Other Sports Jose Bautista [Archive]

View Full Version : Other Sports Jose Bautista

Pages : [1] 2

RedThat

07-30-2010, 02:41 PM

May I ask, where in the heck did this guy come from?

Leads the league in HR's, RBI's, has a good OBP, solid utility player. Great arm in the outfield, he is up there as one of the leaders in assists for an outfielder. Very good defensively. Yeah he was a Royal at one time. I know it sucks. You can shoot me for saying that. But how in the world did he become this good? Dude is having a monster year. Great breakout season.

Pitt Gorilla

07-30-2010, 02:48 PM

I remember when the Royals acquired him and then flipped him in a multi-team deal for Huber, IIRC.

BWillie

07-30-2010, 02:48 PM

He did what Joe Mauer did last year. HGH, duh. He's rolling the dice.

'Hamas' Jenkins

07-30-2010, 02:51 PM

His ISO rate is 60% higher than his career average, his HR/FB% is massively inflated over his career norms, he has a piss poor LD%, and he hits a lot of infield flies.

He's an uppercut swinging hacker who is having a hugely aberrational power year.

'Hamas' Jenkins

07-30-2010, 02:52 PM

He did what Joe Mauer did last year. HGH, duh. He's rolling the dice.

If Bautista hits 45 HRs on HGH, Barry Bonds would have hit 110.

A portion of it could be chemical. Most of it is just the fact that he's really, really lucky right now, and he plays in a hitter's park.

RedThat

07-30-2010, 02:57 PM

If Bautista hits 45 HRs on HGH, Barry Bonds would have hit 110.

A portion of it could be chemical. Most of it is just the fact that he's really, really lucky right now, and he plays in a hitter's park.

Do you think some of his success can be credited to coaching. I think Cito Gaston has done an excellent job with him. Cito is an excellent hitting coach and has developed some really good hitters during his career.

07-30-2010, 03:00 PM

Don't worry, by this time next year he'll have remembered that he's really Jose Bautista.

'Hamas' Jenkins

07-30-2010, 03:04 PM

Do you think some of his success can be credited to coaching. I think Cito Gaston has done an excellent job with him. Cito is an excellent hitting coach and has developed some really good hitters during his career.

There's really no such thing as a good hitting coach. You can either hit, or you can't.

The only thing that a hitting coach can really teach you is philosophy.

His K% is such that it's indicative that he hasn't shortened his stroke.

He doesn't hit for a tremendous average, nor is he a guy that hits to all fields.

If Gaston had really improved him, his contact ratio and his LD% would be way up. They aren't.

mcaj22

07-30-2010, 03:34 PM

you he act like this guy is young or something, breakout year? he's fucking 30 years old lol.

Pitt Gorilla

07-30-2010, 03:43 PM

Do you think some of his success can be credited to coaching. I think Cito Gaston has done an excellent job with him. Cito is an excellent hitting coach and has developed some really good hitters during his career.No, but I do think it has to do with him playing in Toronto. Granted, it's a hitter's park, but something else is going on there. I'm not going to accuse them of stealing signs, but they "guess" correctly at home more than any other team I've seen.

What do Bautista's numbers look like away from home? That should provide a part of your answer.

MIAdragon

07-30-2010, 03:59 PM

He did what Joe Mauer did last year. HGH, duh. He's rolling the dice.

Its like the ENTIRE Jays team is on HGH this year.

'Hamas' Jenkins

07-30-2010, 04:04 PM

Its like the ENTIRE Jays team is on HGH this year.

Lind and Hill's power numbers are way down this year. They hit 70+ combined last year.

MIAdragon

07-30-2010, 04:10 PM

Lind and Hill's power numbers are way down this year. They hit 70+ combined last year.

Every game I watch they are crushing the ball.

KCGridironBeast

07-30-2010, 04:29 PM

Every game I watch they are crushing the ball.

They lead the league in HRs by a fair margin with 155...next closest is Boston with 135.

Their team home/road splits are as follows:

H: .260/.320/.499
R: .240/.304/.419

rtmike

07-30-2010, 05:11 PM

As Jose goes is how my two fantasy teams do it seems. Right now I'm kicking ass. Talk to me at the first of next month.

RedThat

07-30-2010, 05:21 PM

There's really no such thing as a good hitting coach. You can either hit, or you can't.

The only thing that a hitting coach can really teach you is philosophy.

His K% is such that it's indicative that he hasn't shortened his stroke.

He doesn't hit for a tremendous average, nor is he a guy that hits to all fields.

If Gaston had really improved him, his contact ratio and his LD% would be way up. They aren't.

Yeah the philosophy part I can see coming into effect. Cito preaches to these guys to be aggressive at the plate day in and day out. That could be a contributing factor as to why they are hitting so many homeruns this year?

One thing though, they do strike out quite a bit. Thats the consequence imo that comes with being an aggressive hitting ball club. Everytime these guys are at the plate the number one thing they have on their minds is swinging for the fences. But what impresses me most is they have guys hitting homeruns throughout the lineup. It doesn't just come from Bautista.

The Jays aren't really a team that hits for average. I watched some of their games this year and I will say part of the reason I believe is because they're not a patient hitting team.

'Hamas' Jenkins

07-30-2010, 05:26 PM

Yeah the philosophy part I can see coming into effect. Cito preaches to these guys to be aggressive at the plate day in and day out. That could be a contributing factor as to why they are hitting so many homeruns this year?

One thing though, they do strike out quite a bit. Thats the consequence imo that comes with being an aggressive hitting ball club. Everytime these guys are at the plate the number one thing they have on their minds is swinging for the fences. But what impresses me most is they have guys hitting homeruns throughout the lineup. It doesn't just come from Bautista.

The Jays aren't really a team that hits for average. I watched some of their games this year and I will say part of the reason I believe is because they're not a patient hitting team.

Pretty much.

An analogy would be a d-coordinator who teaches his players to go for the kill shot every time.

Will you cause a lot of drops and fumbles because of that? Yeah. But you'll also end up whiffing on a shitload of tackles.

It's a feast or famine ideology.

SnakeXJones

07-30-2010, 05:30 PM

It's Adrian Beltre V.2 Watch him get a crazy contract next season and be shitty

cookster50

07-30-2010, 06:06 PM

Consistent1

07-30-2010, 07:02 PM

Well, he is 3-3 with a grand slam tonight.

RedThat

07-30-2010, 07:58 PM

He says his hitting coach got him starting his swing earlier last year. If you look at what he did late last year, it's continuing. I think those saying its just a one year wonder will be in for a shock. Is he a 50 HR guy(which is what he'll flirt with this year), no. Is he a 30-35, he just might be.

And this is what I like about him. he is one of those guys that earned his job. He worked his way through last year. He came in and swung a bit of a hot bat. Worked on his swing a bit through spring training, and rewarded himself and the team with excellent play. All this has carried over into next the season and yup here he is having a great year. I don't think he is a fluke too be honest. Thats just my opinion.

*There has been plenty of talk about him always having the potential to hit the long ball. Now just happens to be the time he is proving it.

RedThat

07-30-2010, 08:08 PM

KC_Connection

09-11-2010, 12:39 AM

His ISO rate is 60% higher than his career average, his HR/FB% is massively inflated over his career norms, he has a piss poor LD%, and he hits a lot of infield flies.

I'm sorry I missed this thread over the summer, but with Bautista's 46th tonight, it's timely.

How do any of those metrics imply luck is a factor in Bautista's power upswing?

His ISO isn't a fluke (he leads the majors in no-doubters: http://www.hittrackeronline.com/).

You could argue that his HR/FB% is unsustainable, I suppose, but it's quite clear he's changed his approach as a hitter since last year (http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/08/24/altered-swing-mechanics-key-to-jose-bautistas-home-run-binge/). If you acknowledge that Bautista has, in fact, made an actual adjustment to his swing that has created more loft and power, it would be best to at least partially ignore his HR/FB from a period in his career when he didn't have the same approach. Also, having a 20% HR/FB isn't out of the ordinary for power hitting sluggers in this league nor is it in any way "inflated" (Votto, Pena, Dunn, Scott, Cabrera, Reynolds, Ortiz, and Howard are the players with that kind of rate this season). It's not like he's doing something that a lot of other players aren't.

His low LD% is irrelevant. It's not unusual for a uppercut swinging, high FB% slugger to have a low LD% (look at guys like Carlos Pena, Adam Dunn, Mark Reynolds, Nelson Cruz, Carlos Quentin, Dan Uggla etc), nor is it reflective that any sort of fluke is going on. Same with his IFFB%...I'm not sure what conclusion you are trying to draw there. His 15.2% IFFB% isn't reflective of anything fluky or lucky going on, it just indicates that he has a uppercut swing and that he's regularly swinging for the fences. FYI, during the best offensive season baseball has ever seen (Bonds in 2004), Barry had a IFFB% of 14.2%.

He's an uppercut swinging hacker who is having a hugely aberrational power year.
Bautista may be an uppercut swinger having a huge year that he may never repeat, but he's no hacker. His 15.2 BB% is 2nd in the majors behind Daric Barton (and he's only been IBB'd twice, surprisingly).

Really, Bautista is having a ridiculous year in terms of power, and it's somewhat surprising to me that it hasn't gotten acknowledged much in the mainstream media.

KC_Connection

09-11-2010, 12:44 AM

Yeah the philosophy part I can see coming into effect. Cito preaches to these guys to be aggressive at the plate day in and day out. That could be a contributing factor as to why they are hitting so many homeruns this year?

One thing though, they do strike out quite a bit. Thats the consequence imo that comes with being an aggressive hitting ball club. Everytime these guys are at the plate the number one thing they have on their minds is swinging for the fences. But what impresses me most is they have guys hitting homeruns throughout the lineup. It doesn't just come from Bautista.

The Jays aren't really a team that hits for average. I watched some of their games this year and I will say part of the reason I believe is because they're not a patient hitting team.

It can be argued that this philosophy has helped Bautista, but then again, he's one of the most patient hitters in baseball this season, completely different than many of his teammates.

Consistent1

09-11-2010, 12:52 AM

He is still kicking major ass, but like someone said earlier in the thread...I don't know if i would want to sign him to a big contract either.

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-11-2010, 01:13 AM

KC_Connection

09-11-2010, 01:14 AM

He is still kicking major ass, but like someone said earlier in the thread...I don't know if i would want to sign him to a big contract either.
The Jays have a choice to let him play one more year on whatever he gets in arbitration (and risk letting him go after 2011) or sign him to a multi-year deal right now. I don't know what I would do. There is always the trade option.

KC_Connection

09-11-2010, 01:20 AM

By any metric, his year is absolutely unsustainable.

From BP:

What can we expect from Bautista in 2011? There had been speculation that the Blue Jays might trade him since he figures to get a large raise due to arbitration but it now appears he will back with Toronto after such a monster year. It is worth noting, despite his legitimate improvements, the Rogers Centre (very friendly to homers, doubles, and triples for both right- and left-handers) has still been very, very good to him (.301/.434/.772, an OPS (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=OPS) of 1.206 this year). Bautista has hit .237/.334/.490 on the road, which would still be his best season in the majors, and would still give him an ISO (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=ISO) of .253, easily a career high. While there has been improvement to his game—possibly legitimate improvement, as demonstrated by Piliere's study on his approach and swing—and his development was delayed by injury and the Rule 5 draft, 2010 is still an aberration in the sense we won't see him do this again. Staying in Toronto would help ease the fall, of course, but betting on a repeat of a home ISO (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=ISO) nearly as high as your road slugging percentage isn't something I would put my millions on.

I've read that article. He doesn't really give any reasons why it's unsustainable. He just kind of assumes it is because it's so out-of-the-blue and completely outside his pre-September '09 averages. Dave Cameron, fwiw, suggested a few weeks back that 30-40 HR going forward might not be an unrealistic expectation (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bautistas-surge-continues/).

I mean, obviously nobody is going to predict that he's going to hit 50 again next year. I wouldn't do that for any hitter currently in the majors (especially since baseball started deadening the balls in recent years). But he's been hitting HRs at this rate for nearly seven months....when is it going to end? Is it?

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-11-2010, 01:38 AM

It's unsustainable because his home road splits are ridiculous, he's a pull hitter that you can carve up on the outer third of the plate, and he's two years past the point where players normally have career years. In addition to that, every one of his splits isn't just above the norm, it's so far above the norm as to approach Brady Anderson status.

KC_Connection

09-11-2010, 02:14 AM

It's unsustainable because his home road splits are ridiculous,

If he's playing in Toronto next season and will reap the benefits of the Dome again, what does it matter what his home/road splits are?

he's a pull hitter that you can carve up on the outer third of the plate,

#1. You don't think pitchers haven't already been pitching him outside all year?
They have the scouting report and it isn't working. Bautista is either fouling those pitches off or just laying off balls as he gets into a hitter's count where he can get his pitch.

#2. What BP didn't acknowledge in those charts is that Bautista's love of pitches inside/over the plate isn't unusual for a power hitter that pulls the ball (and there are plenty of those guys in the game). Pitching outside is the target on many hitters, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous or their power any less "sustainable" or "real."

and he's two years past the point where players normally have career years.

Players can't have career years when they are 29 now?

The 27 threshold isn't any kind of a strict rule here, man. It's just an average. There are always outliers. Bautista is apparently one of them.

In addition to that, every one of his splits isn't just above the norm, it's so far above the norm as to approach Brady Anderson status.
So you think he's going to fade simply because there was a guy named Brady Anderson who faded after his big season 14 years ago?

Again, the huge increase isn't a good enough reason unless there are components that indicate it isn't real (it's not like it's BABIP-induced at all).

KC_Connection

09-11-2010, 02:17 AM

Also, if you believe he's going to fade, what is he going to revert to? The guy from before September of '09 (.170 ISO, I don't see any chance of this) or something between old Bautista and the one we're seeing now (ZiPS projects .250 going forward)?

Hootie

09-11-2010, 02:29 AM

Yeah I'm siding with KC Connection here...

I don't see 50...but who says 30 or 40 isn't possible?

Dude has great plate discipline, too...

I was a doubter...now I'm a believer.

BAUTISTA BOMBS!

Demonpenz

09-11-2010, 08:56 AM

it seems like every homerun i see him hit is a fastball down broadway.

Sure-Oz

09-11-2010, 09:53 AM

The dude attacks the ball big time and hasn't stopped. i think he puts up 25-30+ hr power from now on, as long as he doesnt forget wtf hes doing

eazyb81

09-11-2010, 09:58 AM

Lind and Hill's power numbers are way down this year. They hit 70+ combined last year.

Believe me, I know. Lind has single-handedly killed my fantasy team this year.

BWillie

09-11-2010, 12:31 PM

What happened w joe mauer? 30 hrs last yr, 8 this yr. Or was it just contact yr and hgh was I involved. Is this Bautistas contract yr?

KC_Connection

09-11-2010, 05:17 PM

Is this Bautistas contract yr?
He's arbitration-eligible.

What happened w joe mauer? 30 hrs last yr, 8 this yr.
Unless you believe he decided to use PEDs for one season randomly and then quit for no reason, that's just an statistical outlier (they happen in baseball more than you think).

The Poz

09-23-2010, 10:54 AM

He launched his 50th.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=300923114

KC_Connection

09-23-2010, 12:40 PM

Our resident baseball expert, Hamas, still hasn't told us when Bautista is going to stop hitting jacks.

Hoover

09-23-2010, 01:21 PM

In my FBB league I'm playing the guy with Bautista and Truelu - YIKES

eazyb81

09-24-2010, 07:24 AM

HGH is a hell of a drug.

tk13

09-24-2010, 08:06 PM

rtmike

09-24-2010, 08:21 PM

He's gonna win me one of the two leagues I'm in.

He was kinda quiet last week & I lost that round so the best I'll do in the CP $ league is 3rd.

Pioli Zombie

09-24-2010, 09:18 PM

Bautista is not getting enough at-bats. He needs to be up at at the plate 10-15 times a game.- CP

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 10:29 PM

HGH is a hell of a drug.

More like SARMs: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8470

Though, no PED can explain a 40 HR single-season increase.

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 10:41 PM

Two more tonight. Now at 52 HR's. Now 11 HR's ahead of the next highest total. And 15 higher than 3rd place.

I'd like to see someone research if this was one of the most dominant HR seasons in history relative to the rest of the league.

I read a stat today that Bautista's 15 HR difference in-the AL was the most since Mickey Mantle in 1956 (who had 52 HR, 20 more than the guy behind him). But I haven't seen anything other than that.

If you went back any further, you'd run into Babe Ruth's dominance: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1921-batting-leaders.shtml

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-24-2010, 10:44 PM

Our resident baseball expert, Hamas, still hasn't told us when Bautista is going to stop hitting jacks.

Yeah, there's no Brady Anderson territory here at all. Again, every statistical metric points to a massive outlier season, but please, keep your head in the sand, it's quite becoming.

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 10:50 PM

Yeah, there's no Brady Anderson territory here at all.

In 1996, 33 guys had an OPS above .900 (Anderson ranked 9th with a 1.034), 27 guys with a wOBA of over .400 (Anderson ranked 9th with a .435), and 17 guys hit 40 HR or more (Anderson was 2nd is with 50). The average team OPS in the AL was .795.

In 2010, 15 guys have an OPS above .900 (Bautista ranks 3rd with a 1.021), 8 guys with a wOBA over over .400 (Bautista ranks 3rd with a .426), and 2 guys have hit 40 HR or more (Bautista ranks 1st with 52). The average team OPS in the AL is .735.

The difference in eras is striking and really makes you wonder just how much baseball has deadened the balls in recent years (because it certainly isn't all PEDs...players are still using the undetectable stuff today). The point is, though, we're dealing with an entirely different level of dominance with Bautista than many of the past one-year wonders. If you can't see the difference between the two, I'm not the one with my head in the sand.

Again, every statistical metric points to a massive outlier season, but please, keep your head in the sand, it's quite becoming.
Actually, none of them do. We've already been over this earlier in the thread, and now you are resorting to irrelevant Brady Anderson fallacies to make your point.

Once again, I ask...when is he going to stop hitting home runs?

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 10:56 PM

Since Sept 1, 2009, Bautista has 62 HR and a .265/.377/.621 line over 752 PA. If that's not establishing a new level of production, I don't know what is.

tk13

09-24-2010, 10:58 PM

Move over Maris, Jose Bautista is the new home run king.

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 11:07 PM

I should add that I personally have no idea what Bautista is going to do next year. Nobody really does, not even the best scouts and stats people in the game. It makes sense to expect some regression to the mean, of course, but he's clearly going to be one of the tougher players to project heading into 2011.

Yet we have our resident baseball expert, Hamas, here so arrogantly sticking to his claim that this is a "fluke", "outlier," or "lucky" (though he seems to have backed have that one) without any real evidence or support. It's funny.

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-24-2010, 11:09 PM

In 1996, 33 guys had an OPS above .900 (Anderson ranked 9th with a 1.034), 27 guys with a wOBA of over .400 (Anderson ranked 9th with a .435), and 17 guys hit 40 HR or more (Anderson was 2nd is with 50). The average team OPS in the AL was .795.

In 2010, 15 guys have an OPS above .900 (Bautista ranks 3rd with a 1.021), 8 guys with a wOBA over over .400 (Bautista ranks 3rd with a .426), and 2 guys have hit 40 HR or more (Bautista ranks 1st with 52). The average team OPS in the AL is .735.

The difference in eras is striking and really makes you wonder just how much baseball has deadened the balls in recent years (because it certainly isn't all PEDs...players are still using the undetectable stuff today). The point is, though, we're dealing with an entirely different level of dominance with Bautista than many of the past one-year wonders. If you can't see the difference between the two, I'm not the one with my head in the sand.

Actually, none of them do. We've already been over this earlier in the thread, and now you are resorting to irrelevant Brady Anderson fallacies to make your point.

Once again, I ask...when is he going to stop hitting home runs?

The first two paragraphs are complete bullshit and mean nothing in the context of the argument that a guy with nearly 2000 PA before this year would raise his career slugging percentage by 200 points in one year.

His OPS is up 250 points this year. 250. It's 210 above his career line

His HR/FB % is up from 12.3 to 21.3. That's a 73% jump in one season. His career rate, even including this year is only 13.5%

His weighted on base is up 83 points this year.

His line drive % is down

His flyball percentage is up 12.6%.

Now, given that basically every swing he takes he acts like he's in HR Derby (look at his pull charts), he'll probably approach 30 HRs next year, but he's basically a poor man's Carlos Pena. This is not repeatable in the least, and anyone who thinks so, this means you, is a truly dumb sonofabitch.

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-24-2010, 11:13 PM

KC Connection was probably driving the Greg Vaughn and Luis Gonzalez bandwagons, too.

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 11:23 PM

The first two paragraphs are complete bullshit and mean nothing in the context of the argument that a guy with nearly 2000 PA before this year would raise his career slugging percentage by 200 points in one year.

How does a comparison of eras mean nothing? Bautista's performance is significantly more impressive and dominant than Anderson's was. He's one of the best hitters in baseball this season. Anderson was never that, even in 1996. He was a product of the juiced ball era.

His OPS is up 250 points this year. 250. It's 210 above his career line

What does this prove? That he's hitting significantly better than ever before and possibly established a new level of performance? We already knew that and it doesn't prove that he can't keep this up going forward.

His HR/FB % is up from 12.3 to 21.3. That's a 73% jump in one season. His career rate, even including this year is only 13.5%

#1. 21.3% isn't an unusual rate for a power hitter. And Bautista has been the best power hitter in baseball for the last 7 months.
#2. His HR/FB% can be explained by the visible change in his swing. That's already been posted in this thread and I know you've read it.

His weighted on base is up 83 points this year.

Again, this doesn't prove that he can't keep it up.

His line drive % is down

Irrelevant and not indicative of anything other than a change in swing that's causing more fly balls.

His flyball percentage is up 12.6%.

Again, change in swing.

Now, given that basically every swing he takes he acts like he's in HR Derby (look at his pull charts), he'll probably approach 30 HRs next year, but he's basically a poor man's Carlos Pena.

So you think he's going to hit 30 now? That would put him among the better power hitters in baseball and would be a significant increase from what he was doing pre-September 2009. Basically, that means, to some extent, you think Bautista's power this season was meaningful.

This is not repeatable in the least, and anyone who thinks so, this means you, is a truly dumb sonofabitch.
Anybody who speaks in absolutes like this about baseball is truly ignorant. But I'm not surprised that the great Hamas thinks he's smarter than every expert out there.

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 11:24 PM

KC Connection was probably driving the Greg Vaughn and Luis Gonzalez bandwagons, too.
And the David Ortiz/Carlos Pena/Jayson Werth ones, too.

I wonder if the Red Sox would have won either of their 2 WS if they had traded Ortiz after his "fluke" year in 2003 (I remember some calling for them to sell high because he had never done anything like it in Minnesota).

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-24-2010, 11:32 PM

And the David Ortiz/Carlos Pena/Jayson Werth ones, too.

I wonder if the Red Sox would have won either of their 2 WS if they had traded Ortiz after his "fluke" year in 2003 (I remember some calling for them to sell high because he had never done anything like it in Minnesota).

Ortiz, a known PED user, great example

Werth always had good power and never had the jump that Bautista had w/o demonstating prior power. Look at his 2004 season with the Dodgers. Also, Werth began trending upwards after overcoming a myriad of injuries and getting consistent PT. He was a 4th OF until '08.

Pena is the greatest comparison to Bautista, which is why I mentioned him. He's also never come within 90 points of his best slugging % season again, and he's a 1 outcome player. Congratulations, Jose Bautista's best comp is the Dominican Rob Deer.

Idiot.

