least not with any actual evidence at all. We have been through that in this thread. Aside from people just thinking "well that's unpossible" of course.

Limited track record means nothing. The guy has 1000 Plate Appearances in a row with a .400+ OBP and a .630+ SLG.

Reluctance to buy high.... why does it matter if you are getting the better player? You can't go back in time and buy low, so buying high means little here. Buy because the guy is a GREAT player. Who cares if his value is at its highest. You aren't going to be able to get a better player than him. Going against acquiring the best player in the game because you are buying high is silly. Of course you are buying high, the guy is the best player in the game right now. Would you also be opposed to acquiring Roy Halladay because you would be buying high?

Jury trials are won sometimes on circumstantial cases alone. The mere company Bautista keeps with a historical and nearly unprecedented jump, having attributed it to something that has been done by thousands of his peers over the years without the same results, could win a good prosecutor the case of convicting Bautista on the anecdotal/circumstantial evidence that does exist against him.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 05:31 PM
Jury trials are won sometimes on circumstantial cases alone. The mere company Bautista keeps with a historical and nearly unprecedented jump, having attributed it to something that has been done by thousands of his peers over the years without the same results, could win a good prosecutor the case of convicting Bautista on the anecdotal/circumstantial evidence that does exist against him.

That would either be a jury full of the dumbest people ever who don't understand their job as a jury or a jury that is paid off.

Mario-Rijo
08-05-2011, 05:32 PM
He has 1125 plate appearances since the start of 2010. Pitchers don't take that long to find a weakness in a guy.

His 2011 is the outlier, his OPS isn't gonna continue to to hover over 1.100 so when he comes back to earth he isn't vastly superior to Votto.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 05:35 PM
His 2011 is the outlier, his OPS isn't gonna continue to to hover over 1.100 so when he comes back to earth he isn't vastly superior to Votto.

I don't expect him to continue to OPS 1.100, but what if its merely 1.000? That is still a significant upgrade to Votto and he also plays a more valuable position.

Mario-Rijo
08-05-2011, 05:50 PM
I don't expect him to continue to OPS 1.100, but what if its merely 1.000? That is still a significant upgrade to Votto and he also plays a more valuable position.

What if it's not merely just a 1.000? What if Votto gets a little protection and continues on to having years like '10? How is LF more valuable than 1B? If he can play 3rd great that is a pro for him but still doesn't make up for Votto's youth IMO.

Brutus
08-05-2011, 06:14 PM
That would either be a jury full of the dumbest people ever who don't understand their job as a jury or a jury that is paid off.

On the contrary, I think a jury with common sense can see how painfully obvious this case is...

jojo
08-05-2011, 06:18 PM
Fortunately competent judges don't let juries convict people of a crime based upon supposition.

Brutus
08-05-2011, 06:44 PM
Fortunately competent judges don't let juries convict people of a crime based upon supposition.

Judges don't have a choice but to 'let' a jury come up with the decision that best reflects the opinion of the unanimous jury.

That's what appeals are for.

jojo
08-05-2011, 07:03 PM
Judges don't have a choice but to 'let' a jury come up with the decision that best reflects the opinion of the unanimous jury.

That's what appeals are for.

Judges absolutely instruct the jury.

Brutus
08-05-2011, 07:14 PM
Judges absolutely instruct the jury.

Instruct is a whole lot different than being able to control the outcome.

The judge doesn't have the power to "let" the jury decide what they want to decide. They can only 'instruct' the rule of law and what evidence is admissible.

No matter how 'competent' a judge is, it is up to the jury decide whether something is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' And it's absolutely 100% true that many cases are won based on circumstantial evidence alone.

jojo
08-05-2011, 07:19 PM
Instruct is a whole lot different than being able to control the outcome.

The judge doesn't have the power to "let" the jury decide what they want to decide. They can only 'instruct' the rule of law and what evidence is admissible.

No matter how 'competent' a judge is, it is up to the jury decide whether something is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' And it's absolutely 100% true that many cases are won based on circumstantial evidence alone.

There is no way Bautista would be convicted in a court room because there is no evidence. A competent judge would grant the defense's motion to dismiss within 5 seconds after the prosecution rested.

osuceltic
08-05-2011, 08:14 PM
There are no PED suspicions

Google "Jose Bautista Steroids" and you get 125,000 hits. There may not be PROOF of PED use, but SUSPICIONS? Plenty.

Brutus
08-05-2011, 08:18 PM
There is no way Bautista would be convicted in a court room because there is no evidence. A competent judge would grant the defense's motion to dismiss within 5 seconds after the prosecution rested.

