The Case Of Sammy Sosa

[TMoneyBags 0]

Now that Sammy Sosa has hit 600 homeruns, a lot of people are putting him before Mark McGwire, and proclaiming him Hall-Worthy. My question is, is he? Sure, 600 HRs is outstanding, but looking at the entire picture, should he be in the Hall of Fame? This isn't even a steroids issue. I'm just a little upset over the fact that because Sosa has that nice shiny 6-0-0, people are already putting him in the hall.Does the fact that Slammin' Sammy has more homeruns trump the fact that he has a lower OBP and SLG than Big Mac?

[Gimmee your chip 0]

Now that Sammy Sosa has hit 600 homeruns, a lot of people are putting him before Mark McGwire, and proclaiming him Hall-Worthy. My question is, is he? Sure, 600 HRs is outstanding, but looking at the entire picture, should he be in the Hall of Fame? This isn't even a steroids issue. I'm just a little upset over the fact that because Sosa has that nice shiny 6-0-0, people are already putting him in the hall.Does the fact that Slammin' Sammy has more homeruns trump the fact that he has a lower OBP and SLG than Big Mac?

Sammy and McGwire are forever linked together, in HR's and in suspected steriod use. The big difference is that Big mac is already eligible for the HOF and because of the suspected steroid use will not get in anytime soon. If Sammy plays another year or 2 then he will not be eligible until approx 2013, by then maybe the steroid scandal will be behind us and Sammy and Mac will get in. But there is no difference between 600+ HR's and 580 something. One day both will be in, but who knows when that will be.

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

Baseball people are so obsessed with the Hall of Fame and statistics.

[koolromeo 0]

sammy should be a first ballot hall of famer. 600 homers does mean more than 580. he's only the 5th player ever to hit 600. that means something. as long as he is never found guilty of using roids or hgh, he should be a 1st ballot hall of famer.

[Adaon 0]

Sammy is also the only player to hit 60+ home runs in more then one season. That alone is worthy of the hall of fame to me.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Listen, this shouldn't be an either/or thing.. McGuire was an insane home run hitter, for his entire career. If you look at his homeruns to at bats ratio, it's a joke. He just rarely was healthy for an entire season.. most seasons he'd missed serveral weeks with nagging ( steroid related?!?) injuries... Mac and Sosa should be no brainer HoFers .. it's absurd that the voters are holding unproven allegations of something that wasn't even against the rules against Sammy and Mac. These are the same writers who fell all over themselves to praise Sammy and Mac when their homerun chase "saved baseball" I mean, who the hell thought they didn't take 'roids during that season? People REALLY believed that Mac was just on Andro? LOL pah-leeze. I think people's HoF credentials should be based on how well they did during their era, compared to the other players of their era. And Mac sammy and Barry were THE best power hitters of the juiced ball era, and should be recognized as such in the HoF. They didn't just hit homeruns, they CRUSHED them video game style, hitting absolute monster shots. As for Sammy, people also forget he was a 5 tool stud before he got too juiced to play his position. He used to steal bases, and had a huge motor and a decent arm. The biggest knock against him was that he struck out alot. .and yeah, he did.. but when he hit the ball, the ball went a flyin'. If you leave guys like sammy and Mac out of the HoF, the Hall is a joke, period.

[Heels930 0]

5 players in the history of baseball have hit 600 home runs, enough said. He is a first ballot Hall of Famer. And for the record I do not think he even used steroids. People who take steroids don't cork their bats.

[telescop 0]

5 players in the history of baseball have hit 600 home runs, enough said. He is a first ballot Hall of Famer. And for the record I do not think he even used steroids. People who take steroids don't cork their bats.

Cheaters use steroids AND cork their bats.

[Snamuh 0]

Sammy is a Hall of famer. He was dominant for many years and was THE face of the Cubs for the late 90s and early 2000s. Being the 5th player in history to hit 600 home runs. He also is partially responsible for bringing a lot of excitement back to baseball with his chase along with Mark McGwire in 1998 and he consistently maintained his powerhouse status for years after. I also consider him innocent before proven guilty on the steroids issue.

