Sammy Sosa

[Lindseynelson]

Like it or not.Sosa was a phenominal hitter.
He averaged 60 hrs over a 5 year span.
He ah the heck with it.
he was a baseball giant who'll be forgotten by a biased crowd./
Thanks Sammy ,GOD Bless

[GiambiJuice]

While we're at it let's honor Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson as great singers.

[grey eagle]

Like it or not.Sosa was a phenominal hitter.
He averaged 60 hrs over a 5 year span.
He ah the heck with it.
he was a baseball giant who'll be forgotten by a biased crowd./
Thanks Sammy ,GOD Bless
Like it or not, Sammy has a tainted hitting record and wasn't really that phenomenal.
Like it or not, Sammy is a giant only by homers like yourself.
Like it or not, you're the one who seems to be coming across as biased.

[Ubiquitous]

Wasn't really that phenomenal? What does it take to be phenomenal then? He had a 4 year span in which he hit 243 homers, had a line of .310/.396/.662, and 597 RBI.

Those were great seasons. He also had probably 5 seasons in which he was very good, and two season that were good.

[candy curveball cummings]

Wasn't really that phenomenal? What does it take to be phenomenal then? He had a 4 year span in which he hit 243 homers, had a line of .310/.396/.662, and 597 RBI.

Those were great seasons. He also had probably 5 seasons in which he was very good, and two season that were good.

Agreed. In the 5-year span of 1998-2002, he led the league in Home runs twice. He hit 60+ in the each of the three years he didn't lead the league. You can argue he cheated, but I don't see how you can argue that he was great. If there was no corked bat incident and there were no allegations of steriod use, Sammy Sosa would be remembered as a phenomenal player. But we don't live in that world.

[grey eagle]

Wasn't really that phenomenal? What does it take to be phenomenal then? He had a 4 year span in which he hit 243 homers, had a line of .310/.396/.662, and 597 RBI.

Those were great seasons. He also had probably 5 seasons in which he was very good, and two season that were good.
I'm not saying those aren't great numbers in that stretch, but a)the apparent (at least to me) dishonest way in which he came by them, b)the evidence showing me that other players have had better, truly phenomenal peaks, and c)the evidence that he was nowhere near the offensive player outside of that run (before or after) leads me to conclude that he was NOT really a phenomenal hitter. JMHO

[KCGHOST]

His career is more than his monster peak 7 year peak. The remaining ten years he was a medicore to below average player. He certainly doesn't score any points as a defender. His career WARP3 of 103.5 is good but not special. It clearly indicates his problems as a defender and as an out generator.

[Ubiquitous]

10 years of mediocre to below average play? Let me see if I can find those seasons.

Okay we have his rookie season in which he plays 58 games as a 20 year old. I guess you could count that as a season and then call it mediocre. Though I don't think it means much. It was his rookie season and he got 183 at bats.

I'll give you 1990 and 1991. 1992 I guess you could call it a season though because of injuries he only played 67 games.

So now we come to 1993. Sammy Sosa in 1993 was not mediocre, he was not below average. He was a RF/CF with pop and speed.

1994 he clearly wasn't.

1995 all the way to 2004 he clearly wasn't.

2005? Yep he was mediocre.

So that comes to 3 full seasons of mediocre to below average play, and two partial seasons, one being his rookie season. The guy had 12 seasons of above average to great seasons and 3 bad ones. Most players even the great ones have similar careers.

[DoubleX]

Since we cannot just erase all the numbers put up in the past 15-20 years, especially since we don't know who did what, when, for how long, and how it helped, I've just, with much discomfort and disappointment, accepted the reality of steroids use in baseball. As we've come to learn that players of all kinds (pitchers, skinny OFers that rely on speed, power hitters), I've come to suspect virtually all players in the last 15 years. So accepting this reality, I've tried to put the accomplishments of this period in perspective. If a good percentage of the league was juicing (and my opinion is that a very large percentage way), then how come there weren't players on all teams hitting 50 and 60 homeruns each year? It's just not how it works. At some level, talent has to be factored in. There is a reason why Sosa, and Sosa alone was able to hit that many homeruns in a 5 year stretch; same with the things Bonds and McGwire did.

Now I'm not trying to condone their alleged conduct, nor am I saying that the numbers should be treated as legitimate. I'm just trying to put them in perspective of their own time and giving the players at least some credit for standing out as they did. So I look at Sosa, and for purposes of putting him into historical perspective, instead of seeing a guy who averaged like 60 homeruns for 5 years, I look at that as more on the scale of averaging 40 homeruns for 5 years - yeah, that's a subjective way to go about it, but it at least helps me find a way to rank these players. For me, that puts Sosa in around the 12-14 category all time in RF. Bonds, is usually pretty firm at no. 2 in LF (a few years ago, I had him no. 1); and McGwire in the 10-12 range at 1B.

[Myankee4life]

Agreed, Sosa seems to be getting a bad rap with no proof whatsoever..

LONG LIVE SLAMMIN SAMMY!

[538280]

Ubiquitous, I'm surprised someone with such statistical roots would consider Sammy a good player before 1998. 1994-1997 was NOT a great stetch. He was a nothing special defenisve OFer with a nothing special BA (outside of one .300 year), was a big outmaker with a horrible OBP, and while he did have some very good power, he was doing this in a huge power era. His power was nothing more than good in this stretch. His OPS+ prior to 1998 was 106. Do you really think this is a good player? I might call him above average but even if he was that it was VERY slightly and only because of his durability and speed.

I do support him for the HOF though. We have no hard proof and steroids don't really bother me anyway.

