2016 MLB thread. THE CUBS HAVE BROKEN THE CURSE! Chicago Cubs are your 2016 World Series champions

[jumpmanfromdabay]

And the fact that he played for Rival Giants isn't going to change his opinion

 

[ooiron manoo]

And the fact that he played for Rival Giants isn't going to change his opinion

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Bias aside though, "The Kid" was just my guy, and numbers put them on similar levels.

 

[a55a5in11]

Love hearing sf fans make excuses for bonds but act like the Seahawks are the devil because some of them got caught with adderall. But that's besides the facts.

Griffeys shoe size didnt grow 5 sizes and his head didnt grow an inch in circumference.

Your hatred of SF fans is amusing! Can't go 1 day without mentioning them

lulz good response

 

[osh kosh bosh]

??

I don't believe in "clutch" in baseball, the ability to raise your level of performance in pressure situations I don't believe its a skill.

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by Johnson1  

An A's fan should be the last person to make steroid jokes.

hey man I understand what you are saying here. However, I don't hold any of those guys in high regard (Canseco, McGwire, Bonds, and unfortunately, probably Rickey Henderson. I mean just look at the guy!).

They are all cheaters in my book and I'm not proud of any of them.

Fair enough.  I probably shouldn't have generalized you with the rest of the Oakland fanbase.  But there are a ton of your fellow fans who constantly make steroid comments.  A couple of my best friends are A's fans, and they genuinely HATE the Giants.  They are constantly ragging on Barry Bonds and steroids.  They both own that stupidass shirt that the A's sold in their team store that said "Zero Splash Hits, Four World Titles."  I just find it very contradictory for an A's fan to mention steroids in a negative light, unless like you, their opinion stays consistent across the board.

 

[tkim1343]

Clutch in baseball means don't choke like bill buckner

 

[madj55]

And the fact that he played for Rival Giants isn't going to change his opinion

Yeah I just realized that

 

[Hahahaha]

^ we don't know if Griffey used anything. His name was never brought up, didn't have the build of a user. He might have but I personally don't think he did. We know for a fact that Barry did.

Would you say the same thing about Brauns' build? There are plenty of steroid users who don't have the build of a super hero like Bonds.

I don't believe this about Griffey, but I'm just throwing this out there for argument purposes. Steroid usage leads to tendon injuries because muscles get stronger at a faster rate than tendons.

Griffey dealt with hamstring injuries for years. Is it not possible that his injuried hamstring was from a result of steroids?

Regardless if you look at build or injury history, they're all assumptions. A strong argument is not made with assumptions.

The logic of if someone looks jacked, they used steroids and the contrapositive of if someone is not jacked, they did not use steroids just doesn't work.

I agree with that, steroids doesn't mean you're built like Barry or McGwire. All I'm saying is Griff didn't have your typical look so that helps his case. They always said Griff was a little lazy, didn't want to stretch and just had talent. He also had a funny build, they said his thighs and hips is where he got his power from. I always thought he was just a talented freak. He was amazing to watch.

Barry was stupid talented, I loved Barry. He didn't need the steroids and that's why I'm mad at him. Then you see his game shark numbers towards THE END of his career and just laugh

 

[ooiron manoo]

Yet you're justification is more walks and higher OBP,

I'm just going to use 2000 as a cutoff, since thats when injuries started to take a toll on Griffey and that is the point where Bonds "alleged" PED used crossed the bridge of denial.

Bonds (1986-2000)
106 Runs
144 Hits
30 Doubles
33 Home Runs
94 RBI
31 SB
103 BB
.289 BA
.412 OBP
.567 SLG
.979 OPS

Griffey (1989-2000)
97 Runs
157 Hits
28 Doubles
36 Home Runs
106 RBI
14 SB
70 BB
.296 BA
.380 OBP
.568 SLG
.948 OPS

However, it's because I'm a Dodger fan that I think Griffey was a better player than Bonds. Let's not forget that Griffey was better defensively and actually played a premium defensive position.