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-24-2010, 11:34 PM

21.3 isn't unusual for a power hitter. No one has suggested otherwise, dumb shit. It's unusual for someone whose career average was 13. Not 19, not 17, 13.

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 11:41 PM

Ortiz, a known PED user, great example

#1. What do PEDs have to do with anything? That's a weak way to get out of having to argue the point that Ortiz established a new level of production after years of being a .800 OPS player.
#2. And please, let's not be naive, Ortiz was using PEDs for years prior to his 2003 breakout year.
#3. What if Bautista is using PEDs right now (as I suspect he is)? Does that mean, in your mind, that he can keep the power up if he keeps taking the stuff (and why wouldn't he)?

Werth always had good power and never had the jump that Bautista had w/o demonstating prior power. Look at his 2004 season with the Dodgers.

Jayson Werth has been a .880 OPS hitter since he was acquired by the Phillies. That's a level that he never reached as a Jay or Dodger and a level he never showed he was capable of prior to 2008 (at the age of 29). His minor league OPS was even below .800.

Also, Werth began trending upwards after overcoming a myriad of injuries and getting consistent PT.
He was a 4th OF until '08.

Are you even paying attention to what you're writing? 4th OF, a lack of consistent playing time? Do you know who this sounds like?

Pena is the greatest comparison to Bautista, which is why I mentioned him. He's also never come within 90 points of his best slugging % season again, and he's a 1 outcome player. Congratulations, Jose Bautista's best comp is the Mexican Rob Deer.

Carlos Pena had an outlier year in 2007, but followed it up with a near .880 OPS the following two years. Again, that's a level he never showed he was capable of prior to 2007 (his age 29 year). And again, a perfect example of a player who established a new level of performance after several seasons of mediocrity.

Idiot.
The only idiot here is the closed-minded, defensive, arrogant, egotistical piece of shit that stubbornly refuses to admit he was wrong about Jose Bautista.

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 11:46 PM

21.3 isn't unusual for a power hitter. No one has suggested otherwise, dumb shit. It's unusual for someone whose career average was 13. Not 19, not 17, 13.
If Bautista has changed his swing significantly, as we know he has, why is his career HR/FB% even relevant to this discussion? The version of Bautista that put up a 13% HR/FB hasn't played since August of last season.

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-24-2010, 11:48 PM

I'm wrong about Jose Bautista because of his one good year?

Oh and Werth's production pre-Phillies was about 700 ABs, not 1700 ABs. Again with specious bullshit.

Besides, the only one getting defensive here is the fucktard who somehow thinks that each Jose Bautista HR corresponds with a 10 cent raise he gets for operating the jizz mop.

But yes, PEDs have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that the baseball's were wound tighter, which is why Sammy Sosa went from hitting 25 HRs a year to 60 and why Bonds went from 35 to 70 and why Luis Gonzalez went from 15 to 57.

Yes, PEDs could never be an explanation for a sudden rise in performance, or anything. I'm sure Roger Clemens just had that career resurgence from working out.

Christ, you're delusional.

But hey, Matt Cassel once had B2B 400 yard games. GOAT!! We should have given him 600 million, not just 60. He clearly established himself. In no way should we ever use a sufficient amount of evidence as a way to predict future performance.

KC_Connection

09-24-2010, 11:58 PM

I'm wrong about Jose Bautista because of his one good year?

You said about 2 months ago that Bautista wouldn't keep this up and he has.

We're waiting...when is it gonna end?

Oh and Werth's production pre-Phillies was about 700 ABs, not 1700 ABs. Again with specious bullshit.

Jayson Werth had 2530 AB in the minors where he hit for a .796 OPS. Based on that, and his previous major league AB, no team believed in Jayson Werth until he came to the Phillies and established a new level of production (.880 OPS). The fact that you continue to deny that older players can establish these new levels is both hilarious and pathetic for someone who calls himself a baseball expert.

But yes, PEDs have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that the baseball's were wound tighter, which is why Sammy Sosa went from hitting 25 HRs a year to 60 and why Bonds went from 35 to 70 and why Luis Gonzalez went from 15 to 57.

Yes, PEDs could never be an explanation for a sudden rise in performance, or anything. I'm sure Roger Clemens just had that career resurgence from working out.

#1. I would be very surprised to find out that Roger Clemens only started using steroids in the mid 90s. I suspect he started during his Texas days in college. They aren't a sufficient explanation for his upswing, just as steroids aren't a sufficient explanation for Sosa, Bonds, or especially Gonzalez (what happened the following year...did he just decide to start listening to his conscience or something)?

#2. I'm not saying PEDs can't cause rises in performance. I just don't understand their relevance to the argument here, especially when it's widely assumed (and maybe even probable) that Bautista is using a PED.

But hey, Matt Cassel once had B2B 400 yard games. GOAT!! We should have given him 600 million, not just 60. He clearly established himself. In no way should we ever use a sufficient amount of evidence as a way to predict future performance.
Sorry, but 2 back-to-back 400 yard games is not 750 PA over 7 months with a 1.000 OPS.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 12:15 AM

I've never understood, by the way, why people never suspect consistent performers of PED use. What if they've just been using PEDs since they entered the league? Like guys like ARod, Manny, and Pujols likely have?

Hootie

09-25-2010, 02:20 AM

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 02:27 AM

I don't see why Bautista can't hit 40 HR's next year...

he has good plate discipline and he waits for the pitcher to throw him something out over the plate...which is bound to happen for anyone...even Barry Bonds when he was putting up 1.400 OPS seasons...

The guy is going to be given every chance to succeed once again next year and I see NO reason why he can't hit 40...none whatsoever.
I agree. His swing change is real and quite visible to even the common, casual fan. While I'm not sure I would predict it, I'm certainly not going to rule out the possibility of him establishing himself as a 40 HR hitter going forward like Hamas ignorantly is.

I could see something similar to what happened to Bonds after 2001 when pitchers started walking him repeatedly and he started hitting 45-46 instead of the 70+ he was capable of with full ABs.

Pitchers have only IBB'd Bautista twice this year...that's definitely gotta change at some point if he keeps hitting for power like this.

Hootie

09-25-2010, 02:31 AM

I would never compare him to Bonds...

but he's a patient hitter who walks as much as he strikes out...

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 02:33 AM

I would never compare him to Bonds...

but he's a patient hitter who walks as much as he strikes out...
I'm not comparing him to Bonds. Bonds is the greatest hitter to ever play the game.

I was suggesting a Bonds-like effect could occur when pitchers stop challenging him, which would result in a higher OBP with less overall HRs in 2011.

SnakeXJones

09-25-2010, 03:01 AM

I'm not comparing him to Bonds. Bonds is the greatest hitter to ever play the game.

I was suggesting a Bonds-like effect could occur when pitchers stop challenging him, which would result in a higher OBP with less overall HRs in 2011. lol What?

Buck

09-25-2010, 03:03 AM

So there are what, 8 games left and he's at 52? Extremely unlikely, but I'd like to see him try and get to 60.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 03:04 AM

lol What?
Who was better?

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 03:05 AM

So there are what, 8 games left and he's at 52? Extremely unlikely, but I'd like to see him try and get to 60.
He's got 9 games left. It would take an incredible run, indeed. 55 is probably a more reasonable target.

Hootie

09-25-2010, 03:05 AM

lol What?

so he did roids and everyone hates him...

doesn't mean anyone could ever rake the way he did the last 5 years he was in the league...

Buck

09-25-2010, 03:07 AM

Who was better?

He's the best power hitter if you don't care about the steroids.

How about Tony Gwynn? Ted Williams?

SnakeXJones

09-25-2010, 03:10 AM

He's the best power hitter if you don't care about the steroids.

How about Tony Gwynn? Ted Williams? Ted was the first person that pop in my mind

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 03:12 AM

He's the best power hitter if you don't care about the steroids.

How about Tony Gwynn? Ted Williams?

He's the best overall hitter if you don't care about steroids. And nobody with any real perspective on the matter should.

Ted Williams comes close, though.

Buck

09-25-2010, 03:15 AM

He's the best overall hitter if you don't care about steroids. And nobody with any real perspective on the matter should.

Ted Williams comes close, though.

He hit under .300 for his career.

Sorry, that's not the best overall hitter.

Ruth hit .342 and had 714 homers. He's a better overall hitter than Bonds.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 03:19 AM

He hit under .300 for his career.

Sorry, that's not the best overall hitter.

Ruth hit .342 and had 714 homers. He's a better overall hitter than Bonds.
You're living in the past by citing batting average, man.

Buck

09-25-2010, 03:21 AM

You're living in the past by citing batting average, man.

What do you want me to cite? HR?

One of my biggest annoyances is talking to people who undervalue BA.

Give me a fucking break. You'll never show me a 20 year guy who hit .298 that was a better hitter than a 20 year guy who hit .342.

Ruth played in nearly 500 less games than Bonds too. Had he played in 162 game seasons, I'm fairly certain that he'd still own the HR record.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 03:25 AM

What do you want me to cite? HR?

Certainly not. wOBA, EqA, even OPS would be fine. Ruth and Williams are superior to Bonds in those categories, anyway.

The major reason I feel Bonds is superior to them, however, was the difficulty and level of competition within his era.

But, of course, then you could argue that it's virtually impossible to compare eras (which it is), and we'd be going in circles.

So maybe it's just easier to say: Bonds was the best hitter of his era.

Buck

09-25-2010, 03:26 AM

At least Jason Whitlock agrees with you.

ROFL

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/whitlock/021010.html

Barry easily outslugs the Babe
By Jason Whitlock
Page 2 columnist

http://espn.go.com/i/page2/v2/columnist/photo_whitlock.gif

As Barry Bonds hammers away at the myth that he's a poor postseason player, he's also hammering away at the myth that Babe Ruth should be regarded as the game's most legendary slugger.

Barry vs. Babe is the equivalent of debating Muhammad Ali vs. Jack Johnson. Take away Johnson's before-his-time love affair with white women, and we don't even really remember him. Ruth's legacy also is built on race.

Babe Ruth played before integration. It has always bothered me that, given the obvious impact of African-American and Latino ballplayers, we somehow manage to place pre-integration major-leaguers on the same accomplishment platforms as the post-Jackie Robinson players.

Babe, Ty Cobb, Josh Gibson and all the rest don't deserve it. I'm not saying they should be punished for our societal sins. But when we evaluate their performances, we should factor in that they performed in leagues (and I'm including Negro Leagues legends in this, too) that were significantly inferior to the league Bonds currently rules. Barry rules the world. Babe ruled White America.

Willie Mays can keep his "greatest player" title. Ted Williams deserves his "greatest hitter" crown. And, for now, Hank Aaron retains his "home run king" moniker.

But from now on, when we talk about baseball superstar, baseball legend, when we talk about the slugger who defined the game -- and please don't ever forget that baseball, like America's other national pastime, the adult entertainment industry, is a game defined by the man carrying the biggest stick -- we should begin the conversation with Barry, not Babe.

Of course, we all know Barry just completed the closest thing we'll ever see to a perfect season at the plate. Power, discipline and consistency have never converged at the same time the way it did for Bonds in 2002. It will probably never happen again. You know the numbers. The man hit .370, which at 38 made him the oldest first-time batting champion and the oldest man to win the National League batting crown. He cracked 46 home runs, 110 RBI, drew 198 walks, recorded an off-the-charts .582 on-base percentage and a .799 slugging percentage. Ruth couldn't even do that in the watered-down majors he dominated.

The one hole on Barry's résumé is quickly being filled. Barry allegedly couldn't produce at playoff time. Before this October, Barry had never won a playoff series. His postseason batting average was below .200. Barry was no Reggie Jackson.

Three home runs and a Game 5 victory over the Atlanta Braves signaled a change in that perception. Suddenly, Barry's critics had to give him credit for single-handedly carrying a very average squad to the NLCS. Have you studied the Giants' roster? For the most part, Bonds' supporting cast has been passed around the majors more than a phat blunt riding shotgun in Randy Moss' Lexus.

Second baseman Jeff Kent is a nice player. Closer Robb Nenn is solid. Dusty Baker is an outstanding manager. But the rest of these guys? Rich Aurilia, David Bell, J.T. Snow, Kenny Lofton, Reggie Sanders, Tom Goodwin, Shawon Dunston and a ho-hum starting pitching staff isn't exactly a New York Yankees-type supporting cast.

Bonds' Giants are more like Michael Jordan's Bulls. Baker is Phil Jackson. And Kent is Scottie Pippen, a fraud who has no idea how good he's got it hitting in front of Bonds.

Wednesday night's NLCS Game 1 performance by Bonds was more proof that the knocks on the game's biggest star are unfounded. In leading the Giants to a 9-6 victory over the Cardinals, Bonds launched a 2-RBI triple, drew three walks, scored two runs and, more importantly, provided some much-needed intimidation when both benches cleared in the fifth inning.

Bonds' detractors accuse him of being selfish and a non-team player. There is certainly some truth to those accusations. Superstars generally all have a selfish streak. It helps them become superstars. You think Michael Jordan wasn't selfish? You don't drop a double nickel at The Garden in front of Lupica and Vecsey and Wilbon and all the other East Coast bigwigs without a teeny bit of selfishness. I've criticized Bonds in the past for his selfish behavior. But what more can a good teammate do beyond producing when called upon and jumping into the middle of a scrap?

Did Lofton overreact to Mike Crudale's inside fastball? Absolutely. But it was the perfect time for Lofton, Bonds and the Giants to overreact. They had control of the game on the scoreboard. St. Louis' ace Matt Morris was awful. He didn't have his good stuff from the get-go. The Giants got lucky. They're going to need more than luck to win this series. They need to seize emotional control of this series. The Cardinals have the better team.

That's why Barry was at home plate jawing with Cardinals, flexing his muscles and daring anyone in a red-and-white uniform to take a swing at the baddest slugger on the planet. Barry and the Giants need to turn this postseason into Barry's postseason. The Giants need to be the team of destiny, the "we-are-family" Pittsburgh Pirates. Or remember the Philadelphia 76ers squad that was determined to get Doctor J his NBA title?

If Barry wins the World Series, I'm planning to petition Congress to pass a law forbidding Babe Ruth's name to appear in the same sentence with Barry's.

Jason Whitlock is a regular columnist for the Kansas City Star (kcstar.com), the host of a morning-drive talk show, "Jason Whitlock's Neighborhood" on Sports Radio 810 WHB (810whb.com) and a regular contributor on ESPN The Magazine's Sunday morning edition of The Sports Reporters. He can be reached at ballstate0@aol.com.

Buck

09-25-2010, 03:28 AM

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 03:28 AM

And many, many knowledgeable others (I would not count Whitlock among them).

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 03:33 AM

Yeah, but Bonds was the biggest beneficiary ever of the Steroid Era.

I'm not quite sure if he would have hit .370 in 2002 w/out the Steroids, but I'm sure as **** that he wouldn't have had a 1.35+ OPS
Bonds was a steroid user in a league full of steroid users. He was simply the best of them. By a significant margin.

SnakeXJones

09-25-2010, 03:33 AM

If Barry wins the World Series, I'm planning to petition Congress to pass a law forbidding Babe Ruth's name to appear in the same sentence with Barry's.
I know its old i never seen that before ROFL

Buck

09-25-2010, 03:36 AM

Career OPS leaders

1. Ruth (1.1636)
2. Williams (1.1155)
3. Gehrig (1.0798)
4. Bonds (1.0512)

wOBA
Ruth - .510
Bonds - .439

Can't find eqa comparisons.

Edit: Sorry, misread your quote.

If you are using those as your parameters for best hitter then why are you backing Bonds?

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 03:38 AM

Career OPS leaders

1. Ruth (1.1636)
2. Williams (1.1155)
3. Gehrig (1.0798)
4. Bonds (1.0512)

wOBA
Ruth - .510
Bonds - .439

Can't find eqa comparisons.

You were saying?
I already told you this above. And I already told you why it doesn't mean anything to me. I'm two steps ahead of you!

Consistent1

09-25-2010, 05:10 AM

Certainly not. wOBA, EqA, even OPS would be fine. Ruth and Williams are superior to Bonds in those categories, anyway.

The major reason I feel Bonds is superior to them, however, was the difficulty and level of competition within his era.

But, of course, then you could argue that it's virtually impossible to compare eras (which it is), and we'd be going in circles.

So maybe it's just easier to say: Bonds was the best hitter of his era.

Yeah, you might as well just say era because people never get tired of defending the old-timers. That is on top of the fact that most want to give Bonds little credit. Everything has changed so much that many of those older players would not be quite as dominant now IMO. Every damn bullpen is loaded with a bunch of guys who throw high 90's with pitches that move on top of that. They also only have to throw ten pitches at a time in many cases. Obviously I believe there are many players now that if you took back in time with the training and nutrition knowledge, etc....even drugs and supplements if you want to take it that far... would kick absolute ass. Money and all that has completely changed the game also. Bautista will be fun to watch in 2011 because I can honestly see both sides of the argument going on in the thread. Bottom line is he has had an awesome year and will get the chance to back it up next year with another solid season.

Chiefs Rool

09-25-2010, 06:58 AM

this is just the year that he got on steroids. No way that is not the case.

Saul Good

09-25-2010, 07:49 AM

Damn, Hamas. Your baseball analysis appears to be as astute as your football analysis.

Bautista was "really really lucky right now" in early July. A month and a half later, he's sitting on 52 bombs, and you're clinging to your argument while invoking Brady Anderson.

Nobody else in the league has 40. That doesn't equate to Brady Anderson relative to the rest of the league. The guy leads the league by 14. The rest of baseball could play for another month, and nobody would catch him. If he was getting "really really lucky" back then, he's getting really really really really lucky now.

Zaiko

09-25-2010, 09:06 AM

JASON WHITLOCK!

Barry Bonds is black and fat like me.. therefore he's best player ever.

No offense meant to anyone who is black, this is just the way this fool thinks.

Hootie

09-25-2010, 09:35 AM

the analysis on Bonds on this website is funny...

people hate him so they dismiss how amazing of a ball player he was

Hootie

09-25-2010, 09:35 AM

the analysis on Bonds on this website is funny...

people hate him so they dismiss how amazing of a ball player he was

keg in kc

09-25-2010, 11:53 AM

thebrad84

09-25-2010, 12:00 PM

Bonds could have been a hall of famer without the performance enhancers.

Unfortunately, however, he won't be. Dude ruined his own legacy.

(I'm not saying he won't be a hall of famer, I'm saying he won't be a hall of famer without an apostrophe)

Barry Bonds'? or 'Barry Bonds?

Zaiko

09-25-2010, 12:20 PM

BWillie

09-25-2010, 12:26 PM

He's PEDing his ass off. For brevity's sake let's just see HRs.

2008 Total 370AB 15HR
2009 TOR 336AB 13HR
2010 Tor 534AB 52HR

Nothing fishy at all going on here guys. Don't mind me, just being a 30 year old who suddenly, and magically, found all my power.

Probably, but until you catch him he should be treated like god like Ken Griffey Jr.

Zaiko

09-25-2010, 12:30 PM

I don't think someone with such a drastic change in this era, with the current state of the MLB, really deserves the benefit of the doubt to that extent.

Buck

09-25-2010, 01:07 PM

the analysis on Bonds on this website is funny...

people hate him so they dismiss how amazing of a ball player he was

Yeah, but you know those 5 great seasons he had?

Had he not been on steroids, he still would have been a great player, no doubt.

However, his OPS would have been so much lower its not even funny. His Batting Average too.

1. He would have been walked much less because he wasn't a threat to hit a homer every 5 AB.
2. Lets say he 100 less walks per season, and those 100 AB turned into 35 hits, thats a major decline on his OBP.
3. His bat would have been slowed just by a little, which would have definitely made his BA go down.
4. His Slugging Pct would have gone way down.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 01:28 PM

He's PEDing his ass off. For brevity's sake let's just see HRs.

2008 Total 370AB 15HR
2009 TOR 336AB 13HR
2010 Tor 534AB 52HR

Nothing fishy at all going on here guys. Don't mind me, just being a 30 year old who suddenly, and magically, found all my power.

Edit: To those of you who'd say well blah blah they test now.. I don't buy that. 1. It's still possible to get around. PEDs are ahead of the testing.. and 2. Do you really think the MLB would let it get out that it's HR leader is another PED doper? I don't think so. The game is already very tainted.

Even if PEDs worked this way (they don't, by the way), why would Bautista randomly start using a magic one in 2010, after years of struggling in college, the minors, and the bigs? What made 2010 so special?

If Bautista is using PEDs, he's likely been using them for years and years now. That isn't a real explanation for his power.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 01:30 PM

Hootie

09-25-2010, 04:17 PM

buck...

look at Bonds 1994 numbers...

case closed

dude was putting up 1.000 OPS+ every year with and without steroids

Buck

09-25-2010, 04:20 PM

buck...

look at Bonds 1994 numbers...

case closed

dude was putting up 1.000 OPS+ every year with and without steroids

Yeah I know, but would he have done that in his late 30s and early 40s without the use of steroids? He was the best in the game in the Early 90s, and even better in the late 90s and early 2000s, but if he was like any other ball player he would have fallen off a little while he neared his 40s, instead of getting better.

Hootie

09-25-2010, 04:22 PM

sure...no doubt

no dispute

don't care though...

I really don't...everyone was cheating...and kudos to those who weren't...

but damn...Bonds was amazing at it...he cheated like everyone else and he really showed everyone what a fucking machine was...because he was UNSTOPPABLE...couldn't pitch to him...dude was the best hitter I've ever seen. Period.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 04:41 PM

And that's really the point. They were all using. And Bonds was just that much better than all of them.

Zaiko

09-25-2010, 04:49 PM

Even if PEDs worked this way (they don't, by the way), why would Bautista randomly start using a magic one in 2010, after years of struggling in college, the minors, and the bigs? What made 2010 so special?

If Bautista is using PEDs, he's likely been using them for years and years now. That isn't a real explanation for his power.

Lot of assuming, even more than me. How do they work then bud? Lots of reasons why he would start using, maybe he wanted to stop sucking and be a big shot. I'm not dumb though. I understand there's more to hitting than just taking roids, but it certainly would help.

And likely using them for years and years now is an odd thing to say... What would even make you say that?

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 04:58 PM

Lot of assuming, even more than me. How do they work then bud?

Unless you think some magic PED has been discovered, they certainly don't cause 40 HR single-season increases. If they did, we'd have seen a lot more of this kind of thing over the last 20 years from mediocre players. Bautista's jump might have something to do with PED use, but the far more reasonable and observable explanation is the swing change.

Lots of reasons why he would start using, maybe he wanted to stop sucking and be a big shot.

He finally had a starting job for the first time in his baseball career, making $3M a season, and this was the year he chose to use steroids?

As I said, if he's used them, it's far more likely that Bautista started in college or the minors when he was actually struggling to make a living.

And likely using them for years and years now is an odd thing to say... What would even make you say that?
Because I'm of the belief that most of the players in professional baseball are either using or have used PEDs during their career. There's a drug culture in baseball and has been for decades.

Zaiko

09-25-2010, 05:01 PM

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 05:07 PM

Fair enough. I think it's pretty possible he just started using.. People can start using later in their careers. Didn't Bonds and Luis Gonzalez? Anyways, I'm not denying that a swing change was big part of his success this year as well, I just don't think you jump over 40 HRs from JUST a swing change when you're 30+ years old.
If it was that easy to hit 30-40 more HR a season, all of these steroid users would be making that jump. But they're not. It's very rare that someone puts up a breakout season like Bautista, and there are numerous other explanations for it (including the possibility that it's just a completely random outlier as Hamas continues to claim). Sure, he might be on something, but I'm not sure why people think a power breakout is any more indicative of steroid use than consistent power (like Albert Pujols).

