Manny and Ortiz test positive in '03

Post #61 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:21 am

High 5 wrote:I know you guys love Big Papi (I like him to), but come on. You guys don't really believe he's innocent. He might be the most obvious user yet.

High 5 · Post #62 » by **High 5** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:26 am

Celtics_Champs wrote:
High 5 wrote:I know you guys love Big Papi (I like him to), but come on. You guys don't really believe he's innocent. He might be the most obvious user yet.

Bonds was already a great player, though.

Post #63 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:24 am

So? He's still the most obvious. I'm not backing ortiz, when this came out, I didn't follow it at all. I didn't even read the post you were referring too, just that last statement is incorrect, as bonds blew up like a balloon, while ortiz stayed the fat ass he was, just with more power.

mike_miller · Post #64 » by **mike_miller** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:05 pm

^david wells and prince fielder blew up too..

getting bigger or smaller isnt what sheds light on possible steriod use. or at least it shouldnt be.

handley ramirez gained over 20bls this year and no ones saying sht about him..

averaging less than 20 hrs for your career and then all of sudden ave over 40 kind begs the questoin of wtf happend?

Post #65 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:30 pm

I'm not saying he didn't take anything. He did. But to say he is the most obvious is just plain wrong. There was barley any speculation, until manny tested positive for crap this past spring. That's when people started saying, well I guess Ortiz must've did something. Bonds has been questioned for much longer.

High 5 · Post #66 » by **High 5** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:34 pm

Celtics_Champs wrote:I'm not saying he didn't take anything. He did. But to say he is the most obvious is just plain wrong. There was barley any speculation, until manny tested positive for crap this past spring. That's when people started saying, well I guess Ortiz must've did something. Bonds has been questioned for much longer.

Only because Bonds has been relevant for much longer. But regardless of who you think the most obvious one was, no question Ortiz was an extremely obvious choice.

Post #67 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:00 pm

I am not arguing with that. But I got the feeling you were clarifying him as the face of the steroid era, and that is far from it.

Post #68 » by **sunshinekids99** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:21 pm

mike_miller wrote:

averaging less than 20 hrs for your career and then all of sudden ave over 40 kind begs the questoin of wtf happend?

I hate this arguement as well, cause to be honest you just never know.

Look at some guys that had huge spikes in their careers.

Roger Maris (16,39,61)
Cecil Fielder (9,51,44)
Wade Boggs (8 to 24 the next season)
Jeff Bagwell (20 to 39 the next season) He also played 32 less games in the 39 hr season

Now I'm sure there are plenty other guys I just used baseballreference for 5 minutes to find a few. I'm just trying to point out that spikes in home runs can happen. Also again I'm not saying Ortiz did or didn't use steroids. I just wish there was a way to prove exactly what players took.

High 5 · Post #69 » by **High 5** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:24 pm

Celtics_Champs wrote:I am not arguing with that. But I got the feeling you were clarifying him as the face of the steroid era, and that is far from it.

I don't think anyone would call him the face of the steroid era.

mike_miller · Post #70 » by **mike_miller** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:45 pm

sunshinekids99 wrote:
mike_miller wrote:

averaging less than 20 hrs for your career and then all of sudden ave over 40 kind begs the questoin of wtf happend?

I hate this arguement as well, cause to be honest you just never know.

Look at some guys that had huge spikes in their careers.

Roger Maris (16,39,61)
Cecil Fielder (9,51,44)
Wade Boggs (8 to 24 the next season)
Jeff Bagwell (20 to 39 the next season) He also played 32 less games in the 39 hr season

Now I'm sure there are plenty other guys I just used baseballreference for 5 minutes to find a few. I'm just trying to point out that spikes in home runs can happen. Also again I'm not saying Ortiz did or didn't use steroids. I just wish there was a way to prove exactly what players took.

i think there is a difference between a spike or freak occurance compared to being one player for 5-6 years and being a completely other for another 5-6 and then going back to the first player with no major injury or change than can be identified.

personally i could careless about the drugs they took or the "respect for the game" bs..i just dont think physical size should be a factor. its too easily to get bigger, legally, if a player wanted to.

wigglestrue · Post #71 » by **wigglestrue** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:03 pm

i think there is a difference between a spike or freak occurance compared to being one player for 5-6 years and being a completely other for another 5-6 and then going back to the first player with no major injury or change than can be identified.

averaging less than 20 hrs for your career and then all of sudden ave over 40 kind begs the questoin of wtf happend?

