Offline
Well if he doesn't rip his knee up this season, he's sitting around 650, and still in sights of it.
Offline
alz wrote:
Well if he doesn't rip his knee up this season, he's sitting around 650, and still in sights of it.
You're absolutely correct, but age catches up with us all. Believe me, I realize this more and more every day when I wake up in the morning.
My point is that in 2007, coming off a 54 HR season and sitting with 518 HRs, everyone assumed Rodriguez passing Bonds was a formality. No one considered that it might take him 4 years rather than 2 to hit the next 100 HRs.
I hope Pujols hits 800 HR, and I hope he hits every one of them in a Cardinal uniform. But just as A-Rod is experiencing, there's reason to suspect that Pujols' numbers will slow as he gets older. It's natural.
Offline
I would honestly prefer ARod breaks his knee and is out of baseball forever, so he can go play poker for the rest of his life.
I'm not a fan of any Juice era offenders holding career marks. I don't necessarily think you have to go back and erase every at bat, that would be a nightmare. I do however think that any proven guilt on PED's should negate your eligibility from the Hall of Fame, as well as MLB Record books.
Which means Mark McGwire is the single season .... lol just kidding. Give those HR records back to Maris and Aaron.
Last edited by alz (8/16/2011 9:39 am)
Offline
I argue that it is highly idiosyncratic.
In Aaron's last three seasons in the big leagues he hit a total of 42 home runs, whereas he hit 40 in the year just before that. So, the observation that players hit a slippery part of the downhill slope is real in many cases. But Aaron was 40-42 in those last three seasons. That is to say, he was still awesome, belting 40 HR with a 1.045 OPS at 39--well above his career average for both stats. Thus, Aaron hit the slippery part of the slope several years later than many other players do.
If Pujols could replicate what Aaron did, he would perform above career average in the year 2019, at which point he would have 775 HR. Give him another 42 HR in his final three years and he'd be the record holder, with 817. Needless to say, he'd be a very safe bet for $300m/10 contract if we could count on him having an Aaron-like career trajectory.
If A-Rod could shake the injury bug, and play four more seasons at career average (he's 35 now), he'd end up with 766 HR. Tack on another 42 HR in years 40-42 and he'd wind up with with 808, and his contract(s) would look like bargains.
Offline
alz wrote:
I would honestly prefer ARod breaks his knee and is out of baseball forever, so he can go play poker for the rest of his life.
I'm not a fan of any Juice era offenders holding career marks. I don't necessarily think you have to go back and erase every at bat, that would be a nightmare. I do however think that any proven guilt on PED's should negate your eligibility from the Hall of Fame, as well as MLB Record books.
Which means Mark McGwire is the single season .... lol just kidding. Give those HR records back to Maris and Aaron.
I agree. I don't consider Bonds the lifetime record holder for HR, and anyone who does is . . . is . . . I'll think of an analogy and get back to you.
Offline
If Pujols is able to have health comparable to Aaron's (Aaron averaged 145 games/season from age 32-39), he'll approach 700+ HRs. But I don't believe Aaron carried 230+ pounds. Not to say that Pujols is out of shape, but the larger the person, the more strain it puts on joints and muscles. My predictions are based on my belief that at some point Pujols' back/elbow/hamstring/knee/foot or something else is going to give and he's going to miss half a season or more at some point.
I just think it's inevitable that a larger framed man will break down at some point. Who knows?
Offline
I think Bonds might sit ontop of that leader board for longer then expected. ARoid has ran into health issues. If he plays 5 more years, till he is 40 he will have t hit 27 a season. He has only 13 tis year and hit only 30 the previous two years.
Pujols is going to have the same trouble. Expectin someone to average 30 HRs over the last ten years of their career is alot.
Offline
APRTW wrote:
Pujols is going to have the same trouble. Expectin someone to average 30 HRs over the last ten years of their career is alot.
That's probably the least likely way he hits it.
---------------------
He's on pace for 39 HR's this season (29HRs/108Games * 108 Games Played/122 Games Cardinals Played * 40 Games remaining). This is also using a pace meter and game pace that he had with a broken wrist, and a TERRIBLE slump to start the year. If he gets on a tear, he could finish with another 15 homers. Let's just say he finishes with 39.
If that occurs he finishes at 447. ASSUME he hits 51 for the 3 seasons following.
