Does Jose Bautista piss you off?

[ls7plus]

Fast forward 30 years from the up to 1980 limitation--Does Jose Bautista, with his one and one-half year transformation from six years of being Mr. Mediocre (at best!) into Mantle/Mays/Williams, or Bonds/McGwire at their PED best piss anyone else off?

A pet peave of mine--I will not watch any Toronto Blue Jay games because of his bullshit.

Larry

[Robextend]

In all fairness Bautista was never really given a true shot to be an every day player. Also these days with random testing I would seriously doubt he is "on" anything. I personally think what he is doing is great for the game and he is definitely innocent until proven guilty. If you want to talk about Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, A-Rod...fine...but Bautista doesn't belong in that group.

[jb217676]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Fast forward 30 years from the up to 1980 limitation--Does Jose Bautista, with his one and one-half year transformation from six years of being Mr. Mediocre (at best!) into Mantle/Mays/Williams, or Bonds/McGwire at their PED best piss anyone else off?

A pet peave of mine--I will not watch any Toronto Blue Jay games because of his bullshit.

Larry

Huh? Mr. Bautista changed his swing before going into last season, the main reason for his improved batting. He also swings extremely hard and doesn't hit many ground balls, it's all or nothing with him. I doubt he's on steroids, he's been the same size and build pretty much since he was a RC. The reason for the improved stats is mechanical, not chemical. When you see him in person, he's actually quite skinny.

Don't hate the player, hate your team for not picking him up when he was thrown away by the Pirates in 2008 for a player to be named later (Robinson Diaz?)

[D. Bergin]

Did George Foster piss you off between 1976-78, after 6-7 mediocre years in baseball?

It happens. Guys sometimes hit homers without being on the juice.

I'll be pissed off when I see some sort of evidence other then being successful at what one does.

[ls7plus]

Gee, I would have thought that most of us would have long since lost our sense of naivite about ten years ago, so these responses utterly shock me. Name one other player who laid down such a solid albeit purely mediocre base of talent (or decided lack of same ) for six years in a row, thoroughly establishing himself to be marginal major league quality at his very best, then all of a sudden blossoms at age 29-30 to apparently become one of the best players there's ever been, literally towering above Mt. Olympus. Better than Cabrera, better than Pujols, better than anybody else! And if you buy that achievement, I got some bridges to sell you C-H-E-A-P-P-P!!! (could use the cash to start my E107 set in style!).

Seriously, this never happens in nature, and I can save you considerable research time--its never happened before, and it never will in nature, because it is against nature, just as it was for Bonds to continue to dramatically improve year after year past the age of 35. Since this combination of non-productivity laid down consistently over a number of years followed immediately by immense productivity, with no transition in between simply doesn't exist in nature itself, it must, therefore, have been produced through other than natural causes. Supreme talent nearly always makes itself known at a very young age (check the minor league and early major league stats of Mantle, Mays, Williams, DiMaggio, Gehrig and even Griffey and Chipper Jones, if you don't believe me). Old Jose, with who knows what tricks are up his sleeve (or down his britches) is truly one of a kind.

Let's hope for the good of the game he stays that way!

Larry

Gee, D. Bergin, I would have though that you'd have known that George Foster was far from mediocre before hitting 52 homers in 1977, as he hit 29 homers and knocked in 121 runs while batting .306 in 1976, and hit 23 homers while hitting .300 in 1975. Hardly fits the model of Bautista's .235-.240 with 13 or 14 homers YEAR AFTER YEAR just before the big 54 homerun year, now does he? Seems a little more like just coming into his own over a number of years, with everyting just happening to go right that particular year (Foster followed up in 1978 with 40 homers, followed by 30 in 1979).

C'mon guys, bring on more supposedly similar matches to Bautista--I'd be happy to take them on! And don't worry Jeff, I would be surprised if you as a Blue Jays guy didn't attempt to defend the undefendable with an argument like that. San Fransiscans defended Bonds throughout too. Look where that got them. Plus, that explanation reminds me of Pudge Rodriguez here in Detroit, the year he lost 26 pounds and couldn't explain to reporters the diet he supposedly used to accomplish the weight loss. Unfortunately, with it went his power, never to be regained. C'mon, you guys are better than this!!! You don't have to cling to fantasy.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Gee, I would have thought that most of us would have long since lost our sense of naivite about ten years ago, so these repsonses utterly shock me. Name one other player who laid down such a solid albeit purely mediocre base of talent (or decided lack of same ) for six years in a row, thoroughly establishing himself to be marginal major league quality at his very best, then all of a sudden blossems at age 29-30 to apparently become one of the best players there's ever been. And if you buy that achievement, I got some bridges to sell you C-H-E-A-P-P-P!!! (could use the cash to start my E107 set in style!).