Do either of you look at **** like HR per plate appearance?

mike_miller · Post #72 » by **mike_miller** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:52 pm

^ yes and considering how terrible ortiz is as position player, its obvious his plate appearences only rise and fall with his production...

he gets more pa's when hes good, not the other way around.

wigglestrue · Post #73 » by **wigglestrue** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:05 pm

mike_miller wrote:^ yes and considering how terrible ortiz is as position player, its obvious his plate appearences only rise and fall with his production...

he gets more pa's when hes good, not the other way around.

So you're saying it's unusual that a player was better during his prime than he was in his early 20's or his 30's? Also, as for "no major injury or change" you're ignoring that Ortiz was instructed to be a different player in Minnesota (yet still had power), and his knee and wrist injuries were major enough to affect his hitting.

mike_miller · Post #74 » by **mike_miller** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:07 pm

he was instructed to be mediocure?

so his prime lasted 4 seasons? hes not even that old today and doesnt play the part of the game that actually breaks down the body...

wigglestrue · Post #75 » by **wigglestrue** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:36 pm

mike_miller wrote:he was instructed to be mediocure?

He was instructed to be an opposite-field contact hitter.

When the Sox got him they had to fix a huge hole in his swing.

so his prime lasted 4 seasons? hes not even that old today and doesnt play the part of the game that actually breaks down the body...

A 5 year prime, actually. And again, you see that as unusual?

You're saying that 33 isn't an age when a player might begin to fall off?

Does he play the part of the game where a guy swings the bat really hard and runs?

mike_miller · Post #76 » by **mike_miller** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:09 pm

well for one, his decline started 2 years ago..

he plays the part of the game where he sit on the bench during the time the vast majority of injuries occur.

ask yourself this..of the 2 people having this debate..who has a motivation to ignore or skew evidense? the celtic fan or the marlin fan?

wigglestrue · Post #77 » by **wigglestrue** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:11 pm

mike_miller wrote:well for one, his decline started 2 years ago..

Nagging knee injury started in 2007. He had a very good 2007 anyway. The wrist injury screwed up 2008. He sucked inexplicably and abysmally for the first 2 months of 2009. Since then, he's back to being a very good hitter. Maybe he's on HGH since May ended, who the **** knows.

he plays the part of the game where he sit on the bench during the time the vast majority of injuries occur.

Dude. He injured his wrist swinging. It happens.

ask yourself this..of the 2 people having this debate..who has a motivation to ignore or skew evidense? the celtic fan or the marlin fan?

How about, who has the evidence period? You don't know **** about Ortiz's history.
You've also claimed that a 5 year prime in a player's late 20's is unusual. Fail.

Post #78 » by **sunshinekids99** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:03 am

mike_miller wrote:well for one, his decline started 2 years ago..

he plays the part of the game where he sit on the bench during the time the vast majority of injuries occur.

ask yourself this..of the 2 people having this debate..who has a motivation to ignore or skew evidense? the celtic fan or the marlin fan?

Flat out wrong. Ortiz had a better season in 07 than he did in 06. While the homeruns did drop he also hit 50+ hr's. Had his career high in OBP as well OPS+.

mike_miller · Post #79 » by **mike_miller** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:13 pm

i shouldve stated his power decline began 2 years ago bc that is what i ment but 20hrs for 20 pts in obs is debatable imo...as far as whats better

im not saying no ones gets hurt at the plate but its not as common as players getting hurt in the field of play..one of the reasons every great hitters toys with the idea of DH'ing once they are past their prime as a position player.

my only point in this bs is that in a 13-14 year career you got 4 hof/mvp years and 9, extremely mediocre years..its not a spike and its not a gradual upswing and then back down..

wigglestrue · Post #80 » by **wigglestrue** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:48 pm

my only point in this bs is that in a 13-14 year career you got 4 hof/mvp years and 9, extremely mediocre years..its not a spike and its not a gradual upswing and then back down..

Dude, again, not 4. FIVE years. 5 straight years of top 5 MVP finishes. Last year wasn't great, but it wasn't "extremely mediocre", and as already said: Wrist injury. And before that, are you saying that years when he was a prospect in his early 20's and getting cups of coffee were "extremely mediocre"? Do you know anything about the average trajectory of a career, or baseball itself? Did you read where I noted the radical change in his hitting style? And if it's not a spike AND it's not a gradual upswing...then WHAT is it and why is it suspicious?