MLB 2007

[bjorn_skurj]

I agree that actual malice is necessary to win but not that he should only sue if he can win.

 

there is no downside to suing (which obviously helps p.r.) if you feel wronged, even if the ultimate legal standard is challenging.

 

bonds does not sue because the truth is an absolute defense not that he is worried about whether the facts can establish actual malice.

 

and costas is short.

Sure there is - the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars it would cost to mount such a suit, not to mention the even-more publicity the trial, and the almost certain failure of it, would bring. I haven't read the book, but by all accounts it is very well-reported. Bonds wouldn't have a chance.

[MrRain422]

My criticism of Schilling's comment is that its based only on emotion. Legal fact, logic, or context seem to be of no concern to him. I wonder if Schilling would be as outspoken as he would like Bonds to be if he faced charges as Bonds might. As Schilling himself has admitted, he turned reticent when he was under oath in front of Congress testifying about steroids. Under oath, Schilling became tight-lipped. It's easy to speak your mind when your blogging it or talking to HBO. It's another thing to speak your mind when you're sworn in or are under the threat of indictment. Schilling had his chance to call it like he sees in 2005, and he didn't do it. Also, would he really expend the the time and money to file a lawsuit that, because of a near impossible legal standard, would go nowhere? Just to make a point? I doubt it. Finally, what would a Bonds denial prove? Would it convince people he's innocent, and that we have been wrong about him all along? OJ has been professing his innocence since 1994, and yet I'm still sure the gloves fit and the jury was wrong to acquit. I just don't see the need, or understand the want, for public proclamations of guilt or innocence. They're really meaningless. I understand the disdain for Bonds, but, in his situation, his actions make perfect sense.

 

Well said.

 

Sure there is - the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars it would cost to mount such a suit, not to mention the even-more publicity the trial, and the almost certain failure of it, would bring. I haven't read the book, but by all accounts it is very well-reported. Bonds wouldn't have a chance.

 

I agree with this too. I think that millions of dollars, hours upon hours of time, and and no chance to be successful are pretty good reasons not to sue.

 

I have read the book, and it's incredibly detailed.

[rareair]

Well said.

I agree with this too. I think that millions of dollars, hours upon hours of time, and and no chance to be successful are pretty good reasons not to sue.

 

I have read the book, and it's incredibly detailed.

 

i agree as well. i was trying to say that i believe the real reason he is not likely to succeed has less to do with the legal standard and more to do with his actual guilt.

 

any lawsuit like this with a public figure would be expensive, but they are often pursued.

 

and i promised myself i would avoid the bonds discussions in this thread.

[bobbob1313]

That book is great. Have you read the Bonds/Ruth breakdown yet?

 

Yeah. That was a really interesting chapter, though I'm of the opinion that Ruth played in an even more unfair era than Bonds did, steroids and all, and they make point very well. Babe Ruth was playing against (most of) the best white players in the country. Would he have hit as many home runs if Satchel Paige was on (say) the Red Sox and was pitching against him 5-10 times a year? Would Josh Gibson have hit even more home runs and made Ruth's record null? I think it's entirely possible to assume that he wouldn't have been as dominant had he played in today's game (mostly because it is harder to dominate like he did).

 

There is another book called "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 100 Home Runs" and while it tries to present itself as factual and statistically backed, the findings it comes to are absolutely ridiculous. I reccomend reading it for a few minutes to get what I'm talking about, but most of his points are extremely blurred by fudging numbers. Most of it is based on Ruth playing in parks that were bigger than the average park now, and that if he had played today he would've hit 100 home runs a season (this is most of the backing he provides). I think that's pretty ridiculous, though it's actually pretty difficult to describe why. But his analysis seems disingenuous at best...

[MrRain422]

That's pretty ridiculous, and it's not that hard to explain why. Every era has it's own unique circumstances that effect the way the game is played in various ways. Sure, the size of the parks can theoretically make a significant difference. But that's just one of many factors to consider when comparing eras. Among the others: advances in nutrition, training techniques, steroids, and of course the field of competition, which you touched on.

 

Watching the White Sox/Tigers game the other night, I heard Darin Jackson state that the fact that there are more teams now means that the lesser players in the league today are not as good as the bottom tier of players who played in eras with less teams. The logic behind that assumption is insanely flawed. Not only are black American players in the league, but the field of potential players has expanded exponentially to include pretty much the entire rest of the world. The entire world can easily field 30 teams that would be better than a league of 16 teams composed entirely of white American players.

