Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2010, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,997,344 times
Reputation: 21237

Advertisements

Either of you have any thoughts with regard to an unusual aspect of Gwynn's career? I reference the fact that his five peak seasons took place between the ages of 33 and 37.

At age 27, Gwynn had hit .370 with a .958 OPS.
Then:
Age 28: .313 .787
Age 29: .336 .813
Age 30: .309 .772
Age 31: .317 .787
Age 32: .317 .786

Seems like a perfectly normal peak and introduction of decline.....but then:

Age 33: .358 .895
Age 34: .394 .1.022
Age 35: .368 .888
Age 36: .353 .842
Age 37: .372 .957

I guess because he wasn't hitting 50 homeruns all of a sudden, we overlooked Gwynn in the steroid suspicions, but the above is pretty hard to explain otherwise. Bonds suddenly jacked his game way up starting at age 35 and sustaining it through age 39 and we eventually learned what fueled this unprecedented performance leap at a time when ballplayers are typically declining.

Someone have an alternative explanation as to how Gwynn seemed to have found the fountain of youth at age 33?

Geez, Grandstander. Tony Gwynn? Mr. Padre? Smiling, easy to like Tony Gwynn? Taintless and incorruptable Tony Gwynn? Steroids?

Well, explain how he did what he did if it wasn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2010, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
27,798 posts, read 32,259,488 times
Reputation: 14611
One of the highlights of my sportsfan season was watching Ichiro in person at Tampa. Went to a couple of the games from the Rays-Mariners series. I knew that I was watching a future Baseball HofFamer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,290 posts, read 15,241,996 times
Reputation: 6658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Someone have an alternative explanation as to how Gwynn seemed to have found the fountain of youth at age 33?

Well, explain how he did what he did if it wasn't.
There is no way, statistically, to prove nor disprove if Gwynn took PED's.

There is this, make of it what you will
Tony Gwynn on steroid era: 'We're all guilty' - USATODAY.com

Quote:
"We're all guilty," said Gwynn, the keynote speaker Friday at the annual FanFest luncheon sponsored by the triple-A Iowa Cubs in Des Moines. "We all suspected and we're all guilty."

"I'm part of the steroids era," Gwynn said. "That's what people are going to think 50 years from now when they see my plaque at Cooperstown. I'm part of an era where performance-enhancing drugs were present."

Gwynn said he did not use any performance-enhancing substances during his career, which spanned from 1982 through 2001. Nor, Gwynn said, did any player admit to him that he used steroids during that time.
As for why did Gwynn improve, lots of possible reasons.

The first, is that he didn't improve nearly as much as your raw numbers would suggest.

Tony Gwynn's OPS+ (which compares Gwynn to average and adjusting for home stadium).



Now there is a clear dip between '90 and '93, but IF his OPS+ numbers those years had been near 140 there would be no dip.

So, maybe the question should be, what happened to Gwynn between '90 and '93.

One thing that stands out is Gwynn's stolen bases:
84 = 33
85 = 14
86 = 37
87 = 56
88 = 26
89 = 40
90 = 17
91 = 8
92 = 3
93 = 14
94 = 5
95 = 17

It is pretty well documented that Gwynn had very bad knees and Gwynn's stolen bases decreased drastically at that time.

Around that time Gwynn also had a decreased BABIP. Because Gwynn's game was so heavily BABIP influenced (he wasn't a power hitter, almost every at bat ended with a ball in play) his OPS+ closely follows his BABIP. I tried to see if Gwynn's decreased BABIP was the result of his decreased speed. This could be associated with a decrease in BABIP on ground balls.



The data is inconclusive. Part of the problem is that the Ball In Play data for that time is a bit inconsistent, also there is no BIP data prior to 1988.

Gwynn's use of video to analyze his swing is also well known. It's quite possible that Gwynn discovered something in his swing around 1994 that allowed him to increase his BABIP.

Is it possible that a change in swing could have that dramatic of an effect on a player?