Bautista is also 29, btw.

Buck

09-25-2010, 05:31 PM

And that's really the point. They were all using. And Bonds was just that much better than all of them.

No, they most definitely weren't.

You are becoming one of the biggest idiots on this site, pretty fast.

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-25-2010, 05:43 PM

It's apparent that KC_Connection has absolutely no idea how pharmacology works.

Here's a hint: It doesn't affect everyone the same.

You know why certain drugs affect certain different individuals in different ways? It's because everyone has a unique biochemistry. Whether it's chemotherapy, antivirals, antibiotics, SSRIs, acne medication, or steroids, different individuals will get different gains based upon their own unique bodies.

Assuming that even if everyone used PEDs that they would affect everyone equally is one of the most ignorant things an individual could post.

Regardless of the percentage of users, everything we know about pharmacology points us to the incontrovertible fact that different individuals will receive different gains from the same substances.

Your "rapid gainers" are those most predisposed to gain from PED use, just like some respond better to chemo and others respond to certain antibiotics better.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 06:17 PM

You are becoming one of the biggest idiots on this site, pretty fast.
Naive, blissfully ignorant people never want to accept truth, even when it's right in front of them.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 06:19 PM

It's apparent that KC_Connection has absolutely no idea how pharmacology works.

Here's a hint: It doesn't affect everyone the same.

Actually, that's one of the main reasons why it's impossible to scientifically quantify the effects of PEDs of baseball performance. Because it affects everyone differently. Thanks for making that point for me and contradicting the other nonsense that you posted in the other thread.

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-25-2010, 06:21 PM

Actually, that's one of the main reasons why it's impossible to scientifically quantify the effects of PEDs of baseball performance. Because it affects everyone differently. Thanks for making that point for me and contradicting the other nonsense that you posted in the other thread.

FAIL.

Affecting everyone differently doesn't mean they have no efficacy. It means certain individuals that used will get greater gains than others. That doesn't discount the positive effects from using them, rather it indicates the standard deviation of use, which also helps to explain the Jose Bautistas, Greg Vaughns, Brady Andersons, and Bret Boones of the world.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 06:30 PM

Affecting everyone differently doesn't mean they have no efficacy.

Have never argued that they have no efficacy. I've argued that nobody has ever determined the extent of their efficacy. But keep constructing those straw men.

That doesn't discount the positive effects from using them, rather it indicates the standard deviation of use, which also helps to explain the Jose Bautistas, Greg Vaughns, Brady Andersons, and Bret Boones of the world.
I see that you keep making those poor, baseless assumptions. BTW, if Bautista is using PEDs, and you believe Ortiz did (and that was the reason for his breakout, as you stated earlier), why couldn't Bautista continue to use those PEDs and sustain his breakout like Ortiz?

'Hamas' Jenkins

09-25-2010, 06:33 PM

Have never argued that they have no efficacy. I've argued that nobody has ever determined the extent of their efficacy. But keep constructing those straw men.

I see that you keep making those poor, baseless assumptions. BTW, if Bautista is using PEDs, and you believe Ortiz did (and that was the reason for his breakout, as you stated earlier), why couldn't Bautista continue to use those PEDs and sustain his breakout like Ortiz?

Injury and aberration. Moving to a dead pull ballpark also helped Ortiz, as well.

KC_Connection

09-25-2010, 06:35 PM

Injury and aberration. Moving to a dead pull ballpark also helped Ortiz, as well.
How do you know what Bautista is doing is an aberration until he concludes his 2011 season? Players like Ortiz, Werth, and Pena established new levels of performance and there's no real reason Bautista won't do the same.

Hootie

09-25-2010, 07:38 PM

Hamas...you're a fucking moron.

That is all =)

veist

09-25-2010, 09:12 PM

How do you know what Bautista is doing is an aberration until he concludes his 2011 season? Players like Ortiz, Werth, and Pena established new levels of performance and there's no real reason Bautista won't do the same.

Its an outlier, statistically its more likely to be an aberration than his new norm. Which seems to be more or less exactly what Hamas is arguing.

KC_Connection

09-30-2010, 09:35 PM

53 and 54....chalk it up to lucky power, I guess, eh Hamas?

KC_Connection

04-23-2011, 02:49 PM

With the 2 HR game today and the 10 consecutive times on base, Bautista has shot into the major lead league for HRs and the major league lead in WAR. He also leads the AL in AVG, R, OBP, OPS, walks, wOBA, and RC. Nearly 8 months and counting of production like this.

I guess he hasn't been listening to our resident baseball expert Hamas about "lucky power."

CrazyPhuD

04-23-2011, 02:53 PM

With the 2 HR game today and the 10 consecutive times on base, Bautista has shot into the major lead league for HRs and the major league lead in WAR. He also leads the AL in AVG, R, OBP, OPS, walks, wOBA, and RC.

Guess he hasn't been listening to our resident baseball expert Hamas about "lucky power."

Well to be fair, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds all had 'lucky power'.

KevB

04-23-2011, 02:57 PM

KC_Connection

04-23-2011, 03:03 PM

Well to be fair, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds all had 'lucky power'.
That would be the definition of roided-up power. Nothing lucky about any of them. Nothing lucky about Bautista either, for that matter.

CrazyPhuD

04-23-2011, 03:08 PM

That would be the definition of roided-up power. Nothing lucky about any of them. Nothing lucky about Bautista either, for that matter.

Well my point was there is no 'lucky power' if someone magically develops power, odds are good it's due to some 'enhancement'.

tk13

04-23-2011, 03:39 PM

Well my point was there is no 'lucky power' if someone magically develops power, odds are good it's due to some 'enhancement'.

I always said McGwire was different than the other guys on that list... he had legitimate power. If he had never taken steroids, I truly believe he could've hit 50-60 HR's, or more. He wasn't a skinny little stick that suddenly developed 60 HR power.

KC_Connection

04-23-2011, 03:48 PM

Well my point was there is no 'lucky power' if someone magically develops power, odds are good it's due to some 'enhancement'.
Not that I care whether baseball players use steroids (if it was up to me, there wouldn't be a drug policy at all), but I've never understood this theory about Bautista. If all it took was some "magic steroid" to turn a journeyman into the best power hitter in baseball, it would have happened a lot more often in baseball history than never. His improved performance is directly correlated to the change of his swing in September 2009.

KC_Connection

04-23-2011, 03:53 PM

I always said McGwire was different than the other guys on that list... he had legitimate power. If he had never taken steroids, I truly believe he could've hit 50-60 HR's, or more. He wasn't a skinny little stick that suddenly developed 60 HR power.
It's not like Sosa and Bonds were David Eckstein to begin with.

tk13

04-23-2011, 04:04 PM

It's not like Sosa and Bonds were David Eckstein to begin with.

Uh, yeah they were. Sosa came into the league at 165. He was a stick. Bonds was a little bigger but he was 185-190 or so. David Eckstein is 175-180.

That doesn't mean Eckstein could've been either one of those guys. I actually wonder how much of a difference it made anyway... weight training and fitness has become such a huge part of baseball, players would be bigger than the 80's anyway. Although the overall decrease in HR's in recent years surely leads to questions.

KC_Connection

04-23-2011, 04:19 PM

Uh, yeah they were. Sosa came into the league at 165. He was a stick. Bonds was a little bigger but he was 185-190 or so. David Eckstein is 175-180.
You do realize there's more to hitting for power than your weight, right? It's about your swing.

Bautista should be a perfect example of this.

Demonpenz

04-23-2011, 05:22 PM

there are two things involved in hitting a baseball far. Steriods and Oakleys

Rudy tossed tigger's salad

04-23-2011, 05:38 PM

Albert Pujols is a roid dick

KC_Connection

04-24-2011, 02:31 AM

there are two things involved in hitting a baseball far. Steriods and Oakleys

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00rT1s3c4q1Oa/350x.jpg

KC_Connection

04-25-2011, 09:31 PM

#8 to get into the sole lead.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/is-jose-bautista-the-best-hitter-in-the-al/

KC_Connection

05-15-2011, 02:29 PM

Another lucky power update. Up to 16 jacks in 32 games with the 3 HR game today.

Stick to NFL drafturbating, Hamas.

Pasta Little Brioni

05-15-2011, 02:34 PM

Damn, he is definately proving the doubters wrong. Wow.

Saul Good

05-15-2011, 03:02 PM

Dude's going to stop hitting bombs any day now, probably tomorrow.

The_Doctor10

05-15-2011, 09:07 PM

Dude's going to stop hitting bombs any day now, probably tomorrow.

About the time the iPad killer gets here, right?

teedubya

05-15-2011, 09:13 PM

I'm so glad we traded him for Huber. lol.

BWillie

05-15-2011, 09:17 PM

He has to be cheating, but good for him. Just get a good "trainer" who won't rat you out. You'll be aight.

Gadzooks

05-15-2011, 09:21 PM

Dude's going to stop hitting bombs any day now, probably tomorrow.

As a Jays fan I'm surprised he's still hitting bombs after he got paid.
Sure, I expect regular "injury" time off periods, but this has been pretty cool.
Thanks Royals!:thumb:

Al Bundy

05-15-2011, 09:36 PM

As a Jays fan I'm surprised he's still hitting bombs after he got paid.
Sure, I expect regular "injury" time off periods, but this has been pretty cool.
Thanks Royals!:thumb:

We got Huber'd.

tk13

05-15-2011, 09:40 PM

The dude was a Royal for like two weeks, I can't believe people still bring that up. He was a Pirate for something like 4 years.

Saul Good

05-16-2011, 06:03 PM

About the time the iPad killer gets here, right?

Yep. The iPad can't keep it up. It's a fluke, an aberration.

Mr. Laz

05-16-2011, 06:05 PM

omg ... let it go

KC_Connection

05-18-2011, 03:16 PM

omg ... let it go
Don't you have some unwarranted bashing of Bill Self to do?

The_Doctor10

05-18-2011, 03:22 PM

He has to be cheating, but good for him. Just get a good "trainer" who won't rat you out. You'll be aight.

Fundamentally changing your swing and plate approach constitutes cheating these days?

RedThat

05-18-2011, 05:19 PM

As a Jays fan I'm surprised he's still hitting bombs after he got paid.
Sure, I expect regular "injury" time off periods, but this has been pretty cool.
Thanks Royals!:thumb:

Im a jays fan myself.

Love Jose Bautista. Didn't agree with trading Halladay or Marcum. We lost two really good pitchers. Halladay is an ace, and Marcum is definately a solid #2 starting pitcher. Just imagine if we kept those guys? We'd have a slugger, and a number #1 and #2 pitcher locked down in our roster.

I agree with Anthropolous in how he is trying to rebuild by stocking up on young talent, but, I think having that slugger in Bautista, an ace pitcher in Halladay, and a nice compliment in Marcum would have been an excellent foundation in building the team.

Although, I will say, Drabek is looking good. I don't think he is going to be as good as Halladay though. And Lawrie from what I hear was turning heads in spring training, and looks to be a great talent with his bat and glove. We'll see, only time will determine if the Halladay and Marcum trades will pay off.

*Im just one who always believed that championships start with good pitching and good defense. That is why I didn't agree with the Jays trading away two really valuable assets in Halladay and Marcum.

Pasta Little Brioni

05-18-2011, 06:29 PM

Fundamentally changing your swing and plate approach constitutes cheating these days?

Why don't people understand this? Technique in many a things can make a huge difference :p In his case, his explosion came directly after doing so (changing his swing and approach).

Jim Jones

05-18-2011, 07:31 PM

Why don't people understand this? Technique in many a things can make a huge difference :p In his case, his explosion came directly after doing so (changing his swing and approach).

I think it's hard to understand it because while many players have changed their swing and gone on to see better results, it's hard to find cases where a little tinkering of a swing resulted in a player hitting almost 40 home runs more than he's ever hit in a season.

He's gone from an average infielder with a little pop to BARRY BONDS. And Barry Bonds didn't become BARRY BONDS until he got a little "help", so it's not hard to be skeptical of what Bautista is doing.

tk13

05-18-2011, 07:38 PM

KC_Connection

05-18-2011, 09:34 PM

Im a jays fan myself.

Love Jose Bautista. Didn't agree with trading Halladay or Marcum. We lost two really good pitchers. Halladay is an ace, and Marcum is definately a solid #2 starting pitcher. Just imagine if we kept those guys? We'd have a slugger, and a number #1 and #2 pitcher locked down in our roster.

I agree with Anthropolous in how he is trying to rebuild by stocking up on young talent, but, I think having that slugger in Bautista, an ace pitcher in Halladay, and a nice compliment in Marcum would have been an excellent foundation in building the team.

Although, I will say, Drabek is looking good. I don't think he is going to be as good as Halladay though. And Lawrie from what I hear was turning heads in spring training, and looks to be a great talent with his bat and glove. We'll see, only time will determine if the Halladay and Marcum trades will pay off.

*Im just one who always believed that championships start with good pitching and good defense. That is why I didn't agree with the Jays trading away two really valuable assets in Halladay and Marcum.
Those trades had little to do with Anthopoulos and everything to do with Rogers Communications being cheap. For what is one of the richest corporations in sports, they certainly don't act like it.

Drabek has serious issues throwing strikes, but the potential and stuff is there. He'll never be Halladay, but you can't expect that from anybody. Doc is the best pitcher of our era.

KC_Connection

05-18-2011, 09:37 PM

I don't think it looks like he's exponentially bigger than before or anything. But even Barry Bonds was a great, great hitter before he got large. It wasn't like he was a hack who suddenly became good with steroids.

I'm hard pressed to think of another guy who has blown up out of nowhere like this, and then kept it up. You have years like the time Brady Anderson hit 50 HR's, but it was back down to earth after that. I'm sure someone who has watched baseball longer than me could give an example or two.
It's impossible to do. Nobody in the history of baseball has ever done anything like this (gone from nothing to the best hitter in the league). He's like a real-life Roy Hobbs.

As I said last season, there are simply no precedents for this kind of incredible performance increase, so looking at other hitters as benchmarks or comparisons would be useless.

KC_Connection

05-18-2011, 09:45 PM

Gadzooks

05-18-2011, 10:27 PM

Those trades had little to do with Anthopoulos and everything to do with Rogers Communications being cheap. For what is one of the richest corporations in sports, they certainly don't act like it.

Drabek has serious issues throwing strikes, but the potential and stuff is there. He'll never be Halladay, but you can't expect that from anybody. Doc is the best pitcher of our era.

So true… Anthropophagus was brought in to "build a winner", in other words, shed the payroll and build a deep system of youngsters. He's certainly done that, but, until Rogers deems another WS championship worthy of splurging on, we'll keep shedding our talent.
This is what makes the whole Bautista thing so surprising. Why are they tickling Jays fans asses with a feather?

KC_Connection

05-18-2011, 10:39 PM

So true… Anthropophagus was brought in to "build a winner", in other words, shed the payroll and build a deep system of youngsters. He's certainly done that, but, until Rogers deems another WS championship worthy of splurging on, we'll keep shedding our talent.
This is what makes the whole Bautista thing so surprising. Why are they tickling Jays fans asses with a feather?
Have to give the fans at least one reason to watch, I guess. I'm glad they did. Bautista ABs are much-see TV, he's that good. He's also single-handedly keeping them at .500 right now.

Jim Jones

05-19-2011, 03:05 AM

As for the PED thing...well sure he could be. But so could any of these guys.

Singing out a guy simply based on performance increase doesn't make much sense. Did he just never consider steroids for his entire career and then one day in September 2009 choose to finally take them? And how did these steroids turn him from career mediocrity to best hitter in baseball? It's never happened for anybody else, but he found the magic combination?

The magic combination? No, YOU'RE the one saying he found the magic combination. That after seven years of mediocrity he all of the sudden became the most feared hitter in the game. How? By tinkering with his swing? He found some "magic" adjustment in his swing that took him from 10 homers to 50 homers? Hard to believe.

Seven years isn't an aberration. He isn't a lifelong great player who struggled through seven "fluke" years. He's an average player who has all of the sudden become elite. Baseball history tells me it's likely due to more than just a change in his swing.

One thing my Pirates-fan brother pointed out is his bat speed is ridiculous now. Almost Sheffield-esque. He says it was never like that early on in his career. He's able to get around on pitches so much quicker now.

Here's an interesting stat from a recent ESPN blog post on Bautista:

"Since May 15, 2010, Bautista has hit 63 home runs -- 22 more than Albert Pujols' next-best total of 41. Remarkable considering that in his first 1800 career at-bats, Bautista hit just 60 home runs.".

From 10-15 HR's a year to that?

SAUTO

05-19-2011, 06:01 AM

Drabek has serious issues throwing strikes
Lol
Posted via Mobile Device

KC_Connection

05-19-2011, 10:24 AM

Lol
Posted via Mobile Device
Still holding that childish grudge over my objectivity during the Greinke negotiations, I see?

It's 40 innings into his major league career, hardly anything to worry about or anything that will destroy him at the age of 23. You know who had serious issues throwing strikes for the first two entire seasons of his career? Only the greatest pitcher of our era, Roy Halladay.

KC_Connection

05-19-2011, 10:40 AM

The magic combination? No, YOU'RE the one saying he found the magic combination. That after seven years of mediocrity he all of the sudden became the most feared hitter in the game. How? By tinkering with his swing? He found some "magic" adjustment in his swing that took him from 10 homers to 50 homers? Hard to believe.
There's nothing "magic" about his adjustment at the plate. It's visible and very real. Do some reading, watch some video. It's not insignificant.

What's hard to believe is that a career mediocrity somehow found a magic steroid that nobody else has access to and that did something that no steroid had ever done before. But sure, keep working on that crazy, baseless assumption.

Seven years isn't an aberration. He isn't a lifelong great player who struggled through seven "fluke" years. He's an average player who has all of the sudden become elite.

He played three full major league seasons after having his development stunted in 2004 by being selected in the Rule 5 draft and moving through five teams. Scouting reports from early in his college and professional days suggested, though, that he had great power potential and a very good eye. The question isn't so much why did Bautista become elite at the age of 29. The question is why it took him so long to reach that potential. And yes, that delay had everything to do with the flaws in his swing.

Baseball history tells me it's likely due to more than just a change in his swing.

#1. Baseball history tells you nothing about Bautista because nobody has ever done anything like this before. There are no precedents for this kind of change.
#2. We're letting the PED-filled baseball history condemn a guy's success now? Get me some actual evidence of your claim, then get back to me.

One thing my Pirates-fan brother pointed out is his bat speed is ridiculous now. Almost Sheffield-esque. He says it was never like that early on in his career. He's able to get around on pitches so much quicker now.
Bautista's always had quick bat speed, it allowed him to hit the few home runs that he did it when he connected. He was also always a whiz in batting practice, crushing shots all over the park. The problem was that he rarely made contact because his stance and approach at the plate was completely ****ed up. Gaston and Murphy's change helped with his timing immensely.

Here's an interesting stat from a recent ESPN blog post on Bautista:

"Since May 15, 2010, Bautista has hit 63 home runs -- 22 more than Albert Pujols' next-best total of 41. Remarkable considering that in his first 1800 career at-bats, Bautista hit just 60 home runs.".

From 10-15 HR's a year to that?

I read the same article. It also contained:

We ignore Jose Bautista. At best, we politely pay half-attention, not ready or willing to acknowledge the numbers he's putting up and maybe hoping he stops. The Blue Jays' right fielder leads the major leagues in batting average, home runs, runs scored, total bases, on-base and slugging percentage and OPS. Bautista is the tree in the forest. Yes, we hear, but why do we pretend not to? He's a quiet, understated man who plays for a Canadian team that is virtually ignored in the U.S., even among baseball fans. Where is he from? Why is he never on TV? Does he speak English? How did he get so good?

Fifty-four home runs last season was enough to say "Wow," but not enough to force historic comparisons or stare the PED issue square in the face again. The consensus reaction to Bonds' perjury trial this year might best be described as our long national indifference. I hope we don't remain indifferent to Bautista, or to the Blue Jays for that matter. Bautista is the best hitter in baseball and, eventually, we have to relax and trust what we're seeing again.

You might want to take Berthiume's advice. At least until, you know, there's actually some evidence for this whining.

KC_Connection

05-19-2011, 10:49 AM

And again, I'm not saying Bautista isn't on PEDs. I'm never going to outright claim that a professional baseball player isn't taking some kind of drug. There's an incredible drug culture in the sport, with both hitters and pitchers (who never get any focus in this area from the media).

I'm saying attributing his change solely to PED use is ignorant and pretty absurd. And making the claim that he is on them is weak and completely baseless.

Jim Jones

05-19-2011, 02:43 PM

There's nothing "magic" about his adjustment at the plate. It's visible and very real. Do some reading, watch some video. It's not insignificant.

What's hard to believe is that a career mediocrity somehow found a magic steroid that nobody else has access to and that did something that no steroid had ever done before. But sure, keep working on that crazy, baseless assumption.

What is this adjustment at the plate you keep talking about? What did he do to his swing that let him go from 13 homers to 54 homers in one year? TWO years ago he hit 13 homers in 336 at bats. He's now got 16 this year in 121 at bats. What did he change?

He played three full major league seasons after having his development stunted in 2004 by being selected in the Rule 5 draft and moving through five teams. Scouting reports from early in his college and professional days suggested, though, that he had great power potential and a very good eye. The question isn't so much why did Bautista become elite at the age of 29. The question is why it took him so long to reach that potential. And yes, that delay had everything to do with the flaws in his swing.

He played four major league seasons with over 300 at bats before hitting 54 homers, so let's work off of that. The most he hit in a season prior to that was 16 and his power numbers were actually gradually going DOWN each year until last year. Also, he wasn't ever hitting many doubles, so it wasn't like he was always driving the ball well and just finally pieced it together to get it over the wall. No, this pretty much came out of the blue.

His old scouting reports said he had some power potential? Guess what? Read 10 scouting reports of hitters in the minors right now and I bet eight of them will say the guy has "power potential". Almost everyone has some sort of power potential.

#1. Baseball history tells you nothing about Bautista because nobody has ever done anything like this before. There are no precedents for this kind of change.

Well there was a guy named Barry Bonds. He went from hitting 30 homers a year to hitting 73. There was a guy named Sammy Sosa. He went from hitting 20 homers a year to hitting 60. Those are basically the same kind of jumps that Bautista has made, aren't they? Except he just started out lower on the totem pole.

#2. We're letting the PED-filled baseball history condemn a guy's success now? Get me some actual evidence of your claim, then get back to me.

Oh look, I'm sure some of it is the swing. I don't mean to sound like it's ONLY PED's that are helping him do this. It's probably a combination of things, but I've never seen a player go from Wilson Betemit to Barry Bonds solely by changing his swing.

Bautista's always had quick bat speed, it allowed him to hit the few home runs that he did it when he connected. He was also always a whiz in batting practice, crushing shots all over the park. The problem was that he rarely made contact because his stance and approach at the plate was completely ****ed up. Gaston and Murphy's change helped with his timing immensely.

I'll trust my brother's judgement on this. Like I said, I can't say I ever watched him with the Pirates and I'd wager to guess you didn't either unless you've been a lifelong Bautista fan, but watching him now it's REALLY hard to imagine ever having the bat speed then that he does now. That's part of why Bonds became so dangerous. You add the strength, you add the speed. For a guy who already has a good eye, that makes him so much more dangerous because he can sit on a pitch longer, get around on it faster and really make a pitcher pay for mistakes.

You might want to take Berthiume's advice. At least until, you know, there's actually some evidence for this whining.

I wasn't really interested in his opinion, just the stats he laid out, which are ridiculous when you really think about them.

