If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   On the 73rd anniversary of Lou Gehrig's last professional game, Alex Rodriguez ties Gehrig's MLB record with his 23rd career grand slam   (sports.yahoo.com) divider line 92
    More: Spiffy, Lou Gehrig, Major League Baseball, Yankees, N Swisher, Tom Hallion, Mets, Derek Jeter, RBI  
•       •       •

495 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-13 03:16:42 PM  

The_Great_Hambino: LessO2: I agree BBWA can be a little petulant, however there is plenty of evidence out there that steroids give an unfair advantage. And that's a shame, because the big-name people accused and/or associated with steroids (Clemens, Bonds, McGwire and Rodriguez), in my opinion, would make it first-ballot if there were no accusations abound.


The vast majority of the BBWA can eat a huge bag of dicks. The comparison between the treatment of Arod and Bonds in this thread is a perfect example of their jackassery (I'm trademarking that). The media hated Bonds, so he will likely never been in the HoF because of PEDs, even though Bonds was a lock for the HoF prior to the mid-1990's PED use.

Arod, meanwhile, will get a pass, largely because he plays for the Yankees (the childhood team of most BBWA members). I will, frankly, be shocked if Arod is not a first-ballot HoFer, regardless of the admitted PED use.


I think they make examples of Bonds and Clemens, and let the other big names in. Maybe just Bonds. And I think they'll make just about everybody known to have doped wait until the second ballot, but I don't think they'll be able to shut out an entire era.


chimp_ninja: idesofmarch: madden101: I had no idea he was so close to the record. Twenty-three always seemed like a nearly-impossible number to reach. Not DiMaggio-hitting-streak or Ripken-iron-man impossible, but we're talking over one a season for the duration of a career.

It helps to be on a team where you get so many opportunities too.

That's part of the difference here. Hank Aaron hit 755 HRs and only 16 Grand Slams, in part because he played his prime years in historically-good pitching eras. He only had 265 PAs with the bases loaded, despite his ridiculously long career. Barry Bonds only had 241. (In one of those, he was intentionally walked, so really only 240 chances.)

ARod's already had 281 chances with the bases loaded, and he plays in an environment where home runs are much more common. His career rate is 1 HR per 17.0 PA, so he's ahead of that on Grand Slams (1 GS per 12.2 opportunities), but you have to remember that when you get a chance for a Grand Slam, it's often against the pitcher who loaded the bases in the first place.


There's also a much greater emphasis on getting on base then there used to be back in Hank Aaron's day, especially when you're talking about the Yankees, who put a special emphasis on it. More baserunners means more chances at grand slams.
 
2012-06-13 03:31:46 PM  

cptjeff: I think they make examples of Bonds and Clemens, and let the other big names in. Maybe just Bonds. And I think they'll make just about everybody known to have doped wait until the second ballot, but I don't think they'll be able to shut out an entire era.


By the numbers, Bonds and Clemens are no-doubt inner-circle guys. If you had to name the 10 greatest baseball players of all time, and ignored the PED issue, they're probably both on that list.

That said, I can't see them putting Clemens in but keeping Bonds out-- the cases are too similar. Either they just give the whole era a pass (including McGwire, etc.), or they're going to have to figure out where to draw a line. If they draw a line, it's going to get very, very ugly determining who is on which side of it. I don't know how you do that without starting a witch hunt.
 
2012-06-13 03:43:59 PM  
Fark Freddie Gonzales. Fark him in his stupid ass. The Braves need a better manager.
 
2012-06-13 03:48:02 PM  

chimp_ninja: cptjeff: I think they make examples of Bonds and Clemens, and let the other big names in. Maybe just Bonds. And I think they'll make just about everybody known to have doped wait until the second ballot, but I don't think they'll be able to shut out an entire era.

By the numbers, Bonds and Clemens are no-doubt inner-circle guys. If you had to name the 10 greatest baseball players of all time, and ignored the PED issue, they're probably both on that list.

