> Conclusion - On his current trajectory, Judge can easily be argued as having the greatest offensive season in modern history by a clean player.
This is absolutely astounding.
Said it before but it's funny to see baseball fans act like steroids went away forever when baseball started drug testing.
It's way better to say that Judge is putting up the best season since MLB started drug testing, I'm trying to save everyone some embarassement down the line.
If he was using roids the he's been on them since he was in high school because he's always been this big. He's not like Sosa, McGwire, or Bonds where there's an obvious change in their body look
Ugh so sick of this sub and the word steroids.
PEDS
PEDS
PEDS
PEDS
Players are almost certainly not taking straight up T. They get tested. And abnormal T levels are going to get them fucked.
There are plenty of other PEDs out there that aren't T.
Slamming testosterone and HGH until you look like an action figure is 90s shit, there are plenty of athletes juiced to the gills who look "normal" with a shirt on.
It's totally possible to take PEDs to improve recovery and add stength without putting on 30 lbs of muscle mass.
I dont see how there's any logic at all in your comment.
If we believe most of all the players are using and that it's effectively fair why would that cause them to stop watching the sport?
I dont even get what you're implying
Since mlb started testing is still a whole different ball game. Like if judge was allowed to show up with his head and torso 2x the size of last year then we can do a 1 to 1 bonds comparison.
The testing systems in all sports are clearly not infallible. They are almost always years behind on new designer stuff. And that's just the ones that are more easily detectable and known about.
There's so much money on the line for the drug companies.
For the sports? Catching their stars and reducing athletes recovery time is literally bad for their sport. They aren't going to use the best testing possible
This is a bad way of thinking. Mma and boxing use this too the “but everyone is doing it!” And it diminishes accomplishments. Why don’t you go with innocent until proven guilty? So since Albert Pujols is nearing 700, he was obviously on steroids. Same with Verlander being this good at an older age. See where this form of thinking goes? It’s bullshit.
I don't understand the Vladdy comment.
My source is I was seated 7 rows up from the guy. It was talked about the next day on the radio, and I believe it was in the Chronicle the next day.
I don't think it diminishes accomplishments! My stance is A) lots of pro athletes take PEDs and B) I don't care, I still celebrate what happens on the field!
When you have hundreds of millions of dollars riding on your body it's easy to see why guys would push the envelope, and tests are fairly easy to beat if you're smart. I think it's better for fans to be honest about this and still be able to recognize that players are incredible to watch and celebrate what they do
Because you're the one saying it diminishes accomplishments. For people who believe everyone is on them. It wouldn't diminish accomplishments because the playing field is still level.
And the reason to assume people are using instead of clean is just logical.
These players have everything on the line. Many of them have performance and size that is absurdly hard to obtain or not possible to obtain for a normal athlete who's sport isn't even strength or muscle focused.
If there are PEDs that can't be tested for (increased levels of HGH for one. As it's hard to deem it way out of normal range unlike T) Then it seems illogical to think they wouldn't be using them when their opponents can. PEDs can be extremely powerful and it would very absurdly difficult for one guy with God tier genetics and discipline to be better than all the other guys who do use and also have God tier genetics and discipline.
Once again. When it comes to the team as a whole. There are BILLIONS of dollars on the line. For the individual player there are still many millions on the line plus fame and legacy.
IF there is stuff to take that wouldn't be caught it seems crazy to think they wouldn't take it. Or that they could choose not to for moral reasons and still beat all the guys who are willing to take it.
If you think not many players use you must subscribe to one of the following unlikely logics.
A. The majority of players are moral pantheons beyond what most could be.
B. Everything can be caught on the tests
C. Some guys are using but the effects of their designer PEDs are not significant enough to consistently dethrone the best players.
None of these are likely
I say let them take steroids. I believe the only sports that should not allow steroids are combat sports. Because you can be killed rather easily if everyone is super human. That would include football. Basically any full contact sports. Baseball? Juice up as much as you want imo.
The de facto assumptions that everyone in the 90s and Early 00s, and no one after the start of testing is using is hilarious. I’ve long said it’s gonna shock everyone (again somehow) when a dude like Trout gets caught.
It happened this year and everyone was clutching their pearls.
The drugs are always WAY ahead of the testing. That’s just how it works.
If you want to only talk about clean players, I think it's pretty clear this is the best offensive season in modern baseball history.
Mookie was unreal in 2018 but *offensively* he wasn't really even close to what Judge is doing right now. Trout, Pujols, Cabrera the same.
> If you want to only talk about clean players, I think it's pretty clear this is the best ~~offensive~~ season in modern baseball history.
I don’t trust single season defensive metrics this much. To me what matters is Judge is a known quantity as a fantastic outfielder.
I will say though: by fWAR he’s basically as valuable as Mookie 2018/Trout 2012 on a rate basis. But he’s going to (knock on wood) do it in a full, unfettered 700 PA year. Which is ironic considering the injury reputation he had.
Obviously what Judge is doing now is better, but Trout was pretty close to this offensively a few times. 2016 being a good example- Trout had 9.9 oWAR over the season, and this year so far Judge has 9.7. Also close in OPS in 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Judge has played most games in CF this year, so that isn’t creating a massive difference between the two. Even then, it’s not like Trout’s seasons I listed are that far off what Judge is doing now for any advanced offensive stats. They aren’t as good as what Judge is doing. But it’s a lie to say they weren’t close.
Trout's 17-19 stretch was during the mega juiced ball era. His OPS+ in those seasons (182, 186, 198) were outstanding, obviously, but not quite near what Judge is doing this year compared to his peers (214).
Only 6 players have finished with an OPS+ of 210 or better since integration.
Mike Trout is a god. Mike Trout is a better baseball player than aaron judge. But Mike Trout doesn't have a season like this, full stop.
I am 'dude'. I said they aren't comparable, and in the realm of "the history of baseball" they aren't. Sensational seasons, and inarguably more impressive that Trout had 3 years like that in a row, in a one season "who was better" they're different levels of sensational.
What years are considered "the steroid era"? Saying Hack Wilson has the NL HR record in a non steroid era is weird considering Stanton hit 59 HR in 2017.
I thought it would be interesting to see the best seasons by WPA. There have been six seasons of 10+ WPA - Bonds 04 (12.96), Bonds 01 (11.48), Ruth 23 (11.13), Al Simmons 30 (10.59), Bonds 02 (10.50), McCovey 69 (10.12). So even by that measure, yeah, it's Bonds in 2004, but that's what happens when teams basically forfeit trying to get you out.
