Jason Giambi Wins AL Comeback Player of the Year

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by Subby

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)

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by G-Man

"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)

Cue somebody bringing up win shares.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by G-Man

"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?

[stevew]

G-Man writes a lot like Capiscum used to.

Oh the memories.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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. :\

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[wade moore]

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...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by wade moore

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 . Baseball ain't the cops.

[RendeR]

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.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by Subby

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.....

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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!

[oykib]

Originally Posted by G-Man

"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)

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.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

[JasonC23]

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.

[WSUCougar]

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by oykib

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...

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by oykib

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 ). 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....

[oykib]

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.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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...

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

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. [sarcasm]Thank you for all these well-thought out medical opinions, I'll be looking forward to seeing your theories posted in the AMA journals.[/sarcasm]

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...

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

[jeff061]

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

[Young Drachma]

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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 ). 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.

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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

Citing please.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Citing please.

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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.....

[jeff061]

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.

[oykib]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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!

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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/winshar...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.

[jeff061]

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).

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

I'm game.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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....."

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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....."

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.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

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]

Originally Posted by oykib

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....

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[Joe Canadian]

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.

[johnnyshaka]

G-Man,

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

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by Subby

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)

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[jeff061]

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

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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...

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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.

[rkmsuf]

Ah-ha!!!

No old fart uses "lol"!

[Subby]

Originally Posted by G-Man

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

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!