The Yankees' Jason Giambi won the AL's award for his comeback from problems including an inflamed knee, a respiratory infection, an intestinal parasite and a benign pituitary tumor.
...oh, and, um, ****ing STEROIDS!!! What a crock.

(Ken Griffey deservedly won the NL Award)

Palmeiro will undoubtedly win next year.

Palmeiro will undoubtedly win next year.


He'll be able to put it on his mantle next to the Gold Glove he won for 14 games worth of spectacular play. :rolleyes:

I was hoping I would've received this award this year. I woke up pissed to know that Giambi got it and not me.

what's up with all the knee problems with the steroid guys? Giambi had an inflamed knee, Bonds had like 87 surgeries, Palmiero was originally sent home to rehab his knee.... I think knee is baseball code for steroids.

This will be known as "The day we quit watching MLB" around my house. Wow. What kind of lesson does this give? If you're a no-name and we catch you with steriods, Sorry amigo, but we'll make sure to drag your name in the mud. But you are a big name, someone we've given previous accolades to while you were CLEARLY on the juice? - Aw, heck, we all make mistakes! Take this league-wide award showing that we sure are glad you're only a third as good as you were on the stuff. Seriously, I just can't see where anyone in the league could have signed off of that. It's not a message that does anything to support the fact that MLB is serious at all about cleaning up the game.

Sorry - I will now dismount my soapbox.

It's amazing that something like this would happen under Bud Selig's watch.

Good for Giambi. He deserves it fully. He had an awful year last year and did extremely well this year. Definition of a comeback. Play your moral judgments elsewhere.

Nope, you're wrong. He shouldn't even be allowed within 10 miles of a field, let alone win awards.

Agreed. MLB waiting on suspending Rafie, they made no inquiry into the Bonds, Giambi, BALCO thing - the ONLY reason at all they addressed the issue was pressure from Congress. As fans, or former fans, we have a right and a place to say that we won't support it. Baseball is a passionate sport for many. And many of us don't like to see it tainted/marred by these cheaters that aren't disciplined, and sometimes rewarded.

So wait, a guy admitted he did something wrong when it wasn't even against the rules of the sport and everyone's acting like he's a convicted kiddy rapist out on a technicality? It's a sport people and he had a great season in comparison to the last. I would think this message is a positive one. He made a big mistake, took a lot of crap for it and was still able to come back ,work hard, and do good things. Sounds like a decent message to send.

We tend to forget the difference between Giambi and Palmeiro -- Palmeiro failed a steriod test, Giambi did not. He tells the truth before the Grand Jury, quits taking steroids, apologizes (which could have been for forthcoming, but understandably considering he was allowed to talk about his testimony before the Grand Jury), and comes back from an awful year. It's a comeback story, plain and simple.

Oops-- didn't see miked's post.

I voted for him (and Junior).

So wait, a guy admitted he did something wrong when it wasn't even against the rules of the sport and everyone's acting like he's a convicted kiddy rapist out on a technicality? It's a sport people and he had a great season in comparison to the last. I would think this message is a positive one. He made a big mistake, took a lot of crap for it and was still able to come back ,work hard, and do good things. Sounds like a decent message to send.
This wouldnt be an issue if he wasnt on the Yankees.

Would be with me. If Ortiz was busted tomorrow I wouldn't be treating it any differently and I think the same is true for most Sox fans.

So wait, a guy admitted he did something wrong when it wasn't even against the rules of the sport and everyone's acting like he's a convicted kiddy rapist out on a technicality? It's a sport people and he had a great season in comparison to the last. I would think this message is a positive one. He made a big mistake, took a lot of crap for it and was still able to come back ,work hard, and do good things. Sounds like a decent message to send.
Why do so many people seem to ignore the fact that steroids are ILLEGAL?

A lot of shit's illegal. Guy gets busted with a gun and has a lousy season due to the legal troubles and comes back gangbusters the season after that and wins Comeback Player of the Year,-- no one would complain.

Baseball is not the justice department.

He didn't violate any baseball rules.

And if anyone would employ Rafy next year, he'd be just as eligible for the award provided he put up amazing numbers.

They did something that tainted the game and should be vilified for it. If he hadn't of cheated in the first place he never would of been in a position to be rewarded I could care less whether it's in the rule book. I'm sure there are plenty examples of crimes that are not covered in baseball rules, doesn't mean you give them a free pass.

Why do so many people seem to ignore the fact that steroids are ILLEGAL?
So if Giambi was busted for cocaine would you still argue against a Comeback Player of the Year award for him?

Giambi also played like crap during the first half of the season when the so-called heavy testing was going on. Then when the testing slows down in the second half of the season he bulks up and goes on a tear. Under what kind of half-assed testing program does this not set off all sorts of alarms.

Pretty sure if I was on probation for speed and during the first 1/2 of my probation I weighed in at 250 and always looked tired from working, then in the second 1/2 I dropped 50 lbs and was always happy and bouncing in and out of probation I'd be tested immediately.

God I hope McCain does something about this crap, it's ruining baseball. Also the press will be all over it so it over shadows the fact that Griffey finally had a long and productive year.

If cocaine was the reason for his downfall, yes. I've never been a Strawberry fan and all his apologists drove me up the friggin wall.

They did something that tainted the game and should be vilified for it. If he hadn't of cheated in the first place he never would of been in a position to be rewarded I could care less whether it's in the rule book. I'm sure there are plenty examples of crimes that are not covered in baseball rules, doesn't mean you give them a free pass.
Funny, because it seems we have given them just that for other crimes. Oykib is right, MLB isn't the justice department. They are a sport and comeback means they were good, had a bad season for whatever reason, and then cameback from it.

If cocaine was the reason for his downfall, yes. I've never been a Strawberry fan and all his apologists drove me up the friggin wall.
For what fucking reason would cocaine use disqualify you from a COMEBACK player of the year award? This shit is just getting ridiculous now. It's like chicken little, but now 'drugs' take the place of 'the sky is falling'.

So if Giambi was busted for cocaine would you still argue against a Comeback Player of the Year award for him?
Yup, if it effected his performance.

agreed with jeff here... if they did something illegal that impacted the criteria for the award, heck yeah.

Giambi also played like crap during the first half of the season when the so-called heavy testing was going on. Then when the testing slows down in the second half of the season he bulks up and goes on a tear. Under what kind of half-assed testing program does this not set off all sorts of alarms.
Under that logic, anyone that has a better second half is suspicious. And I didn't notice more bulk Giambi had after the All Star Break than he did beforehand. Remember he had one amazing month, then one crappy month, and played pretty good the rest of the year. What, did the steroids skip a month in the middle to you?

Giambi admitted to it, the Yankees even researched getting out of his contract - the point is fans (and I believe most players) thing that steriod use is a form of cheating. The governing body of an organization should do everything in it's power to curtail that cheating AND punish those who have been found to have cheated through their testing OR admitted to it.
As for 'Comeback' - doesn't the term reference the fact that a certain level of excellence had been achieved, followed by a period not up to the same level, to be reached again? In my opinion, if that original excellence was met through illegal means, how is it any reward to show that without some sort of performance enhancer you got kind of close again? It's like saying, "Well, see, even without the cream and the clear, he's pretty okay-ish. Have a reward. Don't worry about all those other guys that have done just as amazing things as you have, worked harder, and didn't even bother to skirt the system. YOU deserve it more..."
I just can't get behind that.

the point is fans (and I believe most players) thing that steriod use is a form of cheating.
IIRC, the Comeback Player of the Year award was voted online at MLB's website (or it was a component in the vote), so plenty of fans seemingly don't think its as big a deal.

It's the combination of factors that makes this repulsive to some of us - that steroids are against the law, and are performance-enhancing. Even if not proscribed by MLB, taking steroids is CHEATING. Cheaters should not be rewarded for not cheating. That's why it's a bull**** award, and another mark against baseball's integrity. The Orioles did the right thing (for the wrong reasons, most likely) by sending Palmeiro home; the Yanks should have done the same thing with Giambi, just sat him down and told him he's not welcome anymore, and he should maybe look into another career.

So if Giambi was busted for cocaine would you still argue against a Comeback Player of the Year award for him?

cocaine doesn't enhance your performance.

ask Darryl Strawberry and Doc Gooden.

I guess I'm in the crowd on this one. And that's fine. I'll just sit at the 'un-cool' kids side of the cafeteria...

So, I'm done. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents on an issue.

Even if not proscribed by MLB, taking steroids is CHEATING. Cheaters should not be rewarded for not cheating. That's why it's a bull**** award
While I disagree with you on the 'steroids = cheating' thing for prior to the 2004 season, what about this guy:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/plaques/images/Fingers_Rollie.jpg

For what fucking reason would cocaine use disqualify you from a COMEBACK player of the year award? This shit is just getting ridiculous now. It's like chicken little, but now 'drugs' take the place of 'the sky is falling'.

The jackass should of not been doing the cocaine to begin with. As much as a I hate to reference a Denis Leary bit, that's the big thing with all celebs. Do cocaine and drink yourself to a stupor or add some heroin in there. Clean yourself up and collect the accolades and money that people who stayed clean all along don't get. Sorry if I don't buy into it.

Good 'ole Rollie. You're not saying he was on the juice, too, are you?

Good 'ole Rollie. You're not saying he was on the juice, too, are you?


I think he molested collies.

Good 'ole Rollie. You're not saying he was on the juice, too, are you?
If you want to keep cheaters out, I don't think you'll find a bigger one... he even admitted it too. Hell, they knew he was doing it while he was playing. If you consider steroids before 2004 (or 2003 or whenever it was written in) to be cheating (I don't), then why is one form of cheating ok and the other isn't?

I think it is fairly compelling that a guy whose career had been pretty much been written off by everyone - his team, sportswriters, fans - was able to turn things around and have the type of season he did. Particualry when you consider that conventional wisdom chalked up his previous successes to steroids in the first place and then he goes out and produces against the backdrop of the most vigorous testing program in league history. Not to mention the fact that he is probably one of the five most scrutinized players in the game.

I am not denying he cheated then. I also think that he has been duly punished for his transgressions.

The award seems deserved.

Said Giambi, "I'd like to thank all the fans. Getting back on the juice was the best thing I ever did."

I think it is fairly compelling that a guy whose career had been pretty much been written off by everyone - his team, sportswriters, fans - was able to turn things around and have the type of season he did. Particualry when you consider that conventional wisdom chalked up his previous successes to steroids in the first place and then he goes out and produces against the backdrop of the most vigorous testing program in league history. Not to mention the fact that he is probably one of the five most scrutinized players in the game.