*shrugs*

 

[tkim1343]

Braun was huge compared to the year before. And your power is suppose to come from your legs

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Yet you're justification is more walks and higher OBP,

I'm just going to use 2000 as a cutoff, since thats when injuries started to take a toll on Griffey and that is the point where Bonds "alleged" PED used crossed the bridge of denial.

Bonds (1986-2000)
106 Runs
144 Hits
30 Doubles
33 Home Runs
94 RBI
31 SB
103 BB
.289 BA
.412 OBP
.567 SLG
.979 OPS

Griffey (1989-2000)
97 Runs
157 Hits
28 Doubles
36 Home Runs
106 RBI
14 SB
70 BB
.296 BA
.380 OBP
.568 SLG
.948 OPS

However, it's because I'm a Dodger fan that I think Griffey was a better player than Bonds. Let's not forget that Griffey was better defensively and actually played a premium defensive position.

*shrugs*

I don't get this he keeps posting statistics where bonds is better than Griffey

 

[ooiron manoo]

I don't get this he keeps posting statistics where bonds is better than Griffey

Clearly? Numbers are close, with Griffey having slightly better power numbers and a better BA while Bonds has a higher OBP, walk rate and slightly higher OPS.

Posting stats 'cause apparently the only reason Griffey was better than Bonds is because Barry was a Giant and I'm biased when in fact the numbers were close. On top of that Griffey was better defensively, hands down.

I would say back up the fact that Barry was better than Griffey but you don't think PED's help athletes, so your argument would be null and void anyway,

Griffey and Bonds are were on the same level offensively, Griffey played at a higher level defensively.

Griffey>>> Bonds

Again, the cutoff is 2000, once Bonds found the fountain of youth... well...

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

OKB- Somebody hack your account, not sure if srs or trolling.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

OPS is flawed because it presumes that OBP and SLG are equivalent when it comes to producing runs, Bonds has a .32 point advantage over Griffey. thats a significant difference and makes him the decidedly better offensive player.

the defense and baserunning is a wash.

 

[jewbacca]

LSU signee in a little bit of trouble

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2586723

SMH

 

[ooiron manoo]

OPS is flawed because it presumes that OBP and SLG are equivalent when it comes to producing runs, Bonds has a .32 point advantage over Griffey. thats a significant difference and makes him the decidedly better offensive player.

the defense and baserunning is a wash.

So by your logic, which is extremely flawed btw, David Ortiz this season is a better offensive player than Carlos Gonzales, Mike Trout and Joey Votto.

Defense and baserunning a wash? How convenient,

I'm really concerned now. Hacked? Bath Salts?

 

[dmxfury]

I don't believe in "clutch" in baseball, the ability to raise your level of performance in pressure situations I don't believe its a skill.

I was just pointing out how God awful Bonds was in the post season those early 90s. I don't know if it is a skill of not. He was the opposite of clutch, he shrank from big moments

 

[osh kosh bosh]

So by your logic, which is extremely flawed btw, David Ortiz this season is a better offensive player than Carlos Gonzales, Mike Trout and Joey Votto.

Defense and baserunning a wash? How convenient,

I'm really concerned now. Hacked? Bath Salts?

as a hitter, just pure hitting, yes David Ortiz is having a better hitting season than Mike Trout and Cargo. Mike Trouts a better player because of base running and defense.

Dude its math, outs are the most important thing in baseball, so logically not making outs is the most important skill. thats why the statistic wOBA was created, it properly weights the value of getting on base vs slugging.

you only get 27 outs in baseball you perserve them at all costs.

 

[proshares]

So by your logic, which is extremely flawed btw, David Ortiz this season is a better offensive player than Carlos Gonzales, Mike Trout and Joey Votto.

You're using a ~10 year time frame with the Bonds/Griff comparison. So comparing that to a tiny sample size of less that one season isn't going to help your arugment.

The good thing with baseball is that numbers don't lie. Want to use advanced metrics, Bonds in 1990 and 1993 had a WAR of 9.7 and 9.9 respecitvely. Griffey's best seasons were arguably 1996 and 1997 when he had a 9.6 and 9.1 WAR.

