« August 2nd @ The Indians | Main | Bernie's Option »
August 02, 2005
Michael Kay's Thread Theory
I was listening to Michael Kay's radio show today, and he was talking about the Rafael Palmeiro situation, and the issue of juicers messing with the game's stats, and he said something close to "The stats are the thread that's woven through the fabric of the game" and he then claimed that recent players (here I assume he means players from 1994 through 2004) cannot be compared to players from the past - because they've cooked their stats with juice.
Since my book, The Baseball Same Game, compares players from different eras, I wanted to call into the show - but, I was in the car and traffic at that time did not lend towards calling.
Then, this evening, during the YES broadcast, Michael used that thread/woven/fabric line again, just about word-for-word, when discussing Palmeiro with Ken Singleton. Hearing it twice in the span of about 5 hours, I thought maybe I should use this platform to address the point that I wanted to make today - even though this is not a "Yankees" item (albeit stemming from comments from a Yankees announcer) - because it hits so close to home with my book.
In my mind, the greatest thing that has happened in this juicing period is that so many players are using something - even the nobodies like an Alex Sanchez type. Because of this, you can take a player from this era and compare him to a player in the past.
If it was just one or two players using, and everyone else was clean, then those two players would be impossible to put into context. Say, one season, two players hit 60+ homeruns and no one else in the league hit as many as 30 long balls. That would be a problem here. But, for example, take 1998 when Sammy and Mac were launching bombs. In that season, three guys hit more than 50, another guy hit 50 exactly, and another player just missed five-o with 49 homers. Further, 13 players that season hit at least 40 homeruns and 33 players had at least 30 taters. (And, that was almost 37 as four other guys hit 29 homeruns exactly in 1998.)
I'm old enough to remember 1976 when just four players in the game managed 30 homers and no one had 40 that season. Last time I checked, there's a big difference between 33 and 4 - right?
But, again, because so many are doing something these days, you can take a guy like Mark McGwire and compare him to the league average - when he played - and then match him up to someone from the past, as that player produced compared to the league average - at the time that he played. And, this is what I do in my book.
Back to McGwire again, someone might look at his career HR% (9.42) and the HR% for Babe Ruth (8.50) and say "McGwire was just as Ruthian as Ruth!" But, that's not true. They played in different times. You need to adjust the stats for the time in which they played - by comparing them to their peers at that time.
In fact, in my book, I make the case that McGwire was the same as Johnny Mize, in terms of their relative career batting results. Now, yes, Mize was a great player and a Hall of Famer - but, he was not Babe Ruth. Mark McGwire was not in the class of Ruth with the bat.
Without really going in too deep on the book here, or McGwire, etc., and trying to stay on point, what I want to stress here is that we can compare recent players to those in the past - as long as you compare the recent player to a league baseline for him and then do the same to the one from the past. It works. If you'd like to see more on how this works for specific players, then buy the book.
Posted by Steve Lombardi at August 2, 2005 10:52 PM
Comments
I would think you'd also have to take into account the pitchers of those eras as well. I doubt that hitters of late were/are the only ones juicing.
Posted by: Jen at August 2, 2005 11:57 PM
The thing is that not everyone was juicing. League baselines really are not valid as a comparitive if you have 2 classes of players- users and nonusers and have no way to determine who is who and how mnay exist in each group
Further, what is the point of comparing the 2 groups?What purpose is served by comparing the performance of juiced and non juiced players. Theya re called performance enhancing drugs for good reason. You talk about adjusting stats for different eras, but how could you possibly account for the factor of PED use if you don't know who used and who didn't. I understand your point, but in the end I think it's futile. It's an ugly situation, but MLB allowed the situation to exist, and has to live w/ the tarnish on the game they allowed.
Palmiero outperformed his peers, do you reallythink he should be in the HOF knowing his performance was drug aided?
Posted by: eddy at August 3, 2005 07:29 AM
Like Steve said, I'm willing to bet that a good 95% (maybe more) is taking SOMETHING. It doesn't even have to be 'roids. Have you been into a GNC lately? Every and all protein you'd ever want, energy drinks, cell volumizers, NO-2 products, creatine. This is all stuff that promotes endurance and strength that wasn't around back then.
Posted by: JJay at August 3, 2005 09:45 AM
Palmiero outperformed his peers, do you reallythink he should be in the HOF knowing his performance was drug aided?
============================
Very good question. Did he start using in Chicago, his first time in Texas or Baltimore? Did he start this season, or last?
Lets say he started using way back when, in the minors. He still has to show up and hit the ball. Seeing as luminaries such as Ryan Franklin, and Alex Sanchez, among others have failed the drug test, do you think they have that much of an impact on talent?
Posted by: Raf at August 3, 2005 10:17 AM
There's little question in my mind that Raffy started in 1993. Look at his HR%, season by season, and, this is when Canseco met up with him.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at August 3, 2005 10:29 AM
So how do you explain 1991?