[Myankee4life]

Sosa is considered one of the greatest defensive RF's of all-time according to Matt's PCA...

Who ever doesnt consider Sosa's 1998-2002 run nothing short of great is clueless.

[Ubiquitous]

Ubiquitous, I'm surprised someone with such statistical roots would consider Sammy a good player before 1998. 1994-1997 was NOT a great stetch. He was a nothing special defenisve OFer with a nothing special BA (outside of one .300 year), was a big outmaker with a horrible OBP, and while he did have some very good power, he was doing this in a huge power era. His power was nothing more than good in this stretch. His OPS+ prior to 1998 was 106. Do you really think this is a good player? I might call him above average but even if he was that it was VERY slightly and only because of his durability and speed.

I do support him for the HOF though. We have no hard proof and steroids don't really bother me anyway.

Okay where did I call 1994 to 1997 great?

You are wrong about his OBP, except for one year in that stretch it wasn't horrible. And yes I do think somebody whose OPS+ was that high is a good player.

1994: 127
1995: 123
1996: 128
1997: 99

[Ubiquitous]

Sosa is considered one of the greatest defensive RF's of all-time according to Matt's PCA...




Wait what?

[flea45]

While i have next to now doubt that Sammy, McGwire Bonds and Co. are drug cheats, i do have to say that hitting homeruns is not just about being buff and sticking needles in you. It does involve a fundamentaally sounds swing and VERY good hand eye co-ord. So while i do think that this was an era of cheaters (and i really do believe steroid use is on a steady decline) i do believe that guys like Sammy should be given SOME credit....not 580-odd home runs credit, but definately credit.

[grey eagle]

Sosa is considered one of the greatest defensive RF's of all-time according to Matt's PCA...

Who ever doesnt consider Sosa's 1998-2002 run nothing short of great is clueless.
It's great if you take it face value, but it doesn't make him a "phenomenal" hitter - as the original poster asserted. You've got to be pretty darn good throughout your career to be phenomenal, in my book.

Matt's PCA is a strong effort, but it certainly isn't flawless. IMO, it's fairly clear that Sosa was not one of the greatest RF's.

[538280]

Okay where did I call 1994 to 1997 great?

You are wrong about his OBP, except for one year in that stretch it wasn't horrible. And yes I do think somebody whose OPS+ was that high is a good player.

1994: 127
1995: 123
1996: 128
1997: 99

1997 he was a below average player. 1994-1996 he was good, but he certainly wasn't great. Before 1994 he was below average. So how does this make him a "very good" player before 1998?

[538280]

Who ever doesnt consider Sosa's 1998-2002 run nothing short of great is clueless.

It's great. It's not even close to one of the greatest runs of all time. 2001 was a pretty awesome season on a historical level. The other ones, not so much. 1999 wasn't any better a season than is posted every year by probably 20-25 players.

[Ubiquitous]

Okay who had better 5 year runs then that? We are talking about a stat line of .306/.397/.649, with 292 home runs. That .649 would rank him 90th in single season SLG and that was a 5 year average.

Barry Bonds? Okay
Ted Williams? Okay
Babe Ruth? Okay

So what is your definition of not even close to the greatest run? How many runs does one have to find or not find?

[KCGHOST]

10 years of mediocre to below average play? Let me see if I can find those seasons.


Mediocre is simply another word for average or there abouts. By my count that 1989-1997 plus 2004-5. That's eleven. I agree that maybe the word "mediocre" may be a little harsh for 1994-1996. That is until you factor in his defensive "value".

[Ubiquitous]

I know what mediocre means and he wasn't average in 1993 and on except for 1997 in which he was probably average. 2004 was not average.

[Bench 5]

Okay who had better 5 year runs then that? We are talking about a stat line of .306/.397/.649, with 292 home runs. That .649 would rank him 90th in single season SLG and that was a 5 year average.

Barry Bonds? Okay
Ted Williams? Okay
Babe Ruth? Okay

So what is your definition of not even close to the greatest run? How many runs does one have to find or not find?

I agree with Ubi that his 5 year run was one of the greatest in history. He led the league in runs scored 3 of the 5 years and RBI two of the 5 years. He also had over 400 total bases twice and averaged 390. I think he was a much better defensive player earlier in his career. When he bulked up he lost some speed and flexibility. But there's no denying that he was an all-time great during this stretch.

Prior to 1998 I think he was a good player. He was fast and had a good arm. When he came up with the Sox I don't think anyone envisioned that he would come close to the stats he put up. I think everyone hoped that he would become a player in the mold of Roberto Clemente.

Yes I think that he was a steroid user without any doubt in my mind. He also wasn't a smart player in many respects. I have conflicting feelings for the guy because he owned the town for several years and just like that - he became a pariah. He always hustled and played through injuries so I respect him for that.

[Lindseynelson]

While we're at it let's honor Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson as great singers.
What a foolish analogy.
Anyone throw a mic at 90 plus on juice at them?
The guy put the bat on the ball better than his peers.

[grey eagle]

Okay who had better 5 year runs then that? We are talking about a stat line of .306/.397/.649, with 292 home runs. That .649 would rank him 90th in single season SLG and that was a 5 year average.