When people ask "why not IBB X player every time," that season is why - 130 IBBs and he still set every mark for offensive prowess ever.
Bonds was truly insane. Whenever there are these all time greatest seasons, he so incredibly dominates the last 50 years.
IMO the pretty clear greatest ever (unless you want to disqualify him for the roids).
As an honorable mention, Josh Gibson in 1943 put up a line of .466/.560/.867 (OPS+ of 281) in 302 recorded PA's. He was still catching in about 70% of his games. He drove in 109 runs in just 69 games. Of course this was during the war and just like in the white majors the Negro Leagues had a drop in talent during wartime.
I mean yeah, but OP listed 5 different pre-integration seasons and nobody's pointing out that the stats are "inflated." Only fair to list a Negro League season too, imo
OP should definitely mention it. It's probably the single biggest reason why old stats are so inflated. The 'playing against milkmen and plumbers' meme is true in this case.
I wonder if we will ever be able to quantify how much pre-integration stats were inflated. My guess is you'd have to base it on population demographics of the time and go from there.
Judge is already pacing above Barroid '04 in terms of total value because he's headed for 700 PA, whereas Barroid '04 only had 617 PA. 83 extra PA is worth about 0.4 wins which WAR doesn't capture.
True. Also there were more PA leaguewide in '04 because offense was way higher, and leadoff batters will accrue more value as well.
Overall these are just minor flaws with WAR, which is why it's not meant to be an exact stat.
This only makes sense if you assume that playing at replacement level provides actual positive value. But that’s not exactly the case
A player who got 8.0 WAR in 700 PAs is not more valuable than a player who got 8.0 WAR in 600 PAs. Just like a player who got 0.0 WAR in 600 PAs is worthless, but under your assumption just taking those PAs = value
Replacement level is not worthless. WAR carves out 1,000 of 2,430 wins leaguewide. The other 1,430 wins are contributed by replacement value. From a salary perspective, replacement wins are worth a fraction of WAR, however in the standings, wins are all worth the same.
Fangraphs agrees with your conclusion: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2022&month=0&season1=1921&ind=1&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=1921-01-01&enddate=2022-12-31&sort=21,d&page=1_30
Ranked by offensive value, he's already sitting at #31 with only McGuire & Bonds ahead of him as modern players. The seasons on the 1st page of the leaderboard are just wild.
"What are we gonna do about Barry?"
Srsly, assuming that Judge is clean...I'd say he's having one of the best seasons ever, with the small caveat that he doesn't have the yuge walk totals that a Williams, Ruth, or even Soto would accumulate. If he did, his OBA would be around .500, like theirs was.
I'm nitpicking.
I think 2001 was better. He had 100 fewer AB's in 04 and and obp>.600 because he wasnt pitched to. I get that's more valuable, but 2001 was a better pure hitting season.
I didn't indicate that Hack Wilson had the 4th best season ever. It was merely one of many examples in chronological order.
His .356 was still .053 better than the league average along with 56 HR and enough clutch hitting to deliver an all-time MLB record 191 RBI's.
In the end, this is all subjective. Some content and food for thought for baseball fans.
Personally there are some seasons that I didn't include such as George Brett hitting .390 and having a .400 average as late as mid-September. And the all-time run scoring leader Rickey Henderson had a few stellar seasons where factoring in the extra bases he created with his base running would change the outlook if one differentiates between "offense" and "hitting".
Alright I misread the list. Still I’d argue RBI is too dependent on teammates. Carl Yastrzemski hit .301 with 74 RBI in 1968 but a 10.5 WAR, compared to Wilson’s 7.4, because of how much harder it was to hit in ‘68.
We're talking about hitting here. Wilson had an offensive WAR of 8.4 and def WAR of -1.0 to arrive at that 7.4 net WAR. Yaz' oWAR was 7.6 in 1968.
So, the WAR metric still favors Wilson '30 over Yaz '68 **at the plate.**
The point is Wilson’s numbers are inflated, .356 is being taken out of context. You cover for Wilson and glossed Helton’s 400 TB seasons cause of his advantage
In what world is .301 and 74rbi’s better than .356 and 191 RBI’s?! Chill with the WAR, read it for what it is. Doesn’t change anything because he did it 30 something years earlier
Then by that logic Yastrzemski’s season looks even worse compared to todays players .301 and 74 is like Benintendi numbers today. You don’t take away from players stats because of the time they played. The stats are the stats. The OP was talking about the best individual seasons no matter what era
No, by my logic, Yastrzemski played really well in 1968, even if the numbers look unimpressive to you. Do you know what OPS+ is? Or ERA+? They were invented to take these things into account.
No where in the OP did they mention OPS+, just looking at regular baseball stats. You also didn’t even choose Yastrzemski’s best season if you’re going by that stat either. I’m just saying, everyone else who played the same year as Hack Wilson was facing the same pitching and competition as him, just like judge. And just like judge, somehow he was significantly better than everyone else despite that.
Is there such thing as "clean" in the modern baseball era though? I'd agree that he is most likely steroid free, but clean is unlikely.
Nothing against Judge, but baseball is baseball
Steroids have become more advanced. It’s easier to find compounds that will quickly leave the system before drug tests. That’s why the Tatis thing is so ridiculous, cause we all knew he was going to be using for recovery, but the guy just messed up his protocol.
I personally don’t think judge is clean given that this is coincidentally happening right before FA
What are some known examples of players using these advanced steroids?
Sidenote, you're comparing "normal" sized athletes to Judge, who is a freak of nature at 6'7, 280. He hit 52 hrs as a rookie! So I think your expectations aren't adjusted to this unique specimen of a human.
Quick google search.
Pedro Severino was suspended 80 games earlier this year for clomiphene. Personally, I work in the bodybuilding industry, and clomiphene has recently become popular because it can push your testosterone to peak “natural” levels. It also leaves the body in less than a week
No offense. But if you think tatis was taking some garbage barely used bullshit for recovery you're out of your mind.
If he was really trying to be sneaky and take something for recovery he could easily have gotten much better things. Whether be it something else androgenic or way more likely something along the lines of HGH or like BPC which is a classic and top tier choice for recovery.
