Baseball's Lebron
by JustSomeName on Jun 8, 2009 1:38 PM PDT
53 comments
A little bit off topic, but since the Warriors aren't playing in the Finals, I thought I'd share this. I first saw this on Yahoo Sports and then again when my latest issue of Sports Illustrated came in the mail. His name is Bryce Harper, he's a 16 year old Catcher from Las Vegas. And he can already hit 500+ home runs, throw 95mph fastballs, has a faster bat speed than McGwire in his prime, and he's quick too. He's stolen home off wild pitches...from second base...six times this last season. When he was 12, he went to a tournament and went 12 for 12 with 11 home runs and a double at a 250 ft home run field. This kid is a prodigy and a hall of famer in the making. At first, I was very skeptical of his abilities and assumed he was taking steroids as early as high school, a la A-Rod. But after watching this mix tape of his, he looks like the real deal.
Here's the article:
Here's the mix tape:
Discuss.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
53 comments
Email
Print
Comments
who has him signed?
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Jun 8, 2009 1:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He’s still 16 and has 2 more years of high school baseball to play before he’s eligible for the draft.
WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...
by JustSomeName on Jun 8, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball’s LeBron (pitchers) = Tim Lincecum
Baseball’s LeBron (players) = Joe Mauer
Them’s my votes anyway…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 8, 2009 2:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+10000000000000000000000000000000000
But Greinke is starting to make me think I might need to find a way to watch a Royals game soon.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 8, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In a way, Lincecum is the anti-LeBron. Depending on how you look at things, of course, but I think there’s a widespread notion that LeBron is a physical freak of nature (absolutely true) whose technique can be a bit lacking (debatable). He can get by on sheer physicality, and has a body that can do things never seen before.
Whereas Lincecum is pretty small (5’11" or so) and thin as a rail, but he and his dad have come up with a delivery that is not only difficult to hit against but helps him add velocity and durability.
Of course, I’m probably over-thinking the whole thing.
by markdash on Jun 8, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that and he has an inspector gadget spine.
I swear that dude can double up on himself, his back is so flexible watching him pitch is like watching a cheetah run after a gazelle.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Jun 8, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wouldn't that make him lebron
he is lebron in an anti-lebron way. he is a physical freak of nature in the opposite way. he is tiny yet can generate so much velocity. he doesn’t ice his arm after starts, etc.
and his ‘technique’ was criticized a lot. people say his delivery is violent and when he was drafted, people thought it wouldn’t be repeatable and it would ruin his arm. its not a textbook delivery but its efficient. so he is the lebron in an anti-lebron way…
by gogoldenbears on Jun 9, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t like the Mauer comparison, because his best asset is being good while playing a position not many good players can play. Just comparing his raw hitting ability he doesn’t stack up with someone like Pujols.
by Missing Barry on Jun 8, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-1
1. Pujols is a good defensive player, but 1B defense (while underrated imo) is not nearly as valuable as a catcher. Defensively a catcher is very much the like PG and the C all rolled into one. The fact that Mauer is at least as good defensively as Pujols at a much, much more demanding position gives him a significant advantage over Pujols to begin with.
2. Mauer is 26, Pujols is “29.” Its unfair, but when a relative unknown, but very physically mature Latin American player bursts onto the scene at age 21 and proceeds to bat around .330, with close to 40 bombs in his first year I have my doubts about his age. Until proven otherwise, I’ll assume Pujols is actually 29 (which IS amazing, he’s been dominating for almost a decade and he’s not even 30) and is really just in the middle of his prime, but at 26, Mauer is just entering his prime.
3. So Pujols’ career averages look better right now, but wouldn’t you expect that when you compare a 29 year old to a 26 year old? If you compare this years stats (small sample size, but the most significant data available when comparing them) Mauer is better across the board.
Mauer-
ABs-122 BA-.410 OBP.-.497 SLG.-.795 HR-12 RBI-35 R-33
Pujols
ABs-192 BA-.333 OBP-.455 SLG.-.682 HR-18 RBI-51 R-44
Its very much a LeBron/Kobe debate as both guys are completely dominant. You could probably include the MLB’s versions of Dwight Howard (Evan Longoria) and Chris Paul (Hanley Ramirez) in the debate as well. But as a pretty big Twins fan (biased) Mauer just exudes a Roy Hobbes aura when he’s at the plate, you really feel like he’s going to get a hit no matter what the pitcher does. I don’t want to take anything away from Pujols, but its the kind of feeling I haven’t had since watching baseball’s MJ knock balls into the water.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 8, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
mauer needs to stay healthy for an extended stretch before we can call him the best position player in baseball. he’s a great player, but a great player who finds his way to the DL pretty frequently.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 8, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats true
you’ve probably seen quite of bit of this ridiculous hot streak he’s on, right?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually, not really. i can’t get excited about baseball this early in the season. i generally check in around mid to late june, sometimes early july depending on the year. i’m a basketball fan first and soccer fan second (if i could get decent tv coverage of the european leagues, i’d be so pleased. sadly, i don’t have the cash to shell out for fox soccer net). baseball is a distant third for me. i’m somewhere in between a casual fan and someone who actually knows what they’re talking about when it comes to baseball. that’s why i sort of avoided the only baseball discussion i remember seeing on this site.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 9, 2009 1:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m going to hold off on addressing the defense issue mostly because we haven’t figured out how to quantify C defense yet – you could be completely right in how much of a difference it is or completely wrong and I don’t think anyone right now really knows. Basically, I also think C defense is more important than 1B defense, I just have no idea how much of a difference it is.