No need to look farther than Jose Bautista this year

Did Gwynn take steroids? Only he knows if that answer is 'no'. Only a handful of people would likely know if that answer is 'yes'.

No amount of looking at his statistics can possibly determine the answer one way or another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,997,344 times
Reputation: 21237
filihok:
Quote:
No amount of looking at his statistics can possibly determine the answer one way or another
Certainly, but they can serve to raise suspicions and make for a starting point in considering the issue. Just as performance statistics alone do not serve as proof, we have also learned that denials of use do not close the case.
Quote:

The first, is that he didn't improve nearly as much as your raw numbers would suggest.

Tony Gwynn's OPS+ (which compares Gwynn to average and adjusting for home stadium)
Gwynn played his entire career in the same home stadium, so I do not see where any adjustments need to be made for that when examining his year to year performance changes. And OPS + may not be the appropriate measure to employ when the question is steroid use. If Gwynn's rise at age 33 seems less relative to the overall rise in offense, then all that may really be establishing is how widespread steroid use was rather than ameliorating suspicion about Tony.

A better employment of stats to investigate this might be a search for precedents. How many players have done what Gwynn did...establish a much higher level of performance at age 33 and sustain it for the next five years? I was looking at the most similar players to Gwynn by age and noticed that before age 33, his closest peers were all deadball era guys with whom I'm unfamilar, and after that they are all Hall of Famers.

I did a bit of poking around and discovered a few players who did indeed turn up the jets for several years after their expected primes had already passed. Then I noticed that they were all clustered in the same era and what was actually going on was the inflation of stats for guys who started in the deadball era and had passed the age of 30 as the '20's began and offense exploded for everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,290 posts, read 15,241,996 times
Reputation: 6658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
filihok:
Certainly, but they can serve to raise suspicions and make for a starting point in considering the issue. Just as performance statistics alone do not serve as proof, we have also learned that denials of use do not close the case.
Anyone who played during that era is under suspicion, as Gwynn said. Of course, if everyone is under suspicion, then what is the point of suspicion?

Quote:
Gwynn played his entire career in the same home stadium, so I do not see where any adjustments need to be made for that when examining his year to year performance changes.
...
Then I noticed that they were all clustered in the same era and what was actually going on was the inflation of stats for guys who started in the deadball era and had passed the age of 30 as the '20's began and offense exploded for everyone.
This is why OPS+ is a useful metric.

Quote:
And OPS + may not be the appropriate measure to employ when the question is steroid use. If Gwynn's rise at age 33 seems less relative to the overall rise in offense, then all that may really be establishing is how widespread steroid use was rather than ameliorating suspicion about Tony.
Of course this is true but see above about suspicion

Quote:
A better employment of stats to investigate this might be a search for precedents. How many players have done what Gwynn did...establish a much higher level of performance at age 33 and sustain it for the next five years? I was looking at the most similar players to Gwynn by age and noticed that before age 33, his closest peers were all deadball era guys with whom I'm unfamilar, and after that they are all Hall of Famers.
Selection bias. There are a lot more players playing at 27 to compare Gwynn to than there are at 37. And anyone still playing at 37 was probably a pretty good player. Also, not the decline in similarity scores
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,290 posts, read 15,241,996 times
Reputation: 6658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
On the list of the best career adjusted batting runs, Ichiro! has the 319th slot all to himself with 167. Among those who had between 165 and 170 career adjusted batting runs, you'll find:
Spoiler
Oscar Gamble
Willie Horton
Mickie Tettleton
Ken Boyer
Jason Thompson
Steve Garvey
Richie Hebner
and active players:
Chase Utley
Troy Glaus
Jason Bay


Utley and Bay are both 31 years old and will continue to compile. Ichiro! is 36.