[mrdannyg 274]

5 players in the history of baseball have hit 600 home runs, enough said. He is a first ballot Hall of Famer. And for the record I do not think he even used steroids. People who take steroids don't cork their bats.

This might be one of the most absurd things I ever read. I'm not sure what to point out first. The fact that he clearly took steroids? Your implication that he gets a pass for corking the bat, since you don't think he took steroids? Or the suggestion that people who cheat in one way would for some reason not cheat in a very similar, related way?I think the last point is the most absurd. Why would someone taking steroids not cork their bats? They're happy with 70 homeruns, but don't want 75?Sammy corked his bat, and he took steroids. He also hit 600 homeruns. Unless the Hall of Fame committee plans on going back and throwing out every other pillpopper, spitballer and juicemonkey, he should be in on the first ballot.

[TMoneyBags 0]

I just want to thank dannyg for pointing out the idiocy of Heels post before I had a chance. Also, I realize it shouldn't be an either or decision. I just got upset over the fact that everyone was putting Sammy in the Hall as soon as he hit his 600th HR, whereas many people have already decided that McGwire should be left out. At the beginning of the season, 20.4% of BBWA voters said that that they would put Sammy in the Hall. I can guarantee you that by coming back, and being a pretty average player while padding his HR numbers, he has got a significant increase in that 20.4% just because its a nice shiny 6-0-0. That's what I am upset about. Obtaining the arbitrary benchmark and instantly obtaining a significantly higher status. Perhaps in the future we will look back and notice the 17 HRs that kept Big Mac from the 600 HR Club and the Hall-of-Fame, like those 13 Wins kept Bert Blyleven from the 300 Win Club.

[MDXS 0]

Hall of Fame voters love those shiny numbers. That'll be part of the reason why he does better in his first Hall of Fame ballot than McGwire. Also, McGwire was the first true specimen from the steroid era and the voters wanted to make an example of them. Five years from now, that righteous anger should wane a bit. If McGwire gets elected before Sosa comes up, then Sosa should sail right in.I'd take McGwire before Sosa, personally.

[timwakefield 68]

Sammy is also the only player to hit 60+ home runs in more then one season. That alone is worthy of the hall of fame to me.

Just want to point out that McGwire shares this dubious distinction with Sammy (dubious because of the accusations against both of them). McGwire hit 70 in '98 and 65 in '99. Sammy is however the only player ever to hit 60+ in 3 seasons. I'll probably write a longer response regarding the steroid/HOF issue later.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Does innocent until proven guilty not apply in sports?

[aadams_22 3]

Now that Sammy Sosa has hit 600 homeruns, a lot of people are putting him before Mark McGwire, and proclaiming him Hall-Worthy. My question is, is he? Sure, 600 HRs is outstanding, but looking at the entire picture, should he be in the Hall of Fame? This isn't even a steroids issue. I'm just a little upset over the fact that because Sosa has that nice shiny 6-0-0, people are already putting him in the hall.Does the fact that Slammin' Sammy has more homeruns trump the fact that he has a lower OBP and SLG than Big Mac?

I put him in because he is in a class that only includes four other players...Aaron, Bonds, Ruth, and Mays. That is very elite company. Also OBP is a great tool when evaluating your top of the order guys, but is pretty much useless when it comes to evaluating sluggers. You want your sluggers to drive in runs, not just get on base. If there are two runners on base and the slugger hits a single that didn't garner an RBI, then the slugger didn't do his job. I'd rather the slugger get those runs across the plate even if it means sacrificing his AB and getting an out. RBI's are a better indicator here and Sosa holds a sizable advantage over McGwire in that department.

[TMoneyBags 0]

OBP is a great tool when evaluating your top of the order guys, but is pretty much useless when it comes to evaluating sluggers.