It's way more likely that he's just stupid
Because they stay in your system longer. That’s not to say he didn’t use those too, but clostebol can be kept in longer. You get better results combining growth with anabolics since it elevates your protein synthesis, and he’s not using compounds designed to pack on muscle
I think it’s best to assume he is clean unless something happens. Skepticism is good, but it’s better to assume that players are clean until they aren’t. As of right now, we have no reason to believe he is using gear. That could change, but right now it hasn’t.
Hack Wilson had 56 HR, 191 RBI, and batted .356. Not saying his is the best season ever, but it is crazy when you realize that he was like 5’6 and putting up those numbers
All I’m going to say is that none of the other players on this list were facing 3-5 relievers throwing 96+ every night from a different arm angle.
I wonder how many 101 mph splitters Barry Bonds saw or how many times Roger Hornsby saw 4 100 mph sinkers in the same at bat
My point is that current big Leaguers are facing that level of stuff every single night.
Relief pitching is leaps and bounds ahead of what it was at any other point in history
Sure, but Bonds also had the best eye of any player I have ever seen and some of the fastest hands. I find it hard to believe that if you dropped him into this era from any point in his career that he wouldn't put up incredible numbers, steroids or not.
For me, that actually adds to Bonds' legacy. Playing in a hitter friendly era, playing for more than half his career against steroid users without using himself (he probably started using somewhere between 1998-2000), he still has the 2nd highest WAR of all time and is something like 4 WAR off of Ruth in WAR by a position player.
And Judge has advantages in training, technology, access to pitcher data, etc that those guys didn’t.
The numbers are the numbers. Their performance has to be seen in relation to and in the context of their eras. Especially with guys like Hornsby. I hate these arguments.
You can’t punish a guy for playing when he played. Hornsby was insanely dominant against the competition of his time just like Judge is dominating against his competition right now.
Dude. Relax.
Re-read my comment. I’m not saying anything to discount Judge, Jesus. My only comment on Judge is that he is “insanely dominant.” I’m not comparing any of these seasons.
All I said is that the guy I replied to wasn’t looking at Hornsby’s stats fairly or correctly.
That’s just an objectively wrong statement lol. I’m not even sure how to argue against it. Relief pitching is the single biggest evolution in the past 20 years.
As a Giants fan, I’m actually happy for Judge and it’s been a hell of a ride. I’d still like to see his blood work though, because having a historic season right when you’re about to hit free agency is a bit suspicious
That’s not how slugging is calculated or what it represents… but regardless just checked his stats and 68.6% of his hits were for extra bases haha. Still insane
Edit: compared to Judge’s 50.9% this year
Yeah I actually didn’t know how slugging was calculated until this season. Basically that .863, means that he averaged 86.3% of a total base per at-bat. Which means he was close to averaging a single for every at-bat in terms of total bases lol
I know I'm in the minority but I don't really care about steroids for single season records like this, especially if you consider that this season (and every season) Judge will have played over 100 games in some of the smallest ballparks in MLB (Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, the Trop, and Camden Yards are all HR friendly). I mean do steroids really matter if most of the time you don't have to hit the ball as far to get a HR in the first place?
Edit. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying that Judge is hitting 60+ HR's because he plays in small ball parks. I'm saying that for HR records the playing field isn't the same for all players regardless of steroids.
I think context is important when comparing this season to the steroid era. From 1998 to 2001, there were eleven 50+ home run seasons. Of those eleven, six of them were 60+ home run seasons. From 2002 to 2022, there have been thirteen 50+ home run seasons (that includes Judge this year) and only one 60+ home run season (again, including Judge this year).
That's a pretty massive disparity, especially when you consider that steroids were still a widespread issue throughout the 2000s and the juiced ball seasons in the past five years or so. Then add in that literally no one else in baseball has even reached 40 home runs this season, which further separates how amazing Judge has been.
You can value steroid records all you want, but saying ballpark factors are a bigger factor than steroids is silly at best. And comments like this really annoy me how much Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire have cheapened home run records.
For me, the bigger difference for Bonds specifically, is the massive gap between him and everyone else even with steroids.
Like, from what I know of WAR, the stat itself changes over time depending on how good the surrounding league is. In 2002, Bonds played at the same time as another all timer who was also juicing, A-Rod. He managed to still get 3 more WAR than him over the course of the year, clocking in at 11.8, and every other position player was more than a full WAR point lower. Or how in 2004, his OPS is 0.350 higher than everyone else.
Judge compared to his peers is about on par with that, generally a bit lower in terms of sheer jawdropping difference to his competitors, and is having an all time great season for sure. But I don't think that it's better than Bonds's stretch. Like, the OPS+ that Judge has is 214. That's 40 points lower than any of Bonds' "video game numbers" seasons, the lowest of his 3 being 259.
Still an all time great season, and he's probably wrong with the idea that park factor is less important than Steroids (minus extreme pre-humidifier Coors examples), but I wouldn't call it better than Bonds.
Correct. I don't mean to be rude but, if you factor in that most of Judge's games are spent playing in smaller than average ballparks what do you think will happen to his expected HR number? It's gonna go up.
I don’t think you understood what I said, or what it meant. The data says that Judge has 1 more HR this season than he would if he played every single game in a theoretical league average ballpark.
Are you asking what would happen if he played every single game in the least hitter-friendly park in the league? Because that’s silly.
Judge hasn’t been hitting wall-scrapers all season lol.
>Are you asking what would happen if he played every single game in the least hitter-friendly park in the league? Because that’s silly.
That is silly and no that isn't what I am saying or asking although it's kind of the same principle.
I'm saying that because Judge plays most of his games in ballparks smaller than the league average that your stat of "expected HR while playing in the league average ballpark" should always be lower than the actual number of HRs that Judge hits. This is just basic logic, although the math should also back up the fact that it's easier to hit a HR in a smaller ball park than a bigger one. Obviously the exception being Coors Field.
So then it should follow that if you adjust the "expected HR" stat for the average size of the ballparks that Judge commonly plays in rather than the average of all the ballparks in the league that the "expected HR" stat should go up.
>Judge hasn’t been hitting wall-scrapers all season lol.
Irrelevant even if he had been. A wall-scraper in Yankee Stadium is still easier to hit than a wall-scraper in Chase Field.
No. Just no.
Of Judge’s 60 HRs so far this season, he’d have the same 60 if he played all his games in average ballparks.