I am not denying he cheated then. I also think that he has been duly punished for his transgressions.

The award seems deserved.

I agree with Subby, although I am sympathetic to the critics. I find something inspiring about someone whose life fell apart (even by their own doing) coming back. Not to bring politics into it, but Giambi's story seems not unlike that of our president. Of course, maybe people are upset because Giambi's comeback was so quick. That way, there wasn't enough time for the shame/redemption cycle to play out. I'm just thinking out loud here, but for now, I don't have a problem with the award to Giambi.

I have no problem with Giambi winning. The fact is he admitted to steroids (at least to a grand jury if we are to believe the testimony). I hold this in much higher esteem than someone like Bonds who claims innocence. Baseball didn't kick him out of the game, that was their choice. So you can't really say he doesn't deserve to win b/c he should be banned as a cheater. MLB obviously doesn't see it that way, and it's their award.

But bigger picture (if you believe Giambi's off the juice ... and I do, surely he's not that stupid) ... this is a nice story for MLB. Basically the guy admits he's wrong, gets off the juice and struggles. Then he works his tail off, is contrite with the fans and guess what ... he succeeds without the juice. So in MLB's eyes, him winning the award is a message to all players, kids, etc... that you don't need the juice to be a star, you just need hard work. Had he failed miserably and left baseball, the message would have been - either do the juice or forget having a career in MLB. I like this story better.

But bigger picture (if you believe Giambi's off the juice ... and I do, surely he's not that stupid) ... this is a nice story for MLB. Basically the guy admits he's wrong, gets off the juice and struggles. Then he works his tail off, is contrite with the fans and guess what ... he succeeds without the juice. So in MLB's eyes, him winning the award is a message to all players, kids, etc... that you don't need the juice to be a star, you just need hard work. Had he failed miserably and left baseball, the message would have been - either do the juice or forget having a career in MLB. I like this story better.

Great post. And I like this story better too.

Wow. Great post moriarty.

I have no problem with Giambi winning. The fact is he admitted to steroids (at least to a grand jury if we are to believe the testimony). I hold this in much higher esteem than someone like Bonds who claims innocence. Baseball didn't kick him out of the game, that was their choice. So you can't really say he doesn't deserve to win b/c he should be banned as a cheater. MLB obviously doesn't see it that way, and it's their award.

But bigger picture (if you believe Giambi's off the juice ... and I do, surely he's not that stupid) ... this is a nice story for MLB. Basically the guy admits he's wrong, gets off the juice and struggles. Then he works his tail off, is contrite with the fans and guess what ... he succeeds without the juice. So in MLB's eyes, him winning the award is a message to all players, kids, etc... that you don't need the juice to be a star, you just need hard work. Had he failed miserably and left baseball, the message would have been - either do the juice or forget having a career in MLB. I like this story better.

I can see this point of view, but I can't embrace it.

This would be a moot argument were he not on the Yankees. Richie Sexson has better stats and should have won the award, plain and simple. But because he plays on the Seattle Mariners, he did not get the award.

Sexson - 558 99 147 36 1 39 121 1 1 89 .263 .369 .541 .910
Giambi - 417 74 113 14 0 32 87 0 0 108 .271 .440 .535 .975

Look at the AB's, runs, hits, doubles RBI's!! How can you pick Giambi based on stats, which is what this award used to be purely about, unlike the MVP award! Has this changed as well? Is this award now about the team too??

Once again the East Coast Bias (see Washington Huskies, 1991) comes into play!! :mad:

Oh and here are Giambi's and Sexson's stats from 2004:
Sexson - 23 90 20 21 4 0 9 52 23 14 21 0 0 .233 .337 .578 .914
Giambi - 80 264 33 55 9 0 12 100 40 47 62 0 1 .208 .342 .379 .720

The first number is games, Sexson only played in 23 vs Giambi's 80!!!! So who really cameback from a poorer season, as well!!??

This would be a moot argument were he not on the Yankees. Richie Sexson has better stats and should have won the award, plain and simple. But because he plays on the Seattle Mariners, he did not get the award.

Sexson - 558 99 147 36 1 39 121 1 1 89 .263 .369 .541 .910
Giambi - 417 74 113 14 0 32 87 0 0 108 .271 .440 .535 .975

Look at the AB's, runs, hits, doubles RBI's!! How can you pick Giambi based on stats, which is what this award used to be purely about, unlike the MVP award! Has this changed as well? Is this award now about the team too??

Once again the East Coast Bias (see Washington Huskies, 1991) comes into play!! :mad:
Um... did you happen to miss that OPS stat at the end? ;) Sure Sexson has a little bit better SLG, but Giambi has a far better OBP and that leads him to a 65 point lead over Sexson in OPS. How you can claim East Coast Bias and say Sexson had a better lead with that much of a difference in OPS is something I can't fathom.

The moral police never fail to astound me.

Um... did you happen to miss that OPS stat at the end? ;) Sure Sexson has a little bit better SLG, but Giambi has a far better OBP and that leads him to a 65 point lead over Sexson in OPS. How you can claim East Coast Bias and say Sexson had a better lead with that much of a difference in OPS is something I can't fathom.

Perhaps had Giambi played in as many games as Sexson and had as many plate appearances than you could compare these numbers. As it is you cannot as I am pretty sure that Giambi's numbers would have come down had he batted 141 more times! What you can compare is how much each player contributed to his team. Sexson played in over 30 more games than Giambi and delivered 34 more RBI's which is the real SIGNIFICANT stat that should be looked at here as both players are paid for the runs they drive in!! They are not leadoff hitters!!

Look at the AB's, runs, hits, doubles RBI's!! Yeah, this is where I stopped reading.

MOST IMPROVED AT BATS!!! W000T!!! RIBBIES!!!!

The moral police never fail to astound me.

I guess it depends how you define it. With steroids I'll act in a way where I could get accused of this. Cocaine or anything that only affects you? I don't really care, but once you start getting awarded and cheered for it...

I'll chalk it up as a difference of opinion. Personally I'd like to see Giambi in stocks on Lansdowne street.

Just a thought - HOW was Giamni punished? They way I look at it is that he still got to play, he still made the MAD money - more than I (who has never used performance enhancing drupgs) will ever make, and now he gets a reward? Maybe I just don't know what he had to do - besides being tested more vigorously than others (and in my opinion, he should have been and still should be) and testifying for the grand jury, which doesn't seem like a punishment.
I work daily with people that face life situations like his - got into something, got caught, pulled themselves back up - and those actions should be applauded. But I do believe it is a double-standard. People in the everyday world actually suffer and lose homes, family, jobs, careers and have to start from the bottom. Maybe I would feel more gung-ho for JG if he even talked about - he has an opportunity to MAKE this a great story by advocating against it, for being someone who is making strides to keep youth away from his path. It could be a great story if he participated in it.

Oops. I was supposed to be done. This time I am. 4 reals.

Yeah, this is where I stopped reading.

MOST IMPROVED AT BATS!!! W000T!!! RIBBIES!!!!

"Sigh" you youngsters just don't get it with all your new fangled statistics..
It still comes down to this simple fact, Giambi and Sexson were both hired to DRIVE IN RUNS!!! So lemme see here, that would mean the most significant statistic would be......RBI'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This award is not based upon OPS or how badly the guy was sick due to Illegal use of drugs. So while I know many of you are in love with OPS (yeah Billy Beane is such a great GM, funny how his teams have accomplished nothing more than the Mariners), that is not the defining number when look at 4-5-6 hitters.

As my Dad used to say (God rest his soul), "I have forgotten more than you will ever know about baseball" ( oh and he was right) :D

"Sigh" you youngsters just don't get it with all your new fangled statistics..
It still comes down to this simple fact, Giambi and Sexson were both hired to DRIVE IN RUNS!!! So lemme see here, that would mean the most significant statistic would be......RBI'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This award is not based upon OPS or how badly the guy was sick due to Illegal use of drugs. So while I know many of you are in love with OPS (yeah Billy Beane is such a great GM, funny how his teams have accomplished nothing more than the Mariners), that is not the defining number when look at 4-5-6 hitters.

As my Dad used to say (God rest his soul), "I have forgotten more than you will ever know about baseball" ( oh and he was right) :D

Cue somebody bringing up win shares.

"Sigh" you youngsters just don't get it with all your new fangled statistics..It still comes down to this simple fact, Giambi and Sexson were both hired to DRIVE IN RUNS!!! No they were both hired to produce. Driving in runs is just one aspect of producing and is heavily dependent on others around you.

I am not going to get in a Moneyball argument here, but your outright rejection of more recently developed statistical metrics like OPS is short-sighted. Don't you think it is possible that the development of new baseball statistics didn't end with the formulation of earned run average?

G-Man writes a lot like Capiscum used to.

Oh the memories.

So while I know many of you are in love with OPS (yeah Billy Beane is such a great GM, funny how his teams have accomplished nothing more than the Mariners), that is not the defining number when look at 4-5-6 hitters. Yeah - it's criminal what the Mariners have accomplished in comparison to Beane considering how much more they spend in payroll.

I would be embarrassed to have to root for them. :\

Perhaps had Giambi played in as many games as Sexson and had as many plate appearances than you could compare these numbers. As it is you cannot as I am pretty sure that Giambi's numbers would have come down had he batted 141 more times! What you can compare is how much each player contributed to his team. Sexson played in over 30 more games than Giambi and delivered 34 more RBI's which is the real SIGNIFICANT stat that should be looked at here as both players are paid for the runs they drive in!! They are not leadoff hitters!!
LOL! You are joking right? You can't compare people with different plate appearances? Well let's just break up Stats, Inc. then! OF COURSE you can compare people with different plate appearances, and as long as they have the minimum PAs for a season for their stats to qualify then there is no harm in doing so (someone with really few PAs could have just gotten lucky).

And then saying that RBIs is a 'SIGNIFICANT stat', LOLOL! You are just pulling my chain right? RBI is one of the most useless stats out there. It depends entirely on how good the people in front of you are, not necessarily how good you are (though I admit you have to be good to get them home).

Giambi had the better year. OPS shows it. He got on base far more and slugged almost as much. Give Giambi the award, any day.

Hmm...

Moriarty's post has convinced me to explain myself a different way...

In light of the arguments made, I can see how he deserves the award..

However... I guess my initial reaction has to do with the fact that some folks seem to have the attitude of "there was nothing against the rules in baseball for steroids, so he did nothing wrong" and ingore the fact that he broke the law...