That said, I can't see them putting Clemens in but keeping Bonds out-- the cases are too similar. Either they just give the whole era a pass (including McGwire, etc.), or they're going to have to figure out where to draw a line. If they draw a line, it's going to get very, very ugly determining who is on which side of it. I don't know how you do that without starting a witch hunt.



The argument is much stronger against Clemens than Bonds. In fact, it's hard to even compare the two.

Clemens had almost pitched himself out of baseball when he was in Boston. He then goes to Toronto and has two of the best seasons of his career (in his 14th and 15th seasons in the majors). He then continues his top-tier performance in New York for several more seasons.

While Bonds did not hit a ton of home runs before the mid-1990s, he was already one of the best hitters in the game, ever, before he started piling up home runs.

Said another way, if Bonds' career ended before he started taking PEDs and hitting a lot of home runs, he would still be in the HoF. Clemens, on the other hand, would probably not be thought of as a HoF pitcher if his career ended in the mid-1990's after he left Boston. He would probably be thought of like Kerry Wood: very good and dominant pitcher, but not HoF material.
 
2012-06-13 04:19:18 PM  
Baseball should have "pre juice" and "post juice" records.

Loved the original Iron Horse.
 
2012-06-13 04:31:34 PM  

HZS9PK: Baseball should have "pre juice" and "post juice" records.

Loved the original Iron Horse.


Nonsense. You start drawing a line there, then you'll have to start drawing a bunch of other lines: pre-uppers, pre-integration, pre-162, pre-DH, pre-humidor, etc.

Records are records. Have a plaque in the Hall for each era, explaining the differences and intricacies of each.
The Hall is a museum, and museums are about history. You can't just ignore the parts you don't like.
 
2012-06-13 04:38:46 PM  
We don't need another thread for this, but class move by the 15-year-old Yankees fan who caught the grand slam & swapped the ball back to A-Rod.
 
2012-06-13 05:09:23 PM  

HZS9PK: Baseball should have "pre juice" and "post juice" records.

Loved the original Iron Horse.


There is no such thing. There have been drug cheats in baseball since the 1880s.
 
2012-06-13 05:28:25 PM  

ElwoodCuse: I sound fat: Well, I think that just show HOW amazingly arrogant and unlikeable Bonds is. if AROD doesn't bring the same level of hate as someone, that shows something.

Alex Rodriguez plays the media's game. Barry Bonds didn't. Plain and simple.

LessO2: Also, the fact that A-Rod admitted to using steroids, Bonds never has. This is a forgiving society, Rodriguez admitting the deed took a boatload of pressure off the situation (probably just as his image consultants advised).

Mark McGwire admitted it like everyone wanted him to, and look who's still way off getting in the hall of fame.

Baseball writers are petulant children when it comes to steroids and they have no clue what their actual effects are. But it's the easiest way for them to (a) demonize players they don't like and (b) keep living in their fantasy world where baseball attained perfection in the 1960s.


Its not just writers. Itll be nice once the baby boomers start to fade more and they dont totally dictate what is great in every sport. I understand guys like aaron and gherig were awssome, but its gotten to the ridiculous point of if you best one of these hallowed names records, you cheated and deserve no credit. Different sport, but the same thing is happening with Lance Armstrong imo. They have no real evidence he cheated outside of some of his most bitter rivals word of mouth. The dude may be a jackass, but the best in athletics usually are ultra competitive and that tends to strike most as jackassery.
 
2012-06-13 05:38:16 PM  

chimp_ninja: cptjeff: I think they make examples of Bonds and Clemens, and let the other big names in. Maybe just Bonds. And I think they'll make just about everybody known to have doped wait until the second ballot, but I don't think they'll be able to shut out an entire era.

By the numbers, Bonds and Clemens are no-doubt inner-circle guys. If you had to name the 10 greatest baseball players of all time, and ignored the PED issue, they're probably both on that list.