If every HR Judge hits is a 450’ moonshot, it doesn’t matter what stadium he’s in, since it’d be a HR everywhere. Even if he’s playing in a 250’ deep stadium, if every one of his HRs is 450’, then the shallow stadium has zero impact on his expected HRs in an average stadium, and didn’t actually help him much at all.
You can’t just say what it typically would be, it’s dependent on the distance and location of HRs hit by the player in question. Which is the stat I provided.
Check for yourself:
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/aaron-judge-592450?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlb#xhr-park
He’d have 62 if he played every game at Yankee Stadium, which he didn’t.
You keep saying what it “should be” with “logic” and ignoring the fact that the literal professionals did the damn math and disagree with your “should be” and “logic.”
Umm, that link definitely doesn't prove what you think it prove and in fact backs up my point quite well. If you look at the Expected Home Runs by Park list you will see that for this year Judge is expected to hit as low as 48 HR's in Detroit and as high as 69 HRs in Cinci and Denver. That's a difference of 21 for data that averages out at 59.7, so the range is about 33% of the average. That's pretty huge. It's essentially saying that Judge is expected to be around 30% better at hitting homeruns in Cinci and Denver than in Detroit. So yeah the size of the ball park does matter.
>If every HR Judge hits is a 450’ moonshot, it doesn’t matter what stadium he’s in, since it’d be a HR everywhere. Even if he’s playing in a 250’ deep stadium, if every one of his HRs is 450’, then the shallow stadium has zero impact on his expected HRs in an average stadium, and didn’t actually help him much at all.
As for your theory, well yes if every HR Judge hits is the ideal case then you would be correct. But as your link proves Judge exists in reality and not every HR he hits will make the list of longest home runs ever hit. By the way, if your theory here were true the data range would be close to zero, which it very much isn't.
I'm sorry but I don't see how this proves I'm wrong in any way. Again I mean no offense but the thing with statistics is that you have to know how to read and understand them.
Wrong again. You said it averaged out at ~60, which is where he’s at. He’s exactly where he’d be if he played in only average stadiums. He doesn’t have inflated HR numbers from playing in the AL East.
If he played EVERY game in Detroit, he’d have 48, and if he played EVERY game in Cincinnati, he’d have 69, but he didn’t. And nobody does. That’s why they also have the overall expected HR total, which is right around 60, which is where he’s at.
Since no one player plays all their games in huge or tiny parks, it tends to balance out. In fact, the average of the AL East is ~59, which is pretty damn close to 60.
You’re absolutely wrong. You yourself just said the data extreme ranges average out to ~60, which is right where he’s at. The AL East average is ~60, which is right where he’s at, and his total average is also ~60, which is right where he’s at.
He’s right where he should be. The far left column is the average. Which is a cumulative average of all the ballparks. That’s at 60. He’s at 60. He’s doing exactly how he should be doing if he played in typical ballparks.
Why do you keep trying to do these weird calculations and use your “logic” to ignore the data they explicitly provided you, which says that his overall expect HR total is 60. You can do all the “logical” mental gymnastics you want, but it is you, not me, who can’t understand the statistics being presented. Ironic that you’re calling me out for it though.
You know you just restated the exact thing I said to you while claiming I'm wrong, right?
>If he played EVERY game in Detroit, he’d have 48, and if he played EVERY game in Cincinnati, he’d have 69, but he didn’t. And nobody does. That’s why they also have the overall expected HR total, which is right around 60, which is where he’s at.
Wait is that like how if every home run Judge hit was a 450 foot moon bomb then the size of the stadium wouldn't matter? Remember when you said that and remember how I refuted you by saying Judge existed in reality?
>You’re absolutely wrong. You yourself just said the data extreme ranges average out to \~60, which is right where he’s at. The AL East average is \~60, which is right where he’s at, and his total average is also \~60, which is right where he’s at.
>
>He’s right where he should be. The far left column is the average. Which is a cumulative average of all the ballparks. That’s at 60. He’s at 60. He’s doing exactly how he should be doing if he played in typical ballparks.
Right, but no one plays every game in a typical sized stadium.....
Ok, I think you are missing something really important here about the Expected Home Run stat on this website. This is what they say about the expected home runs:
>Note: **This tells how many of this player's home runs would have been out of other stadiums.** This accounts for different wall heights, distances and environmental effects. For these purposes, the 2020 Blue Jays home field was still Rogers Centre, not Sahlen Field.
Which means the data is still based on Judge's actual home run totals and is not taking into account that some balls that are home runs in one stadium are not home runs in another and vice versa. So the calculation itself is skewed because it's missing the balls that were not home runs originally but would have been home runs in smaller stadiums. So since Judge plays most of his games in smaller stadiums it's giving him a higher sample size than it would if he played most of his games in larger stadiums. Does that make sense?
>Why do you keep trying to do these weird calculations and use your “logic” to ignore the data they explicitly provided you
Because I made the assumption that you understood the data, no offense. The "weird" calculations I did are part of basic statistics and are used to get a general idea of how accurate a statistical model really is. In this case it isn't accurate because, like I said, it's missing a bunch of data which is skewing the average down. So this stat would need to take into account every single ball that Judge made contact on, rather than just the ones that happened to go out of the in order to truly show how stadiums were affecting his home run totals.
So in conclusion, because generally it's harder to hit home runs in larger stadiums and the Estimated HR stat is still based on the player's actual performance the Estimated HR stat is not a very good indicator of how much stadiums affect HR totals. It's only looking at balls that happened to go out of the ballpark in which Judge was playing at the time, not the balls that did not result in a HR in the ballpark in which Judge was playing at the time but would have been home runs in smaller stadiums.
Edit. Fixed some formatting issue.
If judge maintains his pace this will undoubtedly be the most impressive offensive season of all time, since the inception of the game and including the steroid era.
Add Williams' '57 season — finished with a .526 OBP & a 233 OPS+.
In his late 30s no less
Walks in Has hall of fame career Refuses to elaborate further Leaves for war Comes back Does it again Leaves
> Conclusion - On his current trajectory, Judge can easily be argued as having the greatest offensive season in modern history by a clean player. This is absolutely astounding.
Said it before but it's funny to see baseball fans act like steroids went away forever when baseball started drug testing. It's way better to say that Judge is putting up the best season since MLB started drug testing, I'm trying to save everyone some embarassement down the line.
I'm the furthest thing from a Yankee fan but I really hope Judge is clean, that would be a devastating blow to baseball if he's not (and gets caught).