That's a statement based solely on supposition and absolutely no evidence to support such a statement.

marcshoe
08-05-2011, 08:36 PM
Google "Jose Bautista Steroids" and you get 125,000 hits. There may not be PROOF of PED use, but SUSPICIONS? Plenty.

"Obama space alien" gets 1,700,000 hits. :alien:

jojo
08-05-2011, 08:40 PM
That's a statement based solely on supposition and absolutely no evidence to support such a statement.

It's a statement based upon the utter lack of evidence that Bautista uses PEDs. There is no way a DA even goes to court with a case based upon pure supposition.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 09:00 PM
It's a statement based upon the utter lack of evidence that Bautista uses PEDs. There is no way a DA even goes to court with a case based upon pure supposition.

Exactly. No one is taking a court to case because someone else has "never done it before" when trying to convict someone of a crime. There is absolutely ZERO physical evidence here. None. There isn't a link to anyone who has used/supplied them before. There is no test that says he took them. Nothing. You are reaching incredibly far here Brutus.

Brutus
08-05-2011, 09:10 PM
Exactly. No one is taking a court to case because someone else has "never done it before" when trying to convict someone of a crime. There is absolutely ZERO physical evidence here. None. There isn't a link to anyone who has used/supplied them before. There is no test that says he took them. Nothing. You are reaching incredibly far here Brutus.

You're reaching to deny it, Doug.

Just because there isn't proof doesn't mean it couldn't have happened or didn't. I've already shown that no one outside of a 5-year period riddled with steroids has anyone ever come close to doing what Bautista has done. He stands literally in a class by himself unprecedented by history. And that it's such an extreme outlier matched only by the steroid-tainted era of baseball shows that the position he is on something is much more covered by reason than your position that he didn't, when no one else in the history of the game has matched such a jump in their prime.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 10:00 PM
You're reaching to deny it, Doug.

Just because there isn't proof doesn't mean it couldn't have happened or didn't. I've already shown that no one outside of a 5-year period riddled with steroids has anyone ever come close to doing what Bautista has done. He stands literally in a class by himself unprecedented by history. And that it's such an extreme outlier matched only by the steroid-tainted era of baseball shows that the position he is on something is much more covered by reason than your position that he didn't, when no one else in the history of the game has matched such a jump in their prime.

I am not reaching to deny that he would be convicted in a court of law based on numbers. He wouldn't. That case wouldn't even make it to trial.

Brutus
08-05-2011, 10:09 PM
I am not reaching to deny that he would be convicted in a court of law based on numbers. He wouldn't. That case wouldn't even make it to trial.

There are a lot of cases that have made it to trial with less.

It's a moot point though. Whether or not a jury would convict doesn't make it any less so in this case. History shows it's extremely unlikely Bautista's sudden resurgence is natural. Not impossible, certainly, and not improbable that his change in batting approach aided his production; just simply not likely completely natural.

Patrick Bateman
08-05-2011, 10:10 PM
I am not reaching to deny that he would be convicted in a court of law based on numbers. He wouldn't. That case wouldn't even make it to trial.

It's not even a case. You need more than a hypothesis to formulate a case.

I think Jojo murdered Falls City Beers.

Let's go to trial!

camisadelgolf
08-05-2011, 10:13 PM
If a player drastically increases his production in his late 20s, he's automatically accused of drug use. If a player drastically decreases his production in his late 20s, why isn't he accused of stopping drug use?

By the way, you act like seeing a huge increase in production at the age of 29 is an unusual thing. I could easily find dozens of players that saw a significant increase in production between their career numbers through 28 years old when compared to the next 2-4 years of their careers.

Granted, Bautista is in uncharted territory in that he has had the most significant improvement of all-time, but you have to factor that players naturally make significant improvements between the ages of ~28 and ~29 all the time. It's not rare at all to see an increase in OPS+ of 40 points or so. Just look at Mike Schmidt, Joe Morgan, and tons of other players. When you combine that natural progression with Bautista's adjustments at the plate (not to mention the context of not listening to previous hitting coaches), it's not all that difficult to understand an improvement as big as Bautista's.

IslandRed
08-05-2011, 10:33 PM
This whole debate reminds me that in some people's minds (not talking Bautista or RedsZone users specifically, just the general population), there will never be another legendary clean ballplayer. Anyone who's enough of an outlier to genuinely be called one of the all-time greats will be suspected of taking something, somewhere, somehow, solely on the circumstantial evidence of being an outlier. That's kind of sad.