 

Anyway, to get back to the point, the author of that book is selectively choosing one factor of many in comparing eras. Maybe Ruth would have hit 100 homers in smaller ballparks, if every other condition that he played under remained the same. Likewise, there are several players right now who, if afforded modern nutrition, modern science, and the raised level of competition when they were coming up, could very well hit more homers than Ruth if you just plucked them out of the modern era and dropped them in to that version of major league baseball.

[MrRain422]

I almost wonder if there actually would be a good way to project something like that, beyond the flawed work of that particular author.

 

Like maybe using similarity scores (which I believe are era-adjusted in some models), and then using PECOTA projections based on the performances of the most similar seasons by other players in the modern era.

[bobbob1313]

Speaking of prodigious home run hitters, what do people expect out of Ryan Howard's career? I expect him to follow a Mo Vaughn type path were he just crashes at the age of like 32. Is this unreasonable? There aren't any players who have made such a sudden impact so early in their career but at such a (relatively advanced) age. He pretty much debuted during his peak years. It's too bad he didn't get a chance to play at like 23-24 as he might have had a really nice career. That said, someone is going to give him a really bad contract when he becomes a free agent in 2011 and they are going to regret that, because I don't see him aging well.

[bjorn_skurj]

I almost wonder if there actually would be a good way to project something like that, beyond the flawed work of that particular author.

 

Like maybe using similarity scores (which I believe are era-adjusted in some models), and then using PECOTA projections based on the performances of the most similar seasons by other players in the modern era.

Other than Strat-o-Matic, I'm not sure there is a method.

[Lammycat]

While Bill Jenkinson (author of The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs) is considered an expert/scholar on Ruth and a respected SABR member, I couldn't get past 20 pages or so of the book. The spray charts were kind of cool but the premise was lacking in substance from the get-go, IMO.

 

Addressing the fact that he looks at the factor of ball parks in regards to home runs...that's his specialty. The long ball. I agree it makes a hard sell with his projections to ignore other important considerations.

 

Then again, I generally think it's futile to compare the "what-ifs" when considering how modern players would have fared in previous eras or players from previous eras in modern baseball. There's an overwhelming number of factors to consider and they don't all relate to the field.

[bobbob1313]

While Bill Jenkinson (author of The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs) is considered an expert/scholar on Ruth and a respected SABR member, I couldn't get past 20 pages or so of the book. The spray charts were kind of cool but the premise was lacking in substance from the get-go, IMO.

 

Addressing the fact that he looks at the factor of ball parks in regards to home runs...that's his specialty. The long ball. I agree it makes a hard sell with his projections to ignore other important considerations.

 

Then again, I generally think it's futile to compare the "what-ifs" when considering how modern players would have fared in previous eras or players from previous eras in modern baseball. There's an overwhelming number of factors to consider and they don't all relate to the field.

 

My biggest problem was that it was built on such flimsy evidence. There is no proof those home runs went as far as he says they did, aside from rudimentary measurements and anecdotal evidence. Combine that with the fact that he uses the average sizes of ball parks now to say that his flyball outs and doubles would've been home runs today when in fact there are very few parks (maybe Chavez Ravine is the only one I can think of that came close to the dimensions he used) and I couldn't get through it. The whole argument was essentially a house of cards built on the premis that these spray charts were accurate and that baseball is played in a vacuum and all parks are the same.

 

I would guess (this is just my opinion) that many of the home run distances he cites were inflated by about 10% just based on the fact that they didn't have sophisticated measurement systems. Various tests have proven that the furthest a person could hit a baseball with a wooden bat is like 540 feet (I forget the exact number, but if I find the article I read on it, I'll post it) and yet Ruth is credited with numerous home runs further than that. I would guess this is mostly because of these inacuracies. He no doubt hit some mammoth home runs, but they were probably made to look even longer next to the punch and judy hitters surrounding him.

 

 

As for MrRain's question, I would think the method they used in Between The Numbers for the Bonds/Ruth section was a pretty definitive answer to that, though I have to confess that I didn't fully understand it. There is way too much advanced math going on, but from what I did understand, their method made a lot of sense...

