Davis didn't get bigger, he got better

[El Gordo]

LOL. Yes I'm idiotic. You point out nothing has changed with Davis but his K rate and this is the only factor. I point out you're wrong and I'm idiotic. So if nothing has changed but his approach/K rate, then why he is he hitting significantly more flyballs (as a percentage of hits) and signficantly more HR's per FB this season over last season?

Why is he making better contact? If nothing has change he'd only be making more contact not better contact. His inside the zone and outside the zone contact percentage is exactly the same as it was last year.

Davis tries to hit balls with backspin (which generate lift). He's doing a better job of not topping balls off this year than in the past. Instead of getting on top of balls (for grounders), it's likely he's getting under more than he has in the past.

I said the notion was idiotic. Sometimes even reasonably intelligent people can have an idiotic notion. If you wish to characterize yourself as idiotic I won't stand in your way. I never mentioned his K rate. This discussion is the context of the thread which raises the steroid question. My opinion is that the increase in HR, FB/HR rate is due do a change in his approach. That is: he is standing taller, keeping his head still, waiting on the pitch longer and taking more balls to LF. He has decreased his O swings and there for is making more contact and better contact. He has worked on drills with Pressley taking soft toss from third base line. He is using a heavier bat to slow his swing down. You say he is making better contact because he isn't topping as many balls this year. Isn't that like saying he is making better contact because he is making better contact?Is it your contention that there are other, more exogenous factors contributing to his increase in HR?

[crawjo]

If Chris Davis is juicing every single day and lying through his teeth to the fans and the media, he will still be a much better human being than Rick Reilly.

Oh, and if I had been Sammy Sosa in 2002 when he asked me to go with him to take a drug test, I would have urinated all over Reilly and then told him to drive to the clinic himself. Seriously, that guy represents all that is the very worst about sportswriters.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I said the notion was idiotic. Sometimes even reasonably intelligent people can have an idiotic notion. If you wish to characterize yourself as idiotic I won't stand in your way. I never mentioned his K rate. This discussion is the context of the thread which raises the steroid question. My opinion is that the increase in HR, FB/HR rate is due do a change in his approach. That is: he is standing taller, keeping his head still, waiting on the pitch longer and taking more balls to LF. He has decreased his O swings and there for is making more contact and better contact. He has worked on drills with Pressley taking soft toss from third base line. He is using a heavier bat to slow his swing down. You say he is making better contact because he isn't topping as many balls this year. Isn't that like saying he is making better contact because he is making better contact?Is it your contention that there are other, more exogenous factors contributing to his increase in HR?

Wow, for someone who is as consistently wrong as you are, you'd think you could do a better job of just accepting it. If calling me idiotic (oh wait, just my point) helps your self esteem, that's fine Gordo. Funny that you can't refute the idiotic point or answer simple questions and are now spinning. Trust me when I tell you that your act doesn't bother me and I'm fine with it helping you get through your day.

So, when you said "Davis is making more consistent contact" you really meant Davis is making better contact. I guess this has nothing to do with his K rate then and "nothing has changed with Davis" doesn't really mean nothing has changed. Pretty laughable for someone who prides himself on grammatical precision.

I said the difference in his contact rate is he's hitting significantly more flyballs (as a percentage of hits) and hitting significantly more flyballs for homeruns. That's not the same as your simplistic analysis of "he's making better contact and nothing has changed". It's an analysis for some of the reasons why he's hitting more flyballs (per batted ball) and more homeruns per flyball even though his in zone and out of zone contact rates are exactly the same as last year. A lower Oswing percentage would explain the K rate (which you never brought up I guess).

No, hitting balls with backspin does not necessarily mean better contact. Many hitting coaches advocate hitting balls with top spin. But if you have power, especially Davis type power, you'd probably want to hit more balls with backspin than topspin. Davis is doing a better job of that this year. Since backspin generates lift and you have to swing down on the ball to some extent, he's probably getting under more balls and hitting some percentage of higher flyballs this year and with lesser distance than last year. Many are going for HR's instead of the routine flyballs they'd be for a normal hitter.

Good chance RZ's observations are at least partly correct. Your analysis, as usual, has been pretty weak.

Please have the last word. Feel free to spin it and name call away as you like. Not like I'm expecting any critical analysis from you.

[blid]

I've always been a PED skeptic. In that I don't think they matter all that much in terms of player performance. Or at least, the effects are overblown in comparison to all other modern player advantages that no one questions (personal trainers, home gyms, protein shakes, whey, youtube videos on training, etc.). I didn't care that Bonds (what bothered me about Bonds was he decided being a one dimensional player was more valuable than being a 5 tool player) probably used, I didn't care that McGwire allegedly did either. It wouldn't bother me about Davis.

