Alex Rodriguez vs. Mel Ott

[Cowtipper]

Here are two all-time great sluggers. Rodriguez is a modern day legend who beats Ott in home runs, RBI, stolen bases...well, honestly, when all is said and done, it looks like he's going to be leading Ott in every major category except for walks. But does that make Rodriguez the better hitter? Or was Ott, even with his seemingly statistical inferiority, better?

[Cowtipper]

Well...I went with Rodriguez.

[pheasant]

As much as I like Mel Ott and his odd swing, I have A-rod ahead by a big margin. Kudos for Mel making nice adjustments for his home park and on the road.

[dominik]

didn't ott hit 2/3rd of his HRs at home?

that means in a neutral park he would likely have hit only 300 HRs or so.

[brett]

didn't ott hit 2/3rd of his HRs at home?

that means in a neutral park he would likely have hit only 300 HRs or so.

Not so extreme, 323 at home 188 on the road, which with a normal split would have been 192. Doubling that gives 384. He also batted 15 some points better on the road and his relative on-base percentage was better. His road OPS was .918 and his home OPS was .980, and the average player is very close to 4% better at home than on the road, which would have put him at .954. His home park was about average for offense.

[brett]

A-Rod's stats are more valuable by a little, and in a lot deeper league, but I have to discount him at this point significantly for steroids. I'm not even sure how much. I'd probably have to kick him out of the top 30 position players, and Ott is 25th or better.

[Yankillaz]

I hate A-Rod, but gave him the nod here.

[leecemark]

A-Rod's stats are more valuable by a little, and in a lot deeper league, but I have to discount him at this point significantly for steroids. I'm not even sure how much. I'd probably have to kick him out of the top 30 position players, and Ott is 25th or better.

--Do you really think he got that much advantage from steroids? All the evidence seems to suggest that use was very widespread. My guess is that many, perhaps even most, players from A-Rod's generation at least tried them and a significant number used them regularly. I give a slight mental discount to proven users -and that varies from player to player and day to day - but mostly accept the relative numbers at something close to face value.

[brett]

--Do you really think he got that much advantage from steroids? All the evidence seems to suggest that use was very widespread. My guess is that many, perhaps even most, players from A-Rod's generation at least tried them and a significant number used them regularly. I give a slight mental discount to proven users -and that varies from player to player and day to day - but mostly accept the relative numbers at something close to face value.

I haven't decided what to do with them yet. I have read enough that he used them in highschool to think that he may have broken in a year or two earlier as well as peaking a bit higher. But you are right about the competition, plus A-Rod got stuck at third when he was a better first baseman. In my last ranking I had him in the top 25 and he was a more dominant player than the guys I've got in the 26-30 range so he's probably around 20 actually, maybe 17-23 when I get it all figured out.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

--Do you really think he got that much advantage from steroids? All the evidence seems to suggest that use was very widespread. My guess is that many, perhaps even most, players from A-Rod's generation at least tried them and a significant number used them regularly. I give a slight mental discount to proven users -and that varies from player to player and day to day - but mostly accept the relative numbers at something close to face value.

Jose Canseco said that at one point, 4 out of 5 guys were using. This probably includes casual users and guys who went on and off cycles less than three times throughout the season. I will not divert this thread's topic, so I will sum it up as this: the blind eye by the leagues, the need to keep up with already using competition, and likelihood that players of yesteryear would've used made steroid users of the 1990s and early 2000s understandable. A-Rod's 40-40 season or 50 homers as a shortstop may not have happened without the help of banned substances, but I'm not going to through everything he did out the window. I believe he's better than Ott even if he played the outfield (positional adjustments, especially for beyond the 1990s, don't hold much water for me).

Besides, if everyone is using steroids, how much of an advantage can it truly be?