[boywiththorninside]

Speaking of prodigious home run hitters, what do people expect out of Ryan Howard's career? I expect him to follow a Mo Vaughn type path were he just crashes at the age of like 32. Is this unreasonable? There aren't any players who have made such a sudden impact so early in their career but at such a (relatively advanced) age. He pretty much debuted during his peak years. It's too bad he didn't get a chance to play at like 23-24 as he might have had a really nice career. That said, someone is going to give him a really bad contract when he becomes a free agent in 2011 and they are going to regret that, because I don't see him aging well.

 

What is about Howard that makes you feel he's going to follow the Vaughn path? Body type? Work ethic? Just a general hunch? As a baseball fan I'm embarrassed to say this, but I haven't seen Howard play enough to get any feel about him. I know about the numbers and the awards, but I have rarely seen him actually play. I'm not trying to contest your point, he could very well fade like Mo, but I think its a tough comparison solely because I think Vaughn's decline was largely due to injuries. Unfortunately, injuries and a player's future health is impossible to predict. When Clemens pitched the other night the Yankee announcers were making the point that Clemens fell in the 1983 draft because teams didn't believe his body would hold up. Now here it is, almost 25 years later, and he's still pitching. I don't know what kind of "Rocket-fuel" Clemens has used over the years, but still the point remains that he has defied all predictions regarding his durability. Anyway, I'd like to think Howard will have a longer span of quality years than Vaugnn did. Everything I've heard about Howard, on the field and off the field, has been positive. He seems like a good guy. No roids, no big attitude. Post-Bonds, baseball could use a star like that.

[Chendizzle]

Perhaps, but it also might be argued that Schilling is sort of a self righteous asshole in his own right anyway. Of course Bonds did steroids, but even if he didn't, that doesn't mean he'd be suing everyone who claimed he did. Sometimes lawsuits just aren't worth it, even if you're in the right.

 

Hypothetically, if Bonds were innocent and decided to sue everyone who said he did steroids, how many people would he currently be suing? Thousands? Limited only to media, still in the hundreds, and limited still to national media, perhaps still dozens. There's enough evidence that Bonds did steroids without Schilling having to resort to such weird and unnecessary extrapolations.

 

Yeah but this is BARRY BONDS we are talking about, he's the kind of guy who would go after as many people as he thought he'd have a case against.

 

Even though Schill is a major douchebag at times, I appreciate how candid he is. Plus he played EverQuest, and even though he's a huge Bush lover and is usually spewing some new moronic dribble, I'll always have that soft spot for him when he wears an EQ hat to his press conferences.

[Chendizzle]

NEW YORK -- A day after Barry Bonds called him a "little midget man who knows (nothing) about baseball,'' broadcaster Bob Costas said he wasn't upset with the San Francisco Giants slugger and responded with a jab of his own.

 

"As anyone can plainly see, I'm 5-6

[bobbob1313]

What is about Howard that makes you feel he's going to follow the Vaughn path? Body type? Work ethic? Just a general hunch? As a baseball fan I'm embarrassed to say this, but I haven't seen Howard play enough to get any feel about him. I know about the numbers and the awards, but I have rarely seen him actually play. I'm not trying to contest your point, he could very well fade like Mo, but I think its a tough comparison solely because I think Vaughn's decline was largely due to injuries. Unfortunately, injuries and a player's future health is impossible to predict. When Clemens pitched the other night the Yankee announcers were making the point that Clemens fell in the 1983 draft because teams didn't believe his body would hold up. Now here it is, almost 25 years later, and he's still pitching. I don't know what kind of "Rocket-fuel" Clemens has used over the years, but still the point remains that he has defied all predictions regarding his durability. Anyway, I'd like to think Howard will have a longer span of quality years than Vaugnn did. Everything I've heard about Howard, on the field and off the field, has been positive. He seems like a good guy. No roids, no big attitude. Post-Bonds, baseball could use a star like that.

 

Mostly because Howard has what Bill James described as The "old player skillset" is: power, walks, lack of speed. Young players like that tend to age poorly. I think it is because old players tend to rely on their power and walks for their value, so if you already do this, when you do decline, you are going to decline fast because you've got nowhere to go once your power fades.

 

It's mostly just a hunch, plus the fact that many of his most comparable players faded out pretty quickly once they reached the age of like 32 or so.

 

David Ortiz is another of these players. I wouldn't expect him to be good for more than another year or two...