However... I guess my initial reaction has to do with the fact that some folks seem to have the attitude of "there was nothing against the rules in baseball for steroids, so he did nothing wrong" and ingore the fact that he broke the law...Then charge him :D. Baseball ain't the cops.

Actually Wade, unless some major law changes hage come into effect in the last 5 years or so, Steroids when prescribed by a physician are not illegal. They are in fact precribed regularly to assist in recuperating from surgeries, from mucles and bone injuries and a number of cancer treatments.

The only way he did anything illegal was if he didn't cover his ass with a prescription. Yes, what he did was MORALLY wrong in most everyone's eyes, but neither you or anyone else can prove that he ever broke a law. Your argument here is lacking a bit.

He didn't break any rules of baseball at the time, he was never charged with a crime, he did not do what you say he did. He made a mistake, a bad one and he has owned up to that mistake and nearly lost everything (the whole tumor thing) because of it.

If coming back this season and having the year he did doesn't qualify for "comeback" then I think we all have to re-evaluate our priorities on sich things. The pedastel is BIT too high.

Yeah - it's criminal what the Mariners have accomplished in comparison to Beane considering how much more they spend in payroll.

I would be embarrassed to have to root for them. :\

Believe me, I am..... :rolleyes:

And then saying that RBIs is a 'SIGNIFICANT stat', LOLOL! RBI is one of the most useless stats out there. It depends entirely on how good the people in front of you are, not necessarily how good you are (though I admit you have to be good to get them home).


Hmm, so the Yankees are much better than the M's at getting men on base, most would agree. Yet Sexson had over 40% more RBI's than Giambi. So how much greater is that stat based upon this information? You just made my argument for me! :eek:

"Sigh" you youngsters just don't get it with all your new fangled statistics..
It still comes down to this simple fact, Giambi and Sexson were both hired to DRIVE IN RUNS!!! So lemme see here, that would mean the most significant statistic would be......RBI'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This award is not based upon OPS or how badly the guy was sick due to Illegal use of drugs. So while I know many of you are in love with OPS (yeah Billy Beane is such a great GM, funny how his teams have accomplished nothing more than the Mariners), that is not the defining number when look at 4-5-6 hitters.

As my Dad used to say (God rest his soul), "I have forgotten more than you will ever know about baseball" ( oh and he was right) :D

I don't know why. But it still suprises me that there are so many troglodytes among the rank an file of baseball fans.

Not your opinion of Giambi. I disagree with it. But it's totally understandable.

Not that you think RBI is an important stat. We all grew up with it, and it's as good as runs or any number of stats.

It's the final sentence which basically implies that anything anyone's come up with since your late father's time is by defenition less useful or relevant than what he believed in.

The sun doesn't revolve around the earth.

I'll put it very simply.

You can take all the stats on a normal batting line: AB, H, R, H 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OBP, SLG, etc. THe one that correlates most highly with winning is OBP. High OBP = High winning percentage. It's that simple.

Next on the list is SLG.

But if you combine the two, you'll find a stat that correlates to winning at a significantly higher rate than either stat alone. We call that stat OPS.

It's not even hard to figure out why OBP is so valuable.

When a hitter on your team comes up, what do you want him to do? Not to make an out. If he doesn't make an out, any number of good things happen and he gives his team more chances to make things happen.

This isn't even a new-fangled concept. Branch Rickey built his team around the concept. To a certain extent, John McGraw followed the same principle.

I guess it depends how you define it. With steroids I'll act in a way where I could get accused of this. Cocaine or anything that only affects you? I don't really care, but once you start getting awarded and cheered for it...

I'll chalk it up as a difference of opinion. Personally I'd like to see Giambi in stocks on Lansdowne street.

Why ? If we're talking about baseball, lets go back to greenies, which have been a part of baseball ad frigging nauseum, or speed, or what not - the hallowed heroes of past took these to help them get through the season. Simply put, I believe baseball talent is intrinsic - if you can't hit a fastball, all the steroids in the world arent going to make a difference. Similarly, if you're a good player- its impossible to assert that they make you great.

Oykib, I believe many newspapers still list team offenses in order of highest to lowest batting average instead of, say, most to least runs scored (you know, the actual point of the game), so unfortunately, despite all the inroads its made, the "let's use better stats" movement is still largely losing out to the "we did it this way in 1901, we're doing it this way now" non-movement.

Wow. What a strange stew of opinions, some things to think about, and a few equine buttocks making their typical show.

Moral police? Look again, it's the Hypocrisy Patrol. The guy was a frikkin' poster child for juiced MLB players. Then he crashed and burned, and now he's dug himself out of the self-inflicted dung heap. Yeah, so he had a bunch of other crap happen to him, too, but God knows what the linkage might be to steroids.

Give him the Formerly Juiced Player of the Year Award. I like my Comeback Player awards reserved for guys like Mark Fields (NFL) who rally from cancer or serious injury.

I don't know why. But it still suprises me that there are so many troglodytes among the rank an file of baseball fans.

Not your opinion of Giambi. I disagree with it. But it's totally understandable.

Not that you think RBI is an important stat. We all grew up with it, and it's as good as runs or any number of stats.



Technically, Team OBP is highly correlated with team winning percentage. I don't know if anybody has done a correlation study between individual OBP and team winning percentage, but I'd be interested in seeing the results if available.

Anyway, I think many of these baseball discussions end up being debates between two camps: the crowd that makes analysis on purely statistical grounds (especially utilizing SABR-metric methods), and the crowd that eyeballs traditional statistics and insists on the importance of intangibles in contributing value.

I think there is a middle ground here: in almost every other field of inquiry, statistics are not meant to replace the judgement of the analyst, they are meant to guide the thinking of the analyst. Baseball analysis should be no different--stats should guide our thinking, but we should also be mindful of the context that surrounds those statistics...

I don't know why. But it still suprises me that there are so many troglodytes among the rank an file of baseball fans.

Not your opinion of Giambi. I disagree with it. But it's totally understandable.

Not that you think RBI is an important stat. We all grew up with it, and it's as good as runs or any number of stats.

It's the final sentence which basically implies that anything anyone's come up with since your late father's time is by defenition less useful or relevant than what he believed in.

The sun doesn't revolve around the earth.

I'll put it very simply.

You can take all the stats on a normal batting line: AB, H, R, H 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OBP, SLG, etc. THe one that correlates most highly with winning is OBP. High OBP = High winning percentage. It's that simple.

Next on the list is SLG.

But if you combine the two, you'll find a stat that correlates to winning at a significantly higher rate than either stat alone. We call that stat OPS.

It's not even hard to figure out why OBP is so valuable.

When a hitter on your team comes up, what do you want him to do? Not to make an out. If he doesn't make an out, any number of good things happen and he gives his team more chances to make things happen.

This isn't even a new-fangled concept. Branch Rickey built his team around the concept. To a certain extent, John McGraw followed the same principle.

You can put whatever spin on it you want. In the end it all comes down to numbers and they don't lie! RBI = runs batted in, and Sexson has over 40% more than Giambi! Don't get me wrong I love stats, that is what got me into baseball and why I became an accountant. However I also know that you can make up stats to do whatever you want them to do, or show. Believe me I have seen it done and even done it myself when I needed to justify budget cuts or additions (though I'll never admit to it :p ). So I go back to the hard numbers of which I consider RBI's to be one of. When a runner is driven accross home plate the batter is given a rbi, that is a fact. It doesn't matter how the runner got on base, what matters is that he was driven in. How the batter got on base is a totally different story and yes they do have relevance but that does not take away from the guy who drove the runner in!

Sexson had a better year at driving in baserunners than did Giambi, and that is a fact you cannot deny! The numbers do not lie (only the people do) and I am sure that any knowledgable fan would agree that both Giambi and Sexson were hired to DRIVE IN RUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now as to the A's spending less money and that makes them more successful, well to me as a fan I don't agree (surprise). I could care less how much money they spend to get ball players etc.. I only care about how many wins they get and if they get to the playoffs, oh and hopefully that they put an interesting product on the field. So I would say looking at these parameters the A's have been moderately more successful than the M's. Not enough to proclaim Billy Beane as the Guru some think that he is. Though I would take him over Bavasi in a heart beat, but that is another story altogether....

Of course one cannot relate an individuals stats to a team result. But each player contributes to his teams OBP. If you took a team full of replacement level talent except for either Sexson or Giambi and played out a hundred seasons, Giambi's team would do better, if only marginally.

I think it's a misconception that all Sabermetricians only care about stats. Sabermetricians love baseball, the game. But you can love the game and admire the determination on Derek Jeter and still admit A-Rod was a better shortstop.

I'm a Yankee fan and I could always do that. Other than 1999, A-Rod has been better every year. Jeter's various leadership qualities don't chage that. That doesn't change the fact that I have more of an emotional connection to Jeter.

Actually Wade, unless some major law changes hage come into effect in the last 5 years or so, Steroids when prescribed by a physician are not illegal. They are in fact precribed regularly to assist in recuperating from surgeries, from mucles and bone injuries and a number of cancer treatments.

The only way he did anything illegal was if he didn't cover his ass with a prescription. Yes, what he did was MORALLY wrong in most everyone's eyes, but neither you or anyone else can prove that he ever broke a law. Your argument here is lacking a bit.

He didn't break any rules of baseball at the time, he was never charged with a crime, he did not do what you say he did. He made a mistake, a bad one and he has owned up to that mistake and nearly lost everything (the whole tumor thing) because of it.

If coming back this season and having the year he did doesn't qualify for "comeback" then I think we all have to re-evaluate our priorities on sich things. The pedastel is BIT too high.
I stand corrected... partially because of my ignorance in the law...

I meant to speak in a more general sense... the idea that doing steroids was "fine" because it wasn't against the MLB rules... Maybe in some specific instances it was a prescription for some of these players, but I have to imagine that a majority of them it was nowhere close to such a thing...

Give him the Formerly Juiced Player of the Year Award. I like my Comeback Player awards reserved for guys like Mark Fields (NFL) who rally from cancer or serious injury.

This is the part that astounds me - it's as if, because he admitted taking steroids, that most people out there have conveniently forgotten that he had major health issues last year that affected his ability to play. C'mon guys - he had a fucking tumor along with his other medical ailments (intestinal parasite, respiritory infection, bad knee).

I see where the anti-steroid hysteria has reached the point of blaming these things on steroid use. Thank you for all these well-thought out medical opinions, I'll be looking forward to seeing your theories posted in the AMA journals.

