May 22, 2013

Who is Shyster?


Roll mouse over dates
Daily Posts
May 2013
S M T W T F S



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

Monthly Archives



Or you can search by:

Most Recent Comments

Shyster's Daily Circuit


Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Is David Ortiz simply old?

Bill Simmons has a theory on David Ortiz. I think it makes more sense than the PED-withdrawal thing people have been muttering about:

How many Latin players have been exposed for lying about their ages in the past few years? Hell, one of Papi's best friends -- Tejada -- was found to have cut two years off his birth certificate when he was 17, er, 19 … you get the point. Watching Papi flounder now, I'd believe he's really 36 or 37 (not 33) before I'd believe PEDs are responsible. In a recent game in Minnesota, he couldn't catch up to an 89 mph fastball. Repeat: 89 mph!

That's what happens to beefy sluggers on their way out: Their knees go, they stiffen up, bat speed slows and, in the blink of an eye, they're done. Beefy sluggers are like porn stars, wrestlers, NBA centers and trophy wives: When it goes, it goes. You know right away.

So that's my theory. I think he's old(er). You may think something else. Whatever the case, it's clear that David Ortiz no longer excels at baseball.

I still won't rule out some weird injury, and whether he's truly injured or not, I bet he spends a loooong stretch on the DL this year if for no other reason than they need to do something with him.

But it could easily be age. A lot of guys simply fall off a cliff at a certain age, and perhaps Ortiz finally just made it to the cliff.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 2:10pm


Comments

Jack said...

Vlad suffered a serious injury - obviously not the same as Ortiz’s awful first two months. Check out Vlad’s numbers from last year…looks like a “soft landing” instead of a “cliff dive” to me.

Posted 06/02  at  05:07 PM
Kevin S. said...

Interestingly enough, Vlad had his own age controversy this past offseason.

Posted 06/02  at  06:51 PM
soxrock23 said...

As a Boston fan, it sure is puzzling….Giambi was practically dead a couple years ago, but somehow rebounded to become semi-productive before departing NY. If I remember correctly, he went to the minors for a while before he got a grip. They might need to convince Ortiz to do the same.

Posted 06/02  at  09:47 PM
Kevin S. said...

Actually, Giambi refused a minors assignment, in ‘05 I believe.  He actually bounced back to being better than semi-productive, posting a 4.5 WAR season in ‘05, 3.6 in ‘06 and 2.3 in ‘08.  Certainly not the return on investment the Yanks were hoping for, but given that he was left off the postseason roster at the end of his third year in New York and suffered from a benign tumor, it was quite the turnaround.  Don’t know if Big Papi can do the same thing without them figuring out exactly what it is that’s wrong with him.

Posted 06/02  at  10:38 PM
Jack Marshall said...

At the age of 24, after hitting .303 with an OPS of .838 the previous year, Red Sox first baseman George Scott hit .171, with an OBA of .235 and a .237 slugging percentage in 350 at bats. He started in a slump and never came out of it. No injury was ever reported. No explanation ever materialized. If Boomer had been 33, writers would have said that he had gotten old. If it was 2009 and not 1968, some people would have said he had been on steroids. Scott bounced all the way back in a couple of years and ended up winning some home run titles.

The point is, sometimes strange things just happen, and the fact that they haven’t happened before or in the same way or to the same degree doesn’t prove, by itself, that something’s fishy. Anomolies exist, and Ortiz may simply be a super rare case of a player who just suddenly lost “it,’ whatever “it” is, at 33, and never found it again. Then the next time this happens, someone will say, well, it’s like what happened to David Ortiz.

Posted 06/03  at  01:09 AM
Jack Marshall said...

Correction—-George never won any home run titles. Careless mistake. Sorry.

Posted 06/03  at  01:12 AM
J. McCann said...

I don’t think it’s racist when you have this kind of history.

How many USA born players have been found to have lied about their age?  0

How many Dominican born players (with poor central computer records, and simple documentation) have been found to have lied about their age? somewhere between 10 to 100 (including minor leaguers)

Posted 06/03  at  11:52 AM
Joe Merrill said...

George Scott led the AL in homers in 1975.

Posted 06/03  at  12:13 PM
Jack Marshall said...

Thanks, Joe. Now I know I’m not crazy. Just sloppy at reading stat sheets.

Posted 06/03  at  12:16 PM
Jack said...

Of course nothing “fishy” can be proven without evidence…but we can make guesses based on what we know.  In this case, what would you say is more likely: Ortiz is this “super-rare” player that went from dominant offensive player to automatic out in 2 years….or something “fishy” (undisclosed injury, lied about age, PED’s) is the cause?

Posted 06/03  at  12:41 PM
Jack Marshall said...

I have no idea which is more likely. What happened to Steve Blass? Why did Steve Stone go from mediocrity to ace-for-a-year to mediocrity again? Do you have a theory about Scott? Have you ever seen anything like Cliff Lee from 2007 to 2008? Rich Gedman went from a top offensive catcher to a bum in one season: why? This happens in other fields all the time: a great writer suddenly has writer’s block. A great composer suddenly can’t come up with ideas, and nobody knows why. Brilliant talent is inherently mysterious, isn’t it? The “best” athletes are not always the most successful—-what is that “X-Factor’?  I’m just saying that “No reason we can identify” is just as likely an explanation as the ones you suggest.

Posted 06/03  at  01:11 PM
Jack said...