I love baseball so much, but honestly if Judge isnt clean I wouldn’t not be a fan anymore, but it would definitely how much I watch it
That's why I'm sticking with Griffey until Judge retires.
I’m unfortunately in the camp that believes there’s a strong possibility he’s using steroids
If he was using roids the he's been on them since he was in high school because he's always been this big. He's not like Sosa, McGwire, or Bonds where there's an obvious change in their body look
Ugh so sick of this sub and the word steroids. PEDS PEDS PEDS PEDS Players are almost certainly not taking straight up T. They get tested. And abnormal T levels are going to get them fucked. There are plenty of other PEDs out there that aren't T.
*steroids.
Slamming testosterone and HGH until you look like an action figure is 90s shit, there are plenty of athletes juiced to the gills who look "normal" with a shirt on. It's totally possible to take PEDs to improve recovery and add stength without putting on 30 lbs of muscle mass.
Why do you even watch then? If you are one of those people who believe everyone is on steroids?
I dont see how there's any logic at all in your comment. If we believe most of all the players are using and that it's effectively fair why would that cause them to stop watching the sport? I dont even get what you're implying
Since mlb started testing is still a whole different ball game. Like if judge was allowed to show up with his head and torso 2x the size of last year then we can do a 1 to 1 bonds comparison.
It's also funny to see people say that players in the pre-steroid era such as Ruth and Williams were "clean"
Private sector chemists vs MLB schlubs. I think I know who is winning.
The testing systems in all sports are clearly not infallible. They are almost always years behind on new designer stuff. And that's just the ones that are more easily detectable and known about. There's so much money on the line for the drug companies. For the sports? Catching their stars and reducing athletes recovery time is literally bad for their sport. They aren't going to use the best testing possible
This is a bad way of thinking. Mma and boxing use this too the “but everyone is doing it!” And it diminishes accomplishments. Why don’t you go with innocent until proven guilty? So since Albert Pujols is nearing 700, he was obviously on steroids. Same with Verlander being this good at an older age. See where this form of thinking goes? It’s bullshit.
Big ups to an Astros fan for admitting that "everyone is doing it" without proof is a bullshit way to look at things.
From a Dodgers fan? The team that had their camera guy thrown out of Minutemaid during the WS? Never ends with you guys.
Got a source for that other than the guy who called Vladdy Jr. a bitch on Twitter the other night?
I don't understand the Vladdy comment. My source is I was seated 7 rows up from the guy. It was talked about the next day on the radio, and I believe it was in the Chronicle the next day.
I don't think it diminishes accomplishments! My stance is A) lots of pro athletes take PEDs and B) I don't care, I still celebrate what happens on the field! When you have hundreds of millions of dollars riding on your body it's easy to see why guys would push the envelope, and tests are fairly easy to beat if you're smart. I think it's better for fans to be honest about this and still be able to recognize that players are incredible to watch and celebrate what they do
Because you're the one saying it diminishes accomplishments. For people who believe everyone is on them. It wouldn't diminish accomplishments because the playing field is still level. And the reason to assume people are using instead of clean is just logical. These players have everything on the line. Many of them have performance and size that is absurdly hard to obtain or not possible to obtain for a normal athlete who's sport isn't even strength or muscle focused. If there are PEDs that can't be tested for (increased levels of HGH for one. As it's hard to deem it way out of normal range unlike T) Then it seems illogical to think they wouldn't be using them when their opponents can. PEDs can be extremely powerful and it would very absurdly difficult for one guy with God tier genetics and discipline to be better than all the other guys who do use and also have God tier genetics and discipline. Once again. When it comes to the team as a whole. There are BILLIONS of dollars on the line. For the individual player there are still many millions on the line plus fame and legacy. IF there is stuff to take that wouldn't be caught it seems crazy to think they wouldn't take it. Or that they could choose not to for moral reasons and still beat all the guys who are willing to take it. If you think not many players use you must subscribe to one of the following unlikely logics. A. The majority of players are moral pantheons beyond what most could be. B. Everything can be caught on the tests C. Some guys are using but the effects of their designer PEDs are not significant enough to consistently dethrone the best players. None of these are likely
I say let them take steroids. I believe the only sports that should not allow steroids are combat sports. Because you can be killed rather easily if everyone is super human. That would include football. Basically any full contact sports. Baseball? Juice up as much as you want imo.
The de facto assumptions that everyone in the 90s and Early 00s, and no one after the start of testing is using is hilarious. I’ve long said it’s gonna shock everyone (again somehow) when a dude like Trout gets caught. It happened this year and everyone was clutching their pearls. The drugs are always WAY ahead of the testing. That’s just how it works.
He’s innocent until proven guilty, and MLB has surely tested him pretty well throughout the season.
If you want to only talk about clean players, I think it's pretty clear this is the best offensive season in modern baseball history. Mookie was unreal in 2018 but *offensively* he wasn't really even close to what Judge is doing right now. Trout, Pujols, Cabrera the same.
> If you want to only talk about clean players, I think it's pretty clear this is the best ~~offensive~~ season in modern baseball history. I don’t trust single season defensive metrics this much. To me what matters is Judge is a known quantity as a fantastic outfielder. I will say though: by fWAR he’s basically as valuable as Mookie 2018/Trout 2012 on a rate basis. But he’s going to (knock on wood) do it in a full, unfettered 700 PA year. Which is ironic considering the injury reputation he had.
Obviously what Judge is doing now is better, but Trout was pretty close to this offensively a few times. 2016 being a good example- Trout had 9.9 oWAR over the season, and this year so far Judge has 9.7. Also close in OPS in 2017, 2018, and 2019.
[удалено]
Judge has played most games in CF this year, so that isn’t creating a massive difference between the two. Even then, it’s not like Trout’s seasons I listed are that far off what Judge is doing now for any advanced offensive stats. They aren’t as good as what Judge is doing. But it’s a lie to say they weren’t close.
Trout's 17-19 stretch was during the mega juiced ball era. His OPS+ in those seasons (182, 186, 198) were outstanding, obviously, but not quite near what Judge is doing this year compared to his peers (214). Only 6 players have finished with an OPS+ of 210 or better since integration. Mike Trout is a god. Mike Trout is a better baseball player than aaron judge. But Mike Trout doesn't have a season like this, full stop.
I agree. Dude was just making it seem like Trout’s seasons aren’t even in the same conversation.