And I know that there will always be those so cynical that they'll never trust whatever drug testing procedures MLB has in place, so trying to argue that Giambi isn't juicing again is pointless with these types.

Sorry, but I just don't understand this idea that steroids are so awful that anyone associated with them should always be scorned and devoid of the right to any acclaim for what they do post admitted steroid use. There are an awful lot of revered Hall-of-Famers that used illegal drugs to boost their performance, but somehow steroids are evil evil EVIL!

I'll be clear here - I don't approve of steroid use, I think the punishments should be much more severe (something like 50 days first offense, 2-year ban 2nd offense, lifetime ban 3rd offense), but in this situation I don't see any reason why Giambi isn't a legitimate candidate for this award. Please explain to me how steroids have anything to do with his eligibility for winning this award?

And the funny thing is, I think Richie Sexson was the better choice in the AL, since he had nearly as good a year as Giambi and he had a longer road to travel to come back after missing almost all of last year with a serious shoulder injury...

Great post. And I like this story better too.

Me too. I'm glad that he managed to come back and do well. Cheating has been around as long as baseball. Not to say that makes it any more right. But, if players in older times had to sustain the media scrutiny of today's players (or make their money), who knows how different would've been.

I say, make no moral judgements on today's players as though they are "more" morally bankrupt than the players of past times.

The type of tumour he had is commonly caused by steroid use.

What's more morally reprehensible. Records broken or created via illegal substance use that weren't against the sport's rules at the time? Or eliminating a whole sector of great baseball players when no law prevents you from allowing them? And then claiming you're one of the best that ever played, when you never went up against some of the other greats of your era?

I think they're equal.

You can put whatever spin on it you want. In the end it all comes down to numbers and they don't lie! RBI = runs batted in, and Sexson has over 40% more than Giambi! Don't get me wrong I love stats, that is what got me into baseball and why I became an accountant. However I also know that you can make up stats to do whatever you want them to do, or show. Believe me I have seen it done and even done it myself when I needed to justify budget cuts or additions (though I'll never admit to it :p ). So I go back to the hard numbers of which I consider RBI's to be one of. When a runner is driven accross home plate the batter is given a rbi, that is a fact. It doesn't matter how the runner got on base, what matters is that he was driven in. How the batter got on base is a totally different story and yes they do have relevance but that does not take away from the guy who drove the runner in!

Sexson had a better year at driving in baserunners than did Giambi, and that is a fact you cannot deny! The numbers do not lie (only the people do) and I am sure that any knowledgable fan would agree that both Giambi and Sexson were hired to DRIVE IN RUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!

For someone that claims to be a numbers guy, you have a huge blind spot for sabermetric baseball stats. RBI are all fine and good, but it's kind of hard to drive in runs when there aren't guys on base in front of you. If you want to argue the run-producer angle, then your best argument is to show how many guys were on base when Giambi and Sexson came to bat, and how many of those runners did they drive in? The problem with simply looking at RBI totals is that it ignores context. If player A drives in 100 runs and player B drives in 75, is player A better at driving in runs? Not if player A had 200 guys on base when he batted and player A only had 100.

I have no idea how Giambi and Sexson compare in this regard, but unless you can show what RBI opportunities each had and prove that Sexson was more efficient in driving in runs given his opportunities, your claim rings hollow.

And no, I don't agree that Giambi and Sexson were signed to drive in runs - they were signed to help their team score more runs. There's a subtle difference there - the less outs they make, the more they help their team score runs. Obviously the biggest attraction with these players is their power production, and thus an ability to drive in more runs than singles hitters, but their ability to draw a lot of walks and have high on-base percentages is another highly valued trait in them as ballplayers.

Now as to the A's spending less money and that makes them more successful, well to me as a fan I don't agree (surprise). I could care less how much money they spend to get ball players etc.. I only care about how many wins they get and if they get to the playoffs, oh and hopefully that they put an interesting product on the field. So I would say looking at these parameters the A's have been moderately more successful than the M's. Not enough to proclaim Billy Beane as the Guru some think that he is. Though I would take him over Bavasi in a heart beat, but that is another story altogether....

As an accountant I would think you'd be highly impressed by the efficiency of spending exhibited by the A's. With payrolls half that of Seattle, Oakland has averaged more wins than the M's since Beane took over, and has had arguably as much playoff success.

As an M's fan myself I highly admire what the A's have done and wish we had that kind of creative thinking along with our much higher payroll.

The type of tumour he had is commonly caused by steroid use.

Citing please.

Citing please.

I've heard that there is anecdotal evidence connecting the two, but nothing like a controlled study.

I've heard that there is anecdotal evidence connecting the two, but nothing like a controlled study.

And here's the thing - even if there proves to be some evidence showing that the steroids that Giambi used increase your likelihood of developing the kind of tumor that he had, that somehow invalidates what he overcame? (I'm not pointing that finger at you John)

Can we not all agree that Giambi overcame some major medical issues? And yet some people want to invalidate that because there's a possibility that his steroid use might have increased his odds of contracting that tumor?

Why don't we just tie him up to a stake and burn him now and get it over with.

For someone that claims to be a numbers guy, you have a huge blind spot for sabermetric baseball stats. RBI are all fine and good, but it's kind of hard to drive in runs when there aren't guys on base in front of you. If you want to argue the run-producer angle, then your best argument is to show how many guys were on base when Giambi and Sexson came to bat, and how many of those runners did they drive in? The problem with simply looking at RBI totals is that it ignores context. If player A drives in 100 runs and player B drives in 75, is player A better at driving in runs? Not if player A had 200 guys on base when he batted and player A only had 100.

I have no idea how Giambi and Sexson compare in this regard, but unless you can show what RBI opportunities each had and prove that Sexson was more efficient in driving in runs given his opportunities, your claim rings hollow.

And no, I don't agree that Giambi and Sexson were signed to drive in runs - they were signed to help their team score more runs. There's a subtle difference there - the less outs they make, the more they help their team score runs. Obviously the biggest attraction with these players is their power production, and thus an ability to drive in more runs than singles hitters, but their ability to draw a lot of walks and have high on-base percentages is another highly valued trait in them as ballplayers.



As an accountant I would think you'd be highly impressed by the efficiency of spending exhibited by the A's. With payrolls half that of Seattle, Oakland has averaged more wins than the M's since Beane took over, and has had arguably as much playoff success.

As an M's fan myself I highly admire what the A's have done and wish we had that kind of creative thinking along with our much higher payroll.

I admire that the sabermatric stats are wholly accepted by the fans and even some teams. I remember when they were first used and everyone involved in baseball thought they were a bit much and unnecessary. So while I think they are very useful I still believe that allot can be gleaned from the traditional stats of RBI's and runs scored. I disagree with you about why Sexson and Giambi were hired. I have heard many of the Mariner brass talking about the "RBI" man that Sexson would hopefully be. Not how great his OPS is.

Now regarding the way the A's are run vs the Mariners, I totally agree with you, I would like to try and build a stronger farm system based on their model and use a higher payroll to keep the players. As an accountant, I do not agree. Yes the Mariners have spent more money. yes they have had poorer showings the past two seasons (before that they were about even from 1999-2003). But the Mariners are more profitable in total operations, from what I have seen and heard. Haven't actually looked at the P&L Statements but I do know that the Mariner's franchise is valued more than the A's. To be honest as a fan I would probably enjoy the A's more during the season, but get me more frustrated, ala the M's of 2002/3.....

Giambi used Clomid as a masking agent for the steroids, something he testified. A possible side effect of Clomid is pituitary cancer. I'll try and see if I can find a non Giambi related source.

G-man, it scares me that you work with numbers for a living.

Hmm, so the Yankees are much better than the M's at getting men on base, most would agree. Yet Sexson had over 40% more RBI's than Giambi. So how much greater is that stat based upon this information? You just made my argument for me! :eek:
So "most would agree" is your conclusive argument based on statistics? LOL!

Show me that the Yankees who batted in front of Giambi are much better than the Mariners who batted in front of Sexson with respect to getting on base and getting into scoring position. I'd think that Giambi's higher batting average and higher OBP would indicate a better tendancy to drive runners home. He gets on base more and he hits the ball more. He hits the ball less hard than Sexson, but only by a pretty small amount. Intuitively that would indicate Giambi is better at driving in runs and scoring them (by getting on base more).

So what if he had less plate appearances, he had enough for his stats to qualify, meaning it wasn't a fluke.

Interestingly, looking at Win Shares, even though Giambi had 17 fewer games played, he is only 2 Win Shares behind Sexson.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php?sort=total&sort2=WSAB&limit1=&limit2=1B&leagueLimit=AL

Sexson has 27 and Giambi has 25. That makes 0.1730 WS/Game for Sexson and 0.1798 WS/Game for Giambi. To turn it around, that means it takes Sexson 5.77 games to get a Win Share and Giambi 5.56 games to recieve a Win Share.

Not saying that Sexson wasn't good, but Giambi was better, and his fewer plate appearances (111 of them) shouldn't be counted against him, since he did have enough to qualify for any potential batting or HR awards, etc.

From several sellers of Clomid, the tumor portion of the side effects

Neoplasms: Liver (hepatic hemangiosarcoma, liver cell adenoma, hepatocellular carcinoma); breast (fibrocystic disease, breast carcinoma); endometrium (endometrial carcinoma); nervous system (astrocytoma, pituitary tumor, prolactinoma, neurofibromatosis, glioblastoma multiforme, brain abcess); ovary (luteoma of pregnancy, dermoid cyst of the ovary, ovarian carcinoma); trophoblastic (hydatiform mole, choriocarcinoma); miscellaneous (melanoma, myeloma, perianal cysts, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, tongue carcinoma, bladder carcinoma); and neoplasms of offspring (neuroectodermal tumor, thyroid tumor, hepatoblastoma, lymphocytic leukemia).

Why don't we just tie him up to a stake and burn him now and get it over with.

I'm game.

The type of tumour he had is commonly caused by steroid use.

Yep. I think it's a shame that he won the Comeback player award.

I also wonder if his selection will play into the A-Rod/Ortiz MVP race. Rivera seems to be the odds-on favorite for the Cy. I think you'd see a lot of people gag if Yankees won the Cy, the MVP and the Comeback awards for a team that won 6 fewer games than it did a year ago.

Show me that the Yankees who batted in front of Giambi are much better than the Mariners who batted in front of Sexson with respect to getting on base and getting into scoring position. I'd think that Giambi's higher batting average and higher OBP would indicate a better tendancy to drive runners home. He gets on base more and he hits the ball more. He hits the ball less hard than Sexson, but only by a pretty small amount. Intuitively that would indicate Giambi is better at driving in runs and scoring them (by getting on base more).

