Chris Davis

[westofyou]

1969 Reggie Jackson 37 Hr's prior to AS game, 1 HR every 8.75 ab's, second half of the season 1 HR every 28 ab's

[westofyou]

1932 - Jimmy Foxx - 1st half 1 HR every 10 ab
1938 - Hank Greenberg - 2nd half 1 HR every 8.3 ABs

[Ironman92]

Right. It's 81 games of a season. Many players have had a great 81 games of a season and a not so great other 81 games. Davis could end up with 40 HR's for all we know.

Reggie Jackson 1969

[Ironman92]

1969 Reggie Jackson 37 Hr's prior to AS game, 1 HR every 8.75 ab's, second half of the season 1 HR every 28 ab's

You know I didn't copy you.....lol, but yet I did.

[Ironman92]

1. Davis is a public figure
2. I haven't seen any malice in this thread
3. I'd love to know what harm has been caused to him by anything posted here

He's hurting all the way to the bank.

[westofyou]

Hack Wilson 2nd half of 1930 - 1 HR every 9.2 ab

[Brutus]

You are wrong about this. RedsZone is a PUBLIC messaging board, and anyone can read what we post here. In fact, Google often indexes what we post. The same rules of libel and defamation apply here as in any other published medium.

Take a look at this case from 7 years ago: Jury awards $11.3 million over defamatory internet posts.

Now this is not to say that anything in this thread either is or isn't libelous or defamatory. However, I wanted to make clear that this is materially different than a bunch of people shooting the breeze at a party.

Technically speaking, defamation doesn't matter where it occurs, whether at a party or on a message board. But in the very narrow sense, I agree that message boards are not immune. However, the standards for libel, especially with public figures, are extremely rigid.

In order to be defamation of a public figure, "actual malice" in the form of "reckless disregard for the truth" must be shown.

In fact, the courts have upheld that statements of opinion can never be libel, nor can rhetoric or hyperbole. Only statements that can be categorically proven false, and were known to be false when made, constitute libel. With non-public figures, the standard is one of "fault" but it still must generally be established that intent and knowledge are keys to proving defamation.

For instance:

"I think Bob cheated on his wife" is not nor will it ever be considered Libel (or Slander when spoken), at least with specific regard to public figures.

But "Bob cheated on his wife with Deana" would be defamation if made knowing it is not true.

[osuceltic]

Technically speaking, defamation doesn't matter where it occurs, whether at a party or on a message board. But in the very narrow sense, I agree that message boards are not immune. However, the standards for libel, especially with public figures, are extremely rigid.

In order to be defamation of a public figure, "actual malice" in the form of "reckless disregard for the truth" must be shown.

In fact, the courts have upheld that statements of opinion can never be libel, nor can rhetoric or hyperbole. Only statements that can be categorically proven false, and were known to be false when made, constitute libel. With non-public figures, the standard is one of "fault" but it still must generally be established that intent and knowledge are keys to proving defamation.

For instance:

"I think Bob cheated on his wife" is not nor will it ever be considered Libel (or Slander when spoken), at least with specific regard to public figures.

But "Bob cheated on his wife with Deana" would be defamation if made knowing it is not true.

Bingo.

[edabbs44]

Hack Wilson 2nd half of 1930 - 1 HR every 9.2 ab

What point is 1930 Hack supposed to be reinforcing?

[westofyou]

What point is 1930 Hack supposed to be reinforcing?

The point that guys hit a lot of HR's in the game called baseball and that often this occurs in pockets of mega production that is not easily repeated because the game is not a cookie cutter experience where one size fits all.

[edabbs44]

The point that guys hit a lot of HR's in the game called baseball and that often this occurs in pockets of mega production that is not easily repeated because the game is not a cookie cutter experience where one size fits all.

2 things with Hack of '30 though:

1) he had a monster year and I was thinking that showing halves was following on another poster's comments that "many" guys have had one monster half before. Hack had 2 in 1930.

2) you are probably better placed to describe, but weren't there various reasons why 1930 was such a huge offensive year across the board? Is it fair to compare an individual monster year in an overall monster year to an individual monster year in a dead ball-ish era? In the era of PEDs?

[RedEye]

Just because it isn't libel doesn't make it sound argument or worthy of a place like the ORG. If we were all drinking beer, I would probably still make the same arguments that we can do better than this.

On second thought, maybe all you 'roid gossip lovers wouldn't want me with you at the bar anyway. I think maybe I am going to have to massively rethink my posting strategy given this potential for huge losses in beer consumption ... :-)

[westofyou]

2 things with Hack of '30 though:

1) he had a monster year and I was thinking that showing halves was following on another poster's comments that "many" guys have had one monster half before. Hack had 2 in 1930.

2) you are probably better placed to describe, but weren't there various reasons why 1930 was such a huge offensive year across the board? Is it fair to compare an individual monster year in an overall monster year to an individual monster year in a dead ball-ish era? In the era of PEDs?

#1 I was looking only for guys with less than 10 ab per HR, which didn't apply for the 1st half of his 1930 season

#2 Heck yes the ball was juiced, it's been noted in many a book and the next year it changed, FWIW the ball in the past 20 years has also experienced some changes. Ball changes have often resulted in power increases in prior generations

As for "fair" I find it laughable that folks can lob accusations without proof beyond an era and a ball over the fence and then accuse others of shenanigans

[Brutus]

Just because it isn't libel doesn't make it sound argument or worthy of a place like the ORG. If we were all drinking beer, I would probably still make the same arguments that we can do better than this.

On second thought, maybe all you 'roid gossip lovers wouldn't want me with you at the bar anyway. I think maybe I am going to have to massively rethink my posting strategy given this potential for huge losses in potential beer consumption ... :-)

If things were always treated as discussion-worthy only if they were provable, we'd not know most of what we know today. The earth would still be flat, for example.

[RedEye]

If things were always treated as discussion-worthy only if they were provable, we'd not know most of what we know today. The earth would still be flat, for example.

Nice try, but I don't think attacking the integrity of individual ball players over PEDs stands to benefit humankind quite so much. Just a guess.