Where'd you get these from? It's incorrect.

Defense and baserunning is a wash because the margin which you think Griff > Bonds defensively goes the opposite way when talking about baserunning. Barry dwarfed Griffey's worth on the basepaths. That's why it would be a wash.

 

[dland24]

Of course he is using a tiny sample size.  Using any more than that wouldnt fit his agenda.

 

[ooiron manoo]

as a hitter, just pure hitting, yes David Ortiz is having a better hitting season than Mike Trout and Cargo. Mike Trouts a better player because of base running and defense.

Isn't base running an important part of the offense?

Dude its math, outs are the most important thing in baseball, so logically not making outs is the most important skill. thats why the statistic wOBA was created, it properly weights the value of getting on base vs slugging.

How many times has the wheel been reinvented? I have no problems with new metrics being introduced, they are interesting and bring new angles. No metric is flawless, and you can poke holes in every metric inluding wOBA. Peeves me when, older metrics are easily dismissed, .

Also being "clutch" isn't a skill, it's a mindset and it certainly is an asset. Find a metric for it,

New school dismissing 125 years of baseball stats is just as bad as old school not embracing new metrics. I'd rather be in the middle.

Just based on offense if someone was to ask, who would you want this year for the rest of the season, and they can only play offense. Most execs would probably say: 1. Trout, 2. Votto, 3. Gonzales, 4. Ortiz. But you hang on to wOBA.

 

[a55a5in11]

as a hitter, just pure hitting, yes David Ortiz is having a better hitting season than Mike Trout and Cargo. Mike Trouts a better player because of base running and defense.

Isn't base running an important part of the offense?

Dude its math, outs are the most important thing in baseball, so logically not making outs is the most important skill. thats why the statistic wOBA was created, it properly weights the value of getting on base vs slugging.

How many times has the wheel been reinvented? I have no problems with new metrics being introduced, they are interesting and bring new angles. No metric is flawless, and you can poke holes in every metric inluding wOBA. Peeves me when, older metrics are easily dismissed, .

Also being "clutch" isn't a skill, it's a mindset and it certainly is an asset. Find a metric for it,

New school dismissing 125 years of baseball stats is just as bad as old school not embracing new metrics. I'd rather be in the middle.

Just based on offense if someone was to ask, who would you want this year for the rest of the season, and they can only play offense. Most execs would probably say: 1. Trout, 2. Votto, 3. Gonzales, 4. Ortiz. But you hang on to wOBA.

cabrera

 

[ooiron manoo]

Of course he is using a tiny sample size.  Using any more than that wouldnt fit his agenda.

Agenda?

, dude said a .32 is the basis for "being a better offensive player", when numbers across the board prove otherwise.

You're using a ~10 year time frame with the Bonds/Griff comparison. So comparing that to a tiny sample size of less that one season isn't going to help your arugment.

It was to prove a quick point of how ridiculous that statement was.

Where'd you get these from? It's incorrect.

Used baseball references metric, and no it's not wrong. Hence why I said, that it's easy to poke holes in new metrics.

Defense and baserunning is a wash because the margin which you think Griff > Bonds defensively goes the opposite way when talking about baserunning. Barry dwarfed Griffey's worth on the basepaths. That's why it would be a wash.

Dwarfed, no, better yes. Margin gets wider when you consider the different positions they played.

All I'm saying is the argument can go either way, and it's not far fetched. I lean towards "The Kid".

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I don't know what to tell you, its not a complex algorithm it's simple.

you only get 27 outs in baseball you perserve them at all costs.

30 points of obp is the difference between a replacement player and a league average hitter.

making outs is bad.

 

[jjs07]

Personally, I don't believe that A-Rod will ever play in the MLB again. However, with the possibility of him returning to the lineup tomorrow, what will the reaction be at Yankee Stadium?

 

[mr marcus]

Steroids make your shoe size grow? Lol never knew or heard that before