Originally posted by brett
View Post
All-Time Draft Rematch
Collapse
X
-
"he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor
"I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g
-
-
Originally posted by Westlake View PostTherefore, I will NOT take his numbers at face value. They happened, but doesn't mean they happened legitimately.
It'll be hard considering we can suspect anyone of roids or HGH that it's gonna take the fun out of this draft and voting."Back before I injured my hip, I thought going to the gym was for wimps."
Bo Jackson
Actually, I think they were about the same because I lettered in all sports, and I was a two-time state decathlon champion.
Bo Jackson
My sophomore year I placed 2nd, and my junior and senior year - I got smart and piled up enough points between myself and second place where I didn't have to run the mile.
Bo Jackson
Comment
-
-
Evan, what if the idea is that we are drafting the players as they were?
So, if they took steroids, that's the player you have. What, then, would be the justification for docking for steroids? If you have a 2000-2004 Barry Bonds, you have him with steroids in his body since that's how he played the game.
That makes it different from adjusting for era or defense. Doing that still involves evaluating the player who played the games...you aren't changing him to something else, as you would be in trying to evaluate a player "minus steroids."
This isn't trying to objectively judge the true talent level of players (at least, so far as I see it). That's for player rankings in the History forum, or Statistics forum. This is taking the actual players (loaded with alcohol, greenies or steroids as they may be) and dropping them into a league to compete against each other."In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax
Comment
-
-
And I don't think that Wade is going to be worse off for taking McGwire anyway. Others may have passed on him, and Clemens because of the Steroid label, and so they came in a little lower, but many will rate them without a cut, or severe one.
And by the way, I'd rather see Bonds from '92-'96. He would be able to start 150 games a year instead of 135 (plus pinch hitting) and still had a 190 OPS+, and probably 15 points worth of OPS+ with his legs, and better fielding-I think he could actually be a backup centerfielder when your CF is off and right now you will need somebody who can physically play backup there on occasion. He also doesn't have the steroid issues, and he actually was probably hurt in relative rates, and star-class by the use of others (ie Caminiti in '95). Right now, you will need a serviceable backup centerfielder, and plan to have someone fill Bonds' spot in the starting lineup 25 times. Or if he plays DH he might be able to go every day.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by The Splendid Splinter View PostI agree with you Evan and I got Bonds. That's fine by me. All I would want is that he wouldn't be punished to the point where it's not worth a top 5 pick or first round since early 90's Bonds probably would've been drafted towards the end of the first round.
It'll be hard considering we can suspect anyone of roids or HGH that it's gonna take the fun out of this draft and voting.Originally posted by DomenicThe Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ChrisLDuncan View PostExactly that, the players choice. You can't vote for your own team, vote on who drafted the best (e.g. got the best late round talent, did the best job of drafting value players), who assembled the best team, etc."Back before I injured my hip, I thought going to the gym was for wimps."
Bo Jackson
Actually, I think they were about the same because I lettered in all sports, and I was a two-time state decathlon champion.
Bo Jackson
My sophomore year I placed 2nd, and my junior and senior year - I got smart and piled up enough points between myself and second place where I didn't have to run the mile.
Bo Jackson
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Westlake View PostLike I said above, I get accused of being an apologist for Bonds all the time. I don't care about steroids anymore. But i'm not stupid enough to believe they didn't help him... I think that much is obvious. You're living in a fantasy land if you don't think they did in some way. Therefore, I will NOT take his numbers at face value. They happened, but doesn't mean they happened legitimately.
Re: Clemens...
I don't know, really. Probably not. I just don't really want anyone associated with steroids one way or another."he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor
"I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Minstrel View PostEvan, what if the idea is that we are drafting the players as they were?
So, if they took steroids, that's the player you have. What, then, would be the justification for docking for steroids? If you have a 2000-2004 Barry Bonds, you have him with steroids in his body since that's how he played the game.
That makes it different from adjusting for era or defense. Doing that still involves evaluating the player who played the games...you aren't changing him to something else, as you would be in trying to evaluate a player "minus steroids."
This isn't trying to objectively judge the true talent level of players (at least, so far as I see it). That's for player rankings in the History forum, or Statistics forum. This is taking the actual players (loaded with alcohol, greenies or steroids as they may be) and dropping them into a league to compete against each other.
Originally posted by brett View PostAnd I don't think that Wade is going to be worse off for taking McGwire anyway. Others may have passed on him, and Clemens because of the Steroid label, and so they came in a little lower, but many will rate them without a cut, or severe one.
