Dick Allen

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:42 PM) False. It will make the ball go faster and farther WHEN they hit it. It doesn't make them a better all-around hitter. Anabolic steroids do not improve hand-eye coordination, vision, alertness, anything else. There are drugs out there than can do those things, but anabolic steroids (the things that made Bonds and Sosa's muscles balloon) do not IIRC Unless I am missing something here, if you hit the ball harder, you generally get more hits which makes you a better hitter.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) The steroids destroyed his body. His muscles probable grew to fast for his joints and ligaments to keep up. That happens all the time. And please refer back to Balta's post about roids affecting different players differently. Barry Bonds could have starred until he was probably 50. He was bigger than Sammy. If he never juiced, Sammy Sosa would not be considered a star player today. And if they have different effects, how can you say they can't make a bad player a great one?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:35 PM) There's a base line. You already have to have the skills. Anabolic steroids just make you stronger and recover better. These are professional baseball players. They all have that hand/eye coordination skillset. Are you also suggesting Sammy's statistical drop off the face of the earth had everything to do with suddenly aging , and that steroid testing and penalties beginning exactly at that time just had to be coincidence? Making a player vastly stronger will make them a better hitter anyway.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:29 PM) He had a comparable OPS+ to Justin Upton. He was an MVP candidate. That's star CALIBER. He was on the juice. When he was a White Sox and his first year with the Cubs, he was playing straight, and awful.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) Yesterday has no bearing on the fact that I just listed statistics, which are facts, and which are not opinions. And those facts showed that Sammy Sosa was a star-caliber player before using steroids, which is the discussion we're currently having, right? No, he wasn't a star calibur player. And where is your proof he wasn't juicing during those seasons you claim he was star calibur? You yourself said it just doesn't happen over one season, right?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) DA. Please read my post just a couple posts up. I quoted it here to make it easier on you. I already laid out all the proof I need re: Sosa. You're just literally covering your eyes and spurting nonsense to distract yourself from it. LOL.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) DA. Please read my post just a couple posts up. I quoted it here to make it easier on you. I already laid out all the proof I need re: Sosa. You're just literally covering your eyes and spurting nonsense to distract yourself from it. No proof. Yesterday your "proof" that eye tests give you nothing was an article rating the top players and the difference between where the guys on Baseball Tonight ranked them and where WAR ranked them. In the article you used as "proof" the author stated they didn't know which one was more correct. LOL.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) see above, bud. I've said from the beginning, that they don't make a BAD hitter a superstar. They CAN make a GOOD player a superstar. Reading comprehension for the win. Prove it. You're in denial that Piazza ever juiced. You make obnoxious claims and tell everyone else to prove you wrong. Why don't you just prove yourself right. Can you link a medical article that says steroids won't make a bad hitter a superstar? Facts say they added 400 points to Sammy Sosa's OPS. If they have that effect on a .600 OPS guy, they just made a bad hitter a superstar.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 02:03 PM) Steroids.... What is your point? I feel like you think you're being really smart right now, but cherry picking his age 28 season (a down year) as opposed to his age 27, 26, or 25 season is meaningless in evaluating a players trends over a career. I am not trying to be really smart, just showing the guy who thinks he is really smart making all theses claims like eye tests tell you nothing, steroids won't make you a great hitter, that again, he is wrong.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 12:44 PM) Agreed. And keep him in the 5 hole, with Lexi at 7, unless he fails. I'm confident in the kid moreso than previously - weight loss is encouraging for the defensive profile. It wasn't that long ago that some thought he had a chance to stick at CF. Until he can learn to take a better route to a ball, his defense is going to be bad. He can throw which helps, but he could cut his weight to 150 and become the fastest player in the league, if the routes don't improve, everyone will still cringe when a ball is hit his way. Realistically, IMO, I think if he became average defensively, I think the White Sox would take it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:50 PM) I'm not even sure what you think you're arguing for or against, to be honest. As a 28 year old Sammy put up a .779 OPS .251 with a .300 OBP which makes him an average hitter with power As a 32 year old Sammy put up a 1.174 OPS .328 with a .437 OBP, Great hitter. Explain.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:46 PM) And the three years before, his OPS was .888, .840, and .884 with 25, 36, and 40 homers respectively Way to cherry pick useless stats. He was already a star before he exploded in '98 Barry Bonds was a star before he started juicing, not Sammy. Bonds hit .370 as a 37 year old. As a 39 year old, put up a 1.400 OPS. Sorry, even when he won an MVP or 2 when he was skinny, he was nowhere near that, and if he played it straight, no way he is near .370 his age 37 season. There are guys who juiced who couldn't hit, but to say they can't take a pretty average hitter and make them great is just wrong. Sammy Sosa's batting average as a 32 year old was 28 points higher than his on base pct. as a 28 year old. I think being juiced up helps a lot of players' confidence which is a big factor in performing.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:35 PM) Sosa was never bad. He was young his first few years in the league. He started hitting well at the age when players usually break out. He was already very talented and the steroids put him over the top. He added .077 points on his batting average and .137 to his OPS between from his age 28 season to his age 32 season. Once again, facts don't line up with your claims.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 01:18 PM) I know. That's my point. Why didn't that happen with Piazza? Or rather, why didn't Anderson hit like Piazza if steroids really are so incredibly powerful? Sammy Sosa.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:56 AM) Fran was also pissed that people pointed out the kid hasnt taken a legal jump ball in his entire career. Those are a little crazy, but the eye pokes are unintentional. If he at 7'1" could actually poke people in the eyes on purpose when they are playing, and be so good at it, none of the three were called a foul at the time they happened, I doubt he would be playing in his 3rd year at Iowa and averaging about 7 a game. He tries to stick a hand right in their face. He should probably stop that. But the criticism he has received is ridiculous. He is Adam Woodbury. He's a 7'1" guy who shoots layups instead of dunks.