That said, I can't see them putting Clemens in but keeping Bonds out-- the cases are too similar. Either they just give the whole era a pass (including McGwire, etc.), or they're going to have to figure out where to draw a line. If they draw a line, it's going to get very, very ugly determining who is on which side of it. I don't know how you do that without starting a witch hunt.


It's not about the numbers, or how strong the case is that they used steroids. We know that both did, and both were asses about it. I just think that to avoid drawing that line, they're going to have one or two of the most notorious take the hit for everybody, and then continue life more or less as normal.
 
2012-06-13 06:32:43 PM  

Harv72b: We don't need another thread for this, but class move by the 15-year-old Yankees fan who caught the grand slam & swapped the ball back to A-Rod.


Class move by a Yankees fan? Well, duh.
Class move by a teenager? That's pretty amazing.
 
2012-06-13 07:17:45 PM  
holy crap.. another hit with RISP from A-Rod.. I could get used to that
 
2012-06-13 10:03:42 PM  

Harv72b: We don't need another thread for this, but class move by the 15-year-old Yankees fan who caught the grand slam & swapped the ball back to A-Rod.


He could have financed his way through college enough for a Masters Degree, even a PhD for the right price.

Oh wait you said he was a Yankee fan, never-mind.
 
2012-06-13 11:20:46 PM  

wotthefark: Harv72b: We don't need another thread for this, but class move by the 15-year-old Yankees fan who caught the grand slam & swapped the ball back to A-Rod.

He could have financed his way through college enough for a Masters Degree, even a PhD for the right price.

Oh wait you said he was a Yankee fan, never-mind.


If he's a season ticket holder he probably doesn't need the money.
 
2012-06-13 11:33:45 PM  
A-Rod is a cheater and should be banned.
 
2012-06-14 12:04:42 AM  

Scottybobotty: A-Rod is a cheater and should be banned.


k, so when 3/4ths of the league is purged and you're watching AA quality ball, it'll be good for the purity of the sport?
 
2012-06-14 12:06:14 AM  
Lou Gehrig got his while suffering, for at least part of his career, with Lou Gehrig disease.
(Or whatever current science has determined that he had.)

ARod got his with shots of steroids in his ass.

And Lou Gehrig retired, not by choice, at a younger age (35) than ARod currently is (36).

And died at an earlier age (37) than ARod will probably play until.

During shorter seasons.

Yeah... that's about equal!

Congrats, ARod!

/Somehow one asterisk doesn't seem quite enough.
 
2012-06-14 12:42:21 AM  
Ummm... Matt Cain has a perfect game through 8. Thread jack?
 
2012-06-14 11:01:38 AM  

zamboni: Lou Gehrig got his while suffering, for at least part of his career, with Lou Gehrig disease.
(Or whatever current science has determined that he had.)

ARod got his with shots of steroids in his ass.

And Lou Gehrig retired, not by choice, at a younger age (35) than ARod currently is (36).

And died at an earlier age (37) than ARod will probably play until.

During shorter seasons.

Yeah... that's about equal!

Congrats, ARod!

/Somehow one asterisk doesn't seem quite enough.


Pretty typical baseball fan response. This is why I don't watch baseball anymore. The fans are so caught up in the past. The old records are completely holy. There seems to be some belief that those guys were all pillars of goodness and modern players are all lying cheating scumbags. What is the point of even watching them if you hate them so much? The MLB needs to just start a new record book. Maybe starting around 1985. That might let modern baseball become relevant again and help people get over Gehrig, Ruth, Aaron, Mantle, Williams, etc.

Football and Basketball fans revel in great new players and love to watch guys chase records. Baseball fans just get pissed off and bitter that their heroes are not untouchable.
 
2012-06-14 11:46:26 AM  

fonebone77: Pretty typical baseball fan response. This is why I don't watch baseball anymore. The fans are so caught up in the past. The old records are completely holy. There seems to be some belief that those guys were all pillars of goodness and modern players are all lying cheating scumbags. What is the point of even watching them if you hate them so much? The MLB needs to just start a new record book. Maybe starting around 1985. That might let modern baseball become relevant again and help people get over Gehrig, Ruth, Aaron, Mantle, Williams, etc.