[Sir Stewart]

481 feet, Manny??

[boywiththorninside]

Mostly because Howard has what Bill James described as The "old player skillset" is: power, walks, lack of speed. Young players like that tend to age poorly. I think it is because old players tend to rely on their power and walks for their value, so if you already do this, when you do decline, you are going to decline fast because you've got nowhere to go once your power fades.

 

It's mostly just a hunch, plus the fact that many of his most comparable players faded out pretty quickly once they reached the age of like 32 or so.

 

David Ortiz is another of these players. I wouldn't expect him to be good for more than another year or two...

 

Good call with Ortiz. He's hitting for average this year, but the HR's and RBI's are down. He's on pace now to hit about 28 HR's and 105 RBI's for 2007. Not bad numbers, but a marked decline from the past few years. This year could be the start of the slide.

[Sir Stewart]

Ortiz is playing hurt - torn miniscus (sp?) in his knee.

[Lammycat]

Ortiz is playing hurt - torn miniscus (sp?) in his knee.

The meniscus tear happened mid-way through last year, too. He also has recent shoulder problems from a slide last week and the irregular heartbeat stuff from last August still worries me.

[Sir Stewart]

Plus all that bling is probably heavy.

[MrRain422]

Yeah but this is BARRY BONDS we are talking about, he's the kind of guy who would go after as many people as he thought he'd have a case against.

 

Has he proven himself to be especially litigious in the past?

[Lammycat]

Good call with Ortiz. He's hitting for average this year, but the HR's and RBI's are down. He's on pace now to hit about 28 HR's and 105 RBI's for 2007. Not bad numbers, but a marked decline from the past few years. This year could be the start of the slide.

Hunches are fine but it's still hard to gauge a player's worth down the road. Sheffield is base ball old but still has speed and hits for power and average. Manny is on the "old" side of his career. Frank Thomas still produces. Thome to a much lesser extent still produces. Guys like Chipper Jones, Giambi, Delgado, Ordonez, Tejada. Maybe the ABs go down a bit and the speed fades and the stints on the DL are a little more frequent and a little longer, but these guys (well Tejada is still kind of young) are essential to their teams.

 

I do agree that around age 32 you can begin to predict if a player will fade quickly or continue to provide the power and OBP (if this is the type of player we're specifically talking about). The injury factor plays largely into this around this age, too, obviously. But plenty of these types of batters have great careers after 32 or so. I realize a case can be made to show the opposite with players who have faded drastically at around age 32, but that's the point.

 

I think the weight thing was a big problem with Mo Vaughn, too. He lost his heft too late and consequently became arthritic too soon. IIRC, he was about Ortiz's weight but a good 5 inches or so shorter.

 

It may be wishful/biased thinking, but I don't think looking at half a season in which Ortiz is playing with injuries and still putting up respectable numbers is a fair basis to gauge that he'll fade in a year or two. He had another great year last season and played half of it injured, too. And Ortiz is more than a power hitter. He hits for average, doesn't walk as much as he would without Manny behind him, and does a great job dropping balls in for base-hits despite the shift that's often applied to him.

[Lammycat]

Just wanted to add that this is a classy response. He may come off as a twit sometimes, but he's a fair guy and a good reporter/interviewer.

 

"As anyone can plainly see, I'm 5-6

[boywiththorninside]

It may be wishful/biased thinking, but I don't think looking at half a season in which Ortiz is playing with injuries and still putting up respectable numbers is a fair basis to gauge that he'll fade in a year or two. He had another great year last season and played half of it injured, too. And Ortiz is more than a power hitter. He hits for average, doesn't walk as much as he would without Manny behind him, and does a great job dropping balls in for base-hits despite the shift that's often applied to him.

 

I might be using wishful thinking with Ortiz too, but from the opposite side. I would love to see a less effective Ortiz, as opposed to the Ortiz who hits a HR at every important at bat against the Yankees. Nonetheless, the injuries that are plaguing him now and keeping the power numbers down could continue to hinder him in the future. Players do seem to get to a certain age and the injuries just don't ever fully go away. Who knows though? I'm just speculating (and hoping).

[bjorn_skurj]

Eh, you never can tell. Ballplayers are human beings, not mathematical models. Fate plays a large role in how people's careers turn out.

[Sir Stewart]

Ballplayers are human beings, not mathematical models.

And the exception to prove the rule...