Barry Bonds? Okay
Ted Williams? Okay
Babe Ruth? Okay

So what is your definition of not even close to the greatest run? How many runs does one have to find or not find?
Sosa's yearly OPS+ figures from 1998 - 2002 are 160, 141, 169, 201, and 160. This averages out to 166 - which is great, but not among the very greatest (as in top 5 or top 10 - which is normally my standard)

Here are some others who had better runs, IMO:

Rogers Hornsby, 1921 - 25: average OPS+ was 203
Ty Cobb: 1909 - 13: average OPS+ was 198
Lou Gehrig, 1927 - 31: average OPS+ was 196
Mickey Mantle, 1955 - 59: average OPS+ was 192
Mark McGwire, 1995 - 1999: average OPS+ was 190
Jimmie Foxx: 1932 - 36: average OPS+ was 186
Honus Wagner: 1904 - 08: average OPS+ was 184
Frank Thomas: 1993 - 1997: average OPS + was 183
Stan Musial: 1948- 52: average OPS+ was 178
Joe Jackson: 1911 - 15: average OPS+ was 178
Ed Delahanty: 1895 - 99: average OPS+ was 177
Albert Pujols: 2002 -2006: average OPS + in the low 170's

Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Tris Speaker, and Ralph Kiner also had a higher average OPS+ in their respective 5-year runs. So I'd say that Sosa's run is probably ranks in the top 20 - just taking hitting into account. Depending on one's definition of greatest, I guess it could be considered that. When you take defense and baserunning into account, though - he definitely slides out of the top 20 and is probably in the 30's or 40's.

[Ubiquitous]

Well if we adjust for things we can practically remove anybodies career or stretch of seasons. We can adjust for eras, for leagues, for parks, for quality of pitchers, so on and so on.


Do I think it is the greatest run? No but I do think it was a great run. Which makes this about what is ones definition of great. To some being great means top 5 or top 10 others it means top 50 and so on. I remember awhile back here we got into a debate about Reggie Jackson and whether or not he was great. It came do some thinking that greatness was top 5 while others believed greatness could be top 50 or so.

I personally think Sosa's stretch makes him one of the top 20 or 25 greatest players to have a stretch that good or better. I don't think his defense was that bad or others that good that it would knock him 15 to 25 spots on the list.

[grey eagle]

Well if we adjust for things we can practically remove anybodies career or stretch of seasons. We can adjust for eras, for leagues, for parks, for quality of pitchers, so on and so on.


Do I think it is the greatest run? No but I do think it was a great run. Which makes this about what is ones definition of great. To some being great means top 5 or top 10 others it means top 50 and so on. I remember awhile back here we got into a debate about Reggie Jackson and whether or not he was great. It came do some thinking that greatness was top 5 while others believed greatness could be top 50 or so.

I personally think Sosa's stretch makes him one of the top 20 or 25 greatest players to have a stretch that good or better. I don't think his defense was that bad or others that good that it would knock him 15 to 25 spots on the list.
Well, I think an adjusting for league/park is valid. I wouldn't say they ever "remove" someone's career. It might move it up or down some, or not at all. There are many ingredients that comprise the science of comparing players. As I said, I agree his run was great. I just don't agree with the original premise of this thread...that he was a phenomenal hitter. He was a great hitter for about 5 years.

[538280]

Okay who had better 5 year runs then that? We are talking about a stat line of .306/.397/.649, with 292 home runs. That .649 would rank him 90th in single season SLG and that was a 5 year average.

Barry Bonds? Okay
Ted Williams? Okay
Babe Ruth? Okay

So what is your definition of not even close to the greatest run? How many runs does one have to find or not find?

Sammy Sosa from 1998-2002 like you said hit .306/.397/.649. Those are awesome numbers, but he was playing in one of the biggest offensive eras of all time and in a big hitter's park. The averages were .269/.342/.433. That means Sammy over those years had a 166 OPS+. That's great, but it's not Ruth/Williams/Bonds great (those guys easily are higher than that over their careers), and at that point in his career Sosa had lost his defensive prowess and he was no longer fast at all. 166 OPS+ over a five year stretch is great, but from a nothing special defensive or running corner OFer it's just not one of the top 20 or so runs in history.

1998-2002 Sosa had 160 Win Shares (35 in 1998, 26 in '99, 30 in '00, 42 in '01, 27 in '02). 160 Win Shares is great, but it's just nowhere near where you seem to be putting him. If I were to guess it's probably around 50th or so all time. Sosa was an awesome hitter those years, but he's just not nearly on the top 20 or so all time plateau when you adjust for context, and he was not the fielder/runner he had been when he was younger. 2001 was a truly awesome season, certainly a historic offensive season. None of the other ones truly were.

[GiambiJuice]

What a foolish analogy.
Anyone throw a mic at 90 plus on juice at them?
The guy put the bat on the ball better than his peers.

I was pointing out the fact that he was a cheater, not saying he wasn't great. Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson were both caught lip-synching on stage, hence the analogy.

[538280]

Here's a question for you guys:

If Sammy Sosa did not have the huge upturn in production in 1998 (most likely due to steroids), would he have made the HOF? Now, it is obvioius from a real value standpoint he wouldn't have been deserving, but this guy was hitting quite a few HRs, 207 to that point and coming right off his best HR years. It is at least forseeable, that if he was a regular until, say, 35, that he could have gotten close to 500 HRs. Considering he also stole a lot of bases and was good defensively, do you think the writers could have voted him in? I sure hope not, his OPS+ in that scenario could have been around 100, but he could have been like a super-Joe Carter.

[Lindseynelson]

Okay who had better 5 year runs then that? We are talking about a stat line of .306/.397/.649, with 292 home runs. That .649 would rank him 90th in single season SLG and that was a 5 year average.