KC_Connection

05-19-2011, 03:11 PM

What is this adjustment at the plate you keep talking about? What did he do to his swing that let him go from 13 homers to 54 homers in one year? TWO years ago he hit 13 homers in 336 at bats. He's now got 16 this year in 121 at bats. What did he change?

This is a good place to start reading: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/24/altered-swing-mechanics-key-to-jose-bautistas-home-run-binge/

Everything he's done (the crouching, the toe tap, the opening up of his stance, the leg kick) has allowed him to get started sooner on his swing and the result has been more hard contact.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12383209

He played four major league seasons with over 300 at bats before hitting 54 homers, so let's work off of that. The most he hit in a season prior to that was 16 and his power numbers were actually gradually going DOWN each year until last year. Also, he wasn't ever hitting many doubles, so it wasn't like he was always driving the ball well and just finally pieced it together to get it over the wall. No, this pretty much came out of the blue.
Nobody is saying it didn't. But to pretend that he was John McDonald is also wrong. He was drafted for his power potential and good eye at the plate. One of those things developed early in the majors (his good eye), the other didn't (because of mechanical issues in his swing).

Well there was a guy named Barry Bonds. He went from hitting 30 homers a year to hitting 73. There was a guy named Sammy Sosa. He went from hitting 20 homers a year to hitting 60. Those are basically the same kind of jumps that Bautista has made, aren't they? Except he just started out lower on the totem pole.
#1. Sosa and Bonds were hitting 30-40 HR for years before their jumps. They were great players. They just got a lot better when they started taking 'roids and baseball started juicing the balls.

#2. Are we to assume that every hitter that experienced a large HR jump over one season was taking PEDs? Even in the 40s/50s/60s? Can hitters not have huge increases in performance without suspicion in your mind? What about pitchers?

Oh look, I'm sure some of it is the swing. I don't mean to sound like it's ONLY PED's that are helping him do this. It's probably a combination of things, but I've never seen a player go from Wilson Betemit to Barry Bonds solely by changing his swing.
Nobody has ever seen a player do anything close to this before, that's the point. Steroids have been around since the 1960s/1970s in baseball and no baseball player has ever come anything close to this kind of increase. So Bautista either found a magical steroid that nobody else has access to and a steroid that does something no steroid has ever done (incredibly unlikely) or steroids aren't the sole reason for his success.

I'll trust my brother's judgement on this. Like I said, I can't say I ever watched him with the Pirates and I'd wager to guess you didn't either unless you've been a lifelong Bautista fan, but watching him now it's REALLY hard to imagine ever having the bat speed then that he does now. That's part of why Bonds became so dangerous. You add the strength, you add the speed. For a guy who already has a good eye, that makes him so much more dangerous because he can sit on a pitch longer, get around on it faster and really make a pitcher pay for mistakes.
I watched him whenever I watched the Pirates (not often, I admit), and then, when he was traded to the Jays, don't forget that he was that same mediocre hitter for about a full season. He always had great bat speed and a great eye, the issue was his swing and the complete lack of contact. He'd hit the occasional HR, take some walks, and was generally an average player. When Cito Gaston and Dwayne Murphy got him started earlier in September 2009, though, it all clicked for him.

I wasn't really interested in his opinion, just the stats he laid out, which are ridiculous when you really think about them.
Yes, ridiculously awesome.

Here are some more: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/jose-bautista-facts/

He's currently on pace to put up the best offensive season in baseball history. Of course, it's incredibly unlikely that he'll keep up the pace, but who knows with this guy.

Jim Jones

05-19-2011, 05:25 PM

This is a good place to start reading: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/24/altered-swing-mechanics-key-to-jose-bautistas-home-run-binge/

Everything he's done (the crouching, the toe tap, the opening up of his stance, the leg kick) has allowed him to get started sooner on his swing and the result has been more hard contact.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12383209

Thanks for the link. I fully acknowledge the fact that he's made some changes to his swing that have helped for the better. Although, I would love to see a video of his stance and swing while playing with the Pirates for comparison. Like I said though, I think it's a combination of changing up his approach + PED's that have led to this huge surge.

Nobody is saying it didn't. But to pretend that he was John McDonald is also wrong. He was drafted for his power potential and good eye at the plate. One of those things developed early in the majors (his good eye), the other didn't (because of mechanical issues in his swing).

Actually, he wasn't drafted for his good eye. In fact, if you go and read John Sickels' retro prospect report on Bautista, he says that Bautista had spotty plate discipline early in his career. He didn't really gain such a great command of the strike zone until recently. I wonder if that correlates to how much more easily he's able to turn on pitches now?

Plus...dude, he was drafted in the 20th round. Now that's not to say that a 20th rounder can't develop into a good player, but guys drafted in the 20th round in baseball are mainly drafted to fill out the farm system. I'm sure they saw some power potential, but like I said, almost EVERY prospect has "some" power potential.

#1. Sosa and Bonds were hitting 30-40 HR for years before their jumps. They were great players. They just got a lot better when they started taking 'roids and baseball started juicing the balls.

Thank you for making my point for me. They GOT A LOT BETTER when they started taking 'roids.

How good the players were before they started taking PED's has no relevance. His surge is exactly the same as Bonds and Sosa's. Sosa's 20-60 jump and Bonds' 30-70 jump in homers is exactly the same as Bautista's 15-50 jump.

#2. Are we to assume that every hitter that experienced a large HR jump over one season was taking PEDs? Even in the 40s/50s/60s? Can hitters not have huge increases in performance without suspicion in your mind? What about pitchers?

I think that given how many players have been exposed in baseball, you pretty much have to proceed with a guilty until proven innocent attitude.

Nobody has ever seen a player do anything close to this before, that's the point. Steroids have been around since the 1960s/1970s in baseball and no baseball player has ever come anything close to this kind of increase. So Bautista either found a magical steroid that nobody else has access to and a steroid that does something no steroid has ever done (incredibly unlikely) or steroids aren't the sole reason for his success.

Why do you keep ignoring all the hitters from the steroid era who hit more homers on steroids than they ever would have off? Why do you keep ignoring Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds having 30-40 home run surges midway through their careers? Why do you keep ignoring the cesspool of Luis Gonzalez's and Bret Boone's and the like that littered Baseball during the steroid era that pulled huge 30-40-50 HR seasons out of their ass? I'm sure Luis Gonzalez told everyone he changed his swing too when he went from 20 homers to 57 homers. Why do you keep ignoring Roger Clemens reinventing himself in his mid-30's and becoming better than he ever was after taking PED's?

Please tell me why you keep acting like none of this stuff ever happened? It's almost mind-boggling.

I would imagine PED's in baseball are like an arms race. Bonds was using stuff in 2001 that baseball didn't test for until a few years later. Whatever Bautista may be using now is likely something that isn't being tested for. Why is it so hard to believe that a relatively obscure player playing for a largely irrelevant team in Canada that nobody pays attention to could be ahead of the PED curve? It's not like he's in NY where all eyes would be on his every move.

I watched him whenever I watched the Pirates (not often, I admit), and then, when he was traded to the Jays, don't forget that he was that same mediocre hitter for about a full season. He always had great bat speed and a great eye, the issue was his swing and the complete lack of contact. He'd hit the occasional HR, take some walks, and was generally an average player. When Cito Gaston and Dwayne Murphy got him started earlier in September 2009, though, it all clicked for him.

Once again, he didn't have the great eye you keep talking about. He also didn't have that great bat speed. Like I said, his bat speed is INCREDIBLE now. Sheffield-esque. Nothing in Sickels' retro scouting report mentions anything about bat speed. And there's no way he would have been as...mediocre, as he was back then if he had the bat speed he has now.

'Hamas' Jenkins

05-19-2011, 05:57 PM

KC_Connection

05-19-2011, 09:02 PM

Thanks for the link. I fully acknowledge the fact that he's made some changes to his swing that have helped for the better. Although, I would love to see a video of his stance and swing while playing with the Pirates for comparison. Like I said though, I think it's a combination of changing up his approach + PED's that have led to this huge surge.
That's fine and certainly possible, but the idea that he's on PEDs is still a baseless one. The guilt of others isn't evidence of anything.

And they've been showing video of the swing before and after the change often, but I can't find a link to it online. The difference, obviously, is noticeable.

Actually, he wasn't drafted for his good eye. In fact, if you go and read John Sickels' retro prospect report on Bautista, he says that Bautista had spotty plate discipline early in his career. He didn't really gain such a great command of the strike zone until recently. I wonder if that correlates to how much more easily he's able to turn on pitches now?

Bautista's had a great walk rate since very early in his minor league career. That's the one aspect of his game that didn't change last year for him.

Plus...dude, he was drafted in the 20th round. Now that's not to say that a 20th rounder can't develop into a good player, but guys drafted in the 20th round in baseball are mainly drafted to fill out the farm system. I'm sure they saw some power potential, but like I said, almost EVERY prospect has "some" power potential.
His talent level was higher than that of a normal 20th round pick, his asking price led him to be a draft-and-follow in that range.

How good the players were before they started taking PED's has no relevance. His surge is exactly the same as Bonds and Sosa's. Sosa's 20-60 jump and Bonds' 30-70 jump in homers is exactly the same as Bautista's 15-50 jump.

#1. Sosa didn't make any 20-60 jump. He was hitting 30-40 HRs for years before his big years and was an established power hitter.
#2. Bonds had been hitting 40 HRs for years before his four amazing years, including 49 HR in the year 2000. He was the best hitter in baseball even without steroids and juiced baseballs.
#3. Taking steroids didn't turn them into something they weren't....it simply made them better, stronger power hitters. You are suggesting that taking steroids made Bautista into a completely different baseball player...from a guy who made poor contact and hit the ball on the ground a lot to the best power slugger in the game. That shows a lack of understanding about what steroids actually do for a player.

I think that given how many players have been exposed in baseball, you pretty much have to proceed with a guilty until proven innocent attitude.
So every leap in performance each season should be seen in a skeptical light now? Can young players not experience huge leaps in performance without suspicion, too? Or is it only late bloomers like Bautista that are considered guilty without any evidence? What's the age limit for suspicion, 28 or so? Joey Votto showed huge power last year that he had never shown before (at any level) at the age of 26, was that suspicious? How about Joe Mauer when he came out of nowhere in 2009 to hit 28 HR? Steroids for one year?

Neither of those two had shown any kind of track record throughout their baseball career for that kind of power, after all. How many other players from year-to-year are regularly making significant jumps in performance? Sure, maybe most of them are on steroids, but how the hell can you tell the difference? Just focus on the bigger, more improbable jumps? And what about the guys who have shown consistency from the very beginning? Are they out of the line of suspicion because of that? History tells us that some of the most consistent performers were also drug users.

To me, worrying about this kind of thing is quite absurd. There's no way to really know who is using what and who isn't.

Why do you keep ignoring all the hitters from the steroid era who hit more homers on steroids than they ever would have off? Why do you keep ignoring Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds having 30-40 home run surges midway through their careers? Why do you keep ignoring the cesspool of Luis Gonzalez's and Bret Boone's and the like that littered Baseball during the steroid era that pulled huge 30-40-50 HR seasons out of their ass? I'm sure Luis Gonzalez told everyone he changed his swing too when he went from 20 homers to 57 homers. Why do you keep ignoring Roger Clemens reinventing himself in his mid-30's and becoming better than he ever was after taking PED's?

I'm not ignoring anything, I know all about the drug culture inherent in baseball and amateur and professional sports. In fact, I embrace it. I would love to see players allowed to take whatever they want. What I'm telling you, though, is that Bautista's change is not solely PED-related (or juiced baseball related, like Luis Gonzalez). By virtue of the incredible change he made in approach, it simply couldn't be.

Whatever Bautista may be using now is likely something that isn't being tested for. Why is it so hard to believe that a relatively obscure player playing for a largely irrelevant team in Canada that nobody pays attention to could be ahead of the PED curve? It's not like he's in NY where all eyes would be on his every move.
You really believe that Bautista found a magic steroid that nobody in the rest of baseball has access to and a steroid that does something no steroid has ever done before (turns career mediocrities into Barry Bonds)? Your theory loses me here, I admit. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing more Jose Bautista/once in baseball history-type jumps in the near future.

Once again, he didn't have the great eye you keep talking about.

He did. He's had a great eye for years, check his college and MILB stats. The only thing that he really had going for him as a Pirate and as a Blue Jay in his early years was his plate discipline and ability to take a walk (in addition to his gun for an arm, I suppose).

He also didn't have that great bat speed. Like I said, his bat speed is INCREDIBLE now. Sheffield-esque. Nothing in Sickels' retro scouting report mentions anything about bat speed. And there's no way he would have been as...mediocre, as he was back then if he had the bat speed he has now.
As I told you, bat speed was never an issue for Bautista. In fact, it was, and always has been, great. Teams saw the power in his swing in 2004 as a young kid and that's part of the reason why he moved around between so many teams. Indeed, he put on shows in batting practice as both a Pirate and a Jay.

And why couldn't he be mediocre with great bat speed? Many players are. Approach is everything. If you have a poor approach as a hitter that prevents you from making contact and sufficiently utilizing that bat speed, it won't matter how strong or how fast you are.

In the end, it really comes down to whether you want to enjoy one of the great all-time offensive starts and one of the most impressive changes in baseball history or whether you want to piss on the guy without any evidence of PED use. To me, it's kind of like whining about the validity of Usain Bolt's amazing record runs in Beijing because of the history of drug use in his sport. Keep complaining if you wish (though I've never understood why fans care much about players being on PEDs) but I'll side with the former and enjoy the ride. Baseball's more fun that way.

KC_Connection

05-19-2011, 09:06 PM

Anyone who has ever played any bat and ball sport, whether it's baseball, or golf, knows that you can't have enormous jumps in swing speed after you are fully developed, even with excellent mechanics.
Nice of our resident expert to finally chime in after ignoring the thread for weeks with an unnecessary quip from his vast reservoir of baseball knowledge.

What I really want to know, though, is when Bautista is going to stop being an elite hitter and start being a fluke like you told me he would.

BWillie

05-19-2011, 11:18 PM

KC_Connection

05-19-2011, 11:20 PM

I assume everybody that is good, is cheating. And I'm fine with that.
Perhaps they should legalize drugs in the game if the players are just going to use them anyway.

Arsonist

05-19-2011, 11:23 PM

come on he has to have been tested several times since hitting well

BWillie

05-19-2011, 11:37 PM

come on he has to have been tested several times since hitting well

Bah. I bet there are ways around that. Whizzanator. Juice in the offseason, cycle correctly. Still think it's insanely hard to catch HGH.

Jim Jones

05-20-2011, 12:20 AM

#1. Sosa didn't make any 20-60 jump. He was hitting 30-40 HRs for years before his big years and was an established power hitter.

That was a typo, I meant to say 30-60, but the point is still the same. He hit 36 homers the year before hitting 66, and went on to hit 60+ three of the next four seasons. That's a 30 homer jump in one year.

#2. Bonds had been hitting 40 HRs for years before his four amazing years, including 49 HR in the year 2000. He was the best hitter in baseball even without steroids and juiced baseballs.

Bonds' numbers were declining, kind of like Jose Bautista's were before last year. From 1996 to 1999, Bonds' home run totals went 42-40-37-34. Then in 2000, around the time most people believe he started using PED's, he jumped to 49, and then obviously 73.

So averaged 40 homers a year from 1996-2000, then hit 73 in 2001. That's a BAUTISTA-ESQUE jump, if you will.

He was the best hitter in baseball before that, but that is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing here. It DOESN'T MATTER how good they were BEFORE the jump, the point is just that taking PED's helped make the jump.

#3. Taking steroids didn't turn them into something they weren't....it simply made them better, stronger power hitters. You are suggesting that taking steroids made Bautista into a completely different baseball player...from a guy who made poor contact and hit the ball on the ground a lot to the best power slugger in the game. That shows a lack of understanding about what steroids actually do for a player.

Weren't you just saying that Bautista always had great power potential? So how did it make him something he's not? The PED's took a guy who you said always had power potential and turned him into the best power hitter in the game. What's so hard to believe about that?

So every leap in performance each season should be seen in a skeptical light now? Can young players not experience huge leaps in performance without suspicion, too? Or is it only late bloomers like Bautista that are considered guilty without any evidence? What's the age limit for suspicion, 28 or so? Joey Votto showed huge power last year that he had never shown before (at any level) at the age of 26, was that suspicious? How about Joe Mauer when he came out of nowhere in 2009 to hit 28 HR? Steroids for one year?

Cut the rest of this to save space, but anyway.. I'm not really on a witch hunt to find PED users in sports and I don't have any criteria that I use to determine who is and who isn't, this is just a case that I feel is pretty blatant. Are you really using Joe Mauer and Joey Votto as comparable examples to Jose Bautista? I can't figure out if you're serious or not. And hell, for all I know they're both using. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I'm not ignoring anything, I know all about the drug culture inherent in baseball and amateur and professional sports. In fact, I embrace it. I would love to see players allowed to take whatever they want. What I'm telling you, though, is that Bautista's change is not solely PED-related (or juiced baseball related, like Luis Gonzalez). By virtue of the incredible change he made in approach, it simply couldn't be.

I've acknowledged in the last few posts that he's made changes in his swing and it's not solely PED related. So we agree then that it's a mixture of PED's and changing his stance/approach/swing?

You really believe that Bautista found a magic steroid that nobody in the rest of baseball has access to and a steroid that does something no steroid has ever done before (turns career mediocrities into Barry Bonds)? Your theory loses me here, I admit. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing more Jose Bautista/once in baseball history-type jumps in the near future.

There were plenty of Bautista's in the 90s and early part of this decade, so why wouldn't there be?

Like I said, PED's in sports sound like they're pretty much an arms race. Everyone is trying to get ahead and get an edge. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that Bautista would have something that isn't being tested for. PED's aren't only available to superstar players.

He did. He's had a great eye for years, check his college and MILB stats. The only thing that he really had going for him as a Pirate and as a Blue Jay in his early years was his plate discipline and ability to take a walk (in addition to his gun for an arm, I suppose).

He really hasn't. If anything, it's been "spotty", as Sickels mentioned in his scouting report of him way back when. He had a few solid years as far as his BB/K went, but in his three "full years", or years where he had over 300 AB's, he had twice as many K's as BB's in two of those years (and the third year he had 67 walks and 104 K's, so nothing to write home about).

That trend pretty much continued on in the big leagues up until about 2008, when he finally started "seeing" the ball better. So your contention that he was drafted because of, and has always had a great eye at the plate is completely false.

As I told you, bat speed was never an issue for Bautista. In fact, it was, and always has been, great. Teams saw the power in his swing in 2004 as a young kid and that's part of the reason why he moved around between so many teams. Indeed, he put on shows in batting practice as both a Pirate and a Jay.

Yes, you told me that, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's funny that you originally brought up what scouting reports used to say about him, then I told you that no scouting report I can find ever mentions what great speed he has (or what great eye he had for that matter), but now you seem to want to ignore those and keep at it. I'm not going to believe he's always had this unbelievable bat speed just because you say it's true.

By the way, check out the Mariners when they come to Kauffman Stadium. Ichiro puts on HR shows like you'd never believe. Doesn't mean jack.

And why couldn't he be mediocre with great bat speed? Many players are. Approach is everything. If you have a poor approach as a hitter that prevents you from making contact and sufficiently utilizing that bat speed, it won't matter how strong or how fast you are.

Because if you have that kind of bat speed with a supposedly pinpoint eye at the plate and the potential to hit 50 homers, it shouldn't take half your career to figure it out.

In the end, it really comes down to whether you want to enjoy one of the great all-time offensive starts and one of the most impressive changes in baseball history or whether you want to piss on the guy without any evidence of PED use. To me, it's kind of like whining about the validity of Usain Bolt's amazing record runs in Beijing because of the history of drug use in his sport. Keep complaining if you wish (though I've never understood why fans care much about players being on PEDs) but I'll side with the former and enjoy the ride. Baseball's more fun that way.

It's not ruining my enjoyment of baseball one way or the other. I'm not going to stop watching if Bautista is on my TV. I love seeing HR's. I'm not on a witch hunt or anything, it's just the way I feel about his situation.

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 12:50 AM

That was a typo, I meant to say 30-60, but the point is still the same. He hit 36 homers the year before hitting 66, and went on to hit 60+ three of the next four seasons. That's a 30 homer jump in one year.
And Sammy Sosa was still a great power hitter before he supposedly took steroids.

He was the best hitter in baseball before that, but that is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing here. It DOESN'T MATTER how good they were BEFORE the jump, the point is just that taking PED's helped make the jump.
Again, what matters is that PEDs didn't change Bonds' fundamental swing or approach. His use simply made everything that he did more effective. He went from being the best player in baseball to the best hitter to ever play the game.

Weren't you just saying that Bautista always had great power potential?

Yes, power potential that his poor swing was suppressing. Getting stronger isn't going to help him if his swing is still ****ed up.

So how did it make him something he's not? The PED's took a guy who you said always had power potential and turned him into the best power hitter in the game. What's so hard to believe about that?
Because steroids can't completely change somebody's swing and make them start hitting for more contact and more flyballs. That's something Bautista did himself.

Cut the rest of this to save space, but anyway.. I'm not really on a witch hunt to find PED users in sports and I don't have any criteria that I use to determine who is and who isn't, this is just a case that I feel is pretty blatant.

But I'm asking you why do you feel it is blatant? Is it the fact that he's a late bloomer or the fact that his surge is so impressive?

There have been plenty of late bloomers before in baseball (David Ortiz and Jayson Werth stand out as hitters in recent years), and plenty of impressive surges out of nowhere, but I haven't seen American baseball fans whining this much about possible PED use since Bonds played.

Are you really using Joe Mauer and Joey Votto as comparable examples to Jose Bautista?

No, I'm just pointing out that they also experienced unprecedented power increases in recent years (Mauer went from like 9 to 30 and then back to 9 again), the kind of power that they had never shown before. Was the only reason they didn't receive steroid talk because they had that jump 2-3 years younger than Bautista's? And if that's the case, are you really only suspicious of him because of his age?

I've acknowledged in the last few posts that he's made changes in his swing and it's not solely PED related. So we agree then that it's a mixture of PED's and changing his stance/approach/swing?
No, why would anybody agree that it's PEDs without any hint of evidence that it is? That's like convicting a murderer without the body.

He could very well have taken PEDs and changed his swing, but until there is some kind of proof of the former, no, I'm not going to go around making sensational, baseless claims.

There were plenty of Bautista's in the 90s and early part of this decade, so why wouldn't there be?
No, there actually weren't. We are in a completely different era of baseball right now where the scoring is way down (there are a lot of reasons for this and they are outlined earlier in this thread, but one of the big ones is that baseball has started deadening the balls in the attempt to show their drug testing system is working). Bautista's surge is far more impressive and unprecedented than any of those guys that came before, simply because he's dominating the league in a way that none of those guys did.

Like I said, PED's in sports sound like they're pretty much an arms race. Everyone is trying to get ahead and get an edge. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that Bautista would have something that isn't being tested for. PED's aren't only available to superstar players.

I'm sure a lot of players have stuff that isn't being tested for. What I don't understand is why anybody would think that Bautista has found some magic, unknown steroid that nobody else was using and that it instantly turned him into a superstar. That shit doesn't work that way.

He really hasn't. If anything, it's been "spotty", as Sickels mentioned in his scouting report of him way back when. He had a few solid years as far as his BB/K went, but in his three "full years", or years where he had over 300 AB's, he had twice as many K's as BB's in two of those years (and the third year he had 67 walks and 104 K's, so nothing to write home about).
His BB% was in the double digits throughout his MILB, Pittsburgh and early Toronto careers (including 13.9% in 2009). That's above-average, and he's had that good eye for his entire professional career.