Regardless of sport or even career field, it's considerably less impressive when person Y takes 3 years longer than person X to accomplish a given feat. In this case it's still impressive as hell, but that only serves to make Gehrig's original record even more unbelievable.

fonebone77: Football and Basketball fans revel in great new players and love to watch guys chase records. Baseball fans just get pissed off and bitter that their heroes are not untouchable


So I guess you skipped every single football season since 1978. I don't follow the NBA, but I doubt fans are any less passionate about Jordan, Chamberlain, Bird or Erving, etc., in relation to current players.
 
2012-06-14 11:56:25 AM  
They

Harv72b: fonebone77: Pretty typical baseball fan response. This is why I don't watch baseball anymore. The fans are so caught up in the past. The old records are completely holy. There seems to be some belief that those guys were all pillars of goodness and modern players are all lying cheating scumbags. What is the point of even watching them if you hate them so much? The MLB needs to just start a new record book. Maybe starting around 1985. That might let modern baseball become relevant again and help people get over Gehrig, Ruth, Aaron, Mantle, Williams, etc.

Regardless of sport or even career field, it's considerably less impressive when person Y takes 3 years longer than person X to accomplish a given feat. In this case it's still impressive as hell, but that only serves to make Gehrig's original record even more unbelievable.

fonebone77: Football and Basketball fans revel in great new players and love to watch guys chase records. Baseball fans just get pissed off and bitter that their heroes are not untouchable

So I guess you skipped every single football season since 1978. I don't follow the NBA, but I doubt fans are any less passionate about Jordan, Chamberlain, Bird or Erving, etc., in relation to current players.


On the original point I guess I thought you were more playing the cheating angle, so I apologize.

In the NFL and the NBA the old guys are respected, the old records revered to an extent, but people don't get all excuse happy and demonizing when someone comes along and beats a record. In baseball the fans want an asterisk beside pretty much every new record. You don't get that in the NBA or the NFL. What is the point of even keeping the new records with the old records if the feeling is that all the old records are legit while the new ones are phoney? Heck, there are people out there that think Cal Ripken Jr.'s consecutive streak record should be asterisked because they think he must have been on steroids, or that he played some games injured to the detriment of the team so its unfair, or that the the grounds back in the day of Gehrig were less well kept so Ripken had an advantage (this last is an exaggeration).
 
2012-06-14 12:10:30 PM  

Harv72b: Regardless of sport or even career field, it's considerably less impressive when person Y takes 3 years longer than person X to accomplish a given feat.


Not consecutive games played! =P

/but yes, baseball fans (writers probably even moreso) are slavish devotees to the past compared to other sports fans. FFS, half the "fans" still decry the designated hitter.
 
2012-06-14 12:13:36 PM  

fonebone77: On the original point I guess I thought you were more playing the cheating angle, so I apologize.


The original post wasn't mine, but there were plenty of others in the thread revolving around PED use, etc. My take on that issue (not that it matters) is that yes, batters in the older eras weren't using steroids or HGH, but neither were pitchers...so it kind of balances out. The other big rallying call about the pitching pool being diluted due to more clubs playing in the league is also largely moot, as the number of available pitchers has been so largely expanded by greater international participation as well as, in the case of games played in Gehrig's era, the inclusion of black pitchers.

Zamboni's post was one of the few * comments in this thread that also alluded to the fact that Rodriguez has played in 3 additional seasons and had over 300 additional games to get to 23 slams vs. Gehrig.

/Ripken's consecutive games streak is one of the few modern records which should be 100% asterisk-free. If anything, given the longer season and the increased travel distances between games, it's quite a bit more impressive than Gehrig's mark.
//Orioles fan, so take that with a grain of salt if you must.
 