Barry Bonds? Okay
Ted Williams? Okay
Babe Ruth? Okay

So what is your definition of not even close to the greatest run? How many runs does one have to find or not find?Man it's crazy how Sosa is run down. He played everyday, had lesser talents in the lineup with him yet unlike some of the others who had killer lineups he drove everybody in not just half his ribbies being himself.
I love the guys who can say his 5 year run is not substantial, that slays me.
He also played 90 or so games in the daylight and still was a good outfielder staring right into our beloved lifegiver.
"Slamming" Sammys stats is just silly, but they keep on coming.

[Lindseynelson]

I was pointing out the fact that he was a cheater, not saying he wasn't great. Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson were both caught lip-synching on stage, hence the analogy.This is where this whole steroids thing loses me.
Should a guy be punished because he did everything he could to ENHANCE his performance?
I pay to see great players do great things, they did take advantage of what was available to them and was not banned or punishable by baseball and performed at a huge level.
Good, thanks for trying to be the best you can be.
How about guys like Mantle who mailed games in drunk or hungover.
Doc Gooden, Keith Hernandez ,Parker and the gang who were depleting themselves with Coke?
How many wins did Sam McDowell leave on the bartop?
I'd rather watch a guy who was determined to be the best he could than a guy who takes the money and is counterproductive.
OK now it's banned and ,fine , but so many of the same people who are saying Sosas and others numbers are tainted etc won't , on the other side of the coin, give Fred McGriff the time of day because"he falls short vs the league avgs etc".
What is it then?
PS why don't I ever hear about those 6-5 Arnold Schwarzenneggers who were throwing it 93 plus?
How about Gagne? I guess all his records and stats are "meaningless too,eh?"After all, since testing he has been mostly out, why no scrutiny there?

[overhandgas53]

With all that controversy in the 2004-2005 season with steroids and congress, i don't know if we can trust him if he hit those homers by himself or not. But Sosa's stats are just a little less than Barry Bonds's stats in his first 17 seasons.

Bonds
1st season- 16 HR
2nd season- 25 HR
3- 24
4- 19
5- 33
6- 25
7- 34
8- 46
9- 37
10- 33
11- 42
12- 40
13- 37
14- 34
15- 49
16- 73
17- 46
Total in first 17 seasons- 613 HR

Sosa

1-4
2- 15
3- 10
4- 8
5- 33
6- 25
7- 36
8- 40
9- 36
10- 66
11- 63
12- 50
13- 64
14- 49
15- 40
16- 35
17- 14
Total in career- 588 HR

[Lindseynelson]

he sandwiched those 60 plus with 40 and 50 plus.8 seasons in a row were high end,
sammy gets a bad rap

[538280]

With all that controversy in the 2004-2005 season with steroids and congress, i don't know if we can trust him if he hit those homers by himself or not. But Sosa's stats are just a little less than Barry Bonds's stats in his first 17 seasons.


Sosa was only a little bit behind Bonds in home run hitting. As far as a total offensive player, it's a completely ridiculous comparison. And I shouldn't even have to explain why.

[grey eagle]

With all that controversy in the 2004-2005 season with steroids and congress, i don't know if we can trust him if he hit those homers by himself or not. But Sosa's stats are just a little less than Barry Bonds's stats in his first 17 seasons.Hardly.

Home runs aren't the only stat in baseball, you know.:rolleyes:

[Lindseynelson]

Sosa was only a little bit behind Bonds in home run hitting. As far as a total offensive player, it's a completely ridiculous comparison. And I shouldn't even have to explain why.Please do.He,Sosa , was most of the Cub offense without the likes of MVP Kent behind him.Sosas RBI totals are staggering ,Bonds had what 118 the year he drove himself in 73 times?

[grey eagle]

he sandwiched those 60 plus with 40 and 50 plus.8 seasons in a row were high end,
sammy gets a bad rapWell, there are good reasons he gets a bad rap: 1)the likelihood he was juicing, 2)his bad attitude in his last seasons with the Cubs, and 3)"homers" continuing to ram down other people's throats how "phenomenal" he was.

And no, he did NOT have 8 "high end" seasons in a row. Take a look at his record. 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and arguably 1999 were his only "great" seasons - although I would call 1999 only very good, historically. 2003 wasn't really a great season, by historical standards - his OPS+ was only 135, and he only hit .288 and drove in 108 runs. 2004 was only a slightly above-average season, and he was terrible in 2005. In 1997 he was only average. So I have no idea where you're getting the 8 high-end seasons in a row.

[grey eagle]

Please do.He,Sosa , was most of the Cub offense without the likes of MVP Kent behind him.Sosas RBI totals are staggering ,Bonds had what 118 the year he drove himself in 73 times?
Again, look at the record before taking wild guesses. He drove in 137. Kent had a good, not great, year in 2001. Plus, Bonds for most of the last few seasons has had guys like Edgardo Alfonso and Pedro Feliz batting behind him.

[Lindseynelson]

Here's how'starting with the strike year of 94 where he hit 25 drove in 70 with a 300 average but let's really begin in 95 268-36-119
96-273-40-100
97-251-36-119
98-308-66-158
99-288-63-141
00-320-50-138
01-328-64-160
02-288-49-108
03-279-40-103
9 straight years of 100 plus rbi,35 or more hrs.4 straight years of138 or more Rbis. yeah he stunk, who in those last two years would want a guy who could only produce a paltry 280-89-211?
Mickey Mantle playing for the great Yankee teams had a grand total of 4 100 rbi seasons between 54 and 64.PS stop giving me the "Homer " crap I am a baseball fan who gets tired of seeing a guy who produced constantly thrown under the bus.
Lousy attitude at the end , yes he did, he was sick of the Tribune packing the house with fans and the dugout with retreads. Ask some of "Teddy F%^&ing" Ballgames( his own choice of nickname) teammates and friends(if he had any) about his sttitude.
Sosa played everyday and nothing he did was ever enough.his own mgr Baylor who made all his money as a DH said Sammy wasn't stealing enough to be an all around player.What?? psst Don if you didn't take those dugout naps you would have seen a guy putting on an offensive show.
One more thing ,maybe Kerry Balsa Wood should try pitching an entire season and actually producing for his millions before he opens his mouth about a guy that walked the walk.