So what if he had less plate appearances, he had enough for his stats to qualify, meaning it wasn't a fluke.

Look at the freaking lineup!! Intuitively? I don't need no stinking intuitives! I got ribbies!! Look an argument could be made for both Sexson and Giambi. My case is based upon the actual performance on the field of the two, not averages of what might have been had Giambi played as much as Sexson. I don't pay on what might have beens, only on what is or isn't. Sexson did drive in more runs and play in more games. His performance was better just based on the pure actual stats. Sure Giambi could have done that much, IF he had been healthy and played as much, but he didn't and that as they say is the bottom line!

So you can take all those fancy foo-foo stats and peddle them to the stat-heads. I am old school and I say show me the results, not "well he could have done this or that....." :rolleyes:

Look at the freaking lineup!! Intuitively? I do need no stinking intuitives! I got ribbies!! Look an argument could be made for both Sexson and Giambi. My case is based upon the actual performance on the field of the two, not averages of what might have been ahd Giambi played as much as Sexson. I don't pay on what might have beens, only on what is or isn't. Sexson did drive in more runs and play in more games. His performance was better just based on the pure actual stats. Sure Giambi could have done that much, IF he had been healthy and played as much, but he didn't and that as they say is the bottom line!

So you can take all those fancy foo-foo stats and peddle them to the stat-heads. I am old school and I say show me the results, not "well he could have done this or that....." :rolleyes:

Perhaps you forgot Tony Womack. Or maybe Robinson Cano batting 2nd. Or maybe that Giambi started the season batting lower in the order.

And I agree - it is scary that you have a numbers job.

Perhaps you forgot Tony Womack. Or maybe Robinson Cano batting 2nd. Or maybe that Giambi started the season batting lower in the order.

And I agree - it is scary that you have a numbers job.

Yeah that's what my boss says too :p

What you youngsters are missing the boat on is that stats like win shares are good for economists, not accountants. They, like you, deal in theory and intuitives. Accountants are realists and use stats, like rbi's and batting average, not those funny win shares..

Are you guys really so threatened by a different opinion that you result to name calling and belittling? Very sad..... :(

G-man, it scares me that you work with numbers for a living.

When you have my experience in accounting, then let's talk.

Though now that you mention it, it kinda scares me at times too. I mean you try working with Politicians and State Auditors year after year. Believe me it is downright frightening.....but it does pay the bills (rather nicely) and it beats living on these boards and taking "pot-shots" at people to inflate one's own ego.... :p

Are you guys really so threatened by a different opinion that you result to name calling and belittling? Very sad..... :(

I don't know what name calling you are talking about, but as to "belittling," these were your words:

"Sigh" you youngsters just don't get it with all your new fangled statistics..

As my Dad used to say (God rest his soul), "I have forgotten more than you will ever know about baseball" ( oh and he was right)

Sounds pretty "belittling" to me.

It beats living on these boards and taking "pot-shots" at people to inflate one's own ego.... How old are you anyway? Your writing style is similar to a thirteen year-old's, but you make it sound like you are in your late 50s.

You are an enigma wrapped in a ribbie.

I can't wait for Selig to sit in front of Congress again... McCain is going to have a field day with this. And I'll be eating my popcorn and enjoying the show. The MLB is a joke! Too bad I used to love watching it...

And before anyone says it...

YES! I AM THE MORAL POLICE!!!! FREEZE OR I'LL SHOT!!!... and you really don't want to get shot by morals, they hurt something fierce.

G-Man,

CPotY aside, in your eyes, did Sexson have a better year than, say Travis Hafner?

How old are you anyway? Your writing style is similar to a thirteen year-old's, but you make it sound like you are in your late 50s.

You are an enigma wrapped in a ribbie.

My writing style? Hey maybe I'm not the greatest of writers, but don't get so insulting (especially to 13 yr olds) :p

Yeah I can be an enigma, but you are wrong on both counts, I am not 13 and not 50 yet either. But old enough to remember when children knew to respect their elders......ahh the good times. Yeah I have kids too, probably older than most of you. We get along really well but believe me they were easily more challenging then kids on this board during their teens....

My age? I'll give you a hint: I attended a game in Fulton County Stadium to witness the Braves first Triple Play (at that Stadium) against ....ahh, you figure it out. I was 13 at the time. ;)

Look at the freaking lineup!! Intuitively? I don't need no stinking intuitives! I got ribbies!! Look an argument could be made for both Sexson and Giambi. My case is based upon the actual performance on the field of the two, not averages of what might have been had Giambi played as much as Sexson. I don't pay on what might have beens, only on what is or isn't. Sexson did drive in more runs and play in more games. His performance was better just based on the pure actual stats. Sure Giambi could have done that much, IF he had been healthy and played as much, but he didn't and that as they say is the bottom line!
Incorrect. Giambi had the requisite number of plate appearances (though it wasn't as high as Sexson, and had HIGHER OPS and OBP. Sexson did have higher SLG, but not by nearly as much as Giambi had him on OBP. Those ARE "pure actual stats" and ones that I find better than RBI to judge the value of a player.

But old enough to remember when children knew to respect their elders......ahh the good times. Yeah I have kids too, probably older than most of you. We get along really well but believe me they were easily more challenging then kids on this board during their teens....

lol

I don't know what name calling you are talking about, but as to "belittling," these were your words:

"Sigh" you youngsters just don't get it with all your new fangled statistics..

As my Dad used to say (God rest his soul), "I have forgotten more than you will ever know about baseball" ( oh and he was right)

Sounds pretty "belittling" to me.

Didn't intend it to be, was kinda tongue in cheek, but if you were offended than I do apologize and please forgive me for offending you...

Incorrect. Giambi had the requisite number of plate appearances (though it wasn't as high as Sexson, and had HIGHER OPS and OBP. Sexson did have higher SLG, but not by nearly as much as Giambi had him on OBP. Those ARE "pure actual stats" and ones that I find better than RBI to judge the value of a player.

Clearly you must be correct, because look at how many posts you have to my paltry 218 or so.....wait but that doesn't mean anything, because my average word to post divided by vowels at 33.543 is higher than your 28.342....so sorry, I must be right!!

Let's just agree to disagree and enjoy the debate... :D

Didn't intend it to be, was kinda tongue in cheek, but if you were offended than I do apologize and please forgive me for offending you...

I forgive you. I just find it strange that you would call others out for being "belittling" when you started the whole thing. It's like Subby getting mad at someone for calling him Fritz's vagina.

Ah-ha!!!

No old fart uses "lol"!

My writing style? Hey maybe I'm not the greatest of writers, but don't get so insulting (especially to 13 yr olds) :p

Yeah I can be an enigma, but you are wrong on both counts, I am not 13 and not 50 yet either. But old enough to remember when children knew to respect their elders......ahh the good times. Yeah I have kids too, probably older than most of you. We get along really well but believe me they were easily more challenging then kids on this board during their teens....

My age? I'll give you a hint: I attended a game in Fulton County Stadium to witness the Braves first Triple Play (at that Stadium) against ....ahh, you figure it out. I was 13 at the time. ;) I think it is awesome that you have grown children and still spend time on Internet message boards - mixing it up with us wiley teenagers!

Ah-ha!!!

No old fart uses "lol"!

I just figured out who G-Man's writing style reminds me of. Mrs. Kippy. All the internal ellipses, half developed thoughts, and calling people out for the things that he was doing. Is G-Man really Mrs. Kippy?

I had to google Mrs Kippy. Found a post where she was apologizing for saying she doesn't trust foreigners.

Classy ;).

So you can take all those fancy foo-foo stats and peddle them to the stat-heads. I am old school and I say show me the results, not "well he could have done this or that....." :rolleyes:

For someone claiming to be "old school" you don't really have much of a memory.

Every kid growing up compares players this way, every statistician balances the stats in some way to get a more direct comparison.

IF he had played the same number of games he'd have beaten sexson in damn near every category. If its PERFORMANCE you are actually looking for then you must take into account how valuable every singel at bat was for both players, and frankly, Sexson loses.

Don't bitch at others for belittling people, you pulled out the acid attitude first.

Clearly you must be correct, because look at how many posts you have to my paltry 218 or so.....wait but that doesn't mean anything, because my average word to post divided by vowels at 33.543 is higher than your 28.342....so sorry, I must be right!!

Let's just agree to disagree and enjoy the debate... :D
Ah, the whole meaningless statistic knock (what you are basically saying) :p. OBP shows how often a person gets on bases and SLG shows how much power you have by using total bases per at bat. Hardly meaningless statistics and more valuable than RBI, which is very team specific stat.

I admire that the sabermatric stats are wholly accepted by the fans and even some teams. I remember when they were first used and everyone involved in baseball thought they were a bit much and unnecessary. So while I think they are very useful I still believe that allot can be gleaned from the traditional stats of RBI's and runs scored. I disagree with you about why Sexson and Giambi were hired. I have heard many of the Mariner brass talking about the "RBI" man that Sexson would hopefully be. Not how great his OPS is.

Being a great "RBI" man and having a high OPS are not mutually exclusive. And it wouldn't be surprising that M's brass might speak in old-school terminology rather than new statistical measures. But I guarantee you that one of the appealing things about Sexson to the M's was that in addition to his power output, he also walked enough to give him a good OBP.

And you still haven't addressed my point about RBI. That stat is only useful if used in context. Without knowing his rate of successfully driving in runners based on his opportunities and seeing how that measures up to league average, we simply don't know how effective he was in this category.

Now regarding the way the A's are run vs the Mariners, I totally agree with you, I would like to try and build a stronger farm system based on their model and use a higher payroll to keep the players. As an accountant, I do not agree. Yes the Mariners have spent more money. yes they have had poorer showings the past two seasons (before that they were about even from 1999-2003). But the Mariners are more profitable in total operations, from what I have seen and heard. Haven't actually looked at the P&L Statements but I do know that the Mariner's franchise is valued more than the A's. To be honest as a fan I would probably enjoy the A's more during the season, but get me more frustrated, ala the M's of 2002/3.....

There are a lot of factors involved with franchise value that are out of a GM's control - the stadium situation and the team's geographic location (and thus customer market, both in terms of amount and their disposable income level).