2012-06-14 12:26:26 PM  

IAmRight: yes, baseball fans (writers probably even moreso) are slavish devotees to the past compared to other sports fans. FFS, half the "fans" still decry the designated hitter.


I don't really see it, to be honest. You also have to take into account that major league baseball has a much longer history than the NFL or NBA (or any other American pro sports league), and that the game truly has changed remarkably since its inception. That said, look into any NFL thread on here or any other site regarding the "best" at whatever, and you'll see the same arguments regarding past vs. present on most anything. More than a few people put O.J. SImpson's 2,000 yard rushing season in a different category than any other (rightly so, imo) because he accomplished the feat in 14 games vs. 16. I'm also old enough to remember the indignation which many people expressed when Jim Brown's career rushing mark was broken, and then again when Emmitt Smith broke Payton's mark and then kept playing and padding his mark well after many thought he should have retired.
 
2012-06-14 12:49:47 PM  

Harv72b: and then again when Emmitt Smith broke Payton's mark and then kept playing and padding his mark well after many thought he should have retired.


No one really cares anymore. There are people still upset about Bonds' HR total, and there are people that still think 61 (hell, even 60) should still be the record for HRs in a season. The football fans who even give a crap are maybe 1% of fans. The baseball fans who think things like this seem to be at least 50%.

More of the arguments seem to be over who was better, and that aggregate records don't mean greatness (unlike most of baseball, football players depend a LOT on their team for most stats). No one argues that anyone's record should have an asterisk except people that want to tweak Pats fans.

/couldn't tell you what the record numbers are for football, because really, who cares?
 
2012-06-14 01:50:42 PM  

The_Great_Hambino: Clemens had almost pitched himself out of baseball when he was in Boston. He then goes to Toronto and has two of the best seasons of his career (in his 14th and 15th seasons in the majors). He then continues his top-tier performance in New York for several more seasons.


This is crazy talk. In Clemens' last year in Boston, he pitched 242 innings, led the AL in strikeouts with 257, was 7th in the AL in ERA (3.63 in a heavy offensive environment, pitching in Fenway), and was the 5th-most valuable player (2nd among pitchers) in the AL by WAR.

Toronto then signed him for $17M for two years, making him the second-highest paid player (in annual $) behind Ken Griffey.

"Almost out of baseball"? Really?

While Bonds did not hit a ton of home runs before the mid-1990s, he was already one of the best hitters in the game, ever, before he started piling up home runs.

And then, from age 35-39, he went from "perennial All-Star" to having seasons that look like typos. If you line up the best seasons by any offensive player by OPS+, #1, #2, #3, and #10 come in a 4-year age span of Bonds where most guys are being shuffled towards retirement.

Said another way, if Bonds' career ended before he started taking PEDs and hitting a lot of home runs, he would still be in the HoF.

True.

Clemens, on the other hand, would probably not be thought of as a HoF pitcher if his career ended in the mid-1990's after he left Boston. He would probably be thought of like Kerry Wood: very good and dominant pitcher, but not HoF material.

You're assuming he quits completely at 33. Why would he do that while he was one of the 5 best players in the AL (and 2nd-highest-paid) at the time?

Clemens would have probably been a very good pitcher for a few more years. He had 2,590 strikeouts by age 33, and probably would have racked up 3,000 well before "naturally" retiring. He had 3 Cy Youngs already, and there are still only 8 guys in history who can say that. Fair or not, he would get him in. His career in 1996 looked like Koufax at that point, except the very best years for Clemens were earlier, whereas Koufax was merely decent for the first half of his career.

Abruptly-retiring-in-1996 Clemens still gets in, but isn't in the "best of all time" handful.
 
2012-06-14 02:37:40 PM  

The Bestest: Scottybobotty: A-Rod is a cheater and should be banned.

k, so when 3/4ths of the league is purged and you're watching AA quality ball, it'll be good for the purity of the sport?


Absolutely.
 