Johnny Footstool
08-05-2011, 10:45 PM
This whole debate reminds me that in some people's minds (not talking Bautista or RedsZone users specifically, just the general population), there will never be another legendary clean ballplayer. Anyone who's enough of an outlier to genuinely be called one of the all-time greats will be suspected of taking something, somewhere, somehow, solely on the circumstantial evidence of being an outlier. That's kind of sad.

There will definitely be legendary clean players. They won't profile like PED users, though.

AtomicDumpling
08-05-2011, 11:10 PM
In my opinion this thread has thoroughly blown up the notion that Jose Bautista may be using PEDs to all reasonable observers.

The only "evidence" that people are using to claim that Bautista must be taking PEDs is the fact that he hits more home runs than he used to (even though he is not hitting the ball farther than before). Not only is there a lack of evidence that Bautista is using PEDs, there is a great deal of evidence that Bautista is not using PEDs.

PEDs work by improving a player's strength, speed and endurance. Bautista is not bigger, stronger, or faster than he was before. So then just how is this PED supposed to have helped him? Maybe he is using the dark side of The Force to influence the flight of his hits? He is not hitting the ball farther than he was before. Does the PED cause his fly balls to travel closer to the foul line than before? Because that is the only difference in his spray chart -- he is pulling everything down the line to the short fence instead of hitting to all fields like before.

PEDs have been shown to have noticeable side effects on a player's appearance and personality. But Bautista looks and behaves exactly as he did when he was an average major league hitter. Bautista shows none of the physical, emotional or psychological signs of PED usage. None. Bautista has never been linked to any shady characters like PED users have in the past. There are no whispers of Bautista being seen to use improper supplements from the people around him like we heard about with players that actually were taking PEDs.

When a guy starts hitting more home runs it is easy to leap to the conclusion that PEDs are the cause, but in this case when you investigate deeper the evidence clearly show that PEDs are extremely unlikely to be the cause for Bautista.

AtomicDumpling
08-05-2011, 11:12 PM
There will definitely be legendary clean players. They won't profile like PED users, though.

What profile is that?

The profile of PED users is bigger and stronger than they were before. Bautista definitely does not fit that profile.

marcshoe
08-05-2011, 11:19 PM
Honestly, after last year I assumed that he was a user. After reading articles and interviews and watching footage, I've changed my mind. Could he still be an HGH user? Sure, it wouldn't surprise me. That's not where the evidence is leading me right now, though, for the reasons that others have explained on this thread.

Brutus
08-05-2011, 11:41 PM
There will definitely be legendary clean players. They won't profile like PED users, though.

Precisely.

For several decades, a profile was created by historical trends that showed what was typically a normal bell curve of production. Some players exceeded that curve before or after certain thresholds and beyond that of a typical player. Then 1996-2001 happened and an era pervaded by rampant performance-enhancing drug use built a new player profile of improvement unlikely any other.

Not by coincidence, in 2006 drug testing was implemented and administered by Major League baseball, and we're now seeing the levels diminish to pre-steroid conditions. So when a player fits the profile not of decades of history but rather a tainted 5 to 10-year period, it's both perfectly natural and acceptable to thereby label him as likely a user of other unbanned or untested substances (of which there are many).

signalhome
08-06-2011, 12:27 AM
The only "evidence" that people are using to claim that Bautista must be taking PEDs is the fact that he hits more home runs than he used to (even though he is not hitting the ball farther than before). Not only is there a lack of evidence that Bautista is using PEDs, there is a great deal of evidence that Bautista is not using PEDs.

PEDs work by improving a player's strength, speed and endurance. Bautista is not bigger, stronger, or faster than he was before. So then just how is this PED supposed to have helped him? Maybe he is using the dark side of The Force to influence the flight of his hits? He is not hitting the ball farther than he was before. Does the PED cause his fly balls to travel closer to the foul line than before? Because that is the only difference in his spray chart -- he is pulling everything down the line to the short fence instead of hitting to all fields like before.

Ding ding ding.

Johnny Footstool
08-06-2011, 04:08 PM
What profile is that?

The profile of PED users is bigger and stronger than they were before. Bautista definitely does not fit that profile.

15 pages into this discussion, you know what kind of profile I'm referring to.

757690
08-06-2011, 04:20 PM
I see PEDs like car theft techniques. As soon as we find a way to stop the prevalent technique, car thieves find a new way to steal cars.

I think it's meaningless that Bautista doesn't fit our profile of a common PED user. It's unlikely that a current PED user is using anabolic steroids. They most definitely are using something that we don't know much about and isn't currently being tested.