In career win probability added, Ichiro's 18.17 zooms him up to the 196th spot all time.
Spoiler
#195 is Cliff Johnson
#197 is Kevin McReynolds
#193 is Jason Thompson
#194 is Tim Salmon
#198 is Pat Burrell

# 155 is Gene Tenace
# 127 is Amos Otis
# 119 is Toby Harah


Those guys, they are Ichiro's! peers. Are they underrated?
WPA and Batting runs are, as you alluded to, counting stats. Ichiro may be 36 but he didn't start in the MLB until he was 27. Utley had over 1000 at bats before his year 27 season, Bay had over 1500

Ichiro is overrated by most as a batter because of his high batting average. However his lack of power and ability to draw walks hurts his overall offensive value. He is an excellent defensive player and baserunner which add to his value.

According to B-R, Ichiro has 55 WAR in 10 seasons; 5.5 a season
According to Fangraphs, Ichiro has 51 WAR in 10 seasons; 5.1 a season.

There's a place for Ichiro in most teams' outfields.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2010, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Cook County
5,289 posts, read 7,452,112 times
Reputation: 3105
Gwynn really didn't walk that much at any point in his career. His performance in 1987 is an outlier, he walked 82 times. If you take 1987 he only walked 43.5 times per season over the 15 season average in which he played the vast majority of the games. That shows me that he was always exceptional at getting the bat on the ball.

I think the combination of sustaining a low strike out rate while not getting walked a lot goes to show he was just a supremely talented dude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2010, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,997,344 times
Reputation: 21237
Filihok:
Quote:
This is why OPS+ is a useful metric
More useful when changes to the game had a universal application. All of the players benefitted from the rule changes which went into effect in 1920 because everyone was now batting with clean baseballs rather than muck covered ones, and every batter received the same benefit from the outlawing of doctored pitches.

It is less useful when applied to changes which came about as a consequence of selected steroid use by some players. We do not know how many, thus the utility of comparing on a relative basis is diminished considerably.

The utility of any tool will always be relative to the specifics of the task.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2010, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,290 posts, read 15,241,996 times
Reputation: 6658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Filihok:
More useful when changes to the game had a universal application. All of the players benefitted from the rule changes which went into effect in 1920 because everyone was now batting with clean baseballs rather than muck covered ones, and every batter received the same benefit from the outlawing of doctored pitches.

It is less useful when applied to changes which came about as a consequence of selected steroid use by some players. We do not know how many, thus the utility of comparing on a relative basis is diminished considerably.

The utility of any tool will always be relative to the specifics of the task.
Of course. But, offense increased league wide around that time. Since we don't know how many players were using steroids at that time we don't know how much of that increase was due to steroids and how much was due to other factors. We do know that some of the steroid users were pitchers which wouldn't lead to an increase in offense (most likely).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2010, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,997,344 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Since we don't know how many players were using steroids at that time we don't know how much of that increase was due to steroids and how much was due to other factors. We do know that some of the steroid users were pitchers which wouldn't lead to an increase in offense (most likely).
You're right, and that is why I think I was, and remain, a lot angrier about the steroid age than most fans. The players just dropped their pants and left a huge turd of uncertainty on all the numbers generated in the '90's and early oughts. And it isn't a problem which is fixable..without knowing who used and how often, we will never know how to weight such numbers so that we may fix that generations players in their proper place relative to all who have played.

And it not a problem which is going away anytime soon, even if there currently is no more steroid use. Not only will their be more revelations about the past, but we will also be arguing about Hall worthiness for another couple of decades at least, right up until the last of this steroid generation's players have exhausted their eligibility. The McGwire voting in the two elections in which he has been eliigible was a warning shot of what is to come.

It was an especially infuriating offense for those of us who love not just the game, but the numbers associated with the game. It was the stats on the backs of bubblegum cards which first drew me to baseball. As far as I am concerned, Roger Maris still holds the single season homerun record and Aaron still holds the career mark. I still get the creeps when I think of all the praise which was heaped on McGwire for being so considerate of the Maris family when he was chasing and breaking the record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top