2012-06-14 03:18:31 PM  

IAmRight: No one really cares anymore. There are people still upset about Bonds' HR total, and there are people that still think 61 (hell, even 60) should still be the record for HRs in a season. The football fans who even give a crap are maybe 1% of fans. The baseball fans who think things like this seem to be at least 50%.


I'll give you that, but with the fairly significant caveat that there are no running backs playing right now who pose even the slightest threat to Smith's record...or Payton's numbers, for that matter. And with the way the running back position has evolved since their heydays, there probably never will be. There are several current major leaguers who have realistic shots at breaking Bonds' records, both for single-season home runs and career homers.

Plus there's the history aspect of it; Payton broke the career rushing mark about 30 years after it was last set, and that lasted only a decade before Smith set the current record. In baseball, Aaron broke Ruth's record which had stood for nearly 40 years, while it was another three decades before Bonds broke it. And of course Bonds (along with McGwire) is pretty much the poster boy for obvious PED use.
 
2012-06-14 03:30:57 PM  

Harv72b: Regardless of sport or even career field, it's considerably less impressive when person Y takes 3 years longer than person X to accomplish a given feat. In this case it's still impressive as hell, but that only serves to make Gehrig's original record even more unbelievable.


The number of career GSs (as opposed to just HRs) is largely due to luck-- it's not a skill.

A-Rod has hit about 150 more home runs than Gehrig.
 
2012-06-14 04:30:23 PM  

Wise_Guy: The number of career GSs (as opposed to just HRs) is largely due to luck-- it's not a skill.


The only contributing factor which is out of the control of the batter is how often he gets the chance to bat with the bases loaded. If you define this as "largely due to luck" and "not a skill", then our definitions of those terms differ.
 
2012-06-14 04:51:57 PM  

Harv72b: Wise_Guy: The number of career GSs (as opposed to just HRs) is largely due to luck-- it's not a skill.

The only contributing factor which is out of the control of the batter is how often he gets the chance to bat with the bases loaded. If you define this as "largely due to luck" and "not a skill", then our definitions of those terms differ.


How often he gets to bat with the bases loaded is indeed luck and not skill. How is his teammates' ability to get on base a skill of the hitter?

I don't know how many times Gehrig batted with the bases loaded-- I can't find it on BR. A-Rod has been in that situation 232 times.

If you went with GSs per opportunity, it would be a much better indicator than years played.
 
2012-06-14 05:23:54 PM  

Wise_Guy: Harv72b: Wise_Guy: The number of career GSs (as opposed to just HRs) is largely due to luck-- it's not a skill.

The only contributing factor which is out of the control of the batter is how often he gets the chance to bat with the bases loaded. If you define this as "largely due to luck" and "not a skill", then our definitions of those terms differ.

How often he gets to bat with the bases loaded is indeed luck and not skill. How is his teammates' ability to get on base a skill of the hitter?

I don't know how many times Gehrig batted with the bases loaded-- I can't find it on BR. A-Rod has been in that situation 232 times.

If you went with GSs per opportunity, it would be a much better indicator than years played.


Thats pretty impressive. Right at 1 in 10. Yowza.
 
2012-06-14 05:38:00 PM  

fonebone77: Thats pretty impressive. Right at 1 in 10. Yowza.


Above, I noted that if you're batting with the bases loaded, someone is having a bad day. You'd expect more homers in that situation because the PAs would disproportionately be against bad pitchers. Plus, the pitcher has to be very careful not to issue a walk-- the batter knows to expect strikes.

So I checked.

For all of baseball last year, a player hit a home run every 40.7 PA.

In the 4344 PA when the bases were loaded, a player hit a home run every 44.3 PA.

For some reason, in 2011, batters were about 8% less likely to homer with the bases loaded.

2010, all PAs: 1 HR per 40.2 PA.
2010, bases loaded: 1 HR per 37.3 PA. (4705 PA total)

Maybe it's a one year fluke, but at the least it looks like any effect isn't large.
 
2012-06-14 06:31:22 PM  

chimp_ninja: fonebone77: Thats pretty impressive. Right at 1 in 10. Yowza.