In the minors, Don Mattingly's career high in homers was 10. As a full time starter in '84, he hit 23, then 30+ the next few years. Until he hurt his back.
Clearly, Donnie Baseball was on the juice.
Posted by: Raf at August 3, 2005 11:33 AM
"do you think they have that much of an impact on talent?"
The point is we just don't know. By taking them ( it's not conjecture now- he's been busted ) he makes that argument moot. He gets no benefit of the doubt. He took them assuming they would aid his performance-even if we can't quantfiy it. Using Sanchez and Franklin as examples skirts the issue also. Of course drugs alone can't make a star- you have to have the talent. How in the world does that excuse their drug cheating?
Imagine how much worse they would have been if they didn't use.
The fact that they cheated to gain an edge discredits their stats completely
Posted by: eddy at August 3, 2005 12:06 PM
From Jay Jaffe's Futility Infielder site:
"I compared his homer rate to that of the league on a per plate appearance basis (AB + BB), adjusted for park, and indexed it to the league, such that an HR+ of 150 means a rate 50 percent better than league average (like ERA+):
Year Park Raffy League HR PF HR+
1986 Wrigley 3.9% 2.1% 91.2 203
1987 Wrigley 5.8% 2.5% 123.9 187
1988 Wrigley 1.3% 1.8% 127.0 57
1989 Arlington 1.3% 2.0% 119.7 53
1990 Arlington 2.2% 2.1% 94.2 110
1991 Arlington 3.7% 2.3% 96.9 168
1992 Arlington 3.2% 2.1% 101.6 152
1993 Arlington 5.5% 2.4% 71.5 318
1994 Camden Yds 4.7% 2.9% 121.3 133
1995 Camden Yds 6.3% 2.8% 118.4 191
1996 Camden Yds 5.4% 3.1% 96.9 179
1997 Camden Yds 5.6% 2.9% 122.6 158
1998 Camden Yds 6.2% 2.9% 102.3 208
1999 Bpk Arling 7.1% 3.0% 103.2 226
2000 Bpk Arling 5.8% 3.1% 123.4 153
2001 Bpk Arling 6.7% 2.9% 95.3 240
2002 Bpk Arling 6.6% 2.9% 134.8 170
2003 Bpk Arling 5.9% 2.9% 119.6 169
2004 Camden Yds 3.6% 3.0% 104.6 114
86-92 2.7% 2.1% 106.0 117.3
93-04 5.8% 2.9% 107.1 186.5"
Posted by: JohnnyC at August 3, 2005 12:07 PM
"do you think they have that much of an impact on talent?"
The point is we just don't know. By taking them he makes that argument moot. He gets no benefit of the doubt. He took them assuming they would aid his performance-even if we can't quantfiy it.
=======================
If we don't know what affect they have, or if we can't quantify their effect, then what's the point? Why have testing at all?
Remember "Ball Four?" Remember all the talk about greenies? Should we discount the stats of players who used uppers?
What about cocaine? Did using cocaine hurt Paul Molitor's HoF chances? Will it hurt Tim Raines' chances? After all, coke gives the user a higher sense of energy, or makes them feel more alert. Sounds to me that they had an advantage over those who didn't use.
Alcohol? My goodness, what kind of numbers would Mickey Mantly have posted, if he made curfew?
Why are certain things accepted, and other things aren't?
For the record, I don't care what Palmiero did, or any other player does. The whole "integrity of the game" argument doesn't wash with me, because players for as long as the game has been around, have been looking for an angle. Gaylord Perry made a career out of it. Allegedly, so did the Chicago White Sox. And as was revealed not too long ago, the 1951 Giants. Does it make their accomplishments any less noteworthy? Of course not. This isn't basketball, this isn't football, this is baseball, where skill and technique is superior to brute strength. Don't believe me? What have Sam Horn and Hensley Meulens been up to lately?
Posted by: Raf at August 3, 2005 12:53 PM
FWIW, Hensley Meulens is the Indianapolis Indians hitting coach -it's a AAA team.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at August 3, 2005 12:58 PM
FWIW, Hensley Meulens is the Indianapolis Indians hitting coach -it's a AAA team.
---------
I wonder what their strikeout totals are.. lol
Posted by: Raf at August 3, 2005 01:02 PM
Courtesy of Will Carroll
"DRPU: The New York Times reported that Palmeiro tested positive for Winstrol. This is the same steroid that Jose Canseco said he used on Palmeiro in his book. There are few products that could cause a cross-indication of Winstrol in the system, putting more of a burden on Palmeiro's defense that he doesn't know how it got into his system. Sources tell me that further developments in the case should come public in the next 48 hours. For those of you that have jokingly asked me about the use of Viagra by bodybuilders, don't laugh. Viagra is a nitric oxide enhancer and some advanced researchers in the anabolics field have discussed the use of Viagra in muscle recovery."
hmmm....
Posted by: Raf at August 3, 2005 01:03 PM
//the use of Viagra in muscle recovery//
So many things to say here.....too many.....urgh!
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at August 3, 2005 01:39 PM