As for offense – you’re completely wrong here. Pujols ia a monster (and I dislike Pujols but respect the truth) that’s head and shoulders above everyone right now. Based on OPS+, Mauers best full season to date was when he was 23 when he posted a .347/.429/.507 line for an OPS+ of 144. 44% better than league average for a 23 year old is incredibly impressive. When Pujols was 23, though, he posted a .359/.439/.667 for an OPS+ of 187. That’s 87% better than league average, absolutely ridiculous. Those 2 aren’t even comparable. Last year Pujols posted an OPS+ of 190 compared to Mauer’s 137. The only way there’s even a speck of an argument is if Mauer can keep up his hot start, but your argument is based on one third of one season and the Pujols side is based on any other timeframe you can come up with.
by Missing Barry on Jun 9, 2009 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way there’s even a speck of an argument is if Mauer can keep up his hot start, but your argument is based on one third of one season and the Pujols side is based on any other timeframe you can come up with.
Thats true, I think a lot of pro-Mauer people, like me, just feel like he’s finally put it all together. He’ll never match Pujols’ power, but I really believe he’s eventually gonna be the next guy to hit .400.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn't always drink beer
But when he does, he prefers Dos Equis.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Jun 8, 2009 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He also guns runners trying to steal from his knees, Benito Santiago style. I was totally skeptical too when I heard about the article coming out…….then I read it and was pretty blown away.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 8, 2009 2:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Baseball’s LeBron James was Ken Griffey, Jr. without the injuries.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 8, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh, talk about overrated. Let me know when Griffey breaks 1.000 OPS. Everyone liked Griffey’s swing because it looked nice, but the fact is it was long and had some holes in it (hence his K’s). The bottom line is Griffey doesn’t stack up to Bonds.
by Missing Barry on Jun 8, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, he did it four times (1993, 1994, 1996, and 1997).
I do agree that he was not Bonds’ equal, steroids or no.
by markdash on Jun 8, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I know he’s accomplished it. But my thinking is always comparing him to Bonds, and while Griffey did it 4 times in his whole career, Bonds did it 14 years in a row starting in 1992, and 15 of 16, with the one year he didn’t do it he posted a .999 OPS (so not counting it is basically a technicality).
Also, Bonds in his last year, at age 43, completely clean (this was at the point where the feds were all over him I don’t think anyone can make a reasonable argument he was on anything), posted an OPS higher than Griffey did in every year in his career except 1 – the strike season – so it wasn’t even a full season. Keep in mind Griffey was healthier than people give him credit for. His health record for the first 10 years of his career is actually incredibly impressive. And then he started using ’roids and getting hurt…
by Missing Barry on Jun 8, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Albert=Baseball’s Kobe minus the whole diva bit
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 8, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pujols may not be a diva who craves the spotlight every second, but every time I’ve seen him speak he’s come across as cocky as any other athlete I’ve ever seen.
by Missing Barry on Jun 9, 2009 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tough not to be when you’re that good.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball's LeBron was Babe Ruth
Dude did everything.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Jun 8, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
fat guy that played well against other fat guys
cool.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawk on Jun 8, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about “played twice as well as everyone else”? That’s more like it.
Babe Ruth is far and away the best baseball player in history. Trying to argue anything else is an exercise in futility.
by markdash on Jun 8, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a reasonable argument to be made he’s not on the basis of level of competition. Big fish small pond kind of thing.
by Missing Barry on Jun 8, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ignoring issues of "chemistry"
You could make an argument for Bonds over Ruth.
Ruth career OPS+: 207
Top five seasons: 256, 239, 239, 226, 225
10,616 total plate appearances
Bonds career OPS+: 182
Top five seasons: 268, 263, 259, 231, 205
12,606 total plate appearances
Bonds played longer and was slightly more dominant at his peak (His .609 OBP in 2004 still cracks me up). He could also run the bases (and presumably, run down balls in the OF) much better than Ruth. Ruth had a longer stretch of dominance and a bunch more rings (7-0 to be precise). He was also a dominant pitcher: career 94-46 2.28 ERA, including 3-0 0.80 ERA in the World Series, where he held the record for consecutive scoreless innings (29.7) for over 40 years.
Overall … I’d have to say Ruth, mostly because of the crazy pitching thing, but not by as wide a margin as many think. Bonds 2001-2004 was almost certainly the most dominant hitter who ever played the game.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 8, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, the exclusion of blacks and latinos from the bigs in the 10s, 20s and 30s is a big problem with Ruth’s records. But I have a hard time saying Bonds is better when it’s essentially a stone cold fact that he used PEDs. Now, I don’t want this to degenerate into a “pre-Robinson vs. Steroids” argument, but I’m pretty sure that going for those OPS numbers on the level against whites is more impressive than while cheating against everybody.