[brett]

I'll just point out that Fred McGriff had a higher career OPS+ and over more plate appearances than Sosa. Sosa is in the McGriff range as far as greatness in my opinion. If McGwire had had as many at-bats in '98 as Sosa, with his rate of production he would have hit 87 home-runs and had 170 RBI, and had he played 1/2 his games in Wrigley he could have had around 93 HRs and 180 BI.


Agreed, Sosa seems to be getting a bad rap with no proof whatsoever..

LONG LIVE SLAMMIN SAMMY!

[grey eagle]

Here's how'starting with the strike year of 94 where he hit 25 drove in 70 with a 300 average but let's really begin in 95 268-36-119
96-273-40-100
97-251-36-119
98-308-66-158
99-288-63-141
00-320-50-138
01-328-64-160
02-288-49-108
03-279-40-103
9 straight years of 100 plus rbi,35 or more hrs.4 straight years of138 or more Rbis. yeah he stunk, who in those last two years would want a guy who could only produce a paltry 280-89-211?Never said he stunk. 35 HR and 100 RBI does not automatically equal "high-end", especially if you're playing in the friendly confines of Wrigley. 1997 was not a high end year. Despite the RBI's, his BA/OBP/SLG was .251/.300/.480 - which translates to a 99 OPS+, which is average. 94-96 and 2003 were good years - but not great.


Mickey Mantle playing for the great Yankee teams had a grand total of 4 100 rbi seasons between 54 and 64.PS stop giving me the "Homer " crap I am a baseball fan who gets tired of seeing a guy who produced constantly thrown under the bus. Well, with the way you began this thread and the style in which you've made your points, you haven't come across as very objective, and have cherry-picked certain stats - just like RBI's here, for instance. You fail to understand that RBI's are a team-dependent, batting order-dependent, and era dependent stat. Runs were not nearly as plentiful from 54-64 as in Sosa's time. Mickey also played in Yankee Stadium and sometimes hit as high as second in the batting order.
You're also ignoring that Mantle from 54-64 had a grand total of TEN seasons where he created 100 or more runs (see Runs Created - a much better stat than RBI), where as Sosa had six such seasons in his whole CAREER.


Lousy attitude at the end , yes he did, he was sick of the Tribune packing the house with fans and the dugout with retreads. Ask some of "Teddy F%^&ing" Ballgames( his own choice of nickname) teammates and friends(if he had any) about his sttitude.Both guys had bad attitudes. But the difference is, Ted actually was a phenomenal hitter.

[chrispw1]

I am going to somewhat defend him here in a few ways. The fact is there is just as much evidence he used 7-8 years ago as there is now when he was universally adored. Back then, everyone was saying it was his long hours working with hitting coach Jeff Pentland on being a more disciplined hitter taking pitches at the plate. It's not like his increase in size and home runs wasn't noticable. Also with individual players we heard it was McGwire being healthy, Luis Gonzalez changing his batting stance. Other than that there has been noone coming out saying they either injected Sammy, supplied him or saw him use. Also, the whole era everyone is revising it where it had to be all steroids not smaller ballparks, weakened pitching by expansion, umps calling smaller strike zones. Also, there was the time he didn't take the test for Rick Reiily. I can't say I blame him. If he had taken him up on it and tested negative people would have said he was on something undetectable not to mention it would have given him or other media hounds a precedent.
Also, I thought of this. What if the only times he ever did steroids were in the Dominican? Since it wasn't against baseball's rules and if he did it there he wouldn't have been breaking any laws.

[Ubiquitous]

Sammy Sosa 1995: Home Homers: 19 Away: 17
1996: HH: 26 AH: 14
1997: HH: 25 AH: 11
1998: HH: 35 AH: 31
1999: HH: 33 AH: 30
2000: HH: 22 AH: 28
2001: HH: 34 AH: 30
2002: HH: 24 AH: 25
2003: HH: 19 AH: 21
2004: HH: 18 AH: 17

I don't really know where all this talk of Wrigley field inflating Sammy's homers. When you are hitting 400+ ft blasts it is going to go over any wall. When Sammy became SAMMY and started hitting monster homers it didn't matter in what stadium he was in. Wrigley Field at Sammy's peak didn't inflate him or his stats.

[538280]

Sammy Sosa 1995: Home Homers: 19 Away: 17
1996: HH: 26 AH: 14
1997: HH: 25 AH: 11
1998: HH: 35 AH: 31
1999: HH: 33 AH: 30
2000: HH: 22 AH: 28
2001: HH: 34 AH: 30
2002: HH: 24 AH: 25
2003: HH: 19 AH: 21
2004: HH: 18 AH: 17

I don't really know where all this talk of Wrigley field inflating Sammy's homers. When you are hitting 400+ ft blasts it is going to go over any wall. When Sammy became SAMMY and started hitting monster homers it didn't matter in what stadium he was in. Wrigley Field at Sammy's peak didn't inflate him or his stats.