You now have Albert Pujols sitting at 600 going to the 2015 season, and 34 years old. It's not out of the question. He's got the bat behind him that's going to let him see pitches.
Offline
"ASSUME he hits 51 for the 3 seasons following."
Why would you assume Pujols is going to do something for 3 consecutive years that he has never done once during his career?
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
"ASSUME he hits 51 for the 3 seasons following."
Why would you assume Pujols is going to do something for 3 consecutive years that he has never done once during his career?
Twice in one day??? Okay fine...
He hit 49. 51 isn't that far from it. Had he not started so badly and missed time with a broken wrist, 51 could have been done this season. It wasn't, but he hasn't lost his ability.
You seem to have a problem imagining things. Please learn how. That's the second time you've countered my hypothetical and assuming statements (labelled as such too!) by challenging the likeliness of the assumption.
What makes the second time memorable enough for me to note the failure in your reading comprehension when it comes to my posts is that I capitalized the word "ASSUME" for emphasis primarily to ensure you understood it was more of a "what if".
Offline
Max wrote:
alz wrote:
I would honestly prefer ARod breaks his knee and is out of baseball forever, so he can go play poker for the rest of his life.
I'm not a fan of any Juice era offenders holding career marks. I don't necessarily think you have to go back and erase every at bat, that would be a nightmare. I do however think that any proven guilt on PED's should negate your eligibility from the Hall of Fame, as well as MLB Record books.
Which means Mark McGwire is the single season .... lol just kidding. Give those HR records back to Maris and Aaron.I agree. I don't consider Bonds the lifetime record holder for HR, and anyone who does is . . . is . . . I'll think of an analogy and get back to you.
We're selectively picking off records, are we?
OK, let's get rid of Maris' record because he was playing in an expansion year, and he was a left-handed hitter who took half his hacks at a fence that was less than 300 feet from home plate.
Let's get rid of Aaron's numbers because players were taking amphetamines like Chiclets.
Let's get rid of Cy Young's 511 wins because he was throwing a beanbag.
Let's get rid of all of Ruth's numbers because he didn't have to play at night.
In fact, let's get rid of everything before 1947 because there were no black players.
Once you start conditioning records that have been accumulated over a 130-year span, you're treading onto dangerous ground.
Offline
We're selectively picking off records, are we?
OK, let's get rid of Maris' record because he was playing in an expansion year, and he was a left-handed hitter who took half his hacks at a fence that was less than 300 feet from home plate.
-- Weak
Let's get rid of Aaron's numbers because players were taking amphetamines like Chiclets.
-- Prove Aaron took them, and you're right
Let's get rid of Cy Young's 511 wins because he was throwing a beanbag.
--Weak
Let's get rid of all of Ruth's numbers because he didn't have to play at night.
--Weak
In fact, let's get rid of everything before 1947 because there were no black players.
--Weak
Once you start conditioning records that have been accumulated over a 130-year span, you're treading onto dangerous ground.
--Fact
Half of my discussion is already true. The Hall has yet to vote in a single PED violator, when these are players who otherwise clearly deserve admission. Anyone who has a guilty verdict can/should be held from records or the hall in my opinion.
Course, my opinion also mandates that a "Proof of innocence" clause needs to be introduced for cases like OJ and Casey Anthony, instead of an acquittal. My opinion clearly counts for very little outside my own mind.
Offline
"Course, my opinion also mandates that a "Proof of innocence" clause needs to be introduced for cases like OJ and Casey Anthony, instead of an acquittal. My opinion clearly counts for very little outside my own mind."
Alz, I don't know how you can on one hand ask for proof that a guy from the '70s didn't use amphetamines and then on the hand assume everyone who played in the '90s is guilty until proven otherwise.
Numbers are numbers. Of the pitchers off whom Bonds hit his 765 career homers or whatever he number is, how many of them were doing steroids?
Jim Thome hit his 600th homer last night. Marvelous accomplishment. But he played a portion of his career in the steroid era. Yet everything I've heard today indicates he's beyond suspicion. Why? Because Barry Larkin says so? Barry Larkin never played with Thome, and I'm not sure they were even in the National League at the same time. Same thing with Griffey. Two guys playing in an era in which steroid use was rampant put up numbers only Aaron, Ruth and Mays put up before them somehow get a pass to the Hall of Fame while others from the same era are excluded?