I think that you make a fair argument, but that statement is pretty ignorant. But the fact that Sammy has more RsBI is due to him getting 2500 more ABs and not because Sammy was a better RsBI guy. I suppose you can knock Mac for being an unhealthy guy.

[aadams_22 3]

I think that you make a fair argument, but that statement is pretty ignorant.

you may think it's ignorant, but it is a true statementYou can ask any baseball expert with an ounce of common sense, and they will say the same thing. Run production takes precedent over OBP when it comes to sluggers. A slugger that reaches base without the runners scoring didn't do his job, and is now at the mercy of the next hitter in the lineup. If that batter ends the inning on the next AB then the slugger getting on base was wasted. The raising of the OBP didn't do all that much good now did it? He needs to drive in runs in any way possible...plain and simple.

[mrdannyg 274]

Does innocent until proven guilty not apply in sports?

innocent until proven guilty is only applicable to cases where there are fair trials.most experts would probably agree that someone taking any care could've avoided steroid tests during the years in question, and many players likely did.these players were not subjected to fair trials, so they had no opportunity to be 'proven' guilty. except for sammy, where the proof was sprayed all over the field after a broken bat. in an informal trial, they are guilty. not because we want scapegoats, but because they grew unnaturally enormous in a very short period of time.

[digitalmonkey 929]

innocent until proven guilty is only applicable to cases where there are fair trials.most experts would probably agree that someone taking any care could've avoided steroid tests during the years in question, and many players likely did.these players were not subjected to fair trials, so they had no opportunity to be 'proven' guilty. except for sammy, where the proof was sprayed all over the field after a broken bat. in an informal trial, they are guilty. not because we want scapegoats, but because they grew unnaturally enormous in a very short period of time.

But it doesn't take steroids to grow unnaturally enormous in a very short period of time. Some of the supplements such as Creatine weren't illegal as far as I know.

[MDXS 0]

you may think it's ignorant, but it is a true statementYou can ask any baseball expert with an ounce of common sense, and they will say the same thing. Run production takes precedent over OBP when it comes to sluggers. A slugger that reaches base without the runners scoring didn't do his job, and is now at the mercy of the next hitter in the lineup. If that batter ends the inning on the next AB then the slugger getting on base was wasted. The raising of the OBP didn't do all that much good now did it? He needs to drive in runs in any way possible...plain and simple.

Lots of baseball experts would disagree with what you're saying because it doesn't totally add up. Higher OBP means getting on base more in those situations when people are on. Not making outs is a good thing. Yes there'll be times when there's a runner on second and a slugger will walk to get to a weaker hitter, just as there will be times when the slugger swings at ball four and turns a good situation into a killed rally. OBP is all about expected value. In your specific example, the OBP didn't do any good, right? Do you fold a flush draw getting 6-1 odds? Getting on base increases the runs you'll get. Being on base is a good thing. To a certain extent though, you are right. Your worst hitting taking a walk helps more than your best hitter taking a walk, but I think you're overestimating this effect. I'm not a fan of RBIs. You can completely suck *** and get a lot of RBIs. Buckner drove in 100+ in 1986. It had less to do with being good than having Dwight Evans and Wade Boggs always on base in front of him. A competent hitter - like say, a Dustin Pedroia would knock in 100 hitting behind those guys. A Kevin Youkilis would be a candidate for 120. Ruben Sierra knocked in 101 in 1993. He didn't even slug .400. He didn't even get on base 30% of the time. He was worse than Melky Cabrera is this year. How can you trust a luck-dependent stat like that? It's not offense-adjusted. It doesn't take into account RBI opportunities. It just doesn't tell you much at all when you get down to it.So why not use something like OPS? It's simple to find, it balances getting on base with power hitting, and it's easy to normalize across eras. A 130 OPS+ means the same thing in 1968 when Yastrzemski led the league with a .301 batting average as it does in 1930, when the National League average was .303. In 1930, 11 players in the National League alone knocked in 119 or more runs. In 1968, the Major League leader knocked in 109. It you go by batting average or RBIs alone, you'd be forced to conclude that hitters were awesome in 1930 and sucked in 1968 or that the pitchers sucked in 1930 and were amazing in 1968. Neither would be the case.This argument ties into the whole steroids thing as well. Steroids are not the only reason why home runs totals are so high. Watered-down pitching, smaller ballparks, bats being made differently than before. Perhaps the balls are different than they were. Changes in batting philosophies have an impact. Better nutrition through natural means also has an impact. Sosa, McGwire, and a number of other players are getting penalized for being in the right place at the right time. Moneybags is spot on about Sosa's large AB advantage for RBIs. McGwire RBI rate is much more impressive.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