His home/road splits don't really matter. What matters is what effect Wrigley had on run scoring, because the more runs it gave up the less valuable each run is. I am willing to break from that in certain cases when it's just absolutely clear the park was NOT having the same effect on the player in question as it was on everyone else, but I don't see how Sammy is that exception.

I still don't see, BTW, how Sosa's run 1998-2002 is of such the historical magnitude that people make it out to be. Yeah, his HR totals were legendary. But he was doing it in one of the best possible environments for HRs. His OBP, in context, was more good than great. By this point he was nothing special in the field or on the basepaths. No statistical system sees it being as great as people are making it out to be (160 WS over those years, that's good, probably around 50th all time for 5 year consecutive peaks but LOTS of people have done better).

[JimAbbott]

It's shocking to see a debate going on as to whether or not Sosa was purified greatness. The man was a legendary, top shelf ballplayer. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous

[Myankee4life]

It's shocking to see a debate going on as to whether or not Sosa was purified greatness. The man was a legendary, top shelf ballplayer. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous


Well, people who wrongfully accuse him of steroids and have an agenda against him are usuallly the ones who suggest otherwise. No matter what many think about him, he is still the only player to have 3 60 HR seasons. You are right, Sammy Sosa was a legendary top shelf ball player.

[EvanAparra]

The guy was a great power hitter, but i dont think he was a top shelp ball player. He was caught cheating, and probably took steroids, but you never know about that stuff.

[grey eagle]

It's shocking to see a debate going on as to whether or not Sosa was purified greatness. The man was a legendary, top shelf ballplayer. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous
It's far from ludicrous to say he was not a legendary top-shelf player throughout his career. That's been my point all along, and it was my rebuttal to the original post. A legendary, top-shelf player has to be pretty darn good THROUGHOUT his career in my book. Sosa just doesn't fit that bill - nowhere close to the Aarons, Mayses, Gehrigs - truly top-shelf players. He was great for a little while. There's no agenda here, I'm just trying to put things in perspective.

[Myankee4life]

The guy was a great power hitter, but i dont think he was a top shelp ball player. He was caught cheating, and probably took steroids, but you never know about that stuff.

During his prime he had rel. BAs of 113, 101, 123, 124, and 109. He was a great hitter for BA from 1998-2002. His rel OBP for that same span are 110, 102, 121, 131 and 118. He was among the top at getting OB. During that span he averaged 92 walks. The assumption that he was "just" a great power hitter is wrong....he was great hitter all-around.

[Ubiquitous]

Wrigley Field didn't increase scoring. Wrigley Field didn't devalue runs.

PF on a yearly basis:
1994: .843
1995: 1.021
1996: 1.036
1997: 1.126
1998: 1.006
1999: 1.134
2000: .817
2001: .930
2002: .953
2003: .971
2004: 1.123

Except for one season Sosa in his prime did not play in a park that inflated run scoring or its value. In fact if you want to get picky those homers he hit at home were worth more then the homers he hit on the road, because runs were more scarce at home then on the road.

[538280]

Okay, I guess Wrigley wasn't bad for run scoring those years. Those park factors are applied to statistics like OPS+ and WS, though, so why should I not trust what they say (which is basically great run but not top 25 or so all time).

[538280]

Well, people who wrongfully accuse him of steroids and have an agenda against him are usuallly the ones who suggest otherwise. No matter what many think about him, he is still the only player to have 3 60 HR seasons. You are right, Sammy Sosa was a legendary top shelf ball player.

I don't care about steroids. I'm not out after Sammy for that. Bonds was always one of all time favorites and he remains that way today. Even taking his numbers at face value, he is just not a true legendary ballplayer. How is his great run even nearly as great as you make it sound? Am I wrong for looking at how great he is in the context of his time rather than just getting drawn in by huge raw numbers like 60 HRs three times. Just like the huge .400 batting averages of the 20s and 30s, those things need to be brought down to earth. And when we do that Sammy is a great player for five years, but only one of the top 50 or so five year runs of all time. And outside of those five years he wasn't much better than average, taking everything into account (1994-1996 he was above average, but I'm not sure he was if you strip 1998-2002 out of his career and look at him on a games above average vlaue analysis).

[Lindseynelson]

Never said he stunk. 35 HR and 100 RBI does not automatically equal "high-end", especially if you're playing in the friendly confines of Wrigley. 1997 was not a high end year. Despite the RBI's, his BA/OBP/SLG was .251/.300/.480 - which translates to a 99 OPS+, which is average. 94-96 and 2003 were good years - but not great.

Well, with the way you began this thread and the style in which you've made your points, you haven't come across as very objective, and have cherry-picked certain stats - just like RBI's here, for instance. You fail to understand that RBI's are a team-dependent, batting order-dependent, and era dependent stat. Runs were not nearly as plentiful from 54-64 as in Sosa's time. Mickey also played in Yankee Stadium and sometimes hit as high as second in the batting order.
You're also ignoring that Mantle from 54-64 had a grand total of TEN seasons where he created 100 or more runs (see Runs Created - a much better stat than RBI), where as Sosa had six such seasons in his whole CAREER.

Both guys had bad attitudes. But the difference is, Ted actually was a phenomenal hitter.Hey Pal, I grew up at Yankee Stadium. 296 down the line in right and 302 down the line in left with 4 ft walls.
Mantle had the greatest dynasty in history in his lineup while Sosa had whatever the Trib figured would fill the house.
How dare you impose your self absorbed "knowledge " on me or anyone else.
The day I need you to explain Baseball to me I'll let you know

[538280]

Hey Pal, I grew up at Yankee Stadium. 296 down the line in right and 302 down the line in left with 4 ft walls.
Mantle had the greatest dynasty in history in his lineup while Sosa had whatever the Trib figured would fill the house.
How dare you impose your self absorbed "knowledge " on me or anyone else.
The day I need you to explain Baseball to me I'll let you know

It really isn't him who's coming off as biased on this thread.