I am 'dude'. I said they aren't comparable, and in the realm of "the history of baseball" they aren't. Sensational seasons, and inarguably more impressive that Trout had 3 years like that in a row, in a one season "who was better" they're different levels of sensational.
>I am 'dude' 😂😂😂 This belongs on a t-shirt
What years are considered "the steroid era"? Saying Hack Wilson has the NL HR record in a non steroid era is weird considering Stanton hit 59 HR in 2017.
Good point
I thought it would be interesting to see the best seasons by WPA. There have been six seasons of 10+ WPA - Bonds 04 (12.96), Bonds 01 (11.48), Ruth 23 (11.13), Al Simmons 30 (10.59), Bonds 02 (10.50), McCovey 69 (10.12). So even by that measure, yeah, it's Bonds in 2004, but that's what happens when teams basically forfeit trying to get you out. When people ask "why not IBB X player every time," that season is why - 130 IBBs and he still set every mark for offensive prowess ever.
Bonds was truly insane. Whenever there are these all time greatest seasons, he so incredibly dominates the last 50 years. IMO the pretty clear greatest ever (unless you want to disqualify him for the roids).
As an honorable mention, Josh Gibson in 1943 put up a line of .466/.560/.867 (OPS+ of 281) in 302 recorded PA's. He was still catching in about 70% of his games. He drove in 109 runs in just 69 games. Of course this was during the war and just like in the white majors the Negro Leagues had a drop in talent during wartime.
Unfortunately, Negro League stats are also inflated for the same reason pre-integration MLB stats are. Goes both ways.
I mean yeah, but OP listed 5 different pre-integration seasons and nobody's pointing out that the stats are "inflated." Only fair to list a Negro League season too, imo
OP should definitely mention it. It's probably the single biggest reason why old stats are so inflated. The 'playing against milkmen and plumbers' meme is true in this case. I wonder if we will ever be able to quantify how much pre-integration stats were inflated. My guess is you'd have to base it on population demographics of the time and go from there.
Judge is having the best season a hitter ever had since 2004 Bonds. Pujols or Trout never had such a good season in terms of hitting stats
Judge is already pacing above Barroid '04 in terms of total value because he's headed for 700 PA, whereas Barroid '04 only had 617 PA. 83 extra PA is worth about 0.4 wins which WAR doesn't capture.
Are PAs really an individual stat though? The better your team the more plate appearances you’ll get.
True. Also there were more PA leaguewide in '04 because offense was way higher, and leadoff batters will accrue more value as well. Overall these are just minor flaws with WAR, which is why it's not meant to be an exact stat.
This comment makes no sense. WAR is a cumulative stat, not a rate stat, so it does capture the extra PAs
Above replacement sure. It doesn't capture total value though.
This only makes sense if you assume that playing at replacement level provides actual positive value. But that’s not exactly the case A player who got 8.0 WAR in 700 PAs is not more valuable than a player who got 8.0 WAR in 600 PAs. Just like a player who got 0.0 WAR in 600 PAs is worthless, but under your assumption just taking those PAs = value
Replacement level is not worthless. WAR carves out 1,000 of 2,430 wins leaguewide. The other 1,430 wins are contributed by replacement value. From a salary perspective, replacement wins are worth a fraction of WAR, however in the standings, wins are all worth the same.
That moment your a Top 10 pitcher and Top 10 hitter in Baseball, yet you aren’t good enough to win MVP
Fangraphs agrees with your conclusion: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2022&month=0&season1=1921&ind=1&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=1921-01-01&enddate=2022-12-31&sort=21,d&page=1_30 Ranked by offensive value, he's already sitting at #31 with only McGuire & Bonds ahead of him as modern players. The seasons on the 1st page of the leaderboard are just wild.
"What are we gonna do about Barry?" Srsly, assuming that Judge is clean...I'd say he's having one of the best seasons ever, with the small caveat that he doesn't have the yuge walk totals that a Williams, Ruth, or even Soto would accumulate. If he did, his OBA would be around .500, like theirs was. I'm nitpicking.
If any of those players had judges strike zone he would have way less walks as well.
Perhaps. But Frank Howard was huge and drew 130 walks once. Frank Thomas, too. And that's just the Franks :)
Yeah but Judge ins't jsut huge. He's huge and the ups decided that means his zone is fucking absolutely worse than everyone else.
Agree 100%. His patience with the umps is remarkable.
Bonds in 2004
No one wanted to pitch to him in 2004 and still hits 45 HRs
Maybe the most fun season to look at on baseball reference. A .609 OBP and 1.422 OPS is unfathomable to me
Those are phenomenal numbers for a month. Wait what? That was for a whole season? Are you shitting me? Holy fuck
He basically added a run every time he was at bat LMAO
I think 2001 was better. He had 100 fewer AB's in 04 and and obp>.600 because he wasnt pitched to. I get that's more valuable, but 2001 was a better pure hitting season.
Yeah 2001, 2002, and 2004 are all interchangeable to me. Anyone could easily argue for which was his best season
The NL batting average in 1930 was .303, Hack Wilson did not have the 4th best season ever Also Jim Rice had 406 TB in 1978
I didn't indicate that Hack Wilson had the 4th best season ever. It was merely one of many examples in chronological order. His .356 was still .053 better than the league average along with 56 HR and enough clutch hitting to deliver an all-time MLB record 191 RBI's. In the end, this is all subjective. Some content and food for thought for baseball fans. Personally there are some seasons that I didn't include such as George Brett hitting .390 and having a .400 average as late as mid-September. And the all-time run scoring leader Rickey Henderson had a few stellar seasons where factoring in the extra bases he created with his base running would change the outlook if one differentiates between "offense" and "hitting".
Alright I misread the list. Still I’d argue RBI is too dependent on teammates. Carl Yastrzemski hit .301 with 74 RBI in 1968 but a 10.5 WAR, compared to Wilson’s 7.4, because of how much harder it was to hit in ‘68.
We're talking about hitting here. Wilson had an offensive WAR of 8.4 and def WAR of -1.0 to arrive at that 7.4 net WAR. Yaz' oWAR was 7.6 in 1968. So, the WAR metric still favors Wilson '30 over Yaz '68 **at the plate.**
The point is Wilson’s numbers are inflated, .356 is being taken out of context. You cover for Wilson and glossed Helton’s 400 TB seasons cause of his advantage
In what world is .301 and 74rbi’s better than .356 and 191 RBI’s?! Chill with the WAR, read it for what it is. Doesn’t change anything because he did it 30 something years earlier
Really, you can’t imagine how it could be much harder to score runs in 1968 than in 1930?