I'm not saying Bautista is doing that, but the fact that he doesn't fit the profile of a PED user doesn't tell me much either way.

savafan
08-06-2011, 04:25 PM
Maybe he is using something to make him stronger. Maybe it's a natural supplement, or something not on MLB's banned list. Who cares? The fact is he's a great player, enough said.

AtomicDumpling
08-06-2011, 04:58 PM
I see PEDs like car theft techniques. As soon as we find a way to stop the prevalent technique, car thieves find a new way to steal cars.

I think it's meaningless that Bautista doesn't fit our profile of a common PED user. It's unlikely that a current PED user is using anabolic steroids. They most definitely are using something that we don't know much about and isn't currently being tested.

I'm not saying Bautista is doing that, but the fact that he doesn't fit the profile of a PED user doesn't tell me much either way.

You think there might be a new PED out there that makes you hit more home runs without making you bigger, stronger or faster?

mth123
08-06-2011, 06:12 PM
Tie him up and throw him in Lake Ontario. If he drowns, he's probably clean. If he survives, stone him.

Mario-Rijo
08-06-2011, 09:27 PM
I see PEDs like car theft techniques. As soon as we find a way to stop the prevalent technique, car thieves find a new way to steal cars.

I think it's meaningless that Bautista doesn't fit our profile of a common PED user. It's unlikely that a current PED user is using anabolic steroids. They most definitely are using something that we don't know much about and isn't currently being tested.

I'm not saying Bautista is doing that, but the fact that he doesn't fit the profile of a PED user doesn't tell me much either way.

Deer Antler anyone?


IGF-1, or insulin-like growth factor, can't be detected in the urine tests used by baseball, and the players' association has not come to an agreement with MLB on blood testing.

According to the report, scientists discovered IGF-1 in the velvet of immature deer antlers and players have been using it as an alternative to steroids.

ESPN Link (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6839125/mlb-warns-players-deer-antler-spray-report-says)

cincrazy
08-06-2011, 09:47 PM
Roger Maris went from 16 home runs in 1959 to 61 in 1961. It wouldn't be unprecedented, to say the least. Not the norm, but not unheard of. I don't know whether or not Bautista is clean. But there's not a shred of evidence to suggest he isn't, and until there is, I'll believe he's clean.

Homer Bailey
08-06-2011, 10:32 PM
16 pages later, we're still ignoring HOW he possibly is using steroids that apparently NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL has discovered, and how he's able to get away with it. Yet people still want to believe he's using steroids. It's truly amazing that people will argue this stuff.

AtomicDumpling
08-06-2011, 10:41 PM
16 pages later, we're still ignoring HOW he possibly is using steroids that apparently NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL has discovered, and how he's able to get away with it. Yet people still want to believe he's using steroids. It's truly amazing that people will argue this stuff.

... and he is the only one that is using a PED that has no physical or psychological signs. And somehow this magical PED is able to help you hit more home runs without making you bigger, stronger or more athletic. And this magical PED causes you to stop hitting the ball anywhere on the field except straight down the left field line.

Brutus
08-06-2011, 10:47 PM
16 pages later, we're still ignoring HOW he possibly is using steroids that apparently NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL has discovered, and how he's able to get away with it. Yet people still want to believe he's using steroids. It's truly amazing that people will argue this stuff.

It has to start somewhere. Do you think the PED era started with some vast expansion of knowledge right away? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. It started with a few players doing it then over the next several years, it started to grow.

In fact, it's reported now that a few players started back in 1988. It wasn't until 1995 or 1996 that it became rampant.

For starters, Bautista might be keeping it a secret what he's doing. Not all players advertise themselves to teammates. To the extent his teammates might know or have a hunch, it doesn't mean everyone knows for certain.

When Napster was taken down, the RIAA beat out piracy for a short time. Then Limewire and Bearshare happened. Soon, the P2P sharing grew out of control again.

It's a cycle. Not everything happens at once.

osuceltic
08-11-2011, 11:01 AM
Juicer and sign-stealer (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6837424/baseball-toronto-blue-jays-suspicion-again-stealing-signs-rogers-centre). Any wagers on bat-corking?

RedsManRick
08-11-2011, 01:48 PM
Roger Maris went from 16 home runs in 1959 to 61 in 1961. It wouldn't be unprecedented, to say the least. Not the norm, but not unheard of. I don't know whether or not Bautista is clean. But there's not a shred of evidence to suggest he isn't, and until there is, I'll believe he's clean.

Clearly Maris was using roids... or HGH.