[grey eagle]

Hey Pal, I grew up at Yankee Stadium. 296 down the line in right and 302 down the line in left with 4 ft walls.
Mantle had the greatest dynasty in history in his lineup while Sosa had whatever the Trib figured would fill the house.
How dare you impose your self absorbed "knowledge " on me or anyone else.
The day I need you to explain Baseball to me I'll let you know
Well, I don't have to grow up at Yankee Stadium to know the dimensions. You conveniently leave off left and right center field being over 400 ft. away when Mantle played.
And a major reason the Yankees had the greatest dynasty was Mantle - geez, how about giving your boy some credit here?
I'll impose whatever knowledge I want on this forum - whether you like it or not. I'm not here to explain baseball to you, but if I see a point I disagree with, I'm going to voice my opinion.

[Seattle1]

I suspect that Sammy Sosa used P.E.S.'s during his playing career. We know he used corked bats.

[Lindseynelson]

It's far from ludicrous to say he was not a legendary top-shelf player throughout his career. That's been my point all along, and it was my rebuttal to the original post. A legendary, top-shelf player has to be pretty darn good THROUGHOUT his career in my book. Sosa just doesn't fit that bill - nowhere close to the Aarons, Mayses, Gehrigs - truly top-shelf players. He was great for a little while. There's no agenda here, I'm just trying to put things in perspective.
Get real.
He had 36 homeruns and 110 plus RBI for 9 straight years.
I don't care what "era" you want it is phenominal.
I return to Mickey Mantles 4 similar seasons playing for a dynasty

[mwiggins]

Get real.
He had 36 homeruns and 110 plus RBI for 9 straight years.
I don't care what "era" you want it is phenominal.
I return to Mickey Mantles 4 similar seasons playing for a dynasty

Actually he didn't...he hit 36 homers or more in 9 straight years, but only drove in 110+ runs in 6 of those seasons. Hitting 36+ homers for 9 straight years is pretty great, but doesn't mean he was a great hitter in all those seasons. He wasn't even an average hitter in 1997. Even when Mantle was hobbled at the end of his career, he never had a season any where near that bad.

[538280]

Get real.
He had 36 homeruns and 110 plus RBI for 9 straight years.
I don't care what "era" you want it is phenominal.
I return to Mickey Mantles 4 similar seasons playing for a dynasty

36 HRs and 110 RBI is really nice, but in this era where 36 is no longer the huge monster figure you can certainly be less than a true all time great hitter with that total. Before 1998, Sammy had some HR power, but it wasn't really amazing power given the time and place in which he played, he tended to hit for a low average, and was VERY impatient, with a horrible OBP. He was not a great player at all. His OPS+ was 106 for crying out loud, from a corner OF.

[Cubsfan97]

Sosa's yearly OPS+ figures from 1998 - 2002 are 160, 141, 169, 201, and 160. This averages out to 166 - which is great, but not among the very greatest (as in top 5 or top 10 - which is normally my standard)

Here are some others who had better runs, IMO:

Rogers Hornsby, 1921 - 25: average OPS+ was 203
Ty Cobb: 1909 - 13: average OPS+ was 198
Lou Gehrig, 1927 - 31: average OPS+ was 196
Mickey Mantle, 1955 - 59: average OPS+ was 192
Mark McGwire, 1995 - 1999: average OPS+ was 190
Jimmie Foxx: 1932 - 36: average OPS+ was 186
Honus Wagner: 1904 - 08: average OPS+ was 184
Frank Thomas: 1993 - 1997: average OPS + was 183
Stan Musial: 1948- 52: average OPS+ was 178
Joe Jackson: 1911 - 15: average OPS+ was 178
Ed Delahanty: 1895 - 99: average OPS+ was 177
Albert Pujols: 2002 -2006: average OPS + in the low 170's

Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Tris Speaker, and Ralph Kiner also had a higher average OPS+ in their respective 5-year runs. So I'd say that Sosa's run is probably ranks in the top 20 - just taking hitting into account. Depending on one's definition of greatest, I guess it could be considered that. When you take defense and baserunning into account, though - he definitely slides out of the top 20 and is probably in the 30's or 40's.

So out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of hitters to ever play the game who played for 5 consecutive years...He was Top 40. That to me is pretty damn impressive.

[grey eagle]

So out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of hitters to ever play the game who played for 5 consecutive years...He was Top 40. That to me is pretty damn impressive.
I never said it wasn't impressive, so I don't understand your point. My point was that it wasn't among the very greatest ever, IMO.