Above, I noted that if you're batting with the bases loaded, someone is having a bad day. You'd expect more homers in that situation because the PAs would disproportionately be against bad pitchers. Plus, the pitcher has to be very careful not to issue a walk-- the batter knows to expect strikes.

So I checked.

For all of baseball last year, a player hit a home run every 40.7 PA.

In the 4344 PA when the bases were loaded, a player hit a home run every 44.3 PA.

For some reason, in 2011, batters were about 8% less likely to homer with the bases loaded.

2010, all PAs: 1 HR per 40.2 PA.
2010, bases loaded: 1 HR per 37.3 PA. (4705 PA total)

Maybe it's a one year fluke, but at the least it looks like any effect isn't large.


I would assume in a lot (perhaps the majority) of cases, once the bases are loaded a new pitcher is brought in.
 
2012-06-14 06:50:31 PM  

Wise_Guy: How often he gets to bat with the bases loaded is indeed luck and not skill. How is his teammates' ability to get on base a skill of the hitter?


So you're saying that I would have exactly the same chance of hitting a grand slam as A-Rod does, if some random team pulled me out of the stands to pinch hit with the bases loaded?

The Yankees led the league in grand slams last season, with 10. Yet they ranked 5th in plate appearances with the bases loaded, with 13 fewer appearances than league-leader Philadelphia...who managed only 4 grand slams. So, yeah...clearly a player's team has everything to do with it.

Incidentally, Yuniesky Betancourt, Jay Bruce, and Alfonso Soriano tied for the league lead in bases-loaded plate appearances last season with 24 apiece. They combined for zero grand slams. And yes, that's a whopping 24 opportunities in a season to lead the majors.

As I said, a player's team only affects how often he comes to bat with the bases loaded, which is a relatively minor factor in how many grand slams a player hits in a season, let alone over a career. Their grand slam totals are hardly "largely due to luck".
 
2012-06-14 08:20:15 PM  

Harv72b: Wise_Guy: How often he gets to bat with the bases loaded is indeed luck and not skill. How is his teammates' ability to get on base a skill of the hitter?

So you're saying that I would have exactly the same chance of hitting a grand slam as A-Rod does, if some random team pulled me out of the stands to pinch hit with the bases loaded?


Hitting home runs is a skill. Having the bases loaded when you do is luck.

The Yankees led the league in grand slams last season, with 10. Yet they ranked 5th in plate appearances with the bases loaded, with 13 fewer appearances than league-leader Philadelphia...who managed only 4 grand slams. So, yeah...clearly a player's team has everything to do with it.

The Yankees are a HR hitting team. You would expect them to hit more HRs no matter what the MOB situation is.

Incidentally, Yuniesky Betancourt, Jay Bruce, and Alfonso Soriano tied for the league lead in bases-loaded plate appearances last season with 24 apiece. They combined for zero grand slams. And yes, that's a whopping 24 opportunities in a season to lead the majors.

Yeah, and...?

As I said, a player's team only affects how often he comes to bat with the bases loaded, which is a relatively minor factor in how many grand slams a player hits in a season, let alone over a career. Their grand slam totals are hardly "largely due to luck".

So having the bases loaded is a minor factor in the number grand slams a player hits? That's news to me.

Must be one of those counter-intuitive things...
 
2012-06-14 09:18:10 PM  

Wise_Guy: So having the bases loaded is a minor factor in the number grand slams a player hits? That's news to me.


Get back to me when you've read anything that I typed out.
 
2012-06-14 10:13:38 PM  

Harv72b: Wise_Guy: So having the bases loaded is a minor factor in the number grand slams a player hits? That's news to me.

Get back to me when you've read anything that I typed out.


Unlike yourself, I addressed everything you wrote.

Nice try, though...
 
2012-06-15 02:14:18 AM  

Wise_Guy: Unlike yourself, I addressed everything you wrote.