Simply put, the A's get much more value out of each dollar they spend on payroll than the M's. Now, it may well be that the costs rise at a higher rate as you go from playoff contender to World Series winner - i.e. the same dollar buys less wins the higher up the ladder you go - which would mean that applying the rate of wins per payroll dollar that the A's produce won't translate if you double their payroll (actually, this is patently obvious). That said, there can be no question that the A's are much better at spending their money than the M's.

What you youngsters are missing the boat on is that stats like win shares are good for economists and other people who are actually interested in how things work, not accountants or people like me who don't understand and don't care to.

Touched that up for you. Glad to help clarify.

I just figured out who G-Man's writing style reminds me of. Mrs. Kippy. All the internal ellipses, half developed thoughts, and calling people out for the things that he was doing. Is G-Man really Mrs. Kippy? Ooooh. Good call. I vote for demon-spawn love child of capsicum and mrs kippy, but your instincts are strong.

G-Man,

CPotY aside, in your eyes, did Sexson have a better year than, say Travis Hafner?

Sexson - Sea 558 99 147 36 1 39 121 1 1 89 .263 .369 .541 .910
Haffner - Cle 486 94 148 42 0 33 108 0 0 79 .305 .408 .595 1.003

Based on stats I look at...Haffner. Oh and I didn't say that Sexson's stats were overwhlemingly better than Giambi's, I just said that he had a better year and came back from a poorer year, IMO than Giambi. Yeah I see where you are going with this. Sexson did have more RBI's (only 13 though). But look at extra base hits and down the line Haffner comes close, matches or exceeds Sexson's stats and in 72 less AB's! I don't ignore OPS or Win Shares and the other new and modern stats, I just put more weight in RBI's and runs scored.

Hey this is fun, let's chose some guys from years gone by like Bobby Bonds vs Ralph Garr or something:)

Based on stats I look at...Haffner.
BUT WAIT! Haffner had fewer RBI! And runs! And HRs! And At Bats! By your measure, Sexson is the better player, even though both his OBP and SLG are way lower than Hafner's!

Runs scored is a huge stat for batters.

Don't forget triples.

this has already been said in this thread already a dozen times or whatever at least, but this irritates me. This seriously wrankles me. The guy has essentially admitted that he used steroids. And now he's being rewarded for that by winning AL Comeback Player of the Year?? Given he never tested positive under the new steroid testing policy, but this never should have been allowed by Bud Selig and MLB. He came out in a news conference and admitted (I think we can all pretty much agree to this) that he used steroids. This is another black-eye on the game. To give someone who essentially admitted to using a performance enhancing substance a MLB award is shocking. Just another reason that baseball is losing its spot as the national pasttime for the young.

Ooooh. Good call. I vote for demon-spawn love child of capsicum and mrs kippy, but your instincts are strong.

Frankie's not going to be happy if Mrs. Kippy was gettin' it on with his wife. Especially if it was Ladies Man style.

Being a great "RBI" man and having a high OPS are not mutually exclusive. And it wouldn't be surprising that M's brass might speak in old-school terminology rather than new statistical measures. But I guarantee you that one of the appealing things about Sexson to the M's was that in addition to his power output, he also walked enough to give him a good OBP.

And you still haven't addressed my point about RBI. That stat is only useful if used in context. Without knowing his rate of successfully driving in runners based on his opportunities and seeing how that measures up to league average, we simply don't know how effective he was in this category.



There are a lot of factors involved with franchise value that are out of a GM's control - the stadium situation and the team's geographic location (and thus customer market, both in terms of amount and their disposable income level).

Simply put, the A's get much more value out of each dollar they spend on payroll than the M's. Now, it may well be that the costs rise at a higher rate as you go from playoff contender to World Series winner - i.e. the same dollar buys less wins the higher up the ladder you go - which would mean that applying the rate of wins per payroll dollar that the A's produce won't translate if you double their payroll (actually, this is patently obvious). That said, there can be no question that the A's are much better at spending their money than the M's.

Yeah especially for the last two years. Still the value of the M's has to be taken into account when you are looking at your investment as a whole. But the A's rate of yield is better on the short term basis, whereas the Mariners may surpass in the long term. Kind of like todays Bond Market Yield curve....

Do you really think that any of the M's "brass" think about win shares?

Touched that up for you. Glad to help clarify.

Thanks now it does make allot more sense...... :p

BUT WAIT! Haffner had fewer RBI! And runs! And HRs! And At Bats! By your measure, Sexson is the better player, even though both his OBP and SLG are way lower than Hafner's!

Well you see I forgot to mention how Richie dying his hair blond took away points and gave Haffner the edge :p

Do you really think that any of the M's "brass" think about win shares?
The fact that they don't is indicative that in the long run, they won't do as well as the organizations that do.

Do you really think that any of the M's "brass" think about win shares?

Honestly... I think even the Mariners' tarnished brass probably has an interest in whatever metric exists that correlates to winning ballgames. That includes many of the traditional stats that you seem to be so fond of, but if they are worth a damn, they also would recognize that any measurement that correlates wit games won woudl be of value as well. Whether it's OPS, RC/27, Win Shares, or whatever combined stat that you're disparaging at the moment... yeah, they are taking a look at it.

From several sellers of Clomid, the tumor portion of the side effects

First off, do we know that Clomid is the steroid Giambi used?

IIRC, side effects listed for a drug does not prove a legitimate medical connection, merely that there is some question about it that has yet to be resolved and thus the lawyers are covering their ass.

Regardless, let's say there is some legitimate medical connection between Clomid and pituatary tumors, and that Clomid is what Giambi used. Do we know how strong that connection is between Clomid use and those tumors? If Giambi's usage increased his chances of contracting that tumor by 25%, there's still a good chance he would've contracted that tumor regardless of his steroid use. But because there's some increased chance of him having that condition because of his steroid use, that invalidates him overcoming that serious medical condition, because it might have been caused by his steroid use?

I'm game.

Well, it's nice to see you admit how irrational you are about the subject. I can now safely ignore your input on this topic from now on.

Before all the personal stuff got, well, personal, I was actually enjoying this.

We've already played this game before on the board a few time, but you can't just discount some traditional counting stats because some other newer stats contradict it. No matter how much sabermatricians want to dismiss RBIs as a viable stat, you just can't. Nor can you sit there and dismiss them just by saying "OBP is a better metric". While true, it doesn't encompass everything about a player.

For instance, stop and ask why a batter like Giambi doesn't have nearly the RBIs of Sexson. He's in a more potent lineup in a better hitters park for half of his games. Probably has a lot to do with their runners on/no runners on splits. For instance, Sexson hit .317/.422/.649 with runners on but only .214/.317/.441 with nobody on. Giambi's splits are much less drastic (.302/.462/.542 vs .243/.421/.528). Heck, Giambi slugged less with runners on while Sexson turned it on with men on base. And if you're a guy paid to drive in runs, as both are (I don't think anyone's denying that), then there are instances where you'd much rather have the guy who hits better with runners but worse with nobody on than the guy who hits on an even keel.

And because someone thinks RBIs have merit, doesn't make them some neanderthal from back in Bucc's day. ;)

SI

YDo you really think that any of the M's "brass" think about win shares?

Yep, I know they do. Bavasi may not be Beane, DePodesto or Epstein, but he's familiar with sabermetric stats and does place some value on them. He hired a special sabermetric guru as a consultant prior to this season.

Bavasi may not agree exactly with how Win Shares are calculated (and thus just how valuable a stat it is) but I can guarantee he knows about the stat.

BUT WAIT! Haffner had fewer RBI! And runs! And HRs! And At Bats! By your measure, Sexson is the better player, even though both his OBP and SLG are way lower than Hafner's!
Glad to see this thread isn't getting all bogged down with stupid strawmen on each side

Why not just suggest Derrek Lee- he had less RBIs, too :rolleyes:

SI

John Galt - 3571
Subby - 3142
ISiddiqui - 4967
QuikSand - 11,084

My Lord, do you guys ever get outside (and I mean without your laptop)?? I don't have that many posts on all 10 boards that I frequent (or infrequent as the case may be). You should really try the fresh air outside, it does help one to get a perspective on life...lol! Unless of course you live in the big apple or LA then you may have to travel a ways for some breathable fresh air;)

Before all the personal stuff got, well, personal, I was actually enjoying this.

We've already played this game before on the board a few time, but you can't just discount some traditional counting stats because some other newer stats contradict it. No matter how much sabermatricians want to dismiss RBIs as a viable stat, you just can't. Nor can you sit there and dismiss them just by saying "OBP is a better metric". While true, it doesn't encompass everything about a player.

For instance, stop and ask why a batter like Giambi doesn't have nearly the RBIs of Sexson. He's in a more potent lineup in a better hitters park for half of his games. Probably has a lot to do with their runners on/no runners on splits. For instance, Sexson hit .317/.422/.649 with runners on but only .214/.317/.441 with nobody on. Giambi's splits are much less drastic (.302/.462/.542 vs .243/.421/.528). Heck, Giambi slugged less with runners on while Sexson turned it on with men on base. And if you're a guy paid to drive in runs, as both are (I don't think anyone's denying that), then there are instances where you'd much rather have the guy who hits better with runners but worse with nobody on than the guy who hits on an even keel.

And because someone thinks RBIs have merit, doesn't make them some neanderthal from back in Bucc's day. ;)

SI

I don't think anyone is saying RBI don't have any merit (if they are, they're dumb). What's being said is that RBI by themselves don't tell you enough of the story. You need context - how many RBI opportunities did the batter have, and how efficient was he in converting those opportunities? That's what is important when evaluating RBI.

Now, what does get overlooked by many sabermetrically inclined fans is that there is some value in counting stats, most specifically in games played. You can have the greatest rates in OBP and SLG, but if you're on the bench due to injury for 100 of your team's games, you're limited in how much positive effect you have on your team. That's another reason why Win Shares are a great stat - it takes into account both efficiency of performance as well as accumulated value, i.e. how often that efficiency of performance was applied and not sitting on the bench or the DL.

Glad to see this thread isn't getting all bogged down with stupid strawmen on each side

Why not just suggest Derrek Lee- he had less RBIs, too :rolleyes:

SI
Funny, but Lee is better than both Hafner and Sexson. His OBP and SLG were higher than either, by a GOOD amount from Sexson and Hafner (after all, Lee had the highest OPS in baseball this year)

And it isn't a strawman if his argument was Sexson was better because his had more RBI.

And because someone thinks RBIs have merit, doesn't make them some neanderthal from back in Bucc's day.

No, of course not.