Yes, you told me that, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's funny that you originally brought up what scouting reports used to say about him, then I told you that no scouting report I can find ever mentions what great speed he has (or what great eye he had for that matter), but now you seem to want to ignore those and keep at it. I'm not going to believe he's always had this unbelievable bat speed just because you say it's true.
I've done a lot of reading about the guy over the last 12 months and that was the scouting report on him. A very quick bat with power potential but very poor swing mechanics and contact ability. Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want (and whatever fits in your PED claim about him), but I would go reading more.

Because if you have that kind of bat speed with a supposedly pinpoint eye at the plate and the potential to hit 50 homers, it shouldn't take half your career to figure it out.
It shouldn't, but it did. His poor swing mechanics were never rectified until September 2009. It took Randy Johnson, for example, until the age of 29 to really become elite and find his command as a pitcher. He later went on to become one of the best pitchers of all time and HOF. Sometimes it takes time to realize enormous potential, even in a game like baseball.

It's not ruining my enjoyment of baseball one way or the other. I'm not going to stop watching if Bautista is on my TV. I love seeing HR's. I'm not on a witch hunt or anything, it's just the way I feel about his situation.
Then what are we arguing about? As long as you can acknowledge that what he's doing is an impressive accomplishment (on drugs or not), then enjoy the ride. We don't get to see a hitter as dominant as Bautista is right now very often in baseball.

Jim Jones

05-20-2011, 02:37 AM

And Sammy Sosa was still a great power hitter before he supposedly took steroids.

Again, what matters is that PEDs didn't change Bonds' fundamental swing or approach. His use simply made everything that he did more effective. He went from being the best player in baseball to the best hitter to ever play the game.

Why doesn't the same thing apply to Bautista? I'd imagine whatever he's using is making his swing and approach more effective. The guy figures out a swing and stance that work better for him, starts putting better wood on the ball and then the PED's take that to the next level.

It's funny though, because I remember back during Bonds' 73 HR season hearing about how he had changed his swing too. He made it more compact, used a bigger bat, choked up more, was upper cutting the ball more, all this crap. Everything becomes easier when you're getting a little help.

Yes, power potential that his poor swing was suppressing. Getting stronger isn't going to help him if his swing is still ****ed up.

Getting stronger ALWAYS helps. Getting around on a pitch faster ALWAYS helps. If a guy was hitting 20 homers a year, that same swing that netted him 20 homers a year, with the added strength and speed on his bat (which in turn lead to better plate discipline) could easily net him an extra 10-15 homers. Or as we've seen throughout the steroid era, even double his original numbers.

Because steroids can't completely change somebody's swing and make them start hitting for more contact and more flyballs. That's something Bautista did himself.

He's always hit a lot of fly balls. His fly ball percentage has been well above the league average in basically every year his career. His only issue was that he wasn't quite driving them far enough... :hmmm:

The big difference with him is that a higher percentage of his fly balls are going for homers.

Bautista in 2006: 47.3% of balls in play were fly balls and only 11.3% of those went for homers.
Bautista in 2011: 50.% fly balls, with 31.4% of those going for homers.

So, something is giving him that extra drive on those fly balls to send them out of the ball park at a historic rate. Once again I say...:hmmm:

But I'm asking you why do you feel it is blatant? Is it the fact that he's a late bloomer or the fact that his surge is so impressive?

Both.

There have been plenty of late bloomers before in baseball (David Ortiz and Jayson Werth stand out as hitters in recent years), and plenty of impressive surges out of nowhere, but I haven't seen American baseball fans whining this much about possible PED use since Bonds played.

Werth's "advanced" stats are pretty consistent across the board throughout his career. There's really no reason to think he did anything. His first year getting more than 100 at bats in 2004 (he had 290), he put up stats that if he had played a full season, would have been comparable to any of the years he put up in Philadelphia.

And Ortiz has tested positive for PED's already. So, um, I really don't know how bringing him up helps your argument?

I can't really speak to the rest of American baseball fans or what the general public thinks, I'm just here talking about Jose Bautista because this is a thread about Jose Bautista.

No, I'm just pointing out that they also experienced unprecedented power increases in recent years (Mauer went from like 9 to 30 and then back to 9 again), the kind of power that they had never shown before. Was the only reason they didn't receive steroid talk because they had that jump 2-3 years younger than Bautista's? And if that's the case, are you really only suspicious of him because of his age?

Unprecedented? Joe Mauer was the No. 1 pick in the draft and a guy that everyone expected to hit for power. There was nothing unprecedented about him finally hitting for power. Same with Votto. Read any scouting report on the guy and you'll see them raving about what immense power potential he had. I don't even see what big jump he had. He hit 24 in his first full year, then 25, then 37 in his third year?

Does that fit your definition of the word unprecedented?

No, there actually weren't. We are in a completely different era of baseball right now where the scoring is way down (there are a lot of reasons for this and they are outlined earlier in this thread, but one of the big ones is that baseball has started deadening the balls in the attempt to show their drug testing system is working)

Says who? Do you have any proof of that, or are you going around making "sensational, baseless claims"?

Bautista's surge is far more impressive and unprecedented than any of those guys that came before, simply because he's dominating the league in a way that none of those guys did.

So what, if the MLB wasn't "deadening" the balls, he would have hit 100 homers last year?

I'm sure a lot of players have stuff that isn't being tested for. What I don't understand is why anybody would think that Bautista has found some magic, unknown steroid that nobody else was using and that it instantly turned him into a superstar. That shit doesn't work that way.

Who said it's magic? Who said nobody else was using it? Just because Bautista is getting these results doesn't mean others are going to. Victor Conte provided a lot of guys with PED's, but they didn't all go out and hit 73 homers.

His BB% was in the double digits throughout his MILB, Pittsburgh and early Toronto careers (including 13.9% in 2009). That's above-average, and he's had that good eye for his entire professional career.

I've done a lot of reading about the guy over the last 12 months and that was the scouting report on him. A very quick bat with power potential but very poor swing mechanics and contact ability. Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want (and whatever fits in your PED claim about him), but I would go reading more.

- And his K% was also above the league average for most of his career. So as much as he was walking, he was striking out more. Sounds exactly like John Sickels said - spotty plate discipline.

- It's not really about what I want to believe. I'm willing to read anything you've got that talks about what great bat speed he's always had. All I can tell you is I've got a John Sickels prospect report that talks about iffy plate discipline and nothing about great bat speed. If you can find a report contrary to that, I'll concede this point to you.

It shouldn't, but it did. His poor swing mechanics were never rectified until September 2009. It took Randy Johnson, for example, until the age of 29 to really become elite and find his command as a pitcher. He later went on to become one of the best pitchers of all time and HOF. Sometimes it takes time to realize enormous potential, even in a game like baseball.

It's a lot more common for a pitcher to stop walking so many people than it is for a hitter to see a 41 HR increase from one season to the next. Randy Johnson was always an elite pitcher. He was striking out 220 guys a year. I don't see the correlation.

Then what are we arguing about? As long as you can acknowledge that what he's doing is an impressive accomplishment (on drugs or not), then enjoy the ride. We don't get to see a hitter as dominant as Bautista is right now very often in baseball.

We're just discussing it. I enjoy discussing baseball and I enjoy discussing topics like this.

Look, it's really simple - Only one player in baseball history has had the kind of season Bautista is currently on pace to have and that player was undeniably using PED's. What else do you need to know?

SAUTO

05-20-2011, 06:31 AM

Still holding that childish grudge over my objectivity during the Greinke negotiations, I see?

It's 40 innings into his major league career, hardly anything to worry about or anything that will destroy him at the age of 23. You know who had serious issues throwing strikes for the first two entire seasons of his career? Only the greatest pitcher of our era, Roy Halladay.

nope just laughing at you for saying that guy was untouchable in a grienke deal then saying he also has trouble throwing strikes.LMAO

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 09:21 AM

nope just laughing at you for saying that guy was untouchable in a grienke deal then saying he also has trouble throwing strikes.LMAO
Never said he was untouchable, that he was ace in the making, or that he wouldn't go through growing pains at the MLB level like most pitchers. If guys like Halladay and Marcum can be moved from the Jays, Drabek certainly can. What I said was that no team would give the Royals the equivalent of Drabek and Snider in a trade for Greinke. And guess what, as it turned out, they didn't even get close to such a package. Again, sorry for upsetting you (might be time to move on, though...) and being right about that, but if I see a bunch of Royals fans talking about something that's a pipedream, I'll continue to let them know it.

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 10:08 AM

Why doesn't the same thing apply to Bautista?

Because Bautista wasn't Sammy Sosa or Barry Bonds pre-steroids. He was a replacement level player with a terrible hitch in his swing.

I'd imagine whatever he's using is making his swing and approach more effective.

How does a drug happen to completely change his swing and approach? It's never done such a thing for any player in history, but he's found something specifically tailored for baseball players, something that turns him from a low-contact, groundball hitting hacker to an incredible flyball hitting power hitter? No, I think the more likely explanation here is that the guy actually changed his swing like the evidence points to.

The guy figures out a swing and stance that work better for him, starts putting better wood on the ball and then the PED's take that to the next level.
Perhaps, but where's the evidence? If you're going to claim somebody is using a PED, it has to be more then "well, some guys in his sport used steroids to become amazing 10 years ago." Should we also say the same thing about Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps in track and swimming respectively? After all, their dominant performances came in sports with a history of drug use.

Getting stronger ALWAYS helps. Getting around on a pitch faster ALWAYS helps. If a guy was hitting 20 homers a year, that same swing that netted him 20 homers a year, with the added strength and speed on his bat (which in turn lead to better plate discipline) could easily net him an extra 10-15 homers. Or as we've seen throughout the steroid era, even double his original numbers.
Again, getting stronger helps nothing if you have a terrible approach in the first place.

He's always hit a lot of fly balls. His fly ball percentage has been well above the league average in basically every year his career. His only issue was that he wasn't quite driving them far enough... :hmmm:

2006 Pirates: 47.3% FB rate
2007 Pirates: 43.4% FB rate
2008 Pirates/Blue Jays: 38.8% FB rate
2009 Blue Jays: 42.1% FB rate
2010 Blue Jays: 54.5% FB rate
2011: Blue Jays: 50.0% FB rate

Let's not be disingenuous with the stats here, please. It would be false to say he always hit a lot of flyballs here. He had an average FB rate until he changed his swing in September 2009, creating the player you see in 2010 and 2011.

The big difference with him is that a higher percentage of his fly balls are going for homers.
No, the bigger difference is that he's hitting more fly balls, making more contact, and a higher percentage of his fly balls are going for HRs.

Both.
So were you complaining about PED use around David Ortiz and Jayson Werth, or did they not make big enough jumps for you to get suspicious enough about them?

You've got to give me your set of rules for what we can say a guy is on PEDs and when we can say he isn't. What counts as suspicious?

Werth's "advanced" stats are pretty consistent across the board throughout his career. There's really no reason to think he did anything. His first year getting more than 100 at bats in 2004 (he had 290), he put up stats that if he had played a full season, would have been comparable to any of the years he put up in Philadelphia.
Except he started hitting for a lot more power at the age of 28 in Philly and earned himself a $126M contract. Not unprecedented, but it's the kind of change that you don't see very often in baseball. Steroids?

And Ortiz has tested positive for PED's already. So, um, I really don't know how bringing him up helps your argument?
What argument? I've never once said here Bautista isn't on PEDs like Ortiz was. I just want to know whether you were suspicious about his increase or not at the time, and if not, why not?

Unprecedented? Joe Mauer was the No. 1 pick in the draft and a guy that everyone expected to hit for power. There was nothing unprecedented about him finally hitting for power.
Joe Mauer hit for mediocre power his entire professional career until 2009 when he hit 29, before going back down to 9 in 2010. I'm asking you how you explain that....did he take steroids for one year? Did he change his approach? Why wasn't the American media talking about PEDs with that huge surge and decline?

Same with Votto. Read any scouting report on the guy and you'll see them raving about what immense power potential he had. I don't even see what big jump he had. He hit 24 in his first full year, then 25, then 37 in his third year?

I'm Canadian and Votto grew up where I'm from, so I've been reading about Votto for years. Not too many scouts ever believed he would have this kind of HR power at the major league level. Yes, his HR power should be a surprise for anybody that's followed his career path as an amateur and professional minor leaguer.

Says who? Do you have any proof of that, or are you going around making "sensational, baseless claims"?
No, I just do a lot of reading on the topic and assume that others have the same knowledge: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml

So what, if the MLB wasn't "deadening" the balls, he would have hit 100 homers last year?
If Bautista was playing the Bonds scoring era, he would have likely hit more HRs, yes. There's a huge difference in scoring environments between 2001 and 2011 and much of it is the difference in the baseballs.

Who said it's magic? Who said nobody else was using it? Just because Bautista is getting these results doesn't mean others are going to. Victor Conte provided a lot of guys with PED's, but they didn't all go out and hit 73 homers.
Well you are trying to tell me that he's found some kind of drug that turns replacement level players into superstars. No such drug exists, and it's a bit ridiculous for anybody to argue otherwise.

As for not everybody going out to hit 73 HR, that's what I'm getting at here. Bautista is doing this, drugs or not, because he's that much better than everybody else. It's an incredibly impressive dominant example of hitting.

- And his K% was also above the league average for most of his career. So as much as he was walking, he was striking out more. Sounds exactly like John Sickels said - spotty plate discipline.
Bautista had a high K rate because he had a hitch in his swing, not because he didn't have a good eye at the plate. Once again, the only thing that even gave him value as a major league player was his ability to take walks and get on base.

- It's not really about what I want to believe. I'm willing to read anything you've got that talks about what great bat speed he's always had.

I can't do all of your researching for you, but I'll try to do some of it quickly. You are wrong to believe your brother, though, if he says Bautista's problem was ever his bat speed.

My search results from "Jose Bautista bat speed Pirate:"

""Everybody was talking about David Wright being this great offensive third baseman," White said, "but we thought our guy [Bautista] was every bit as good. We looked at him as being a middle-of-the-order hitter over time. Maybe it was going to be doubles and triples power, because he was a gap-to-gap hitter. But we always thought he would have power. Just look at the beauty of that swing. He generates a lot of bat speed."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=5542048

-This is a good article that goes into his development and talks about Bautista being recommended for 2nd round money, which backs up a point that I made earlier. As I told you, all of this information is out there. Bautista was always a great talent with unfulfilled potential.

"Graham was the Pirates' farm director at the time - he was fired after the 2007 season - and is now the coordinator of instruction for the Baltimore Orioles. What did he see in Bautista?

"He had strong hands, he had bat speed, he had athleticism and he had the qualities that power hitters have," Graham said by phone Friday night. "I never thought he'd hit 50 home runs, but I thought he was a guy that would hit for power."

"You saw a guy that wasn't extremely big in stature, but you saw bat speed and you saw strong hands," Graham said of Bautista's time in Altoona. "And when you see a guy with bat speed and strong hands, the ball carries different than it does off a normal hitter's bat. The ball just carries. It's hit in the gap, and you see it travels further."

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/542720/Somehow-he-knew--Bautista-s-success-no-surprise-to-Graham.html

"They knew of Bautista's bat speed, his good eye, his occasional power (straightaway power with the Pirates, more of a pull guy now), and of his impeccable character as a passionate competitor."

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/home/dk-on-pittsburgh-sports/109885-wakeup-call-the-old-bautista

All I can tell you is I've got a John Sickels prospect report that talks about iffy plate discipline and nothing about great bat speed.
Sickels wrote that scouting report last June, it isn't really indicative of much as he's never had direct experience watching him. These scouts have.

It's a lot more common for a pitcher to stop walking so many people than it is for a hitter to see a 41 HR increase from one season to the next. Randy Johnson was always an elite pitcher. He was striking out 220 guys a year. I don't see the correlation.
You missed the point. The point is that sometimes for guys it takes a lot longer than others to reach their full potential. Sometimes it just clicks for a guy mentally and they don't look back. The fact that it happened later than "normal" with Bautista isn't in itself suspicious.

Look, it's really simple - Only one player in baseball history has had the kind of season Bautista is currently on pace to have and that player was undeniably using PED's. What else do you need to know?
Well that's not exactly true. Bautista is on pace for a Babe Ruth-like WAR season. Are you telling me Ruth was also on PEDs, too?

'Hamas' Jenkins

05-20-2011, 01:05 PM

Ruth was playing against an incredibly thin talent pool, dumbass.

You'd have to be the fool of fools to think that this kind of a jump is related to a simple fixing of his swing. People don't have these kinds of power jumps from nowhere.

'Hamas' Jenkins

05-20-2011, 01:25 PM

Nice of our resident expert to finally chime in after ignoring the thread for weeks with an unnecessary quip from his vast reservoir of baseball knowledge.

What I really want to know, though, is when Bautista is going to stop being an elite hitter and start being a fluke like you told me he would.

When he steps off the gas.

You've argued so much insane bullshit over the years, none more insane than claiming that the entire reason for the power surge in baseball was related to a change in the baseball, when said measurements only measured the "density" of the baseball, which means relatively little.

If you want a ball to travel farther, it needs to compress and then return to shape quickly. Similarly, that's why aluminum bats hit the ball farther than wood models. Not only can they be made lighter, but their face will deform before springing back. It's called the trampoline effect. It's present in golf, and it's used as a speed limit on clubs to prevent drivers that hit the ball 330 yards with a 100 mph swing speed.

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 03:05 PM

Ruth was playing against an incredibly thin talent pool, dumbass.

How does the weak talent pool change the fact that Babe Ruth was one of the most dominating baseball players of all time?

You'd have to be the fool of fools to think that this kind of a jump is related to a simple fixing of his swing. People don't have these kinds of power jumps from nowhere.
So you naively believe he simply took a steroid in September 2009 that made his swing change and his power elevate to Bondsian levels from mediocrity? If it was that easy, why hasn't anybody in the history of the game ever done anything like this before?

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 03:11 PM

When he steps off the gas.

That's not an answer. You told me he was hitting for "lucky power" based on irrelevant peripheral stats like LD% and IFFB% and because he had never done it before (to put it simply). Now you tell me that PEDs are the cause of it all. Which is it? Is he going to be like this as long as he supposedly continues taking PEDs?

You've argued so much insane bullshit over the years, none more insane than claiming that the entire reason for the power surge in baseball was related to a change in the baseball, when said measurements only measured the "density" of the baseball, which means relatively little.
Never said the entire reason at any point in this thread. There are many factors behind MLB's high scoring environment at the turn of the century. You'd have to be incredibly naive to think that the baseballs weren't one of the reasons.

'Hamas' Jenkins

05-20-2011, 03:11 PM

The weak talent pool doesn't change the fact that Babe Ruth was dominating, it does matter when you factor who he was dominating against.

I never said he didn't change his swing. What I'm not doing is believing that changing his swing turned him into a player that is putting up clean stats better than the dirty stats of one of the five most naturally talented baseball players ever (Bonds).

If he changed his swing and then started hitting 25-30 HR or thereabout, that would make sense. It'd be unlikely, but it has happened. For him to shoot to 54, and to then be on pace for 70+, defies Occam's Razor.

'Hamas' Jenkins

05-20-2011, 03:13 PM

That's not an answer. You told me he was hitting for "lucky power" based on irrelevant peripheral stats like LD% and IFFB% and because he had never done it before (to put it simply). Now you tell me that PEDs are the cause of it all. Which is it? Is he going to be like this as long as he supposedly continues taking PEDs?

Never said the entire reason at any point in this thread. There are many factors behind MLB's high scoring environment at the turn of the century. You'd have to be incredibly naive to think that the baseballs weren't one of the reasons.

It can be both. This power can related to multiple factors. His early season surge is lucky even compared to his 2010 numbers, but this consistent power out of nowhere is the hallmark of PED usage.

And baseballs theoretically could have been a reason, but believing that the density of the ball was related to its propensity to go farther is ignorant to what actually makes balls travel greater distances.

Density does not = resiliency.

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 03:18 PM

The weak talent pool doesn't change the fact that Babe Ruth was dominating, it does matter when you factor who he was dominating against.
It still doesn't change the fact that Ruth was arguably the most dominating hitter of all time and didn't do it with any "help" (we assume, I mean, I'm sure he injected cow testosterone or whatever the baseball players were doing then).

I never said he didn't change his swing. What I'm not doing is believing that changing his swing turned him into a player that is putting up clean stats better than the dirty stats of one of the five most naturally talented baseball players ever (Bonds).

At least you're acknowledging that his performance isn't lucky anymore but directly related a change he made (and the PED theory, too). It's good progress, Hamas.

If he changed his swing and then started hitting 25-30 HR or thereabout, that would make sense. It'd be unlikely, but it has happened. For him to shoot to 54, and to then be on pace for 70+, defies Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor would point you to the swing changes that he made in September 2009 coinciding with his power increase, not an evidence-less theory based on Barry Bonds/others.

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 03:27 PM

It can be both. This power can related to multiple factors. His early season surge is lucky even compared to his 2010 numbers, but this consistent power out of nowhere is the hallmark of PED usage.

Nothing he's doing, or has been doing for the last year and a half, can be considered lucky. He's murdering the ball almost every time he gets the chance, that's the reason for his high BABIP in 2011.

And baseballs theoretically could have been a reason, but believing that the density of the ball was related to its propensity to go farther is ignorant to what actually makes balls travel greater distances.

Density does not = resiliency.
I'm no physicist. These guys are, though: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml http://bbp.cx/unfiltered/?p=128

'Hamas' Jenkins

05-20-2011, 03:32 PM

Guys have changed their approaches all throughout history. None has ever had a jump in performance like this.

Across one season with a team that does nothing but swing for the fences in a lean-hitter's park, it would point to a statistical aberration.

Across more than one season, such performance would be indicative of PED use.

Given the history of baseball, those are the most plausible and likely scenarios, which is why the invocation of Occam's Razor is plausible, not that he unearthed a swing from the bowels of hell that all of a sudden made him the best hitter on earth.

And his BABIP is up something like 140 points compared to even last season.

The average is fluky/aberrational right now, the power seems to be indicative of PED usage. But it's not like we just went through 15 years of this in the very same sport or anything.

'Hamas' Jenkins

05-20-2011, 03:34 PM

It still doesn't change the fact that Ruth was arguably the most dominating hitter of all time and didn't do it with any "help" (we assume, I mean, I'm sure he injected cow testosterone or whatever the baseball players were doing then).

And no one made any suggestions that he wasn't or that he was on PEDs, you fucking idiot.

You are arguing against a strawman you built up while attributing its construction to someone else.

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 03:39 PM

Guys have changed their approaches all throughout history. None has ever had a jump in performance like this.

Perhaps none of those guys ever had Bautista's incredible power potential before? Why ignore the guy's obvious incredible talent (which you continue to do)?

Across one season with a team that does nothing but swing for the fences in a lean-hitter's park, it would point to a statistical aberration.

With his swing change, there was nothing in his stats or approach that pointed to a statistical aberration, I went over this point repeatedly.

Across more than one season, such performance would be indicative of PED use.
Maybe, or he just got a hell of a lot better after he made his swing change. Or maybe both.

Given the history of baseball, those are the most plausible and likely scenarios, which is why the invocation of Occam's Razor is plausible, not that he unearthed a swing from the bowels of hell that all of a sudden made him the best hitter on earth.
Except we know that he changed his swing in September 2009 and we know he started hitting for power in September 2009. You can't be trying to tell me those two things are a coincidence. Did he also just randomly decide to start taking this magic steroid in September 2009 too?

And his BABIP is up something like 140 points compared to even last season.

The average is fluky/aberrational right now, the power seems to be indicative of PED usage. But it's not like we just went through 15 years of this in the very same sport or anything.