Offline
"He hit 49. 51 isn't that far from it. Had he not started so badly and missed time with a broken wrist, 51 could have been done this season. It wasn't, but he hasn't lost his ability."
Never said he lost his ability. But Pujols has had fast starts and slow starts. He's had years with injuries and years where he's played 160+ games. In none of those seasons has he hit 50 HRs. You're now asking people to assume that for 3 consecutive seasons, Pujols is going to do something that he's never done in a single season. It's a bit far-fetched.
"You seem to have a problem imagining things. Please learn how. That's the second time you've countered my hypothetical and assuming statements (labelled as such too!) by challenging the likeliness of the assumption."
When attempting to have a discussion that involves a hypothetical, one generally takes into account the likelihood of the hypothetical. The Cardinals have 40 games left this season. If I assume they win all of them, then they win the division (or at least a share of it). If the LDS goes 4 games, should we start Carpenter on 3 days rest, Westbrook or Lohse?
"What makes the second time memorable enough for me to note the failure in your reading comprehension when it comes to my posts is that I capitalized the word "ASSUME" for emphasis primarily to ensure you understood it was more of a "what if"."
Take your own advice. My question back to you was "Why make the assumption?" which shows an understanding that an assumption was made and asks for the logic behind the assumption which, by the way, you still haven't provided.
Offline
Another point about the "proof of innocence" thing. I pretty sure I didn't assassinate JFK because I was 15 months old and probably couldn't have fired a rifle, but I can't prove I wasn't in the book depository in Dallas that day.
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
We're selectively picking off records, are we?
OK, let's get rid of Maris' record because he was playing in an expansion year, and he was a left-handed hitter who took half his hacks at a fence that was less than 300 feet from home plate.
Let's get rid of Aaron's numbers because players were taking amphetamines like Chiclets.
Let's get rid of Cy Young's 511 wins because he was throwing a beanbag.
Let's get rid of all of Ruth's numbers because he didn't have to play at night.
In fact, let's get rid of everything before 1947 because there were no black players.
Once you start conditioning records that have been accumulated over a 130-year span, you're treading onto dangerous ground.
WTF?!? I have made this point 100 time and I dont think you ever posted that you agreed. You just like watching me get beat up?
Offline
Fors. I realize in law that assumptions are not commonplace, this is a sports discussion. Be open to the hypothetical. If I needed to prove the statement, it's really not a hypothetical is it? Just answer the assumed scenario, or abdicate from the discussion next time instead of deflecting with a comeback question
Artie you're spinning off into some wierd silly direction. Who said anything about assuming everyone from the 90's was guilty? I'm saying anyone with PROVEN guilt should be removed from the hall or records. This includes (among others) Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire, Manny, Palmeiro. I'm not saying we need to doctor the books of any game. I'm saying any record of achievement, as well as hall of fame enshrinement should not be recognized for anyone who was suspended due to a cheating offense. Anyone with a similar guilt related to amphetamines, coccaine, or whatever would fall in the same boat. Anyone using loaded bats, freezing or otherwise doctoring baseballs, scuffing them up, using foreign substance like pinetar isn't much better.
I'm basically saying you can play the game even if you're a cheating piece of shit, but I believe that the records are to be revered and reserved solely for those who not only played, but played clean. I believe the hall of fame enshrinement as well should reflect not just how a ballplayer played the game, but how he respected that same game. If you don't, then you don't. I prefer not to reward cheaters.
Offline
"Artie you're spinning off into some wierd silly direction."
What I'm writing makes a lot more sense than the floating set of standards some people seem to have adopted for Hall of Fame induction. You don't want to let in Bonds because he did drugs? Fine. Then you have to throw out Orlando Cepeda and Ferguson Jenkins. Rose doesn't get in because he gambled? See ya later, Ty Cobb. McGwire doesn't get in because he "cheated?" Buh-bye Gaylord Perry.
The HofF standard appears to be you have to be great, but you can't be so great you break or even threaten sacrosanct records, especially home run records.
There's no way we're going to ever know how many players took steroids in the '90s. (Raise your hand if you thought Jason Grimsley and Manny Alexander were "steroid guys.") So you either let in the guys whose numbers are worthy, or you go back in time and start excluding everyone who you know fits the stupid character clause.
Which probably leaves you with Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson and Pee Wee Reese. Not much of a Hall of Fame, is it?