757690
08-11-2011, 01:59 PM
Clearly Maris was using roids... or HGH.

Expansion was the main reason for Maris' HR increase. The league went from .88 HR a game to .95 a game the year they expanded. It was predicted in the offseason that Ruth's record was in jeopardy in 1961.

RedsManRick
08-11-2011, 02:04 PM
Expansion was the main reason for Maris' HR increase. The league went from .88 HR a game to .95 a game the year they expanded. It was predicted in the offseason that Ruth's record was in jeopardy in 1961.

So because the league saw an 8% rise in HR/G and because some people predicted something, Maris nearly quadrupled his HR output (280% increase). OK...

Strikes Out Looking
08-11-2011, 02:14 PM
PED User or not, I have a feeling he's the Reds LF next season.

757690
08-11-2011, 02:19 PM
So because the league saw an 8% rise in HR/G and because some people predicted something, Maris nearly quadrupled his HR output (280% increase). OK...

Maris hit 39 HR in 1960 and was the league MVP.

The schedule went from 154 games to 162. He also went from a terrible KC A's team to the Yankee lineup in 1960.

Mantle went from 40 HR to 54 in 1961. There are many more logical explanations for Maris' rise than Bautista's. I'm not saying Bautista is on anything, just that there is reason to be suspect.

Johnny Footstool
08-11-2011, 02:24 PM
16 pages later, we're still ignoring HOW he possibly is using steroids that apparently NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL has discovered, and how he's able to get away with it. Yet people still want to believe he's using steroids. It's truly amazing that people will argue this stuff.

That's because most of us on this side of the fence can remember back 10 years, when every ballplayer had a story about a new workout regime, a new coach, and a new approach that helped them start hitting like crazy.

We have good reasons for being skeptical.

RedsManRick
08-11-2011, 03:36 PM
That's because most of us on this side of the fence can remember back 10 years, when every ballplayer had a story about a new workout regime, a new coach, and a new approach that helped them start hitting like crazy.

We have good reasons for being skeptical.

Is anybody arguing the point that we have good reasons to be skeptical? I thought the point of argument was whether or not we have good reasons to assume guilt instead of presuming innocence.

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2011, 09:30 PM
I am not sure I trust MLB and their testing program. Why should I? The fans are being told what they want to hear. Some guys do fail and get suspended. Case in point in another sport and whether people believe it or not is up to them...

NFL QB. Loved to smoke pot. The team(s) let him know at least 90 days in advance when the league was going to give him a cup to supply a sample of his urine. He never got caught. He played more than 10 years in the league and smoked the entire time. How many busts are there in the NFL for recreational drugs or PEDS each year? Think only a handful of these guys that get caught each year are the only ones using? No proof (except the afore-mentioned that I know 1st hand about), but many have to know better by using common sense. But the league and the Union likes to tell the press/public about the testing program. Do they tell the whole story and/or the whole truth?

Does MLB tell the whole story about its testing? I do not know, but I wonder. This is the same outfit that knew things and kept them under the rug for many years ($$$$$). There are always fools who will get caught b/c they are foolish. I do not think it is fair to automatically label a player, but I only blame the powers in MLB for the skeptical people. And I trust the powers of MLB as far as I can throw the weight of their collective bank accounts.

nate
08-11-2011, 09:32 PM
I am not sure I trust MLB and their testing program. Why should I? The fans are being told what they want to hear. Some guys do fail and get suspended. Case in point in another sport and whether people believe it or not is up to them...

NFL QB. Loved to smoke pot. The team(s) let him know at least 90 days in advance when the league was going to give him a cup to supply a sample of his urine. He never got caught. He played more than 10 years in the league and smoked the entire time.

I'm pretty sure I went to high school with that guy.

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2011, 09:45 AM
Is anybody arguing the point that we have good reasons to be skeptical? I thought the point of argument was whether or not we have good reasons to assume guilt instead of presuming innocence.

Yes. Homer Bailey is. See the quote I was responding to.

Homer Bailey
08-12-2011, 12:21 PM
Yes. Homer Bailey is. See the quote I was responding to.

No, I'm not. Not at all. I'm trying to figure out how people can blindly accuse him of using steroids, when there is steroid testing in baseball. And comparing him to the stories of ten years ago when everyone had a "new workout regiment" and what now, is not a valid comparison considering there was no steroid testing in baseball back then.

So, again, I ask those that are accusing Joey Bats of roids.... how is he beating these tests? IMO, him somehow beating the steroids tests is a lot harder to believe than the belief that he is using steroids.