But it doesn't take steroids to grow unnaturally enormous in a very short period of time. Some of the supplements such as Creatine weren't illegal as far as I know.

So you're saying, if we could go to a God-Cam, and instantly see if they did or didn't take steroids, you'd bet on "didn't take?" If so, I better get to work on a God-Cam...

[mrdannyg 274]

But it doesn't take steroids to grow unnaturally enormous in a very short period of time. Some of the supplements such as Creatine weren't illegal as far as I know.

true. frankly, i haven't decided where i stand on the whole creatine/andro, etc point. doesn't really matter since i think both should go in the Hall.

[digitalmonkey 929]

So you're saying, if we could go to a God-Cam, and instantly see if they did or didn't take steroids, you'd bet on "didn't take?" If so, I better get to work on a God-Cam...

No, I'm saying that it has not been proven that they used steroids. Denying something like the hall of fame from someone because you think something may be crossing the line, but maybe that's just me...I think Pete Rose should be in the HOF.

[MDXS 0]

For those familiar with this metric...and a link for those who aren't...EQAF. Thomas .342Mantle .340McGwire .336F. Robinson .324Bagwell .323Will Clark .314 (underrated on this site...and in this thread, I think)Kevin Mitchell .312Palmeiro .308Killebrew .307Canseco .306C. Fielder .294Sosa .294Banks .288Murphy .287Deer .279Kingman .276The names I chose were just players that come to mind, either for the type of hitter or contemporaries. What I take from this is that McGwire is in some elite company, Frank Thomas is a lock and a half, Bagwell could likely get the shaft, and that Sosa's pretty home run total may be less valuable than previously thought due to the contexts of his times. Sosa's .294 is better than Fielder's because of how many more at-bats he's gotten. His .294 is worse than Banks' .288 because Banks played a more vital position for long enough to make up the 6 point difference. So this doesn't tell the whole story, but it's good for context. And just because they're so ridiculous:Ruth .368Williams .364

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

No, I'm saying that it has not been proven that they used steroids. Denying something like the hall of fame from someone because you think something may be crossing the line, but maybe that's just me...I think Pete Rose should be in the HOF.

And I'm saying A) I think they used steroids and B) They should still be in the hall of fame. I think it would be extraordinarily naive to think that Mac or Sosa didn't use steroids, I think you're a plain sucker to think they didn't. I would say the odds on mac not using steroids (or HGH) to be in about the 1-200 range.. If I am that convinced Mac used steroids, through visual evidence, and his "No comment" performance in DC, then I think I can absolutely act on those beliefs, if I felt that using steroids should keep Mac out of the HoF.. but I don't.. I think he was one of a legion of players that used performance enhancing drugs during that era, and he was the premier power hitter of that era. Does it "dilute" the other records? I guess, but people value records in baseball too much anyway.. one era only had white ball players, another era had a higher mound, another era used different balls, and on and on and on.. there's so many differences in eras, that I don't think people should freak out so much about the "steroid" records.. like it or not, it's part of baseball history and the players that excelled during that era should be in the HoF, no question.Baseball is using such a witch hunt now, making bonds a villain, threatening to suspend Giambi.. it's such a complete joke... baseball needed the steroid era to survive the damage done to the game by the strike, but now they are spitting on the very people who were the games saviors a few years ago. Hyp-O-Crits