Offline
I felt bad for Thome that his accomplishment received so little attention, particularly in comparison to Jeter reaching 3,000 hits. 3,000 hits is an amazing accomplishment, but 3 1/2 times more players have reached 3,000 hits than have 600 HRs.
I had a football coach tell me last night that he didn't even know Thome was still playing until he saw on the ESPN ticker that Thome had hit his 600th HR. I realize that he hit 2 HRs in the same night to get to 600, and perhaps more attention would have been generated if he had made it to 599 and then hit 600 in another game, but it was almost like Thome was an afterthought.
Offline
"Fors. I realize in law that assumptions are not commonplace, this is a sports discussion. Be open to the hypothetical. If I needed to prove the statement, it's really not a hypothetical is it?"
Actually Alz, the law is very much about hypotheticals. When you're trying to advise a client, you have to try to predict every possible outcome, good or bad, so that you can provide the best possible advice and the client can make an informed decision.
But when discussing hypotheticals, the probability of the hypothetical occurring plays a significant factor in the discussion. This whole string started when you posed the question, "how would Cardinal fans feel if Pujols hits his 800th HR in another uniform?" I could just as easily flip that around and say "how will Cardinal fans feel about Dewitt and Mozeliak if they let Pujols walk in the off-season, but wisely spend the money that was otherwise targeted for Pujols and win 4 of the next 8 World Series?" In answering the question, you are naturally going to take into consideration the perceived likelihood of those events happening.
Offline
A couple of the books that this board recommended to me were "Ball Four" and "The Bad Guys Won". Both spoke of the use of greenies in much the same way that Juicied spoke of the use of steroids. In The Bad Gus Won it talked about how the trainers kept milk in the clubhouse because it offset the effects of taking to much.
Here is some Q&A with the autor of Ball Four Jim Bouton:
"1. Were you shocked and surprised at the revelation that lots of ballplayers are taking steroids?
Jim Bouton: No, not at all. How could I be surprised? In the 1970s, half of the guys in the big leagues were taking greenies, and if we had steroids, we would have taken those, too. I said in "Ball Four," if there was a pill that could guarantee you would win 20 games but would take five years off of your life, players would take it. The only thing I didn't know at the time was the name.
Would you have taken them if they were around in your day?
Bouton: I splashed DMSO on my shoulder. That was a drug used for horses. Whitey Ford and I spread it all over our arms in 1965 or 1966. I tried a greenie once, to see what it was like, but all it did was make me too jumpy. But if it had helped me win the game, I would have taken another. I took a lot of cortisone shots. There's only a difference of degree.
2. Should steroids be banned?
Bouton: I think so, because it's pretty clear that they're no good for your health. I think pep pills should be banned because if they're not, they get handed out like candy. And players think it must be OK. At least if they're banned it will cause some players to pause. If they give someone an advantage, it's unfair to the ones who don't take them."
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
"Artie you're spinning off into some wierd silly direction."
What I'm writing makes a lot more sense than the floating set of standards some people seem to have adopted for Hall of Fame induction. You don't want to let in Bonds because he did drugs? Fine. Then you have to throw out Orlando Cepeda and Ferguson Jenkins. Rose doesn't get in because he gambled? See ya later, Ty Cobb. McGwire doesn't get in because he "cheated?" Buh-bye Gaylord Perry.
The HofF standard appears to be you have to be great, but you can't be so great you break or even threaten sacrosanct records, especially home run records.
There's no way we're going to ever know how many players took steroids in the '90s. (Raise your hand if you thought Jason Grimsley and Manny Alexander were "steroid guys.") So you either let in the guys whose numbers are worthy, or you go back in time and start excluding everyone who you know fits the stupid character clause.
Which probably leaves you with Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson and Pee Wee Reese. Not much of a Hall of Fame, is it?
Artie, try to stay with me. I get agitated when I have to repeat things. I'm not bringing up a character issue at all. I'm not saying Ty Cobb or Pete Rose should be out. Unless you can prove to me that Rose bet AGAINST the Reds, I don't see a problem with him gambling. I have a problem with people that abused the integrity of the games and the competition by cheating.
You were close with one statement, I corrected it for you.
"The HofF standard is that you have to be great. You can't cheat to be great, or it will not matter if you break or even threaten sacrosanct records."