Blass - while we can’t explain why he lost the strike zone, we do know that other players have gotten the yips and never recovered (Ankiel, Sax, Macky Sasser).  At least he has company

Steve Stone - his ERA+ is pretty consistent all the way up until 1980 where he threw a ton of innings and predictably got hurt.

George Scott - my theory on Scott is that he had some sort of injury that was hiding, was never diagnosed, or simply wasn’t reported.  After all, it was 1968. 

Cliff Lee - Lee had shown flashes in the past.  It’s not uncommon for pitchers to finally master their command or whatever and show dramatic improvements.

Gedman - never was THAT good so his “decline” wasn’t all that steep. 

Saying “no reason we can identify” is a cop out. Multiple players from this era have fabricated their age and used PED’s - especially Latin players. Is it fair to lump Ortiz in with them without evidence? Of course not…but they are reasonable assumptions given his staggering and sudden decline.

Posted 06/03  at  03:19 PM
Jack Marshall said...

That seems to me to be using profiling over character. Everything we know about Ortiz is that he is an honest guy with integrity—-unlike Manny, unlike A-Rod, unlike Tejada, unlike Canseco. When the Dominican who’s been banned from clubhouses on steroid suspicions was being slammed in the press, Ortiz came right out and said that he trained in his facility and knew him as a straight guy. That’s gutsy and principled: he knew admitting his association would be used to impugn him, and defended the guy anyway. Ortiz’s demonstrated character should count for more than his ethnicity or body type when you’re looking for reasons. He’s earned the right to have lying and cheating put at the bottom of the list.

Re: Blass—he has company NOW. When it happened, nobody could find a comparison. Stone: that begs the question. He threw all those innings BECAUSE he was pitching like never before. Scott: good theory, but there’s zilch to support it. The Red Sox went over him carefully for injuries because they would have loved to disable him. Scott claims he was healthy. Lee: Again, begs the question. Most pitchers show “flashes,” but how many ever stunk so badly they were sent to the minors and then came back to win a Cy Young the next year? Gedman wasn’t great, maybe, but he was regarded as one of the top two catchers in the AL, he was young, and there were no injuries. Suddenly he was waiver fodder.

Posted 06/03  at  03:49 PM
Jack said...

Of course Ortiz defended Presinal.  What was he supposed to say, “I knew this guy was shadey but I worked out with him anyway”? It’s like the Jack Ryan’s advice to the president…“we’re not just friends…we’re GOOD friends”

For years Manny was portrayed as the fun loving/simple minded hitting savant who would never dabble in PED’s.  How’d that one work out?  Bottom line - many athletes and celebrities have well cultivated public images. Saying a guy his honest and has integrity just because he seems like a nice guy is a bit of stretch IMO.  And when you consider he was once suspended 10 games for throwing bats at an umpire, just how nice a guy he is up for debate. 

Blass - So you’re saying there was never a player in the history of professional baseball prior to him who suffered an unexplained mental breakdown that affected performance?  That’s quite an assumption…

Stone - maybe he was the original Cliff Lee…lol.  Regardless, his performance, while improved, was only half a run better than the year before in terms of ERA.  Not really a huge jump. Furthermore, it’s not like he became unhittable.  A 3.24 ERA in 1980 was only 7th best in the AL.  He went from ok to very good.  It’s not like he went from ok to great. 

Scott - just because they couldn’t find an injury doesn’t mean there wasn’t one. I have a feeling MLB training staffs circa 68 weren’t exactly hotbeds of cutting edge medical knowledge and treatment. 

Lee - Halladay was sent all the way to A-Ball after a solid stretch in the majors before he became a dominant ace.  Pitchers often don’t realize there full potential until after they’ve struggled for a few years or so. 

Gedman - again, he was never dominant.  He was pretty good…and then we wasn’t.  Not all that uncommon.

Posted 06/03  at  04:46 PM
Jack Marshall said...

If you say so. I don’t find any of those very persuasive rebuttals.

Nobody EVER has thought Manny Ramirez was trustworthy. He has reneged on commitments and lied his whole career. You can be cynical about character if you want, but media scrutiny usually—-not always but usually—-lets the phonies shine through and the good guys reveal themselves. Ortiz’s rep is not manufactured. He is genuinely respected across the game, and Manny has never been respected unless he had a bat in his hand.

Posted 06/03  at  05:46 PM
Jack said...

You don’t find them persuasive because they don’t jive with your “no reason we can identify” theory. Fact is, just about everything CAN be explained if you’re willing to look hard enough.

Regardless, your examples are by and large not even remotely similar to what Ortiz is going through. Saying he is struggling due to “no reason we can identify” conveniently allows you to ignore the possible (and likely) reasons for his demise….reasons that would shatter your image of him. 

Good luck with that…

Posted 06/04  at  01:51 PM
Jack Marshall said...

Don’t intentionally misunderstand me, please. Obviously, there are reasons for a sudden, major change in performance skill. They don’t have to be obvious, bright line reasons. Some people are older physically at 33 than others at 40. The most incremental physiological changes suddenly reach a threshold, and you no longer can turn on a fastball. Accumulated injuries and age change your mechanics sufficiently that what once worked does no longer. That’s a natural process, and one hell of a lot more logical and fair a diagnosis in the absence of more than attributing dishonesty to an individual who has shown no evidence that he would stoop to it.

Posted 06/04  at  02:06 PM
Page 2 of 2  <  1 2

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

     Next Post:  That oughta fix everything>> <<Previous Post:  Tiger Stadium's suffering is almost over