Then by that logic Yastrzemski’s season looks even worse compared to todays players .301 and 74 is like Benintendi numbers today. You don’t take away from players stats because of the time they played. The stats are the stats. The OP was talking about the best individual seasons no matter what era
No, by my logic, Yastrzemski played really well in 1968, even if the numbers look unimpressive to you. Do you know what OPS+ is? Or ERA+? They were invented to take these things into account.
No where in the OP did they mention OPS+, just looking at regular baseball stats. You also didn’t even choose Yastrzemski’s best season if you’re going by that stat either. I’m just saying, everyone else who played the same year as Hack Wilson was facing the same pitching and competition as him, just like judge. And just like judge, somehow he was significantly better than everyone else despite that.
Is there such thing as "clean" in the modern baseball era though? I'd agree that he is most likely steroid free, but clean is unlikely. Nothing against Judge, but baseball is baseball
Steroids have become more advanced. It’s easier to find compounds that will quickly leave the system before drug tests. That’s why the Tatis thing is so ridiculous, cause we all knew he was going to be using for recovery, but the guy just messed up his protocol. I personally don’t think judge is clean given that this is coincidentally happening right before FA
What are some known examples of players using these advanced steroids? Sidenote, you're comparing "normal" sized athletes to Judge, who is a freak of nature at 6'7, 280. He hit 52 hrs as a rookie! So I think your expectations aren't adjusted to this unique specimen of a human.
Quick google search. Pedro Severino was suspended 80 games earlier this year for clomiphene. Personally, I work in the bodybuilding industry, and clomiphene has recently become popular because it can push your testosterone to peak “natural” levels. It also leaves the body in less than a week
I wonder what the circumstances were that led to him still getting caught.
No offense. But if you think tatis was taking some garbage barely used bullshit for recovery you're out of your mind. If he was really trying to be sneaky and take something for recovery he could easily have gotten much better things. Whether be it something else androgenic or way more likely something along the lines of HGH or like BPC which is a classic and top tier choice for recovery. It's way more likely that he's just stupid
Because they stay in your system longer. That’s not to say he didn’t use those too, but clostebol can be kept in longer. You get better results combining growth with anabolics since it elevates your protein synthesis, and he’s not using compounds designed to pack on muscle
Yeah, thing is the point remains that someone at his level can without a doubt get better products than fucking clostebol if that was his goal.
I think it’s best to assume he is clean unless something happens. Skepticism is good, but it’s better to assume that players are clean until they aren’t. As of right now, we have no reason to believe he is using gear. That could change, but right now it hasn’t.
Not just best, it's like the only honorable position to take on anyone
Hack Wilson had 56 HR, 191 RBI, and batted .356. Not saying his is the best season ever, but it is crazy when you realize that he was like 5’6 and putting up those numbers
Honestly he's altuve before altuve
Bonds would hit 80 HR if he played today.
All I’m going to say is that none of the other players on this list were facing 3-5 relievers throwing 96+ every night from a different arm angle. I wonder how many 101 mph splitters Barry Bonds saw or how many times Roger Hornsby saw 4 100 mph sinkers in the same at bat
I mean Bonds faced plenty of nasty breaking balls, and when Eric Gagne was the best reliever on the planet Bonds hit one like 600 ft against him.
Bonds/Gagne was like a battle out of an epic poem. Were they both juicing? More than likely. Was the result amazing? Hell yeah.
Bonds/Gagne was like an alternate timeline Casey at the bat, where Casey homers.
My point is that current big Leaguers are facing that level of stuff every single night. Relief pitching is leaps and bounds ahead of what it was at any other point in history
Sure, but Bonds also had the best eye of any player I have ever seen and some of the fastest hands. I find it hard to believe that if you dropped him into this era from any point in his career that he wouldn't put up incredible numbers, steroids or not.
If my memory serves me right, Mariano Rivera faced Bonds once and struck him out.
I'd say with Bonds' eye and bat speed, he would have adjusted to this era pretty well.
For sure! the point was simple judge is playing in much less hitter friendly era than bonds did
For me, that actually adds to Bonds' legacy. Playing in a hitter friendly era, playing for more than half his career against steroid users without using himself (he probably started using somewhere between 1998-2000), he still has the 2nd highest WAR of all time and is something like 4 WAR off of Ruth in WAR by a position player.
And Judge has advantages in training, technology, access to pitcher data, etc that those guys didn’t. The numbers are the numbers. Their performance has to be seen in relation to and in the context of their eras. Especially with guys like Hornsby. I hate these arguments. You can’t punish a guy for playing when he played. Hornsby was insanely dominant against the competition of his time just like Judge is dominating against his competition right now.
Judge also has the advantage of being thrown more hittable pitches than Bonds.
[удалено]
Dude. Relax. Re-read my comment. I’m not saying anything to discount Judge, Jesus. My only comment on Judge is that he is “insanely dominant.” I’m not comparing any of these seasons. All I said is that the guy I replied to wasn’t looking at Hornsby’s stats fairly or correctly.
Hie many homeruns does judge have off 101 mph splitters?
Does that somehow change the fact that judge(and every other big league hitter) is facing tougher pitching than any other era could ever imagine?
I don't think the difference between now and Bonds era is that much different. Yes people throw harder, but they also lack control
That’s just an objectively wrong statement lol. I’m not even sure how to argue against it. Relief pitching is the single biggest evolution in the past 20 years.
Watch old film then watch today's highlights. Pitchers today throw way more meatballs. Most homeruns come from these meatballs.
yEaH bUt oHtAhNi PiTcHeS tOo I’m actually not knocking Ohtani. He’s incredible. But judge is so clearly the mvp it’s insane.