I simply do not understand your desire to take a cheaters record as is, bump off a pure player who (We cannot prove otherwise) was clean. Clearly the Hall of Fame is doing this right. McGwire? No thank you. Palmiero? Nope, sit down. Sosa? Sorry junior, take your corked bat and roids somewhere else. I'm just praying that they do it to Bonds. Keep the Single season and Career HR leader out of baseball's hall of fame? Why, because he was hot for numerous sterroids, lied about taking them, then changed it to knowingly, and ended up having to fight off a federal investigation. The only reason a conviction was avoided was because damning evidence was illegally siezed, and his trainer decided that rotting in a jail cell was worth more than rolling over on his buddy.
Ampetamine banning and testing never entered baseball until 2005, despite being made illegal outside of a Rx since 1965, I could easily see these guys greasing into a loophole with a Rx. It doesn't make me happy, but it does make them legal.
Offline
forsberg_us wrote:
But when discussing hypotheticals, the probability of the hypothetical occurring plays a significant factor in the discussion. This whole string started when you posed the question, "how would Cardinal fans feel if Pujols hits his 800th HR in another uniform?" I could just as easily flip that around and say "how will Cardinal fans feel about Dewitt and Mozeliak if they let Pujols walk in the off-season, but wisely spend the money that was otherwise targeted for Pujols and win 4 of the next 8 World Series?" In answering the question, you are naturally going to take into consideration the perceived likelihood of those events happening.
I would imagine that if the Cardinals won 4 of the 8 next World Series titles, that this city would largely be okay with losing Albert. If Moz took the 30 million he was gonna give Albert and picked up 3-4 big upgrades, it might actually fall out that way. It's all hypothetical.
However, if the reverse were true, and Pujols went to the Cubs where they won 4 of the next 8 (THIS IS REALLY HYPOTHETICAL), clipped 3500 hits and 800 HRs? To top it off they decided to rename I55 from East St. Louis to Chicago: "Albert Pujols Interstate", but only for the Northbound lanes?
If I really had to wager on what I thought is going to occur with Albert Pujols and the rest of his career?
He signs with the Cubs, we have a shit first baseman who is already fucked from having to be in Albert Pujols' position. The Cubs contend for the NL Central and win the division 1-2 times, and while we also might stay competitive, we will mourn his absense with every success he has. I think he clips 700 HR's, and gives the career total a push if he stays healthy.
I don't have a lot of faith in Dewitt/Moz, and I know that this organization letting him get away with nothing in return will go over like a shit covered anvil. Given the amount of boo-hoo'ing about the dealing of a OF'er hitting .225 with "potential"? I think him letting "Stan Musial II" walk for nothing being "totally acceptable" seems ludicrous to me.
Last edited by alz (8/17/2011 1:31 pm)
Offline
"Artie, try to stay with me. I get agitated when I have to repeat things."
I'm hot, tired and pissed because I spent the day at a crowded amusement park, but shitcan your condescending tone, Alz. If your morality scale is on a curve, that's fine. But don't try to insult me by implying that my refusal to accept your sliding scale of standards is because I lack intelligence. I have the faculties to understand your point of view. You're not the first one to proffer it. I think it's bullshit. Is that concise enough?
Offline
Indeed! I was exhausted and pissed at having to factually defend hypotheticals repeatedly. I meant the "I get agitated when I have to repeat things" as a ref to the above conversation with Fors, and it was supposed to be a lot more funny then it read. Going back, I think I was in way too crappy of a mood to try for comedy on any level.
I felt like everytime I made a post about Cheaters, others were thrown into it (Like Rose/Cobb/Cy Young etc). My bias of character really only gets unforgiving when someone is cheating the sport. I hate that. That's the only point I was making, but every reply seemed to elaborate on it, making it bigger. I'll also tell you I had no problem with McGwire on Andro. It was legal, and when it stopped being legal, he said he stopped using it. After his "coming clean" (which I do appreciate), I would not vote him into the hall of fame, and if he still had the single season HR mark, I would revert it back to 61/162, and might include an * for 60/154 (Ruth). Although I can simply argue it is not Maris' fault that they extended the season. He had nothing to do with it, and they didn't extend it so he could break the record...
In this same light, I don't care if you drink your liver to pieces (Mantle), are a womanizer (Ruth), a mean son of a bitch who might have tried to hurt people intentionally with pitches (Gibson), or whatnot. Do not cheat the game, and I'm fine.
Last edited by alz (8/18/2011 10:09 am)