And I’ve been accused of being a Bonds apologist on more than one occasion.
by markdash on Jun 8, 2009 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“But I have a hard time saying Bonds is better when it’s essentially a stone cold fact that he used PEDs.”
There’s no proof of that! (There is an argument to be made that all the proof against Bonds is rubbish, but I’m really just joking around as I don’t want this to turn into a long conversation about that topic).
Anyways, my biggest problem with the whole thing is it’s such an apples vs. oranges situation. Comparing Ruth’s era to the modern era is….I don’t even know. It’s so hard to put it into modern context that I literally have no idea what level baseball to put it on. AA maybe? College? The competition level back then was so different that it actually makes the argument great, because there simply is no right answer. Everyone’s got an opinion, and most people have a pretty good argument to back their viewpoint, but there’s really just no way at all to compare Ruth vs. the modern era.
by Missing Barry on Jun 8, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
while cheating against everybody.
false
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 8, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you cheat against a cheater, are you still cheating?
(Hint: Yes.)
by markdash on Jun 8, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
there is absolutely no reason to suggest he was cheating against anyone til ’99. Your statement that he cheated against everybody is wrong on at least two counts.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 8, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it was in direct response to the poster who was comparing Bonds’ and Ruth’s best seasons. 4 of Bonds’ 5 best OPS seasons were 2001-2004, after he had begun using PEDs.
Also, would you have preferred I said that Bonds was cheating “anywhere from 20-75% of the league”? Because those are two estimates as to the extent of the use of the PEDs during that era.
Before we get too far down the road, let me say that I’m a big Giants fan and think Bonds should be a 1st ballot HOF because of his tremendous production from 1987-1998. But it’s rather obvious that his production took a big jump after he started using steroids, all when he was in his mid-to-late 30s when most players tend to be declining, not setting mind-boggling all-time records.
by markdash on Jun 8, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone has tried to black and white this issue into cheaters and non-cheaters, while ignoring the argument that there may not be evidence that Bonds “cheated” anyone.
My biggest question with regards to Babe Ruth – I don’t know what to do about the pitching aspect of him. I have tons of respect for what he accomplished on the mound, but once he became a hitter…sure he had great pitching ability but it’s not like he was using it, so do I really want to give him credit for anything more than the stats he put up pitching?
by Missing Barry on Jun 9, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t give him much credit for it. It’s kind of a novelty, more of a “did you know this guy pitched at first, too?” kind of thing. In terms of his standing among the all time greats, it’s a non-issue.
by markdash on Jun 9, 2009 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s kind of how I look at it, but at the same time, keep a couple of points in mind. 1 – the guy did start 148 games in his career and threw over 1200 innings with a career 122 ERA+ (including one year of 158 ERA+). So that’s not amazing, but it’s still noteworthy because that’s good production. To put it in perspective, his pitching career is better than Josh Beckett’s as of right now. They have almost the exact same number of innings while Ruth has a little bit better ERA+.
2 – every year he spent pitching was one less year he spent hitting. He started in the majors at age 19 (age 20 was his first “full time” year playing). His first 4 full seasons he spent pitching. His 5th season he did both, then he became a full time hitter. That’s lost production to what he could have accomplished.
While I don’t want to give him credit simply because he had the ability to pitch well (but wasn’t doing so), there’s still SOME credit that has to be given to his pitching career. The how part is figuring out how much we want to credit him for it.
by Missing Barry on Jun 9, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, he pitched more than I thought. I guess he should get some credit for it, a la Dennis Eckersley’s somewhat undistinguished career as a starter, before his truly impressive relief contributions.
by markdash on Jun 9, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ruth was shaq
im just going with the whole big guy thing… wasn’t ruth a big ladies man too?
by gogoldenbears on Jun 9, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only reason we all agree is cause we’re all Bay Area sports fans. Everyone outside of the Bay hates him. haha
WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...
by JustSomeName on Jun 8, 2009 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not really
minus some Dodger fans I’m embarrassed to call friends, pretty much every baseball fan around the country I know has a massive amount of respect for Bonds, and I don’t know anyone who didn’t make it a point to go watch him every chance they got. I think the media image of him as the most hate man to ever take the field is really just permeated by a self indulgent media machine.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 8, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
look at it this way
See the way most GSOM’ers hate Kobe?
Barry Bonds is hated 100x more than that by people outside of the Bay Area.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on Jun 9, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not even close man. Of the places I’ve lived and visited for a significant amount of time, the only place he even comes close to that kind of hatred among fans is in LA. In my experience, its much closer to the way people around here feel about A-Rod, but with a lot more respect.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 9, 2009 2:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
baseball talk on GSoM is pretty refreshing
its not as intense as AN or McCovey Chron and its a change of pace from draft & playoffs.
and re: harper, i’ve seen some of that stuff. dude is a beast. despite all this talk about other guys as “baseball’s lebron” i think that he is the equivalent of when lebron was in high school… as for pros, we’ll see…
by gogoldenbears on Jun 9, 2009 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