But if this someone wants to argue that the RBI stat is an inarguably better metric of player value than something like, say, OPS... he's in hot water, as far as I'm concerned. He can scream it until he's blue in the face, he can say pejorative things about young people and their fancy math... but in the end, these things are actually fairly easy to quantify. You can measure how a player with certain statistics contributes to his team... and you can measure which statistical outcomes have the strongest effect on winning ballgames. And when you do so, you completely contradict the argument that simple stats are best. They are not, demonstrably so.

We've already played this game before on the board a few time, but you can't just discount some traditional counting stats because some other newer stats contradict it. No matter how much sabermatricians want to dismiss RBIs as a viable stat, you just can't.

If there are two factors, and one is demonstraby a better connection to team wins than the other -- which one would you depend on more? This isn't rocket science, really. Even a hypothetical old fart accountant ought to be able to handle it.

Nobody is arguing that any one metric, or even one combines metric, is perfect. Just that some have been shown to have stronger correlations to team wins than others. This isn't voodoo, it's just math. No need to be afraid.

And heck, if you want to argue the merits of Player A who performs at a slightly lower level than Player B, but did do for more of the season than Player B did -- there's some logic to that. If you just want to argue that "pure gross stats count and nothing else does" you're just making a fool of yourself.

Frankie's not going to be happy if Mrs. Kippy was gettin' it on with his wife. Especially if it was Ladies Man style.

Well if they were doin' it that way, at least they wouldnt reproduce and create the "megabitchtroll2000(tm)" which would destroy message board life as we know it 20 years in the future.

John Galt - 3571
Subby - 3142
ISiddiqui - 4967
QuikSand - 11,084

My Lord, do you guys ever get outside (and I mean without your laptop)?? I don't have that many posts on all 10 boards that I frequent (or infrequent as the case may be). You should really try the fresh air outside, it does help one to get a perspective on life...lol! Unless of course you live in the big apple or LA then you may have to travel a ways for some breathable fresh air;) BURN.

'Tis true that my massive 1.73 posts per day posting rate makes it virtually impossible for me to leave my keyboard.

I am ashamed. Do we still have a sun?

Likewise, my 2.86 posts per day are strangling my social life ;).

Likewise, my 2.86 posts per day are strangling my social life ;).

You and Subby can speak for yourselves, but I admit I have no life. And I blame all of you!

First off, do we know that Clomid is the steroid Giambi used?

He testified he used it to mask his use of steroids. Legally it's used as a fertility drug for women. You also drew up a whole lot of it's ands and buts. A lot of fluff. He was diagnosed with a very negative side effect of a drug he admitted he was using. Period.

Initially he also admitted he had a tumor, but would not tell the press where. There was a reason for that.

And I was about as serious about roasting Giambi on the stick as you were.

Me? What did I do?

I'm the least known 4 year poster around here ;).

Funny, but Lee is better than both Hafner and Sexson. His OBP and SLG were higher than either, by a GOOD amount from Sexson and Hafner (after all, Lee had the highest OPS in baseball this year)

And it isn't a strawman if his argument was Sexson was better because his had more RBI.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't using it because he was a couple higher, but because it was 121 vs 87- that's a pretty big number. Hence why the Hafner comparison is invalid- he's got 108, it's a whole other matter.

SI

I'm pretty sure he wasn't using it because he was a couple higher, but because it was 121 vs 87- that's a pretty big number. Hence why the Hafner comparison is invalid- he's got 108, it's a whole other matter.

SI
Seeing how he said they were brought in to drive in runs (I'm sure he'd lump Hafner in there as well) and the most important stat for that is RBI, I don't think it would matter that Hafner only has 13 less RBI (which is enough to make somewhat of a difference).

He testified he used it to mask his use of steroids. Legally it's used as a fertility drug for women. You also drew up a whole lot of it's ands and buts. A lot of fluff. He was diagnosed with a very negative side effect of a drug he admitted he was using. Period.

So if it's a possible side effect, and if it raised his chances of contracting that side effect, it's the same thing as a direct cause and effect situation in your mind? Sorry, that's not how body chemistry works. Clomid may have increased his risk for that tumor, but I've yet to see anything that says if you take X amount of Clomid, your chances of contracting this tumor is 95% likely, or 50% likely, or anything like that.

I don't smoke, but I've been around a lot of 2nd-hand smoke. This increases my chances of developing lung cancer. But if I do end up contracting lung cancer, it's not necessarily because of the 2nd-hand smoke I was around in my life.

Initially he also admitted he had a tumor, but would not tell the press where. There was a reason for that.

Maybe it was to stem off steroid speculation, maybe it was simply privacy.

And I was about as serious about roasting Giambi on the stick as you were.

Regardless, your attitude shows that you aren't willing to be rational when the subject turns to steroids.

Dola - while it's getting lost in the idiocy of G-Man's arguments, his point about Sexson and Giambi is a good one. Giambi was a better hitter this year than Sexson, but not by much. Additionally, Giambi wasn't in the lineup as much as Sexson, and he wasn't helping his team defensively nearly as much as Sexson (Giambi is a poor 1B, Sexson is pretty good, and Giambi played a significant amount of time as the DH).

What makes the argument far Sexson IMO is what they were coming back from - Giambi had a bad year last year, no question, but he did play in 80 games. Sexson played in only 23 games before his serious shoulder injury which placed some legitimate doubt on whether he could come back, stay healthy and produce as he had before. I think Sexson was overcoming more than Giambi, so IMO that balances out any edge Giambi had in peformance this year.

I think they're both very good candidates, and I don't begrudge Giambi winning, but don't let G-Man's ignorance of baseball stats dissuade you from the idea that Sexson was also very deserving (maybe moreso).

No. I am believing the most possible outcome. You are making up a million things, all of which rely on a HUGE god damn coindidence. You are delusional. I am not.

Someone admitted they took a drug. This someone has a tumor in his pituitary gland. Said drug causes pituitary gland tumors.

You can make up all the crap you want. I'm not sure how that makes you the rational one.

No. I am believing the most possible outcome. You are making up a million things, all of which rely on a HUGE god damn coindidence. You are delusional. I am not.

Someone admitted they took a drug. This someone has a tumor in his pituitary gland. Said drug causes pituitary gland tumors.

You say this as if taking this drug was a guarantee that pituatary gland tumors will result. My point is that unless you can show me that there is a very high correlation between taking said drug and contracting said side effect, it's faulty logic to assume that contracting that side effect is definitely due to taking that drug.

You can make up all the crap you want. I'm not sure how that makes you the rational one.

I'm too tired to rehash all the steroid arguments once again. I'll leave it as saying that I simply don't agree with the level of vitriol directed at steroid users in sports, especially when compared with previous generations that also used illegal, performance-enhancing drugs and are given basically a free pass. I also don't think steroid use has had nearly the impact on results that the fire-and-brimstone crowd implies - I think the difference between active weight-lifting, legal supplement using athletes and active weight-lifting, illegal supplement using athletes is relatively minor.

Obviously you don't agree, and obviously you are invested enough in your position to not find an opposing viewpoint credible. So be it.

You say this as if taking this drug was a guarantee that pituatary gland tumors will result. My point is that unless you can show me that there is a very high correlation between taking said drug and contracting said side effect, it's faulty logic to assume that contracting that side effect is definitely due to taking that drug.

I'm too tired to rehash all the steroid arguments once again. I'll leave it as saying that I simply don't agree with the level of vitriol directed at steroid users in sports, especially when compared with previous generations that also used illegal, performance-enhancing drugs and are given basically a free pass. I also don't think steroid use has had nearly the impact on results that the fire-and-brimstone crowd implies - I think the difference between active weight-lifting, legal supplement using athletes and active weight-lifting, illegal supplement using athletes is relatively minor.

Obviously you don't agree, and obviously you are invested enough in your position to not find an opposing viewpoint credible. So be it.
Likewise, your adamant stomping about on the flip side of the argument is puzzling. You choose to give Giambi every benefit of the doubt...that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But this isn't a court of law, it's the court of individual opinion. I choose to believe that he is being rewarded for "coming back" from something that, at least in some significant part, shouldn't qualify. I don't wish the man ill...I don't want to bash him, lynch him, or burn him at the stake. But I don't want to reward him as if he's on the same page with players who didn't do what he did. Why is that so hard to understand? Why am I not entitled to that opinion, as you are to yours?

Likewise, your adamant stomping about on the flip side of the argument is puzzling. You choose to give Giambi every benefit of the doubt...that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But this isn't a court of law, it's the court of individual opinion. I choose to believe that he is being rewarded for "coming back" from something that, at least in some significant part, shouldn't qualify.

If you can show me medical evidence that makes it highly probable that his tumor was a direct result of his steroid use, as opposed to a possibility that it increased his risk for it, I'd agree with you. As it stands, I see his comeback as having next to nothing to do with his steroid use until I see convincing evidence to the contrary. For some, the fact that the tumor he suffered from is listed as a possible side effect of the drug he used to mask his steroid usage is enough proof. I require more stringent evidence than that.

In fact, that has been my position all along on matters steroid-related - I'd like to see a higher level of proof in most aspects of accusations and judgements than many others require. For some, merely the sniff of steroids is enough to set them in a frenzy and assume the worst. I simply prefer to have more evidence before issuing a damning judgement.

When Palmeiro issued his initial denial, I felt it was still possible his explanation could be true. When it was leaked what steroid he tested positive for, and that information rendered his excuse highly unlikely, I agreed that his excuse was likely bullshit, and his continued silence on the matter and then lame finger-pointing at Tejada is further proof he's a liar.

When Franklin issued his excuse, I felt it was possible he was telling the truth, and still feel that way, though I agree the burden of proof rests on him to prove his case since he tested positive. That he hasn't been able to do so makes it likely that his excuse was a lie.

When Morse admitted his use but explained that he was being busted a 3rd time for the same usage in the past, I strongly supported his claim as nothing he claimed has been shown to be highly unlikely, and in fact the arbitration board agreed that his excuse was highly likely to be true.

I don't wish the man ill...I don't want to bash him, lynch him, or burn him at the stake. But I don't want to reward him as if he's on the same page with players who didn't do what he did. Why is that so hard to understand? Why am I not entitled to that opinion, as you are to yours?

It's not wrong, but you simply need to convince me that he's being rewarded for doing something wrong. As of right now, all I see is a possibility that his steroid use and trying to cover it up may have increased his risk for contracting the tumor he suffered from. What we know for sure is that he suffered from major medical issues last year that severely impacted his play, and has come back this year to have a great season. On that basis, I see no reason to deny him the award just because there's some possibility his steroid use contributed to his illness.