Seriously, this never happens in nature, and I can save you the research time--its never happened before, and it never will in nature, because it is against nature, same as it was for Bonds to continue to dramatically improve year after year past the age of 35. Alternatively, it is a combinaltion that simply doesn't exist in nature, and must, therefore, have been produced throughother than natural causes. Supreme talent nearly always makes itself known at a very young age (check the minor league stats of Mantle, Mays, Williams, DiMaggio and even Chipper Jones, if you don't believe me. Old Jose, with who knows what tricks are up his sleeve (or down his britches) is truly one of a kind.

Let's hope for the good of the game he stays that way!

Larry

I thought I already named a guy. Did you ignore it?

[ls7plus]

With regard to random testing, Rob, the game was always played in the Olympic track and field events as follows: (1) the chemists were ahead of the testers; (2) the testers caught up; (3) the chemists surged again ahead with the use of substances undetectable through current tests. That statement simply reflects a static view of life that most desiring to achieve at any cost do not at all subscribe to.

Larry

And no, D. Bergin, you most certainly did not name such a guy--see the second post above. Foster was anything but medicocre before his 50-homer season.

[ls7plus]

Matter of fact, I can think of one guy who fits the mold, sorta--Joe Hardy, the main character in Douglas Wallop's "The Year the Yankees Lost the Pennnant," brought to the stage and movies as "Damn Yankees!" Oops, Hardy was a work of fiction (kind of like Jose in a sense, huh?).

Can't anyone here mount even a credible argument in support of the above positions???

Larry

[fkw]

No He is one of my favorite players NOW

Hitting a Homerun is not hard to do... I was hitting 350'-440' aluminum bat HRs once every 20 swings, at 16 years old....... and I was drafted as a pitcher, not a hitter...

A HR is a solidly hit balls with some backspin. If youve ever hit one you know it the second you make contact, and why..... The HARD part is making the solid connection, reading the pitch out of the pitchers hand and not being fooled by the speed spin location and movement... none of that has anything to do with some shot or pill (PEDs), its pure talent and every single person that has played some upper level ball has gone through times where they just cant miss, everything they see is fat, easily read, and every swing they take they make square contact on the sweet spot (wood sweet spot 3-4", aluminum 8+")...... some HS players may only have a single batting practice where they are completely "on", some MLB players... it may last for 10-15 years...
Bautista is not a big guy, but you dont need to be big to hit a HR, just big enough to get some bat speed going, and making solid contact with some backspin.... simple

He is seeing the ball WELL, and Not Missing!! Period!


Dont hate!
If you have to Hate.......... Hate someone like Mantle for letting his career slip so bad after his 30th B-Day.... lack of hustle, period .... there is no way you can explain why the slowest player to ever play in the big leagues (Bengie Molina) averaged more doubles per 162 games played than Mantle... and dont give me the "he was injured" BS, if He could play Centerfield, He could run out a gapper or shot down the line and make it to 2B. (My M.M. rant for the week )

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

And no, D. Bergin, you most certainly did not name such a guy--see the second post above. Foster was anything but medicocre before his 50-homer season.

I pretty clearly stated the years Foster broke out. What about the 6 years in baseball prior to that?

He had 1 halfway decent season from 69' to 75' prior to his breakout year in '76.

Maybe Bautista is guilty, I don't know, but I'm not going to throw a guy under the bus without any evidence other then "he's doing really well right now".

Ben Oglivie is another guy who didn't develop a power swing until he was around 30 or so.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I pretty clearly stated the years Foster broke out. What about the 6 years in baseball prior to that?

He had 1 halfway decent season from 69' to 75' prior to his breakout year in '76.

Maybe Bautista is guilty, I don't know, but I'm not going to throw a guy under the bus without any evidence other then "he's doing really well right now".