The big problem with Q other than his contract is he really can't play the OF anymore. The guy looks like a 70 year old Dick Butkus going down the line.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 09:29 AM) I remember very early on there was a person who predicted that Dayan Viciedo would end up hitting more homers than Frank. I remember when some were predicting 50 homer seasons for Josh Fields. He was 16 short of that. For his career.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 06:47 PM) Ortiz was terrible until he was 28 or 29 He put up OPS of over .800 two of his last three years with the Twins and .799 the other. Pllus he was 27 his first year with the Red Sox and he was really good. For a guy who claims to do so much research, you are very wrong. Again.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 06:35 PM) The transformation for Bautista, from what I understand, is solely due to a change in approach and swing mechanics. Basically, he was taught to be a complete/opposite-field type hitter his whole career, but when he failed and got to Toronto, they just told him to let it rip every time, figuring he didn't have much to lose at that point. Turned out he was a natural slugger trying to be something he never was. I think David Ortiz has a similar story. Neither of them have anything to do with advanced/traditional stats at all. I don't think there exists any type of model that can predict shifts in performance based on radical changes to approach/arsenal. Ortiz was a good hitter with the Twins. Bautista was pretty awful until his late 20s. If talent is there, approach changes can work. Maybe his release gets Viciedo thinking he needs to change. Odds are probably against it, but there are always surprises.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 06:32 PM) When did I ever say watching games gives you nothing? Stats don't include things like a players mental makeup. Stats projected Beckham to be great. Turns out he was a head case and wasn't able to adjust. They don't tell you about new stances or swings or superstitions. There are limitations to stats, but they're MUCH more effective than the eye test on the whole. And I didn't use the phrase incorrectly. You're missing the forest for the trees. When you posted the eye test has proven to mean nothing.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:37 PM) I'd like to think Woodbury didn't poke Trimble in the eye on purpose but replay makes it look on purpose. I think he tries to put a hand in the guys face. He recoiled when there was contact. That indicated to me it was an accident, but he is going to have to stop that move.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 03:48 PM) Iowa out to a 25 point lead over the Terps. It seems MD has been overrated for most of the season. For Iowa, other than playing at Indiana, they should be the favorite in 7 of their last 8 games....which probably means they'll go 4-4, haha. Actually, compared to last season when the "great collapse" began at roughly this time, this Iowa team has actually been getting better and better. Next year will suck, as you can't replace White/Olaseni/Woodbury in one year, but hopefully they can get back in the Top 25 again and pick up their recruiting/athleticism. Dominique Uhl figures to become a much more important player next year, and Uthoff might have to play more 4 (if he doesn't go pro, he's got the game for it) than he'd like, but it will be interesting to see how McCaffrey "rebuilds" on the fly. Feb 12 vs MINN 7:00 PM ET Feb 15 @ NW 3:00 PM ET Feb 19 vs RUTG 8:00 PM ET Feb 22 @ NEB 3:00 PM ET Feb 25 vs ILL 9:00 PM ET Feb 28 @ PSU 6:00 PM ET Mar 3 @ IND 7:00 PM ET Mar 7 vs NW TBD Woodbury will be poking eyes out another season. He is a junior.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 06:14 PM) Forest for the trees again. Of course there is human error. There will always be human error. Advanced stats specifically attempt to bring the amount of human error to as low a level as possible. Forest for the trees. If you are going to use a phrase, at least use it correctly if you are going to use it twice. It is forest from the trees. Still, saying actually watching games give you nothing is beyond laughable. All these guys are where they are because someone had watched them, usually for quite a while. There is more to playing any team sport than what shows up on a stat sheet. If you just blew off watching and not noticing something might be there that isn't showing yet, guys like Joey Bats would be pumping gas right now.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:51 PM) obviously there is human interaction at some point in most stat generation. the "eye test" generally doesn't refer to statistics at all. and you know that. But if humans are determining ipwhere the ball was hit, and if it was hit sharply, then the eye test is still a big part of the determination. Even fangraphs has mentioned possible human error in UZR.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:47 PM) IBM? Nice. I think UZR is human generated.