The average isn't fluky or aberrational at all. Barry Bonds' 2001-2004 seasons weren't fluky or aberrational. That's just how locked in he is and how hard he's hitting the ball consistently right now.

Time will tell whether he can keep it up (it's almost impossible to think so), but that doesn't mean anything he's doing is fluky. He's just been that good since April.

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 03:43 PM

And no one made any suggestions that he wasn't or that he was on PEDs, you ****ing idiot.
The point was that other players in baseball history have put up dominating Bonds-like seasons before. Guys like Ruth, Williams, Mantle, etc. And nobody thinks they were on steroids (I assume). It is possible for somebody to be a really good and really dominant hitter without taking any drugs.

Jim Jones

05-20-2011, 04:00 PM

Because Bautista wasn't Sammy Sosa or Barry Bonds pre-steroids. He was a replacement level player with a terrible hitch in his swing.

HOW GOOD THEY WERE BEFORE THEY STARTED USING PED'S IS IRRELEVANT WHEN COMPARING THEIR JUMP IN PRODUCTION. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS.

How does a drug happen to completely change his swing and approach? It's never done such a thing for any player in history, but he's found something specifically tailored for baseball players, something that turns him from a low-contact, groundball hitting hacker to an incredible flyball hitting power hitter? No, I think the more likely explanation here is that the guy actually changed his swing like the evidence points to.

Dude, honest question, are you reading anything I'm typing or are you in such a feverish hurry to reply that you just start typing stuff the second you see my post pop up? I NEVER ONCE said that PED's changed his swing or approach. I've said over and over and over again that I acknowledge changes to his swing, and feel that combined with PED's is the reason for his power surge. You keep talking about how nobody has experienced power surges like this due to PED's (which we have proven is completely false), but the real fact is, nobody has experienced a power surge like this seven years into their career just by ****ing CHANGING THEIR SWING.

Perhaps, but where's the evidence? If you're going to claim somebody is using a PED, it has to be more then "well, some guys in his sport used steroids to become amazing 10 years ago." Should we also say the same thing about Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps in track and swimming respectively? After all, their dominant performances came in sports with a history of drug use.

Here's what Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps would have to do to be comparable to Jose Bautista:

Make the Olympics their first two tries, but fail each time, not winning any medals and generally finishing in the back of the pack of all their races. Then, the third time they qualify for the Olympics, they all of the sudden dominate. Phelps wins 8 gold medals and Usain Bolt goes from bringing up the rear to being the fastest man in the world.

Again, getting stronger helps nothing if you have a terrible approach in the first place.

GETTING. STRONGER. ALWAYS. HELPS.

Getting stronger with a terrible approach at the plate will not help you hit 40 more homers, but getting stronger with a good approach at the plate sure as shit will.

2006 Pirates: 47.3% FB rate
2007 Pirates: 43.4% FB rate
2008 Pirates/Blue Jays: 38.8% FB rate
2009 Blue Jays: 42.1% FB rate
2010 Blue Jays: 54.5% FB rate
2011: Blue Jays: 50.0% FB rate

Let's not be disingenuous with the stats here, please. It would be false to say he always hit a lot of flyballs here. He had an average FB rate until he changed his swing in September 2009, creating the player you see in 2010 and 2011.

Every year you posted except for 2008 is above the league average and 2008 is exactly league average. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those fly ball rates - they are all basically exactly on par with Albert Pujols over the course of his career.

No, the bigger difference is that he's hitting more fly balls, making more contact, and a higher percentage of his fly balls are going for HRs.

Wrong. Once again, hitting more of his fly balls for homers is the reason for his increase.

Even if his 2011 number was 47.3% like it was in 2006, he would still be hitting 31% of those for homers. That's a gigantic increase. What's so hard to understand about that?

So were you complaining about PED use around David Ortiz and Jayson Werth, or did they not make big enough jumps for you to get suspicious enough about them?

Yeah, I was always pretty suspicious of David Ortiz. And then..he tested positive. This bodes well for Bautista. Is this supposed to be making me see your side of the argument?

Except he started hitting for a lot more power at the age of 28 in Philly and earned himself a $126M contract. Not unprecedented, but it's the kind of change that you don't see very often in baseball. Steroids?

The kind of change you don't see often in baseball?

He went .262/.338/.486 with 16 homers and a 115 OPS+ in 290 at bats in 2004. He averaged .283/.382/.498 with 23 homers and a 128 OPS in 449 at bats a year in Philadelphia.

Are you really basing an argument around this? I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary. His numbers progressed naturally over the course of his career.

Joe Mauer hit for mediocre power his entire professional career until 2009 when he hit 29, before going back down to 9 in 2010. I'm asking you how you explain that....did he take steroids for one year? Did he change his approach? Why wasn't the American media talking about PEDs with that huge surge and decline?

I don't know how you explain that. I'm not claiming to be an expert on Joe Mauer. All I know is the guy has always had a swing that was made to hit for power. He was one of the best line drive/doubles hitters in baseball and was always expected to hit for power. Did he get on PED's? I don't know, maybe. If you want to dig into Joe Mauer then start a Joe Mauer post.

I'm Canadian and Votto grew up where I'm from, so I've been reading about Votto for years. Not too many scouts ever believed he would have this kind of HR power at the major league level. Yes, his HR power should be a surprise for anybody that's followed his career path as an amateur and professional minor leaguer.

What the **** are you talking about? Everyone knew he was going to hit for power. He crushed the ball in the minors and is crushing the ball in the majors. He was always one of the Reds top-ranked prospects. Baseball America had him as the organization's top power hitter a couple of years running. What the **** are you talking about?!?!

No, I just do a lot of reading on the topic and assume that others have the same knowledge: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml

Well, Hamas pretty much already shot all this down. Here's a link to a study that finds the opposite, BTW: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077332/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/squeezing-juice-out-baseballs/

I don't know enough about the physics of it to really comment, but we can trade links all day.

In addition, I'm still waiting for you to prove how you know that baseball's now are "deadened".

Well you are trying to tell me that he's found some kind of drug that turns replacement level players into superstars. No such drug exists, and it's a bit ridiculous for anybody to argue otherwise.

I'm not trying to tell you that, so I don't know how that's what you've gathered from this. I'm trying to tell you that changing your swing cannot add 40 homers to your resume. Changing your swing and getting stronger/faster can.

As for not everybody going out to hit 73 HR, that's what I'm getting at here. Bautista is doing this, drugs or not, because he's that much better than everybody else. It's an incredibly impressive dominant example of hitting.

So Bautista has always been the most talented player in baseball, he just had a mysterious swing issue that nobody could figure out? I eagerly await the day three years from now when Mike Aviles fixes his swing and starts hitting like A-Rod. Can't wait.

Bautista had a high K rate because he had a hitch in his swing, not because he didn't have a good eye at the plate. Once again, the only thing that even gave him value as a major league player was his ability to take walks and get on base.

You can spin it anyway you want, the fact is that he struck out more than he walked. Even last year when he supposedly fixed the "hitch", he still struck out 116 times. So, he just swings at a lot of bad pitches.

I can't do all of your researching for you, but I'll try to do some of it quickly. You are wrong to believe your brother, though, if he says Bautista's problem was ever his bat speed.

My search results from "Jose Bautista bat speed Pirate:"

""Everybody was talking about David Wright being this great offensive third baseman," White said, "but we thought our guy [Bautista] was every bit as good. We looked at him as being a middle-of-the-order hitter over time. Maybe it was going to be doubles and triples power, because he was a gap-to-gap hitter. But we always thought he would have power. Just look at the beauty of that swing. He generates a lot of bat speed."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=5542048

Never said the PROBLEM was his bat speed. I'm sure he's always had decent/good bat speed. I said that he didn't have the bat speed he has now. I have no way to prove that and these links you posted don't disprove that. All they say is that once scout with the Pirates liked what he saw from him. That doesn't really do anything to legitimize his power surge though, because everyone who gets drafted has SOME scout who believed in them or thought they would do well. It's not like there's some general consensus that Bautista would turn into an elite power hitter.

And these same scouts are quoted in these stories as saying that they didn't ever imagine him hitting 50 homers. What he's doing now seems like the best case scenario in the eyes of the scouts who were in love with him, combined with a little outside help.

Sickels wrote that scouting report last June, it isn't really indicative of much as he's never had direct experience watching him. These scouts have.

Sickels wrote it based on reports compiled from following Bautista throughout his minor league career.

You missed the point. The point is that sometimes for guys it takes a lot longer than others to reach their full potential. Sometimes it just clicks for a guy mentally and they don't look back. The fact that it happened later than "normal" with Bautista isn't in itself suspicious.

And sometimes guys take Performance Enhancing Drugs to help them exceed that potential. Nobody has ever "figured it out" like Bautista.

Well that's not exactly true. Bautista is on pace for a Babe Ruth-like WAR season. Are you telling me Ruth was also on PEDs, too?

Looks like you and Hamas have already covered this, but yeah..it was like, 90 years ago. Trying to compare era's like that is ridiculous and just dancing around the issue. The point is that in modern baseball, Bautista is doing something that only the one of the most talented players ever did while he was on PEDs. If you want to believe that's all natural, more power to you.

So you naively believe he simply took a steroid in September 2009 that made his swing change and his power elevate to Bondsian levels from mediocrity? If it was that easy, why hasn't anybody in the history of the game ever done anything like this before?

If it's as simple as changing your swing and tacking 40 homers onto your yearly total, why isn't every mediocre baseball player in the league studying Bautista's swing and copying it to a T?

Bautista went from being a fringe MLB player to the most efficient and featured hitter in baseball. That defies logic. Can strictly taking PED's do that? No, but tinkering with your swing can't either. It's a combination of many things and I'd imagine both are involved.

ModSocks

05-20-2011, 04:15 PM

HOW GOOD THEY WERE BEFORE THEY STARTED USING PED'S IS IRRELEVANT WHEN COMPARING THEIR JUMP IN PRODUCTION. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS.

Dude, honest question, are you reading anything I'm typing or are you in such a feverish hurry to reply that you just start typing stuff the second you see my post pop up? I NEVER ONCE said that PED's changed his swing or approach. I've said over and over and over again that I acknowledge changes to his swing, and feel that combined with PED's is the reason for his power surge. You keep talking about how nobody has experienced power surges like this due to PED's (which we have proven is completely false), but the real fact is, nobody has experienced a power surge like this seven years into their career just by ****ing CHANGING THEIR SWING.

Here's what Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps would have to do to be comparable to Jose Bautista:

Make the Olympics their first two tries, but fail each time, not winning any medals and generally finishing in the back of the pack of all their races. Then, the third time they qualify for the Olympics, they all of the sudden dominate. Phelps wins 8 gold medals and Usain Bolt goes from bringing up the rear to being the fastest man in the world.

GETTING. STRONGER. ALWAYS. HELPS.

Getting stronger with a terrible approach at the plate will not help you hit 40 more homers, but getting stronger with a good approach at the plate sure as shit will.

Every year you posted except for 2008 is above the league average and 2008 is exactly league average. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those fly ball rates - they are all basically exactly on par with Albert Pujols over the course of his career.

Wrong. Once again, hitting more of his fly balls for homers is the reason for his increase.

Even if his 2011 number was 47.3% like it was in 2006, he would still be hitting 31% of those for homers. That's a gigantic increase. What's so hard to understand about that?

Yeah, I was always pretty suspicious of David Ortiz. And then..he tested positive. This bodes well for Bautista. Is this supposed to be making me see your side of the argument?

The kind of change you don't see often in baseball?

He went .262/.338/.486 with 16 homers and a 115 OPS+ in 290 at bats in 2004. He averaged .283/.382/.498 with 23 homers and a 128 OPS in 449 at bats a year in Philadelphia.

Are you really basing an argument around this? I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary. His numbers progressed naturally over the course of his career.

I don't know how you explain that. I'm not claiming to be an expert on Joe Mauer. All I know is the guy has always had a swing that was made to hit for power. He was one of the best line drive/doubles hitters in baseball and was always expected to hit for power. Did he get on PED's? I don't know, maybe. If you want to dig into Joe Mauer then start a Joe Mauer post.

What the **** are you talking about? Everyone knew he was going to hit for power. He crushed the ball in the minors and is crushing the ball in the majors. He was always one of the Reds top-ranked prospects. Baseball America had him as the organization's top power hitter a couple of years running. What the **** are you talking about?!?!

Well, Hamas pretty much already shot all this down. Here's a link to a study that finds the opposite, BTW: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077332/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/squeezing-juice-out-baseballs/

I don't know enough about the physics of it to really comment, but we can trade links all day.

In addition, I'm still waiting for you to prove how you know that baseball's now are "deadened".

I'm not trying to tell you that, so I don't know how that's what you've gathered from this. I'm trying to tell you that changing your swing cannot add 40 homers to your resume. Changing your swing and getting stronger/faster can.

So Bautista has always been the most talented player in baseball, he just had a mysterious swing issue that nobody could figure out? I eagerly await the day three years from now when Mike Aviles fixes his swing and starts hitting like A-Rod. Can't wait.

You can spin it anyway you want, the fact is that he struck out more than he walked. Even last year when he supposedly fixed the "hitch", he still struck out 116 times. So, he just swings at a lot of bad pitches.

Never said the PROBLEM was his bat speed. I'm sure he's always had decent/good bat speed. I said that he didn't have the bat speed he has now. I have no way to prove that and these links you posted don't disprove that. All they say is that once scout with the Pirates liked what he saw from him. That doesn't really do anything to legitimize his power surge though, because everyone who gets drafted has SOME scout who believed in them or thought they would do well. It's not like there's some general consensus that Bautista would turn into an elite power hitter.

And these same scouts are quoted in these stories as saying that they didn't ever imagine him hitting 50 homers. What he's doing now seems like the best case scenario in the eyes of the scouts who were in love with him, combined with a little outside help.

Sickels wrote it based on reports compiled from following Bautista throughout his minor league career.

And sometimes guys take Performance Enhancing Drugs to help them exceed that potential. Nobody has ever "figured it out" like Bautista.

Looks like you and Hamas have already covered this, but yeah..it was like, 90 years ago. Trying to compare era's like that is ridiculous and just dancing around the issue. The point is that in modern baseball, Bautista is doing something that only the one of the most talented players ever did while he was on PEDs. If you want to believe that's all natural, more power to you.

If it's as simple as changing your swing and tacking 40 homers onto your yearly total, why isn't every mediocre baseball player in the league studying Bautista's swing and copying it to a T?

Bautista went from being a fringe MLB player to the most efficient and featured hitter in baseball. That defies logic. Can strictly taking PED's do that? No, but tinkering with your swing can't either. It's a combination of many things and I'd imagine both are involved.

HOLY FUCK THAT'S A LONG POST. WHAT A WASTE OF TIME. THE RAPTURE STARTS TONIGHT!!!

KC_Connection

05-20-2011, 05:00 PM

HOW GOOD THEY WERE BEFORE THEY STARTED USING PED'S IS IRRELEVANT WHEN COMPARING THEIR JUMP IN PRODUCTION. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS.

AND HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT STEROIDS DIDN'T MAKE SOSA AND BONDS DIFFERENT PLAYERS, THEY SIMPLY ACCENTUATED THEIR POSITIVES. YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT STEROIDS TURNED BAUTISTA INTO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KIND OF PLAYER THAN HE WAS BEFORE.

Dude, honest question, are you reading anything I'm typing or are you in such a feverish hurry to reply that you just start typing stuff the second you see my post pop up?

I can't say I care much about what you're writing (it's very off-base at times), but I certainly am reading it. It interests me to know why nobody wants to give an incredibly talented baseball credit any credit for an extraordinary accomplishment.

I NEVER ONCE said that PED's changed his swing or approach. I've said over and over and over again that I acknowledge changes to his swing, and feel that combined with PED's is the reason for his power surge.

All right, then we agree that Bautista's dominance is at least partly because he changed himself into a great baseball player?

You keep talking about how nobody has experienced power surges like this due to PED's (which we have proven is completely false),

Never said such a thing. I said steroids don't turn career mediocrities into Barry Bonds.

but the real fact is, nobody has experienced a power surge like this seven years into their career just by ****ing CHANGING THEIR SWING.
Nobody has ever done anything like Bautista before (check the Fangraphs article today about how unprecedented his change is), so how exactly do you know what causes a power surge like this? There are simply no precedents in which to work from.

Here's what Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps would have to do to be comparable to Jose Bautista:

Make the Olympics their first two tries, but fail each time, not winning any medals and generally finishing in the back of the pack of all their races. Then, the third time they qualify for the Olympics, they all of the sudden dominate. Phelps wins 8 gold medals and Usain Bolt goes from bringing up the rear to being the fastest man in the world.
I was comparing them in the sense of their respective dominance in drug sports, not in the sense that it took Bautista a long time to reach his potential. Americans don't whine about Michael Phelps' success (and didn't whine about Lance Armstrong at the time) when quite clearly there is reason to be suspicious about them.

GETTING. STRONGER. ALWAYS. HELPS.
NO IT DOESN'T. I COULD GO GET INCREDIBLY JACKED ON ROIDS RIGHT NOW AND I STILL WOULDNT BE ABLE TO HIT A MAJOR LEAGUE HR BECAUSE I HAVE A TERRIBLE SWING.

Getting stronger with a terrible approach at the plate will not help you hit 40 more homers, but getting stronger with a good approach at the plate sure as shit will.
Indeed, I never said differently. We know Bautista changed his approach at the plate, we don't know that he took drugs.

Every year you posted except for 2008 is above the league average and 2008 is exactly league average.

Again, not the point. The point was that his FB% skyrocked when he changed his approach as a hitter. He began hitting a ton more flyballs instead of hitting an average rate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with those fly ball rates - they are all basically exactly on par with Albert Pujols over the course of his career.
Albert Pujols has never been a traditional high FB% slugger in the sense of the word (Bautista, Dunn, Howard, Fielder), so there's no comparison there.

Wrong. Once again, hitting more of his fly balls for homers is the reason for his increase.
No, I'm pretty sure that the fact he's hitting way more fly balls (which gives you more opportunities to hit home runs) is the real reason. He's also hitting them harder and longer, but if he wasn't hitting more fly balls, he certainly wouldn't have hit hit 70 since 2010.

This bodes well for Bautista. Is this supposed to be making me see your side of the argument?
I'm not convinced this is even an argument. I just love the absurdity of people whining about steroid use in Bautista when they could do it so often every year about a variety of players.

The kind of change you don't see often in baseball?
No, players don't generally turn their careers around and experience a power increase at the age of 28. I thought that's why you were so suspicious of Bautista...his late-bloomerness.

I don't know how you explain that. I'm not claiming to be an expert on Joe Mauer. All I know is the guy has always had a swing that was made to hit for power. He was one of the best line drive/doubles hitters in baseball and was always expected to hit for power. Did he get on PED's? I don't know, maybe. If you want to dig into Joe Mauer then start a Joe Mauer post.
I just want to know why the media and the fans didn't bring that up as an explanation (particularly last year when he declined). Because he was considered a top prospect? Because he wasn't playing on a Canadian team?

What the **** are you talking about? Everyone knew he was going to hit for power. He crushed the ball in the minors and is crushing the ball in the majors. He was always one of the Reds top-ranked prospects. Baseball America had him as the organization's top power hitter a couple of years running. What the **** are you talking about?!?!
I can tell you haven't followed Votto for very long, but there weren't too many that ever thought he would ever show power like this. Most thought he would be a 20 HR John Olerud type, even the Canadian guys that were high on him.

This is what I'm ****ing talking about: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/was-joey-vottos-breakout-predictable/

Well, Hamas pretty much already shot all this down. Here's a link to a study that finds the opposite,

Hamas didn't shoot down anything. The balls were juiced in those years and there are plenty of sources there to support that assertion.

BTW: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077332/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/squeezing-juice-out-baseballs/

That very study was already discussed in this thread, if I'm not mistaken. You should read through the entire thread.

I don't know enough about the physics of it to really comment, but we can trade links all day.
Already been done in this thread. Though I'm not exactly sure why you are trying to argue against the facts and against what should be common sense.

In addition, I'm still waiting for you to prove how you know that baseball's now are "deadened".
I can't give you any evidence of such a thing, just like you can't give me evidence that Bautista is juicing. That doesn't, of course, mean that those things aren't going on.

I'm not trying to tell you that, so I don't know how that's what you've gathered from this. I'm trying to tell you that changing your swing cannot add 40 homers to your resume.

How exactly would you know a thing like that? What if said hitter had incredible power potential that was waiting to be unlocked?

So Bautista has always been the most talented player in baseball, he just had a mysterious swing issue that nobody could figure out?

It should be obvious to anybody that watches him on a day-to-day basis (which I can tell that you don't) that the guy is one of the most talented hitters in the league. His hand-eye coordination, pitch recognition, and bat skills are second to no one.

You can spin it anyway you want, the fact is that he struck out more than he walked. Even last year when he supposedly fixed the "hitch", he still struck out 116 times. So, he just swings at a lot of bad pitches.
Or he swung through a lot of good pitches, which he did for his entire first season as a Jay.

Never said the PROBLEM was his bat speed. I'm sure he's always had decent/good bat speed. I said that he didn't have the bat speed he has now. I have no way to prove that and these links you posted don't disprove that. All they say is that once scout with the Pirates liked what he saw from him. That doesn't really do anything to legitimize his power surge though, because everyone who gets drafted has SOME scout who believed in them or thought they would do well. It's not like there's some general consensus that Bautista would turn into an elite power hitter.
We don't know what Bautista's bat speed was then and is now. The only thing we know is that his great bat speed was the reason scouts liked him and the reason for his HR power right now.

Sickels wrote it based on reports compiled from following Bautista throughout his minor league career.
Sickels, of course, rarely sees most of these guys in action, and trusts the stats and other scouts to give him information.

Nobody has ever "figured it out" like Bautista.
Plenty of guys have. Perhaps not to the same extent, but let's not pretend that there aren't late bloomers in baseball. His "late-bloomerness" is not an indication of steroid use.

Looks like you and Hamas have already covered this, but yeah..it was like, 90 years ago. Trying to compare era's like that is ridiculous and just dancing around the issue. The point is that in modern baseball, Bautista is doing something that only the one of the most talented players ever did while he was on PEDs.

Again, the point is that there have been dominant players in baseball history that didn't take PEDs. Why couldn't there be one again? Fans and media seem to assume Albert Pujols hasn't taken anything (for whatever reason), is there a reason he can't be like Pujols?

If you want to believe that's all natural, more power to you.
I don't believe it either way. I just wait for real evidence to know for sure.

If it's as simple as changing your swing and tacking 40 homers onto your yearly total, why isn't every mediocre baseball player in the league studying Bautista's swing and copying it to a T?
Because they don't have the hand-eye cordination, the quick bat speed, and the batting eye to pull it off. In short, they don't have Bautista's talent level. Did you miss this part of the article?:

"Leg Kick

The leg kick for Bautista is the key to his whole swing. His timing, where his foot lands and how much he turns his front hip during his load are all critical to Bautista being able to hit the ball with authority. And, as odd as it may sound, Bautista somewhat breaking a cardinal rule of hitting may be a major part of his 2010 power surge.

The 2009 version of Bautista came straight down out of his leg kick, and even closed himself off at times. In 2010, we are seeing Bautista recognize pitches inside early and bailing enough with his front side to get to those pitches and drive them. By opening up, he's creating space for himself to extend his arms, and, more significantly, to get his front arm extended and his top hand underneath the bat. That's where we're seeing that tremendous backspin and monstrous power displays stem from.