You addressed nothing that I wrote. You made a stupid comment in the first place, I corrected you on it, and you continue to cling to that assertion regardless of empirical evidence and without providing any evidence whatsoever to support your own side of it. This either means that you're intentionally dodging every point (in which case you're not worth typing to), or that you're an idiot (in which case you're not worth typing to).

Rhetorical question, since I know you won't answer it anyway: Since luck is supposedly so crucial to the number of grand slams a player hits over their career, why is it that someone like A-Rod averages one every 12.2 plate appearances, while Barry Bonds averages one every 21.9 appearances, Jim Thome one in 26.4, Manny Ramirez every 13.6, Chipper Jones 1 per 38, etc., etc. Based on your "argument" the career grand slams leader would simply be the player who had the most at-bats with the bases loaded, and yet here are these pesky statistics which suggest that even among epic sluggers some do better when given the opportunity than others.

Weird, huh?
 
2012-06-15 08:14:42 AM  

Harv72b: Wise_Guy: Unlike yourself, I addressed everything you wrote.

You addressed nothing that I wrote. You made a stupid comment in the first place, I corrected you on it, and you continue to cling to that assertion regardless of empirical evidence and without providing any evidence whatsoever to support your own side of it. This either means that you're intentionally dodging every point (in which case you're not worth typing to), or that you're an idiot (in which case you're not worth typing to).

Rhetorical question, since I know you won't answer it anyway: Since luck is supposedly so crucial to the number of grand slams a player hits over their career, why is it that someone like A-Rod averages one every 12.2 plate appearances, while Barry Bonds averages one every 21.9 appearances, Jim Thome one in 26.4, Manny Ramirez every 13.6, Chipper Jones 1 per 38, etc., etc. Based on your "argument" the career grand slams leader would simply be the player who had the most at-bats with the bases loaded, and yet here are these pesky statistics which suggest that even among epic sluggers some do better when given the opportunity than others.

Weird, huh?


You're talking about ~250 PA for those guys. That's just a bit over one third of a season's worth*. And you don't think that there will be any random variation in that? None at all?

*For example: A-Rod has 281 career PA with the bases loaded. He has 265 PA so far in 2012.
 
2012-06-15 08:22:45 AM  

Harv72b: Wise_Guy: Unlike yourself, I addressed everything you wrote.

You addressed nothing that I wrote. You made a stupid comment in the first place, I corrected you on it, and you continue to cling to that assertion regardless of empirical evidence and without providing any evidence whatsoever to support your own side of it. This either means that you're intentionally dodging every point (in which case you're not worth typing to), or that you're an idiot (in which case you're not worth typing to).

Rhetorical question, since I know you won't answer it anyway: Since luck is supposedly so crucial to the number of grand slams a player hits over their career, why is it that someone like A-Rod averages one every 12.2 plate appearances, while Barry Bonds averages one every 21.9 appearances, Jim Thome one in 26.4, Manny Ramirez every 13.6, Chipper Jones 1 per 38, etc., etc. Based on your "argument" the career grand slams leader would simply be the player who had the most at-bats with the bases loaded, and yet here are these pesky statistics which suggest that even among epic sluggers some do better when given the opportunity than others.

Weird, huh?


See if you can follow this and respond without being a dickhead--

I never said the career GS leader would be the player that had the most ABs with the bases loaded. All those players you listed would also have different rates when there was a man on first, or first and third, or second and third, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with skill. It's random variation based on something that's out of your control-- namely your teammates' performance.

Hitting a GS is simply being lucky enough to have the bases loaded when you hit a home run. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
 
2012-06-15 09:46:55 AM  

Wise_Guy: Hitting a GS is simply being lucky enough to have the bases loaded when you hit a home run.


Exactly. In 1987, Don Mattingly hit 6 grand slams. Those were the only 6 he ever hit in his career. And 1987 was only his 3rd or 4th best season. He didn't magically develop "grand slam skill" that year. Things just worked out for him.
 
Displayed 42 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report