[grey eagle]

Get real.
He had 36 homeruns and 110 plus RBI for 9 straight years.
I don't care what "era" you want it is phenominal.
I return to Mickey Mantles 4 similar seasons playing for a dynasty
Please make an effort to check Sosa's record. Unless MLB has retroactively added some ribbies to Sammy's 1996 or 2002-2003 seasons, he fell short of 110 RBI's in those years.
Again, he had a great run for a few years, but it falls well short of Mantle's best 9-year run. If you don't "care" about the distinction between the eras - then you're failing to see each of their achievements in their proper context. Let me get this straight - you're saying that one should penalize Mantle (who was far and away the best player on that dynasty) for being a consistent winner?? That makes A LOT of sense...:rolleyes:

[Lindseynelson]

Please make an effort to check Sosa's record. Unless MLB has retroactively added some ribbies to Sammy's 1996 or 2002-2003 seasons, he fell short of 110 RBI's in those years.
Again, he had a great run for a few years, but it falls well short of Mantle's best 9-year run. If you don't "care" about the distinction between the eras - then you're failing to see each of their achievements in their proper context. Let me get this straight - you're saying that one should penalize Mantle (who was far and away the best player on that dynasty) for being a consistent winner?? That makes A LOT of sense...:rolleyes:Is rolling your eyes anything more than a pathetic attempt to disguise your ineffectiveness ?
Mantle , pre CBS, was on the throne of a bottomless dynasty that brought in the likes of Johnny Mize and Enos Slaughter to insure a title.
Sosa played for ownership that saw 32000 rubes, win or lose, day after day

[grey eagle]

Is rolling your eyes anything more than a pathetic attempt to disguise your ineffectiveness ?
Mantle , pre CBS, was on the throne of a bottomless dynasty that brought in the likes of Johnny Mize and Enos Slaughter to insure a title.
Sosa played for ownership that saw 32000 rubes, win or lose, day after day
No - rolling my eyes underscores my dismay at your lack of historical perspective here.

Once again, you need to look at the record. Mantle was just getting started during Mize's tenure with the Yankees, and both Mize and Slaughter were in the decline phase of their careers when they wore the pinstripes. What's your point, anyway? Were the Yankees breaking some sort of rule by bringing in talent to help out?? And you didn't answer my question - why should Mantle be penalized by winning too much? Mantle was hardly just "along for the ride". The guy was the best player in the AL for nearly a decade, and would've been so regardless of where he played. You can't just sweep his talent under the rug here.

Maybe Sosa would have had even better numbers had he played for teams that were more committed to winning - who knows? But even if that's the case, it is wishful thinking to say that Sosa would've achieved Mantle-like dominance. There is WAAAY too much a performance gap to even suggest that it all came down to the type of team each player was on. Other players have achieved a higher level of dominance throughout their career than Sosa, despite being on their share of mediocre teams - guys such as Frank Thomas, Rogers Hornsby, Ken Griffey, Jr., Gary Sheffield, Dick Allen, and even A-Rod. And besides, the name of the game is to win: if player A and player B are equally dominant, but player A was on a constant winner and player B was on mostly losing teams - player A is probably going to be considered the better player (and rightfully so).

[bigtrain]

So basically this thread was started to tell everyone that Sosa was a great and everyone who disagrees can get bent?

This thread scares me in two ways.
1) The longer Sosa is out of baseball the more forgiving people are of him.

2) Steriods use that occurred is becoming accepted. Once upon a time their was outrage.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

The funny thing about the argument against steroids is that it always comes down to one thing: steroids are banned because they are banned. Therefore anyone who used them must have tainted records.

The problem with that argument is that no one can show that steroids make you see the ball better, improve your hand-eye coordination, make your reflexes faster, allow you to hit a pitched ball more squarely, or make you any styronger than vitamins and weight training.

So, steroids really don't improve hitting any more that a natural weight-training regimen, in reality. You still have to be able to hit major league pitching very well to hit homers, and any added strength may turn some flyballs into homers instead of FOs, but you cannot show that a player cannot achieve the same extra strength through natural means.

Bottom line, the steroid argument is, again, based on juist the one thing ... they are banned, therefore the records MUST be tainted.

Anyone can see how specious that argument is. It doesn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny.

[Lindseynelson]

The funny thing about the argument against steroids is that it always comes down to one thing: steroids are banned because they are banned. Therefore anyone who used them must have tainted records.

The problem with that argument is that no one can show that steroids make you see the ball better, improve your hand-eye coordination, make your reflexes faster, allow you to hit a pitched ball more squarely, or make you any styronger than vitamins and weight training.

So, steroids really don't improve hitting any more that a natural weight-training regimen, in reality. You still have to be able to hit major league pitching very well to hit homers, and any added strength may turn some flyballs into homers instead of FOs, but you cannot show that a player cannot achieve the same extra strength through natural means.

Bottom line, the steroid argument is, again, based on juist the one thing ... they are banned, therefore the records MUST be tainted.

Anyone can see how specious that argument is. It doesn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny.
Exactly. I have said time and again that I would rather see a guy do anything he can to ENHANCE his performance at the benefit of team ,fans and self , than a guy who is a drunk or abuses narcotics and mails in some games.
Steroids were not banned and if an adult with huge talent , wanted to make the decision risking his own body , well guess what , he is an adult and made a choice to optimize his abilities.
Should ballplayers go back to tossing the medicine ball in Spring Training despite the improvements in workout knowledge and technology?
How about all those behemoths that were winging gas at these hitters always focused on?
Mantle and his era were notoriously on the lookout for an "edge", so much so that mantle himself lost his shot at Ruth when he took Mel"Rheingold Beer in a Bottle" Allens advice and went to a NY quack for a "special energy shot".
Cost him the end of the 61 season with infection.
I go back to the NFL who dealt with their problem sensibly.
Noone wants the 70's Steelers and their contemperaries taken down from Canton despite the widespread roid use, they weren't banned, they were used ,now they are banned.
People get over the adherence to this era or that era etc.
Guys played , competed against each other on a level playing field and produced.
Now it's banned and so be it but a lot of great accomplishments found their way into the books by guys who put a bat on a ball that was being tossed 90+ by a guy who more than likely was using the same thing the hitter was.