So, if you are looking for that magic solution that Jose Bautista seems to have found here in 2010, that's your most likely culprit. It may sound simple, but Bautista, until this year, lacked a mechanical identity at the plate. This leg kick that he has used can be difficult to master. Land in the wrong place and you close yourself off. Land too far open and you end up pulling off the ball. If the timing is off at all, it's going to lead to quite a few strikeouts."

Bautista went from being a fringe MLB player to the most efficient and featured hitter in baseball. That defies logic. Can strictly taking PED's do that? No, but tinkering with your swing can't either. It's a combination of many things and I'd imagine both are involved.
How do you know that completely changing your swing (allowing yourself to fulfill your enormous potential) can't do something like that? How can you even pretend to know something like that?

veist

05-20-2011, 06:05 PM

Sorry, but if my options are "it took nine years but someone finally figured out that this random replacement level player was really the best hitter in baseball if they just cleaned up his swing" or "guy cleaned up his swing and added a lot of functional strength with some outside help" I'm going to take the more plausible of the two explanations. I could be wrong but given the extensive history of better living through chemistry in baseball I'm not about to give anyone the benefit of the doubt on suddenly becoming the most feared hitter in baseball just shy of age 30. The state of the game is such that believing that anyone can be reborn in the middle of their baseball career is akin to believing that tomorrow you could wake up the tooth fairy. It may not be fair but that is the way it is, imo.

Jim Jones

05-21-2011, 02:27 PM

AND HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT STEROIDS DIDN'T MAKE SOSA AND BONDS DIFFERENT PLAYERS, THEY SIMPLY ACCENTUATED THEIR POSITIVES. YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT STEROIDS TURNED BAUTISTA INTO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KIND OF PLAYER THAN HE WAS BEFORE.

It should be obvious to anybody that watches him on a day-to-day basis (which I can tell that you don't) that the guy is one of the most talented hitters in the league. His hand-eye coordination, pitch recognition, and bat skills are second to no one.

Never said such a thing. I said steroids don't turn career mediocrities into Barry Bonds.

How exactly would you know a thing like that? What if said hitter had incredible power potential that was waiting to be unlocked?

So which is it, is he an enormously talented baseball player with incredible power potential or a career mediocrity who finally figured it out and as you say, "changed himself into a great baseball player"? Pick one and stick with it.

If you're going to argue that Bautista has always had the talent of a Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa, then it shouldn't be so outlandish to think that he's using some of the same stuff to achieve his gaudy stats that they used to achieve their gaudy stats, should it? To "accentuate his positives" ?

All right, then we agree that Bautista's dominance is at least partly because he changed himself into a great baseball player?

I'm sure that changing his swing and approach has had a positive effect on his career.

Nobody has ever done anything like Bautista before (check the Fangraphs article today about how unprecedented his change is), so how exactly do you know what causes a power surge like this? There are simply no precedents in which to work from.

And in that same article they cite his most logical comparison as Bret Boone, one of the most obvious PED users of the last decade.

NO IT DOESN'T. I COULD GO GET INCREDIBLY JACKED ON ROIDS RIGHT NOW AND I STILL WOULDNT BE ABLE TO HIT A MAJOR LEAGUE HR BECAUSE I HAVE A TERRIBLE SWING.

If you got incredibly jacked on steroids, you'd be stronger, right? That strength would help you swing the bat faster, right? That increased bat speed would let you sit on pitches longer, right? That would make it easier to find a swing that allowed you to take advantage of those newfound skills, right? And even if you just roided up and kept the exact same shitty swing, while it might not make you a better hitter necessarily, the pitches you do make contact with would sure as hell go farther.

Again, not the point. The point was that his FB% skyrocked when he changed his approach as a hitter. He began hitting a ton more flyballs instead of hitting an average rate.

But why are you continuing to ignore the skyrocket in the percentage of his fly balls that are going for homers? That's the really staggering number. Regardless of how many fly balls he's hitting, the number of them that are going for home runs has shot up astronomically.

Albert Pujols has never been a traditional high FB% slugger in the sense of the word (Bautista, Dunn, Howard, Fielder), so there's no comparison there.

The comparison is that huge fly ball numbers don't always necessarily mean big home run numbers. The number you want to look at is how many of whatever amount of fly balls the player is hitting are going for homers. That's the number that has skyrocketed for Bautista.

I'm not convinced this is even an argument. I just love the absurdity of people whining about steroid use in Bautista when they could do it so often every year about a variety of players.

It's not some personal vendetta against Bautista. It would be happening with anyone who went from 13 to 54 homers in one year.

No, players don't generally turn their careers around and experience a power increase at the age of 28. I thought that's why you were so suspicious of Bautista...his late-bloomerness.

I can't remember who we're referring to here - Werth? He ripped the ball in the minors and we've already established that he put up good power numbers in his first semi-full season at the age of 25. His career progressed naturally after that, especially since he moved to a much more hitter friendly park in Philadelphia. Are we talking about the same Jayson Werth?

I can tell you haven't followed Votto for very long, but there weren't too many that ever thought he would ever show power like this. Most thought he would be a 20 HR John Olerud type, even the Canadian guys that were high on him.

This is what I'm ****ing talking about: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/was-joey-vottos-breakout-predictable/

They're talking about more how he's developed as a HITTER. You can see they talk about the opposite field power. He's always had that raw power. He's just become a more well-rounded hitter and developed power to all fields, but he's always had the RAW power. He hit homers all throughout his minor league career. BA voted him the Reds best power bat in the minors four years ago.

Hamas didn't shoot down anything. The balls were juiced in those years and there are plenty of sources there to support that assertion.

And there's plenty of sources to disprove that assertion. Are there any sources to back up your claim of the ball being deadened now?

Or he swung through a lot of good pitches, which he did for his entire first season as a Jay.

What about last year, after his swing was "fixed" and he still struck out over 100 times? The guy just strikes out a lot. It doesn't mean he has a terrible eye at the plate, but he doesn't have a great one either.

We don't know what Bautista's bat speed was then and is now. The only thing we know is that his great bat speed was the reason scouts liked him and the reason for his HR power right now.

Bat speed was one thing mentioned by one Pirates scout. And I never saw the word GREAT associated with it. Don't say "scouts" saw his "great" bat speed as if it was a universally known thing.

Sickels, of course, rarely sees most of these guys in action, and trusts the stats and other scouts to give him information.

You're basing your entire Jose Bautista history off of what a Pirates scout thought about him. But you discredit Sickels' report because he depends on other scouts? Is the old codger who works for the Pirates the only credible scout?

Again, the point is that there have been dominant players in baseball history that didn't take PEDs. Why couldn't there be one again? Fans and media seem to assume Albert Pujols hasn't taken anything (for whatever reason), is there a reason he can't be like Pujols?

People wondered about Pujols for a long time and probably still do. If he had been a fringe player from the time he was called up to last year, then exploded for 50 homers, there would be a lot more eyebrows.

Because they don't have the hand-eye cordination, the quick bat speed, and the batting eye to pull it off. In short, they don't have Bautista's talent level. Did you miss this part of the article?:

Well, I guess this also goes back to what you believe Bautista's "talent level" actually is. If you're dumb enough to think he was always a Barry Bonds-level talent that just didn't know how to properly swing the bat, then I guess it all makes sense.

Why can't other players try to mimic Bautista's unbelievable leg kick that has produced an extra 40 homers?

How do you know that completely changing your swing (allowing yourself to fulfill your enormous potential) can't do something like that? How can you even pretend to know something like that?

Because it's never been done before to this extent, that's how I know. What I also know is that players have taken PED's and enjoyed enormous Bautista-like jumps in production. For the 100th time, I'm not denying Bautista made changes for the better to his swing and approach, but that alone has never added, and will never add, 40 homers to someone's total. We've seen countless guys over the years come out of nowhere and later we find out they were on PEDs. That's what I assume will happen here.

Miles

05-21-2011, 02:51 PM

2 more HRs today. Now up to 18.

KC_Connection

05-21-2011, 04:24 PM

So which is it, is he an enormously talented baseball player with incredible power potential or a career mediocrity who finally figured it out and as you say, "changed himself into a great baseball player"? Pick one and stick with it.
Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. He's obviously enormously talented, but he was also a career mediocrity before changing his swing.

I'm sure that changing his swing and approach has had a positive effect on his career.

Then why not give him respect for his incredible performance instead of whining about potential PED use without any evidence?

And in that same article they cite his most logical comparison as Bret Boone, one of the most obvious PED users of the last decade.
True, but the article also ignored the fact that Boone's WAR value was so high in 2001 because of positional adjustment as a 2B and his superb defense in those years. He improved offensively obviously, but he didn't suddenly enter godmode as a hitter.

And even if you just roided up and kept the exact same shitty swing, while it might not make you a better hitter necessarily, the pitches you do make contact with would sure as hell go farther.
This is true, of course, but it's still not going to do much for a guy with an incredible hitch in his swing. A hitch that prevents him from making good, regular contact.

But why are you continuing to ignore the skyrocket in the percentage of his fly balls that are going for homers?
I'm not. In fact, I mentioned it as one of the factors along with the increased HR/FB rate earlier.

I can't remember who we're referring to here - Werth? He ripped the ball in the minors and we've already established that he put up good power numbers in his first semi-full season at the age of 25. His career progressed naturally after that, especially since he moved to a much more hitter friendly park in Philadelphia. Are we talking about the same Jayson Werth?

Werth came up as a catcher in the Jays system, I remember him very well. He hit for little power, was moved off catcher for defensive reasons, failed as Jay, was traded to the Dodgers for Jason Frasor, failed as a Dodger, and then made his way to the Phillies where his power bloomed at the age of 28. There are, of course, many reasonable explanations for why he changed as a hitter (friendly ballpark is one of them), but he still developed far later than most.

They're talking about more how he's developed as a HITTER. You can see they talk about the opposite field power. He's always had that raw power. He's just become a more well-rounded hitter and developed power to all fields, but he's always had the RAW power. He hit homers all throughout his minor league career. BA voted him the Reds best power bat in the minors four years ago.
The development he's made as an hitter is his far increased power from what he did in the minors and early majors. Again, there weren't many who thought Votto would ever become the best hitter in the entire National League and it was mostly because they thought his power would never be at an elite level.

And there's plenty of sources to disprove that assertion.
Nothing legitimate has been done to disprove that assertion, do some more research on the topic (or better yet, read this thread as a start).

What about last year, after his swing was "fixed" and he still struck out over 100 times? The guy just strikes out a lot. It doesn't mean he has a terrible eye at the plate, but he doesn't have a great one either.
Now you're telling me that Jose Bautista doesn't have a great eye at the plate right now? LMAO The guy's got a 16.2 BB% rate over the last two years, which outclasses anybody in the majors (even guys like Votto, Barton, Pena, and Cabrera). A guy with a power swing like he does would actually be expected to strike out a lot more than he does, but he's had a very reasonable 19.2 K% over that time.

You're basing your entire Jose Bautista history off of what a Pirates scout thought about him.

No, I'm also basing it on my own observation as well as that of others. It should have been obvious to anybody that watched Bautista between 2004-2008 that he had great bat speed and power potential.

People wondered about Pujols for a long time and probably still do. If he had been a fringe player from the time he was called up to last year, then exploded for 50 homers, there would be a lot more eyebrows.
I didn't see ESPN hosts regularly bringing up PEDs when talking about Pujols (even when he emerged immediately as an elite player as a rookie, which rarely happens), and I don't see them doing it now either.

Well, I guess this also goes back to what you believe Bautista's "talent level" actually is. If you're dumb enough to think he was always a Barry Bonds-level talent that just didn't know how to properly swing the bat, then I guess it all makes sense.
I didn't say the guy has a "Barry Bonds talent level," though it's pretty obvious that he's one of the most talented hitters in the game today. Watch him more than a few times, you might realize that.

Why can't other players try to mimic Bautista's unbelievable leg kick that has produced an extra 40 homers?

Have you even bothered to read the Frankie Piliere article yet? To put it simply, most players aren't capable of utilizing that kind of leg kick in their swing and having any kind of success or timing.

Because it's never been done before to this extent, that's how I know.

Why can't Bautista can't be the first player to do something like this? Because he's a former mediocrity and late bloomer? Because he doesn't play in the United States? Sorry, but "because it's never been done before to this extent" is not an answer to that question. You still haven't given any real reason that a complete change in approach (allowing Bautista to fulfill his potential) could not have that effect. There's a first for everything.

We've seen countless guys over the years come out of nowhere and later we find out they were on PEDs. That's what I assume will happen here.
Feel free to assume whatever you want to. I just don't see why you have to shit on a guy when there is absolutely no evidence of your claim instead of respecting his amazing performance.

KC_Connection

05-21-2011, 04:26 PM

2 more HRs today. Now up to 18.
I guess the slump is over. It didn't last longer than a few games. OPS back up to 1.350, and back on pace for 65, I read.

Jim Jones

05-21-2011, 05:34 PM

Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. He's obviously enormously talented, but he was also a career mediocrity before changing his swing.

So he's enormously talented like Bonds and Sosa, but there's no way he could be "accentuating his talent" with PED's like those guys were?

True, but the article also ignored the fact that Boone's WAR value was so high in 2001 because of positional adjustment as a 2B and his superb defense in those years. He improved offensively obviously, but he didn't suddenly enter godmode as a hitter.

Even if you take your spin into account, he's still the most accurate comparison and the most damning as well. Boone is the last guy you want your career resurgence to be compared to.

This is true, of course, but it's still not going to do much for a guy with an incredible hitch in his swing. A hitch that prevents him from making good, regular contact.

But increased strength and bat speed changes everything. It allows you to make those changes for your swing. It's not like he made anymore contact last year with his new swing than he did throughout his career. It's just that now, when he was making contact, he was hitting homers.

I'm not. In fact, I mentioned it as one of the factors along with the increased HR/FB rate earlier.

And you don't think that's strange AT ALL that so many more of his fly balls all of the sudden started going for homers? Regardless of how many fly balls he was hitting, he was still hitting a shit load more of them out of the park.

Werth came up as a catcher in the Jays system, I remember him very well. He hit for little power, was moved off catcher for defensive reasons, failed as Jay, was traded to the Dodgers for Jason Frasor, failed as a Dodger, and then made his way to the Phillies where his power bloomed at the age of 28. There are, of course, many reasonable explanations for why he changed as a hitter (friendly ballpark is one of them), but he still developed far later than most.

Look at Werth's 2004 season with the Dodgers and tell me what about that is a failure? What about that tells you that he didn't have potential to eventually develop into a middle of the order hitter? His biggest problem in LA was a wrist injury, not a lack of production.

The development he's made as an hitter is his far increased power from what he did in the minors and early majors. Again, there weren't many who thought Votto would ever become the best hitter in the entire National League and it was mostly because they thought his power would never be at an elite level.

Who are these people?! Votto was never considered a mediocre or even average prospect. The ****ing article you linked never once says that. He was ALWAYS a very highly rated prospect, maybe never considered a 5-tool blue chipper, but he was always highly rated. He was always considered to be a guy with very good power potential. I'm going to go ahead and assume that's why BA called him the best power bat in the Reds organization four years ago. I'm also guessing that's why the article you linked states repeatedly that he always had great power, but wasn't fully developed as a hitter.

Nothing legitimate has been done to disprove that assertion, do some more research on the topic (or better yet, read this thread as a start).

Where in the thread? I've looked through and can't find it.

Now you're telling me that Jose Bautista doesn't have a great eye at the plate right now? LMAO The guy's got a 16.2 BB% rate over the last two years, which outclasses anybody in the majors (even guys like Votto, Barton, Pena, and Cabrera). A guy with a power swing like he does would actually be expected to strike out a lot more than he does, but he's had a very reasonable 19.2 K% over that time.

He does NOW but I certainly don't think he was drafted because he has a great eye at the plate. And I think his "great eye" at the plate and increased patience correlates nicely with increased strength and bat speed that allows him to see the ball better.

No, I'm also basing it on my own observation as well as that of others. It should have been obvious to anybody that watched Bautista between 2004-2008 that he had great bat speed and power potential.

Who watched Bautista between 2004-2008? If you're going to sit there and tell me you paid any attention to Jose Bautista before he went to Toronto, you're full of shit.

I didn't see ESPN hosts regularly bringing up PEDs when talking about Pujols (even when he emerged immediately as an elite player as a rookie, which rarely happens), and I don't see them doing it now either.

Your memory is foggy then, it happened a lot.

I didn't say the guy has a "Barry Bonds talent level," though it's pretty obvious that he's one of the most talented hitters in the game today. Watch him more than a few times, you might realize that.

You think he's naturally good enough without PEDs to do what Barry Bonds could only do with PEDs?

Have you even bothered to read the Frankie Piliere article yet? To put it simply, most players aren't capable of utilizing that kind of leg kick in their swing and having any kind of success or timing.

Where does it say that? It says it's difficult to master. If a career journeyman like Bautista can do it though, I'd imagine a lot of other players could too.

Why can't Bautista can't be the first player to do something like this? Because he's a former mediocrity and late bloomer? Because he doesn't play in the United States? Sorry, but "because it's never been done before to this extent" is not an answer to that question. You still haven't given any real reason that a complete change in approach (allowing Bautista to fulfill his potential) could not have that effect. There's a first for everything.

I bet there were Giants fans in 2001 echoing these same sentiments: "Why can't a guy in his late 30s get stronger and change his swing and become a more powerful hitter? With the way the human body has evolved and the talent Bonds has always had, blah blah blah.."

The reason is because it defies logic. A 37-year-old isn't all of the sudden going to tack 30+ homers onto his total and completely reinvent himself. And frankly, neither is a 30-year-old who spent the first half of his career mired in mediocrity.

Feel free to assume whatever you want to. I just don't see why you have to shit on a guy when there is absolutely no evidence of your claim instead of respecting his amazing performance.

There will probably never be evidence because we may never see blood testing in MLB. That's not going to change my opinion.

chiefzilla1501

05-21-2011, 06:07 PM

hamas, I disagree--I strongly believe mechanics can make a major difference in bat speed, assuming your mechanics were very screwed up in the first place. I think the AOL article posted earlier nails it. He's made enormous adjustments to his timing mechanisms and his hands placement. Getting ahead of the ball gives him greater opportunity to explode his hips into hitting the ball and likely increases his chances to hit the ball in a sweeter spot. Given that Bautista had an enormous achilles heel at hitting inside pitches, I'm guessing pitchers were smart enough to consistently attack him there. And that's a pitch where your swing looks completely crippled because you tend to get handcuffed. If he's hitting the inside pitch really well, that either increases his chances of getting a true swing on an inside pitch and most likely forces pitchers to start throwing more pitches into zones where he can unload more of his power. But again, that inside pitch... anyone who's ever struggled with that knows that you just can't turn into the ball if you don't adjust to it. Same is true for an outside pitch, though less so. I was always good with outside pitches because I adjusted with my hips to hit the ball to right field.

Baseball is a game of split seconds. It sounds like the adjustments Bautista has made gives him extra time to see the ball and adjust, and when you're confident about where the ball is going to go, and confident about the necessary adjustments to make, you're much more confident about how you attack it. As an average baseball player myself in high school, I can tell you that when you face a pitcher and you know exactly where he's going to put the ball and when to swing, you explode into attacking it.

I haven't watched Bautista before or after. But I would think that big tweaks in mechanics created small improvements in bat speed, but much more importantly, major tweaks in timing really impacted his ability to confidently attack the ball. Just an opinion. I just think that it's a bit unfair to immediately throw the PED attack at anyone without any kind of proof of it.

KC_Connection

05-21-2011, 09:51 PM

So he's enormously talented like Bonds and Sosa, but there's no way he could be "accentuating his talent" with PED's like those guys were?

Never said such a thing. What I said was that Bonds and Sosa's steroid use didn't change them into completely different players, yet that's what you're saying Bautista's supposed use did for him.

Even if you take your spin into account, he's still the most accurate comparison and the most damning as well. Boone is the last guy you want your career resurgence to be compared to.
It's not a spin, it's actually the reason his WAR got as high as it did.

It's just that now, when he was making contact, he was hitting homers.
Because he had created an approach that allowed him to do that.

And you don't think that's strange AT ALL that so many more of his fly balls all of the sudden started going for homers? Regardless of how many fly balls he was hitting, he was still hitting a shit load more of them out of the park.
What's strange about a hitter changing his approach, allowing him to hit more flyballs and hit for better contact on those flyballs?

His biggest problem in LA was a wrist injury, not a lack of production.
Werth's success came as part-time player for the Dodgers before getting hurt and it still wasn't anything like what he did in Philadelphia five years later.

Who are these people?! Votto was never considered a mediocre or even average prospect. The ****ing article you linked never once says that. He was ALWAYS a very highly rated prospect, maybe never considered a 5-tool blue chipper, but he was always highly rated. He was always considered to be a guy with very good power potential. I'm going to go ahead and assume that's why BA called him the best power bat in the Reds organization four years ago. I'm also guessing that's why the article you linked states repeatedly that he always had great power, but wasn't fully developed as a hitter.
Again, I can tell you haven't really followed Votto's career closely. He was always considered a great line drive/doubles hitter, but scouts and analysts from his youth never belied he would show the kind of elite HR power that he showed last year in the major leagues.

Where in the thread? I've looked through and can't find it.
Shit, you're right. That was a completely different Hamas debate in a completely different thread. It seems to happen so often that they had somehow had merged in my mind...my apologies.

Who watched Bautista between 2004-2008? If you're going to sit there and tell me you paid any attention to Jose Bautista before he went to Toronto, you're full of shit.
I watched Jose Bautista play regularly from the time he was acquired in August 2008 as a Jay to September 2009. I had also seen him intermittently throughout his Pirate career. In my mind (and his early Jays' career confirmed it for me), he was a mediocre player with a good eye that could hit the occasional massive jack when he connected (due to his tremendous bat speed). And yes, I'm the kind of fan that pays attention closely to the traits of my team's mediocre players.

Your memory is foggy then, it happened a lot.
No, it really didn't. Back in 2001, the media ignored steroid use in baseball. It wasn't until a few years later that they really became stigmatized.

You think he's naturally good enough without PEDs to do what Barry Bonds could only do with PEDs?
#1. He hasn't done what Barry Bonds could do with PEDs yet. He's only 1/4 of the way there.
#2. And sure, why not? Other guys in the history of baseball have had 50-60 HR seasons "naturally." Why couldn't Bautista have a few? Because he did it a few years later than what's considered "normal?"

If a career journeyman like Bautista can do it though, I'd imagine a lot of other players could too.
"The timing mechanism in Bautista's swing when he is beginning to set his swing in motion is a major part of his newfound success this season. As opposed to last season and previous years, Bautista is starting his leg kick just slightly sooner. Hitters that use any form of exaggerated leg kick typically have issues getting their timing exactly right. However, when it works the results can be outstanding. See Alex Rodriguez's career for proof of that."

"The leg kick for Bautista is the key to his whole swing. His timing, where his foot lands and how much he turns his front hip during his load are all critical to Bautista being able to hit the ball with authority. And, as odd as it may sound, Bautista somewhat breaking a cardinal rule of hitting may be a major part of his 2010 power surge.

The 2009 version of Bautista came straight down out of his leg kick, and even closed himself off at times. In 2010, we are seeing Bautista recognize pitches inside early and bailing enough with his front side to get to those pitches and drive them. By opening up, he's creating space for himself to extend his arms, and, more significantly, to get his front arm extended and his top hand underneath the bat. That's where we're seeing that tremendous backspin and monstrous power displays stem from.

So, if you are looking for that magic solution that Jose Bautista seems to have found here in 2010, that's your most likely culprit. It may sound simple, but Bautista, until this year, lacked a mechanical identity at the plate. This leg kick that he has used can be difficult to master. Land in the wrong place and you close yourself off. Land too far open and you end up pulling off the ball. If the timing is off at all, it's going to lead to quite a few strikeouts."