I suppose for others, the fact that he cheated by using steroids means he's bereft of the right to the benefit of the doubt, and I guess I can understand that, even if I don't agree with it. Like I said, if someone shows me convincing evidence that his illness was highly likely to have been caused by his steroid use as opposed to a possibility, I'd change my opinion.

Dola - while it's getting lost in the idiocy of G-Man's arguments, his point about Sexson and Giambi is a good one. Giambi was a better hitter this year than Sexson, but not by much. Additionally, Giambi wasn't in the lineup as much as Sexson, and he wasn't helping his team defensively nearly as much as Sexson (Giambi is a poor 1B, Sexson is pretty good, and Giambi played a significant amount of time as the DH).

What makes the argument far Sexson IMO is what they were coming back from - Giambi had a bad year last year, no question, but he did play in 80 games. Sexson played in only 23 games before his serious shoulder injury which placed some legitimate doubt on whether he could come back, stay healthy and produce as he had before. I think Sexson was overcoming more than Giambi, so IMO that balances out any edge Giambi had in peformance this year.

I think they're both very good candidates, and I don't begrudge Giambi winning, but don't let G-Man's ignorance of baseball stats dissuade you from the idea that Sexson was also very deserving (maybe moreso).

Idiocy? Ignorance? Gee you kind of fall in with the others in the name calling. I would have thought better of you a fellow Dawg Fan.....guess I was wrong. :(

You should stop judging people by their join date.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, it should also be brought up that MLB doesn't test for HGH yet. Sad, but oh so very true.

Giambi is a bum and the game of baseball is a waste of time.

Idiocy? Ignorance? Gee you kind of fall in with the others in the name calling. I would have thought better of you a fellow Dawg Fan.....guess I was wrong. :(

Sorry, but you display a complete lack of understanding of baseball statistics, and to compound this error you belittle those that do understand them. It would be like someone in the days well after Copernicus ridiculing those that realized that the earth revolves around the sun.

I think it is fairly compelling that a guy whose career had been pretty much been written off by everyone - his team, sportswriters, fans - was able to turn things around and have the type of season he did. Particualry when you consider that conventional wisdom chalked up his previous successes to steroids in the first place and then he goes out and produces against the backdrop of the most vigorous testing program in league history. Not to mention the fact that he is probably one of the five most scrutinized players in the game.

I am not denying he cheated then. I also think that he has been duly punished for his transgressions.

The award seems deserved.

This is pretty well how I feel as well. After everyone and their brother tore him down for his performance at the beginning of this year, he deserves all the accolades and comeback awards he can get for redeeming his season and arguably his career.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, it should also be brought up that MLB doesn't test for HGH yet. Sad, but oh so very true.

I think the sticking point is that blood tests are required for HGH. I don't believe tests that can detect HGH in urine exist.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, it should also be brought up that MLB doesn't test for HGH yet. Sad, but oh so very true.

Giambi is a bum and the game of baseball is a waste of time.

None of the major sports tests for HGH. Why should baseball be held to a higher standard.

And to G-man: My comments weren't meant to be insulting.

I always assumed that a major part of the resistance to sabermetrics had to do with the fear of mathematics. As a country we, in the U.S., don't have much of a foundation in mathematics. We're terrible.

But that fear is obviously not present in your case. As a professional accountant, you couldn't perform your duties if you were afraid of math. So your resistance to sabermetrics has no good basis.

You are just willfully remaining ignorant. That scares me a lot. This is the same phenomena that sees us continuing to vote for the same jerks (on both sides of the aisle). This same unreasoning stubborness keeps us from attempting solutions to many of the problems of society.

I wasn't trying to be cute or insulting when I said that your attitude scared me. It's the literal truth. I'm not calling you incompetent or stupid. I'm saying that your attitude toward a new idea that you should be able to see is clearly superior to your previously held ones is disturbing.

Just for giggles, I looked up the numbers for both Sexson and Giambi (though this argument seems like it was closed many posts ago)...

Sexson had 162 atbats with RISP (and drove in 78 in those situations). Giambi had 116 atbats in RISP and drove in 55.

Sexson had an advantage here because the majority of the time Giambi batted sixth while Sexson batted fourth. However, if you take into account the number of run scoring opportunities each of them had, it looks pretty even if you ask me.

FWIW, here are Win Shares totals as calculated and presented by the Hardball Times website:

2004:
Richie Sexson: 4
Jason Giambi: 8

2005:
Richie Sexson: 27
Jason Giambi: 25

Difference:
Richie Sexson: +23
Jason Giambi: +17

I still think Sexson has an awfully good argument for the AL comeback award, even while acknowledging that Giambi has a good argument as well. What the Win Shares reflect is my belief that Sexson came back from further down than Giambi, and while Giambi's rate stats were a little better this season than Sexson's, the fact Sexson was in the lineup more (and he probably got more fielding WS credit than Giambi) means he contributed more to his team's success than Giambi as reflected in his win shares total.

Giambi certainly was a very good candidate (steroid issues aside); I just think Sexson was a little more deserving.

I'd give it to Giambi. But it could've gone either way.

To me it's a question of context. The margin of error with Win Shares is +/-3. So there's not an significant difference between them. Considering that Giambi did it in less time, I'd give him the nod when I include the other factors.

Giambi did it for a winner, which is an argument I only use as a tie-breaker. But Seattle hasn't played a meaningfull game all year. Giambi had to work his way back into a good lineup in a pennant race and his performance turned out to be the difference between the Yanks making the playoffs and being home.

That's not even considering all the vitriol he faced, deserved or not.

I always assumed that a major part of the resistance to sabermetrics had to do with the fear of mathematics. As a country we, in the U.S., don't have much of a foundation in mathematics. We're terrible.

But that fear is obviously not present in your case. As a professional accountant, you couldn't perform your duties if you were afraid of math. So your resistance to sabermetrics has no good basis.

You are just willfully remaining ignorant. That scares me a lot. This is the same phenomena that sees us continuing to vote for the same jerks (on both sides of the aisle). This same unreasoning stubborness keeps us from attempting solutions to many of the problems of society.

I wasn't trying to be cute or insulting when I said that your attitude scared me. It's the literal truth. I'm not calling you incompetent or stupid. I'm saying that your attitude toward a new idea that you should be able to see is clearly superior to your previously held ones is disturbing.

I find the criticism to be a bit strong here--I think you are overstating the superiority of statistical analysis. I do quite a bit of statistical modeling for a living--the most important thing that I have learned in the years that I have been doing this is to never take the numbers that you see at face value.

We can do amazing things with statistical analysis, as you know. However, statistics are not infallible--they can also be quite misleading without competent analysis of those statistics. I've always viewed statistics as a tool, not something that would do my job for me.

The point is that you don't disregard them totally.

Only paying attention to the old triple crown stats is essentially what a lot of baseball fans do. That's blindly following statistics. Recognizing that a stat like win shares, RC, or EQA is superior to going by the traditional avg/hr/rbi is something everyone should be able to see.

To me it's a question of context. The margin of error with Win Shares is +/-3. So there's not an significant difference between them. Considering that Giambi did it in less time, I'd give him the nod when I include the other factors.

A small but important clarification here - you shouldn't give Giambi extra credit for nearly matching Sexson in Win Shares despite less playing time. It's the fact that Giambi had better rate stats than Sexson despite less playing time that allowed Giambi to narrow the gap in Win Shares as much as he did. One of the great things about Win Shares is that it's a way to balance the positives of high rate production vs. the negatives of not being in the lineup frequently. Giambi was helping his team win more effectively when he was in the lineup, but he wasn't in the lineup as much as Sexson.

While Giambi had the better OPS, he wasn't in the lineup as much to help his team win. That's one of two reasons Sexson has the higher Win Share total - that and a more positive fielding impact.

Now, the points about what Giambi did in a superior lineup as well as contributing more to a playoff winning team vs. a team that was in the cellar all season are valid ones, and I can see why you'd give him the edge based on that.

But the reason Giambi had less plate appearances was because his team was a contender. He had to get to a certain level just to stay in the lineup.

Early in the year when his power numbers and batting average were bad but he was leading the league in walks, the Yanks tried to send him down. Then, when he refused, they didn't play him regularly. That month long stretch, when he was playing intermittently, he'd have definitely earned two more win shares.

He was contributing. But he wasn't doing it at the rate Tino, who was on fire at the time, was. A cellar-dwelling team would've let Giambi work it out while in the lineup. The Yanks didn't have that luxury. So Giambi had to sit more than half the time.

I understand your point, but it can be a trap to engage too much in "what ifs" and "what should've beens" and get too far away from what actually happened.

I think we can both agree that both Giambi and Sexson were very good candidates for the award.

Sorry, but you display a complete lack of understanding of baseball statistics, and to compound this error you belittle those that do understand them. It would be like someone in the days well after Copernicus ridiculing those that realized that the earth revolves around the sun.

Trying to justify insulting behavior by your "superior" knowledge is another form of self aggrandizement!

Quick, somebody throw a bucket of rain water on the quarreling Seattlites!

Quick, somebody throw a bucket of rain water on the quarreling Seattlites!
Doesn't God do that daily?

SI

Doesn't God do that daily?

SI

:D LOL.

Doesn't God do that daily?

SI
*sigh* Subtle as a slug.

*sigh* Subtle as a slug.
I put the "S" in subtle!

SI

None of the major sports tests for HGH. Why should baseball be held to a higher standard.

And to G-man: My comments weren't meant to be insulting.

I always assumed that a major part of the resistance to sabermetrics had to do with the fear of mathematics. As a country we, in the U.S., don't have much of a foundation in mathematics. We're terrible.

But that fear is obviously not present in your case. As a professional accountant, you couldn't perform your duties if you were afraid of math. So your resistance to sabermetrics has no good basis.

You are just willfully remaining ignorant. That scares me a lot. This is the same phenomena that sees us continuing to vote for the same jerks (on both sides of the aisle). This same unreasoning stubborness keeps us from attempting solutions to many of the problems of society.

I wasn't trying to be cute or insulting when I said that your attitude scared me. It's the literal truth. I'm not calling you incompetent or stupid. I'm saying that your attitude toward a new idea that you should be able to see is clearly superior to your previously held ones is disturbing.

I agree completely. To quote Joe Morgan: this is how we got "Enron." :D

*sigh* Subtle as a slug.

Get used to disappointment.

Trying to justify insulting behavior by your "superior" knowledge is another form of self aggrandizement!

Whatever. Keep believing the world is flat despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

What was your excuse for your insulting behavior Mr. Pot?