And by the way, I'd rather see Bonds from '92-'96. He would be able to start 150 games a year instead of 135 (plus pinch hitting) and still had a 190 OPS+, and probably 15 points worth of OPS+ with his legs, and better fielding-I think he could actually be a backup centerfielder when your CF is off and right now you will need somebody who can physically play backup there on occasion. He also doesn't have the steroid issues, and he actually was probably hurt in relative rates, and star-class by the use of others (ie Caminiti in '95). Right now, you will need a serviceable backup centerfielder, and plan to have someone fill Bonds' spot in the starting lineup 25 times. Or if he plays DH he might be able to go every day.Originally posted by DomenicThe Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by The Splendid Splinter View Postalso I think you should have a long summary as to why you pick that team, explain your reasoning, and do a summary on your team and why you think they are the best team and your reasoning. I think that should be a requirement for our voting poll. The history and stats polls doesn't have to do that, but that would be nice as well."he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor
"I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g
Comment
-
-
Another thing, I think we need to all relax. I'm pretty sure a bigger problem will be how will the dead ball era pitchers fair in the live ball, how will pitchers of the four man do in a five man era. How much emphasis should we put on blank. We will work out all the kinks in the debate forum. As for now, draft the team you think is the best. Evan, like the rest of you is entitled to his opinion. What if someone has an opinion contrary to the board? What if someone thinks Hornsby was the third best second basemen ever? Should the guy who has Hornsby complain about that? Or what if someone doesn't think Morgan is a historically great second basemen? Should the guy who has Morgan complain about that? We can do our debates about this in the debate forum, AFTER the draft. Lets try to have fun for now."he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor
"I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by brett View PostAnd by the way, I'd rather see Bonds from '92-'96. He would be able to start 150 games a year instead of 135 (plus pinch hitting) and still had a 190 OPS+, and probably 15 points worth of OPS+ with his legs, and better fielding-I think he could actually be a backup centerfielder when your CF is off and right now you will need somebody who can physically play backup there on occasion. He also doesn't have the steroid issues, and he actually was probably hurt in relative rates, and star-class by the use of others (ie Caminiti in '95). Right now, you will need a serviceable backup centerfielder, and plan to have someone fill Bonds' spot in the starting lineup 25 times. Or if he plays DH he might be able to go every day."Back before I injured my hip, I thought going to the gym was for wimps."
Bo Jackson
Actually, I think they were about the same because I lettered in all sports, and I was a two-time state decathlon champion.
Bo Jackson
My sophomore year I placed 2nd, and my junior and senior year - I got smart and piled up enough points between myself and second place where I didn't have to run the mile.
Bo Jackson
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Westlake View PostAre we trying to say that said league we are in allows players to take performance enhancing drugs?
I do think, to a point, I am evaluating the true talent of the player in that 5 year span. I don't think I should look at one player with a 155 OPS+ and automatically think he is better than the guy with the 152. That seems kind of boring to me.
Because it seems to me that docking certain players gets us no closer to the "truth"...if you dock Bonds and McGwire, but you don't dock the hundreds of other players who used steroids that you don't know about, you still don't have an accurate portrayal of the players...after all, Bonds' and McGwire's OPS+ are relative to a league in which steroids was rampant...that boosts the average OPS, which hurts their OPS+. If you just dock them, but not all the other players in their leagues, their OPS+ (or any other relative measures) are still off.
If we're going to have inaccurate representations of true talent anyway, it seems like it is easier to just take the numbers at face value, rather than do an "adjustment" that throws it off in a different way."In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by The Splendid Splinter View PostAs for speed, I wouldn't really looking at that as much.
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by ChrisLDuncan View PostAnother thing, I think we need to all relax. I'm pretty sure a bigger problem will be how will the dead ball era pitchers fair in the live ball, how will pitchers of the four man do in a five man era. How much emphasis should we put on blank. We will work out all the kinks in the debate forum. As for now, draft the team you think is the best. Evan, like the rest of you is entitled to his opinion. What if someone has an opinion contrary to the board? What if someone thinks Hornsby was the third best second basemen ever? Should the guy who has Hornsby complain about that? Or what if someone doesn't think Morgan is a historically great second basemen? Should the guy who has Morgan complain about that? We can do our debates about this in the debate forum, AFTER the draft. Lets try to have fun for now.
Originally posted by brett View PostWell, we don't allow racial segregation but nobody is going to think they can take Satchel Paige from '35-'39 (are they?).Originally posted by DomenicThe Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.
Comment
-
Ad Widget
Collapse
Comment