Ben Oglivie is another guy who didn't develop a power swing until he was around 30 or so.

Sometimes you see a guy in the majors that is putting up average numbers and think that he's ready, but if you watch him closely, you just know he's not ready, he's not comfortable, he's not confident. Not to use for comparison to Bautista, but as an example of mindset. Michael Brantley(I know he didn't play much) from the Indians, prior to this year, he'd show some flashes of being good, but didn't look comfortable at the plate at all. He looked scared, in over his head, even more than was reflected in his stats. He looked that bad to me. Now, watching the Indians this year, he looks very confident, very disciplined, he appears to feel as though he belongs, he's ready. And it's showing in his stats...

You can tell when a player is at the plate and he's thinking "please don't strike out, or hit into a double play. If I f*** this up they're gonna send me down", and you can tell when a player is thinking "I'm getting on base, and I don't care how, but I'm doing it".. Right now Bautista is thinking "Go ahead and pitch around me, but if you F*** up, I'm gonna hit the snot out of it."

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I pretty clearly stated the years Foster broke out. What about the 6 years in baseball prior to that?

He had 1 halfway decent season from 69' to 75' prior to his breakout year in '76.

Maybe Bautista is guilty, I don't know, but I'm not going to throw a guy under the bus without any evidence other then "he's doing really well right now".

Ben Oglivie is another guy who didn't develop a power swing until he was around 30 or so.

I think you missed the whole point re Foster, Dave. His "breakout" which might be considered similar to Bautista's Babe Ruth imitation was his 52 homerun year, and the point was that he, unlike our little Jose, didn't go from zero to hero. Instead, my point was that Foster demonstrated substantial talent for two years before that (he was 26, by the way, when he had his first good season, 23 HR, 78 RBI, .300, followed it up with another the next year, 29 HR, 121 RBI, .306), then had a year where obviously everything went right (52 HR, 149 RBI, .320). Bautista did not even remotely demonstrate substantial talent over the course of any full year before the 2010 season, when he came out of nowhere to hit 54 homers. Do you know how many players hit 54 or more homers before the steroid era? The answer is Ruth, Hack Wilson, Foxx, Kiner, Mantle, Maris and Greenberg. Unless this old post-50 brain-faded fan missed one somehow, THAT'S JUST SEVEN PLAYERS. NONE, REPEAT NONE, OF THEM CAME OUT OF NOWHERE TO DO SO. Please don't even think Hack Wilson--he won four homerun titles in five years up to and including his 56 homer campaign, losing out only by one to Hornsby's 40 one year earlier. And Maris had previously hit 28 for the Indians/A's in 1958 during a season he started at only 23 years of age; was on pace for a truly star-level season that went off-track only due to injury for the A's in
1959, causing his average to plummet below the over .300 pace with power he had maintained before the injury (although he and that season did stay intact long enough for him to make the all-star team in '59); and would have hit over 40 homers in 1960 but for injury (rather than the 39 he did hit in only 136 games, winning the MVP with 112 RBI's and a .283 average).

Even Oglivie didn't come out of nowhere when he hit his 41 homers in 1980 (and that's a long way from the 60-70 full-season pace Jose has been on since last May). He hit 15 in only 305 at bats in 1976 (which would have given him 29, had he maintained the same pace and gotten the same number of at bats--592--he had in that 41 HR season); hit 21 homers in 450 at bats (equal to approximately 28, had he had the 592 AB's of his big season) in 1977; hit 18 homeruns in 469 at bats with a .303 average in 1978; and 29 HR's in 514 AB with a .282 average in 1979.

By the way, the reason why you guys are having trouble coming up with an anywhere near comparable match to the inconceivable progression Bautista has demonstrated over the course of the last year and 40 or so games is because THERE IS NONE! It is amusing to watch, however, and I do think it demonstrates something noble in all of your characters, in that you are willing to believe the best about somebody, when the evidence (given, it is circumstantial in nature) is to the contrary. I've been wrong in the past (heck, I loved McGwire from '92-2000, and believed he was legit), and it is a veritable certainty I will be wrong again, probably often. But there is something very disturbing to me in the record of this player, in that it has never been remotely duplicated during the years between 1920 (the first 50+ homer season) and 1990, by which time a whole lot of nonsense had begun to occur.

Larry