You seriously believe other hitters can master something like this without Bautista's superb hand-eye coordination and incredibly quick hands/bat? It's Bautista's talent level (and don't play dumb, the fact that he's a career journeyman is completely irrelevant to his talent level) that allows him to even use this kind of swing effectively. If other guys without his particular skillset tried this kind of swing, they would experience no success at all.

I bet there were Giants fans in 2001 echoing these same sentiments: "Why can't a guy in his late 30s get stronger and change his swing and become a more powerful hitter?

Back in 2001, steroids weren't on the media and fan's radar, so no they weren't.

Slightly OT, but Hank Aaron started hitting for more power in his mid-to-late 30s...was he on steroids too? He might have been.

The reason is because it defies logic.

A completely changed swing allowing a player to fulfill his potential doesn't defy logic. In fact, it is logical.

There will probably never be evidence because we may never see blood testing in MLB. That's not going to change my opinion.
It's just a shame to me you can't enjoy and respect one of the best offensive starts in history, instead choosing to complain about something without any evidence. Even if the guy is on steroids, though, that doesn't make what he's doing any less impressive.

BWillie

05-21-2011, 09:56 PM

It is kind of strange that he only has like 6 doubles. Most of the other guys on the top of the HR list have way more doubles than that.

KC_Connection

05-21-2011, 09:58 PM

hamas, I disagree--I strongly believe mechanics can make a major difference in bat speed, assuming your mechanics were very screwed up in the first place. I think the AOL article posted earlier nails it. He's made enormous adjustments to his timing mechanisms and his hands placement. Getting ahead of the ball gives him greater opportunity to explode his hips into hitting the ball and likely increases his chances to hit the ball in a sweeter spot. Given that Bautista had an enormous achilles heel at hitting inside pitches, I'm guessing pitchers were smart enough to consistently attack him there. And that's a pitch where your swing looks completely crippled because you tend to get handcuffed. If he's hitting the inside pitch really well, that either increases his chances of getting a true swing on an inside pitch and most likely forces pitchers to start throwing more pitches into zones where he can unload more of his power. But again, that inside pitch... anyone who's ever struggled with that knows that you just can't turn into the ball if you don't adjust to it. Same is true for an outside pitch, though less so. I was always good with outside pitches because I adjusted with my hips to hit the ball to right field.
Yes, pitchers did used to challenge Bautista regularly inside (they still do even now occasionally to negative effects), but he would either swing right through those pitches or simply make weak contact. That's obviously changed.

I haven't watched Bautista before or after. But I would think that big tweaks in mechanics created small improvements in bat speed, but much more importantly, major tweaks in timing really impacted his ability to confidently attack the ball.
Success breeds confidence (and vice-versa). And you're right, confidence in what he's doing at the plate, I think, is a huge part of what's going on here.

Just an opinion. I just think that it's a bit unfair to immediately throw the PED attack at anyone without any kind of proof of it.
But Barry Bonds took steroids to become BARRY BONDS, man, that's proof!

KC_Connection

05-21-2011, 10:04 PM

It is kind of strange that he only has like 6 doubles. Most of the other guys on the top of the HR list have way more doubles than that.
He has 7...not sure what's supposed to be unusual about that. The guy gets walked in almost a quarter of his plate appearances. The other guys on the HR list don't.

BWillie

05-22-2011, 12:59 AM

He has 7...not sure what's supposed to be unusual about that. The guy gets walked in almost a quarter of his plate appearances. The other guys on the HR list don't.

I'm just saying compared to alot of the other guys w/ high OBP's and HRs they have like twice as much doubles. When he gets a hold of it, it's gonzo.

milkman

05-22-2011, 08:28 AM

Slightly OT, but Hank Aaron started hitting for more power in his mid-to-late 30s...was he on steroids too? He might have been.

Hank Aaron, between the age of 23 and the of 40, consistently hit between 29 and 44 home runs each season, with two exceptions.

At the age of 30, he hit 24 home runs.
At the age of 37, he hit 47 home runs.

He had 4 seasons before the age of 30 with 40+ homers.
He had 4 seasons after the age of 30 with 40+ homers.

His home run numbers are the very picture of consistency.

Pedro

05-22-2011, 12:10 PM

Pasta Little Brioni

05-22-2011, 12:15 PM

I wonder if he'll hit any more "luck induced" bombs today. What is he using that everyone else in the league is not? He has 20 more bombs over the last year than anyone else in the league.

Pedro

05-22-2011, 12:17 PM

But Barry Bonds took steroids to become BARRY BONDS, man, that's proof!
Barry Bonds was on the road to the Hall of Fame before he ever used steroids. Before he used steroids he never hit more than 50 home runs in a season. Or 49. Or 48. Or 47. In this best season before juicing up, he hit 46 home runs. That's a nice total for a non-steroid user.

When he was using, he hit 73. Are you saying that you really don't see the connection there?

Steroids won't turn KC_Connection into a major league home run leader. But they CAN turn a major league hitter into an all-time great major league home run hitter.

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 12:23 PM

KC_Connection,

Why the **** are you defending Bautista so vehemently? This is getting ridiculous. Is he your brother or something?

Facts:

1. Nobody has EVER hit more than 61 home runs in a season without being chemically enhanced. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

2. See #1.

3. Bautista sucked for YEARS, and then he was suddenly transformed into one of the greatest power hitters of all time. It was like magic.

Conclusion: Bautista is either chemically enhanced, or he sold his soul to the devil.

You probably believe Lance Armstrong and Roger Clemens never did steroids either, don't you? And I assume you buy into Barry Bonds' story that he DIDN'T KNOW his trainer was giving him steroids.

You have got to be the most gullible person ever.

I'm w/KC Connection on this one. The problem with the steroid era is we've gotten to the point where we're accusing people for playing well. Nevermind that testing is more rigorous and Bautista isn't a big name superstar that the league might want to "protect."

I could care less about Bautista. I don't care about the Royals and don't care about the Blue Jays, though I sense that a lot of people on this thread would act a lot differently if he wasn't an ex-Royal. Why is it gullible to think that a guy who changed his entire swing is benefitting from that? They weren't just small changes. They were enormous changes.

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 12:25 PM

Barry Bonds was on the road to the Hall of Fame before he ever used steroids. Before he used steroids he never hit more than 50 home runs in a season. Or 49. Or 48. Or 47. In this best season before juicing up, he hit 46 home runs. That's a nice total for a non-steroid user.

When he was using, he hit 73. Are you saying that you really don't see the connection there?

Steroids won't turn KC_Connection into a major league home run leader. But they CAN turn a major league hitter into an all-time great major league home run hitter.

With Barry Bonds, you could see HUGE differences in his appearance, but his stance and swing are very similar. It's the case where an already very good hitter now had a few more split seconds to react because his swing was a bit faster.

Maybe Bautista did steroids. But I can assure you the biggest reason he's better is his approach at the plate.

Pedro

05-22-2011, 12:27 PM

I'm w/KC Connection on this one. The problem with the steroid era is we've gotten to the point where we're accusing people for playing well. Nevermind that testing is more rigorous and Bautista isn't a big name superstar that the league might want to "protect."

I could care less about Bautista. I don't care about the Royals and don't care about the Blue Jays, though I sense that a lot of people on this thread would act a lot differently if he wasn't an ex-Royal. Why is it gullible to think that a guy who changed his entire swing is benefitting from that? They weren't just small changes. They were enormous changes.
Because no one has ever done it before in the history of the game without using steroids.

Pasta Little Brioni

05-22-2011, 12:28 PM

With Barry Bonds, you could see HUGE differences in his appearance, but his stance and swing are very similar. It's the case where an already very good hitter now had a few more split seconds to react because his swing was a bit faster.

Maybe Bautista did steroids. But I can assure you the biggest reason he's better is his approach at the plate.

Exactly. It wasn't an increase in physical size and strength, but a change in proper swing mechanics, timing, confidence, and comfort at the plate. Confidence and the correct technique is HUGE for anyone who's ever played ball. A little "enhancement" probably wouldn't hurt either, but isn't as easy to get away with anymore ;)

Pedro

05-22-2011, 12:35 PM

With Barry Bonds, you could see HUGE differences in his appearance, but his stance and swing are very similar. It's the case where an already very good hitter now had a few more split seconds to react because his swing was a bit faster.

Maybe Bautista did steroids. But I can assure you the biggest reason he's better is his approach at the plate.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to believe Bautista is doing it all on his own. I'm just disillusioned because it seems that every athlete who dominates and then denies winds up being shown to be lying about it.

If Bautista were simply the best home run hitter in the game today, it would be a lot easier to believe in him. But the ridiculous totals he is putting up make you wonder.

I agree, it's a sad state of affairs today.

milkman

05-22-2011, 12:38 PM

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 12:47 PM

You can assure us?

Yes. All PEDs do is increase your bat speed.

Bautista's improvements are in how he's positioning himself to hit the inside pitch and timing (mostly his leg kick). Faster bat speed isn't going to change those things. If Bautista was taking PED, his timing would still be off half the time and he'd still be getting jammed up on inside pitches. All the increased bat speed is going to do is let you hit a badly hit ball just slightly harder.

milkman

05-22-2011, 12:49 PM

Yes. All PEDs do is increase your bat speed.

Bautista's improvements are in how he's positioning himself to hit the inside pitch and timing (mostly his leg kick). Faster bat speed isn't going to change those things. If Bautista was taking PED, his timing would still be off half the time and he'd still be getting jammed up on inside pitches. All the increased bat speed is going to do is let you hit a badly hit ball just slightly harder.

I don't give a rat's ass if Bautista is juicing or not.

Never cared about any of that.

But you can't assure us of jack.

You can only make your best assumptions.

DeezNutz

05-22-2011, 12:57 PM

All the increased bat speed is going to do is let you hit a badly hit ball just slightly harder.

I don't know or care if he's using PEDs, but the above statement is false.

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 01:07 PM

I don't know or care if he's using PEDs, but the above statement is false.

Have you ever been jammed on an inside pitch? Or mis-timed a breaking pitch?

If your mechanics are off on an inside pitch, your hands got locked to your body and you don't get arm extension. If your timing is off on off-speed stuff, your hips explode into the ball and your bat almost gets locked up behind because you know you're off timing. Neither of those changes just because your bat is moving faster. If you mis-time or mis-line your swing, a faster swing isn't going to help. The advantage faster bat speed gives you is the ability to sit back an extra split second to read the pitch, but again, that means nothing if you're not making the proper adjustments once the pitch has been read.

BWillie

05-22-2011, 01:07 PM

Exactly. It wasn't an increase in physical size and strength, but a change in proper swing mechanics, timing, confidence, and comfort at the plate. Confidence and the correct technique is HUGE for anyone who's ever played ball. A little "enhancement" probably wouldn't hurt either, but isn't as easy to get away with anymore ;)

You guys realize you can use steroids not to get all huge right? You can use winstrol and alot of other types of roids just to get strong and it won't really bloat you up. IMO, some of Barry's size had to do with him getting older and being able to put on weight easier too, but sure some of that was the juice.

DeezNutz

05-22-2011, 01:11 PM

Have you ever been jammed on an inside pitch? Or mis-timed a breaking pitch?

If your mechanics are off on an inside pitch, your hands got locked to your body and you don't get arm extension. If your timing is off on off-speed stuff, your hips explode into the ball and your bat almost gets locked up behind because you know you're off timing. Neither of those changes just because your bat is moving faster. If you mis-time or mis-line your swing, a faster swing isn't going to help. The advantage faster bat speed gives you is the ability to sit back an extra split second to read the pitch, but again, that means nothing if you're not making the proper adjustments once the pitch has been read.

Of course a ML player's swing must be mechanically sound. This doesn't change the fact that your assertion about the "only benefit" from increased bat speed is incorrect.

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 01:15 PM

I don't give a rat's ass if Bautista is juicing or not.

Never cared about any of that.

But you can't assure us of jack.

You can only make your best assumptions.

I don't think it's an assumption. If you have no idea how to hit an inside pitch, it doesn't matter if you're strong as Albert Pujols, you're not going to hit it well. And if your timing is off on off-speed pitches, you're not going to hit it well.

There are major mechanical reasons why he is hitting the inside pitch and off-speed pitches better. And yes, I "assure" you that mechanics have a lot more to do with that than PEDs. The only reason why PEDs would help that is that you may have more confidence in sitting back for an extra split second to read the pitch. But again, if you don't make adjustments based on what you read, you're just swinging harder at a mis-thrown ball.

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 01:18 PM

Of course a ML player's swing must be mechanically sound. This doesn't change the fact that your assertion about the "only benefit" from increased bat speed is incorrect.

PEDs make your bat faster and it lets you wait on a pitch longer to read it better. Maybe there are other benefits--I don't know. I don't think that changes my argument any even if there were.

milkman

05-22-2011, 01:19 PM

I don't think it's an assumption. If you have no idea how to hit an inside pitch, it doesn't matter if you're strong as Albert Pujols, you're not going to hit it well. And if your timing is off on off-speed pitches, you're not going to hit it well.

There are major mechanical reasons why he is hitting the inside pitch and off-speed pitches better. And yes, I "assure" you that mechanics have a lot more to do with that than PEDs. The only reason why PEDs would help that is that you may have more confidence in sitting back for an extra split second to read the pitch. But again, if you don't make adjustments based on what you read, you're just swinging harder at a mis-thrown ball.

I don't care how you came to your conclusion, the fact is, unless you are personally familiar with the player, you can not make any assurances.

You can only make observations and offer assumptions based on those.

DeezNutz

05-22-2011, 01:21 PM

PEDs make your bat faster and it lets you wait on a pitch longer to read it better. Maybe there are other benefits--I don't know. I don't think that changes my argument any even if there were.

Power is about bat speed to the point of contact and then lower and upper body strength from this point. Thus the baseball cliche: quick to it and hard through it.

Everything is moot if you don't have the coordination or mechanics to hit a ML fastball or off-speed pitch.

With Bautista, we're being asked to believe that everything "clicked" at an exponentially impressive level at age 29. It's possible, but I can understand the skepticism.

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 01:46 PM

I don't care how you came to your conclusion, the fact is, unless you are personally familiar with the player, you can not make any assurances.

You can only make observations and offer assumptions based on those.

Isn't that what we all do? Whether we're talking about Bautista, Matt Cassel, or Dwayne Bowe?

Granted, I'm basing all this based on what I've been reading about his mechanical changes rather than actual observation. But it's clear that mechanics were keeping him from hitting the ball. And at least to me, it's clear that changes in mechanics are putting him in a better position to hit the ball a lot better a lot more consistently. And when you're off on timing and your getting sawed off on inside pitches, again, those are not bat speed or strength issues. Unless someone can tell me how, I don't see how PED improvements are going to help you time pitches or hit inside pitches better.

Yes, I know it's an assumption to say that these two issues were the only issues he had to fix. That's where I can agree with you.

duncan_idaho

05-22-2011, 02:39 PM

Bautista has obviously made some big changes to his swing/approach, and we can see the results.

I don't understand how some can argue that PEDs don't make people better home run hitters. That little extra edge can make an average power hitter into a great power hitter. Look at Ken Ciminiti, Luis Gonzalez, Rafael Palmeiro and many others.

Bautista became an EXTREME flyball hitter in September 2009, right around the time he became an elite home run hitter. His bat is noticeably quicker, and his HR/FB rate jumped as well.

So not only is he hitting MORE flyballs, he's hitting more flyballs further.

That's definitely something that some form of PED could help with. Being stronger is going to increase his bat speed (and allow him to do that AND upgrade the size/weight of bat he's swinging). With better bat speed, he DOES get to wait longer to initiate his swing, and he has been able to change his approach and close the huge hole he had covering inside pitches..

Yes, it is possible he just chanced upon a swing change that had a magic-level effect on his power production.

But it also is possible that he's using some new form of PED that hasn't been caught yet. That seems a lot more likely/possible to many who follow baseball because its pretty uncommon for 29-year-old players to make a swing change, start hitting more flyballs, and suddenly start hitting those flyballs out at a much greater rate than they'd ever shown before.

KC_Connection

05-22-2011, 03:36 PM

KC_Connection,

Why the **** are you defending Bautista so vehemently? This is getting ridiculous. Is he your brother or something?

No, he's simply a player I enjoy watching. The question is...why are there so many people like you on this forum who wish to denigrate his accomplishments and don't respect his ability? Last year, it's that he was a fluke...he's clearly proved that assertion wrong. This year the excuse is that he's on PEDS without any evidence.

Conclusion: Bautista is either chemically enhanced, or he sold his soul to the devil.
Or he made a complete change to his swing in September 2009, as we know he did, which coincided with his HR increase.

You probably believe Lance Armstrong and Roger Clemens never did steroids either, don't you? And I assume you buy into Barry Bonds' story that he DIDN'T KNOW his trainer was giving him steroids.
No, I believe those guys used PEDs and did long before the media got a hold of any of those stories. Of course, it doesn't make me think any less of them or their dominance. They each also really have nothing to do with Jose Bautista.

KC_Connection

05-22-2011, 03:41 PM

I wonder if he'll hit any more "luck induced" bombs today. What is he using that everyone else in the league is not? He has 20 more bombs over the last year than anyone else in the league.
Missed the game and don't know how hard his outs were, but he went 0 for 4. That's a few poor games out of the last few, so maybe we're seeing the beginning of a decline from Ruth/Bonds level to Pujols level (pre-2011, not this year's slumping version). I'll still take it.

Still got an IBB, so he's been on base in 36 out of 38 games this year.

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 03:42 PM

I would think a fair athlete comparison would be lance armstrong. Similar career paths iirc. Icould be wrong though
Posted via Mobile Device

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 03:47 PM

Nope even armstrong had success prior to doping
Posted via Mobile Device

KC_Connection

05-22-2011, 03:48 PM

Are cyclists usually better in their 20s or 30s? I don't know the "normal" career progression of that sport.

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 03:48 PM

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 03:49 PM

Are cyclists usually better in their 20s or 30s? I don't know the "normal" career progression of that sport.
? but you knew enough to believe he was doing?
Posted via Mobile Device

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 03:49 PM

Are cyclists usually better in their 20s or 30s? I don't know the "normal" career progression of that sport.
? but you knew enough to believe he was doping?
Posted via Mobile Device

DeezNutz

05-22-2011, 03:49 PM

I would think a fair athlete comparison would be lance armstrong. Similar career paths iirc. Icould be wrong though
Posted via Mobile Device

Brady Anderson is an interesting player who "fixed" his swing at age 32. Went from 16 HRs to 50.

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 03:50 PM

Posted via Mobile Device[/QUOTE]
Posted via Mobile Device

KC_Connection

05-22-2011, 03:50 PM

? but you knew enough to believe he was doping?
Posted via Mobile Device
I know that most professional cyclists have to dope to even do what they do, yes.

KC_Connection

05-22-2011, 03:54 PM

Brady Anderson is an interesting player who "fixed" his swing at age 32. Went from 16 HRs to 50.
And then back down to his 1995 numbers with 18 HR in the following season (which wasn't bad, I admit). He was always a pretty good player, but had one great year.

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 03:54 PM

Brady Anderson is an interesting player who "fixed" his swing at age 32. Went from 16 HRs to 50.

So anyone that he can be compared to basically throughout sports has pretty much been a confirmed doper. Why would we be silly to assume it?

Seems it would be silly to assume he hasn't.
Posted via Mobile Device

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 03:54 PM

Brady Anderson is an interesting player who "fixed" his swing at age 32. Went from 16 HRs to 50.

Brady Anderson is an interesting example because he only had one year where he hit the crap out of the ball. The rest of his career is remarkably consistent.

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 03:56 PM

Brady Anderson is an interesting example because he only had one year where he hit the crap out of the ball. The rest of his career is remarkably consistent.
How long did he use?
Posted via Mobile Device

KC_Connection

05-22-2011, 03:57 PM

How long did he use?
Posted via Mobile Device
Use what? Steroids? How do we even know if he did?

DeezNutz

05-22-2011, 03:57 PM

Pretty advanced player to "correct" the swing and hit roughly 40 more HRs per year. Possible? Sure. Likely?

KC_Connection

05-22-2011, 04:02 PM

Pretty advanced player to "correct" the swing and hit roughly 40 more HRs per year. Possible? Sure. Likely?
Jose Bautista's talent level is pretty superior to most hitters, that much should be obvious to anybody.

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 04:02 PM

Use what? Steroids? How do we even know if he did?

He admitted it didn't he? Google it.
Posted via Mobile Device

KC_Connection

05-22-2011, 04:03 PM

He admitted it didn't he? Google it.
Posted via Mobile Device
No, he didn't.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/defending-brady-anderson/

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 04:26 PM

No, he didn't.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/defending-brady-anderson/
Let me try to find the article again.
Posted via Mobile Device

Pasta Little Brioni

05-22-2011, 04:29 PM

I thought Brady Anderson was for sure found to be a "juicer" as well.

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 04:32 PM

Was he on the mitchell list?
Posted via Mobile Device

SAUTO

05-22-2011, 04:33 PM

I thought Brady Anderson was for sure found to be a "juicer" as well.

I saw something a couple of weeks ago. Harder to find on my phone I guess
Posted via Mobile Device

chiefzilla1501

05-22-2011, 05:05 PM

I joined the thread late. But are we also jumping the gun in assuming that steroids are actually reason for the power spike of the 90's and early 00's? Two very interesting articles: good reads (one by our favorite, JoePo)
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/06/what-if-we-are-wrong-again-about-steroids/
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2010/01/what-caused-the-steroid-era/

Main ideas.... 1) Steroids do little to increase lower body strength, which is where most power comes from; 2) This is not even close to the first or last era that had a huge power spike; 3) Expansion in 1993--diluted pitching staffs. More shitty pitchers = more HRs for hitters; 4) Rapid build of hitter-friendly ballparks; 5) Most importantly... don't discount the MLB manipulating either a juiced ball or a strike zone to increase HRs, and then increase ratings. There's no doubt that steroids increases hitting ability, but considerable date as to how much so.

KC_Connection

05-24-2011, 03:27 PM

Jose Bautista feature story from Monday in the USA Today, goes into his history: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/bluejays/2011-05-22-jose-bautista-slugger_N.htm

The transition took hold in 2009, when Bautista was playing for manager Cito Gaston, a former hitting coach, and Dwayne Murphy, then the Jays' hitting coach. They rebuilt his swing.
"The biggest thing we changed was his bat path," Murphy says. "He was swinging with all shoulders. Now, he's using his hands."
Bautista was just happy someone else's belief backed up his well-tested self-confidence.
"They said, 'We trust in your ability. You have to trust in these changes,' " Bautista says. "It took awhile but their hitting philosophy fit the bill with who I was."
Aggressive is the one-word description of who he is. "I just try to hit it hard," he says. "All along, everyone kept telling me, 'Be patient, take pitches, go the other way. Stay back. Go over the second baseman's head.' That's why I fouled off pitches."
And Joe Sheehan, who was one of Bautista's original detractors, admits that he's no fluke anymore in a SI column: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/joe_sheehan/05/23/jose.bautista/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a1

Bautista isn't Bonds. He's Joe Hardy. He's Roy Hobbs. He's come out of, if not nowhere, a shadowy past we don't completely understand -- "the Pirates," as they're known -- to do something completely unprecedented in baseball history. Players have made leaps before, as the great sluggers of the 1990s did. Players have come into the league and played at Bautista's level, as Thomas and Albert Pujols did. Players have even had one completely insane season, like Bautista's 2010, then regressed to a lower level of performance.

When Jose Bautista comes to the plate, people stop and they watch. He's making the 2011 season for baseball fans.