I see this has been discussed a bit to this point, but just to chime in, I really don't understand this opinion. It seems to be very common among smart people, but seriously? The effects are overblown? Look at Bonds's career. How are the effects "overblown"? He was always a HOF player but the increase in productivity that took place from his 36-year season through his 39-year season was otherworldly. He did not get that much better at that age through normal means, obviously, as he was proved to be on PED during that time. Again, PED are not what not made him an elite player, since he always was, but the improvement was extreme (and it wasn't just Bonds during that era). Also, it's absurd it bothered you he stopped being a "5 tool" player when he was in his late 30s and his knees were chronically injured and his OBP reached 60%. Seriously, his OBP was 60% and you're unhappy because he wasn't flashing 5 tools?

Now, as for Davis, he's been demonstrating this power his entire career. Strength and power were always huge strengths wit him, so if he's been using, he's probably been using for almost a decade. I personally find that doubtful and am rather confident he is clean (even though we can never know).

Also, Larry Bigbie, David Segui, and Jay Gibbons were linked to PEDs (with various levels of evidence IIRC). And yet, while they were here it didn't help us win any games and none of them even played at an All-Star level. If steroids were magic pills, why didn't the magic work with them?

Such a crappy strawman, lol. PEDs obviously don't make normal players into superstars, everyone knows that. It doesn't mean they don't have a very, very large effect on the game. Maybe the roids are what got these types of players from the minors into MLB? Or maybe the steroids didn't compliment their games as well as they did for certain other hitters. But again to refer to Bonds, he had barely scratched over 40 home runs in his earlier career, then hit 73. Maris's record that stood since 1961 suddenly got broken six times in a 3-year period. I mean... come on now, it takes a deep level of denial to insist that steroids don't have a big impact on the game.

[El Gordo]

I see this has been discussed a bit to this point, but just to chime in, I really don't understand this opinion. It seems to be very common among smart people, but seriously? The effects are overblown? Look at Bonds's career. How are the effects "overblown"? He was always a HOF player but the increase in productivity that took place from his 36-year season through his 39-year season was otherworldly. He did not get that much better at that age through normal means, obviously, as he was proved to be on PED during that time. Again, PED are not what not made him an elite player, since he always was, but the improvement was extreme (and it wasn't just Bonds during that era). Also, it's absurd it bothered you he stopped being a "5 tool" player when he was in his late 30s and his knees were chronically injured and his OBP reached 60%. Seriously, his OBP was 60% and you're unhappy because he wasn't flashing 5 tools?

Now, as for Davis, he's been demonstrating this power his entire career. Strength and power were always huge strengths wit him, so if he's been using, he's probably been using for almost a decade. I personally find that doubtful and am rather confident he is clean (even though we can never know).

Such a crappy strawman, lol. PEDs obviously don't make normal players into superstars, everyone knows that. It doesn't mean they don't have a very, very large effect on the game. Maybe the roids are what got these types of players from the minors into MLB? Or maybe the steroids didn't compliment their games as well as they did for certain other hitters. But again to refer to Bonds, he had barely scratched over 40 home runs in his earlier career, then hit 73. Maris's record that stood since 1961 suddenly got broken six times in a 3-year period. I mean... come on now, it takes a deep level of denial to insist that steroids don't have a big impact on the game.

You really ought to do a little research into PED's and their effects before you spout off. Just a simple point: before 1961 Maris averaged 30 HR per year(actually 1960 was the only year he hit more than 28) after 1961 he averaged 25(actually 1962 was the only year after that he hit more than 26). What do you suppose he was on those 3 years? No doubt PED's enhance performance but you are clueless as to how and to what degree they do. Here's and article by Nate Silver, no stranger to baseball and statistics, about just how much of an impact they have had on the game. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4845

[blid]

Roger Maris isn't relevant here, because I'm not using standout seasons for the purpose of speculating about steroid use at all. Everyone I'm talking about (the players who broke the home run record) is a confirmed steroid user already.

You made a Roger Maris reference and posted a link, but you didn't articulate anything about that link. Well, what do you think the article says, and how do you think it relates to my post? Because when I read that article, it says in the opening paragraphs that Bonds and Giambi "far outperformed reasonable expectations." It goes on to analyze "power spikes" in various eras, and see who may have been effected the most in the "Juiced" era (it finds players who hit home runs in the 15-20 range saw the most power spikes). It at no point says steroids did not effect hitters' output. It at no point says the feats of Bonds et al in particular were not steroid assisted, not does it attempt to statistically determine that.

You bolded my line about steroids having a "big impact" on the game. Well, that's subjective I suppose, but in my view, the previous home run record of 35+ years being shattered multiple times is a "big impact."