Jason Giambi Wins AL Comeback Player of the Year

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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?

[jeff061]

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

Classy .

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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....."

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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...

Ah, the whole meaningless statistic knock (what you are basically saying) . 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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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!

[Subby]

Runs scored is a huge stat for batters.

[Subby]

Don't forget triples.

[DaddyTorgo]

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Subby

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.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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?

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Touched that up for you. Glad to help clarify.

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

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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?

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

[sterlingice]

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

SI

[G-Man]

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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

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.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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?

[ISiddiqui]

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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!

[jeff061]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Me? What did I do?

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

[dawgfan]

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).

[jeff061]

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

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.

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

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.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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.

[jeff061]

You should stop judging people by their join date.

[Kozure]

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Subby

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.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Kozure

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.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Kozure

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.

[CraigSca]

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.

[dawgfan]

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.

[oykib]

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.