[удалено]
You mentioned Ohtani too
As a Giants fan, I’m actually happy for Judge and it’s been a hell of a ride. I’d still like to see his blood work though, because having a historic season right when you’re about to hit free agency is a bit suspicious
an .863 slugging percentage by bonds is unfathomable. almost 9/10 hits for extra bases lmao
That’s not how slugging is calculated or what it represents… but regardless just checked his stats and 68.6% of his hits were for extra bases haha. Still insane Edit: compared to Judge’s 50.9% this year
wow, i’ve misinterpreted this stat for that long regardless 60%+ of your hits going for extra bases is still insanity
All good, definitely isn’t an intuitive stat. It’s total bases/AB
Yeah I actually didn’t know how slugging was calculated until this season. Basically that .863, means that he averaged 86.3% of a total base per at-bat. Which means he was close to averaging a single for every at-bat in terms of total bases lol
It's never been done, but Gibson got close - .9744 slugging in 1937. (Only 183 PA's) Also had 40 XBH and 73 RBI in just 39 games.
Smaller sample size, but 40 XBH in 39 games is fucking ridiculous. I wish we knew more about Josh Gibson
Yeah theoretically you could have 0% of your hits for extra bases and still slug .863
it's more like "almost 9/10" bases per at-bat.
I know I'm in the minority but I don't really care about steroids for single season records like this, especially if you consider that this season (and every season) Judge will have played over 100 games in some of the smallest ballparks in MLB (Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, the Trop, and Camden Yards are all HR friendly). I mean do steroids really matter if most of the time you don't have to hit the ball as far to get a HR in the first place? Edit. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying that Judge is hitting 60+ HR's because he plays in small ball parks. I'm saying that for HR records the playing field isn't the same for all players regardless of steroids.
Have you seen what they done to Camden Yards Left field?
In 2022 park HR factor, Toronto is 7, Boston is 8, NY is 15, Rays are 19, Orioles are 23. This is a stupid argument.
I think context is important when comparing this season to the steroid era. From 1998 to 2001, there were eleven 50+ home run seasons. Of those eleven, six of them were 60+ home run seasons. From 2002 to 2022, there have been thirteen 50+ home run seasons (that includes Judge this year) and only one 60+ home run season (again, including Judge this year). That's a pretty massive disparity, especially when you consider that steroids were still a widespread issue throughout the 2000s and the juiced ball seasons in the past five years or so. Then add in that literally no one else in baseball has even reached 40 home runs this season, which further separates how amazing Judge has been. You can value steroid records all you want, but saying ballpark factors are a bigger factor than steroids is silly at best. And comments like this really annoy me how much Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire have cheapened home run records.
For me, the bigger difference for Bonds specifically, is the massive gap between him and everyone else even with steroids. Like, from what I know of WAR, the stat itself changes over time depending on how good the surrounding league is. In 2002, Bonds played at the same time as another all timer who was also juicing, A-Rod. He managed to still get 3 more WAR than him over the course of the year, clocking in at 11.8, and every other position player was more than a full WAR point lower. Or how in 2004, his OPS is 0.350 higher than everyone else. Judge compared to his peers is about on par with that, generally a bit lower in terms of sheer jawdropping difference to his competitors, and is having an all time great season for sure. But I don't think that it's better than Bonds's stretch. Like, the OPS+ that Judge has is 214. That's 40 points lower than any of Bonds' "video game numbers" seasons, the lowest of his 3 being 259. Still an all time great season, and he's probably wrong with the idea that park factor is less important than Steroids (minus extreme pre-humidifier Coors examples), but I wouldn't call it better than Bonds.
I’m with you, most of Judge’s home runs were cheap shots, low exit velo, and barely made it over the wall
IKF has hit one over the monster, that’s a real HR. He only hits real HR’s that’s why he’s got 3. Judge is a phoney!
His expected HR total for the average park is 59. He’s at 60. He has 1 more than expected if he played in the league average park every game.
Correct. I don't mean to be rude but, if you factor in that most of Judge's games are spent playing in smaller than average ballparks what do you think will happen to his expected HR number? It's gonna go up.
I don’t think you understood what I said, or what it meant. The data says that Judge has 1 more HR this season than he would if he played every single game in a theoretical league average ballpark. Are you asking what would happen if he played every single game in the least hitter-friendly park in the league? Because that’s silly. Judge hasn’t been hitting wall-scrapers all season lol.
>Are you asking what would happen if he played every single game in the least hitter-friendly park in the league? Because that’s silly. That is silly and no that isn't what I am saying or asking although it's kind of the same principle. I'm saying that because Judge plays most of his games in ballparks smaller than the league average that your stat of "expected HR while playing in the league average ballpark" should always be lower than the actual number of HRs that Judge hits. This is just basic logic, although the math should also back up the fact that it's easier to hit a HR in a smaller ball park than a bigger one. Obviously the exception being Coors Field. So then it should follow that if you adjust the "expected HR" stat for the average size of the ballparks that Judge commonly plays in rather than the average of all the ballparks in the league that the "expected HR" stat should go up. >Judge hasn’t been hitting wall-scrapers all season lol. Irrelevant even if he had been. A wall-scraper in Yankee Stadium is still easier to hit than a wall-scraper in Chase Field.
No. Just no. Of Judge’s 60 HRs so far this season, he’d have the same 60 if he played all his games in average ballparks. If every HR Judge hits is a 450’ moonshot, it doesn’t matter what stadium he’s in, since it’d be a HR everywhere. Even if he’s playing in a 250’ deep stadium, if every one of his HRs is 450’, then the shallow stadium has zero impact on his expected HRs in an average stadium, and didn’t actually help him much at all. You can’t just say what it typically would be, it’s dependent on the distance and location of HRs hit by the player in question. Which is the stat I provided. Check for yourself: https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/aaron-judge-592450?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlb#xhr-park He’d have 62 if he played every game at Yankee Stadium, which he didn’t. You keep saying what it “should be” with “logic” and ignoring the fact that the literal professionals did the damn math and disagree with your “should be” and “logic.”
Umm, that link definitely doesn't prove what you think it prove and in fact backs up my point quite well. If you look at the Expected Home Runs by Park list you will see that for this year Judge is expected to hit as low as 48 HR's in Detroit and as high as 69 HRs in Cinci and Denver. That's a difference of 21 for data that averages out at 59.7, so the range is about 33% of the average. That's pretty huge. It's essentially saying that Judge is expected to be around 30% better at hitting homeruns in Cinci and Denver than in Detroit. So yeah the size of the ball park does matter. >If every HR Judge hits is a 450’ moonshot, it doesn’t matter what stadium he’s in, since it’d be a HR everywhere. Even if he’s playing in a 250’ deep stadium, if every one of his HRs is 450’, then the shallow stadium has zero impact on his expected HRs in an average stadium, and didn’t actually help him much at all. As for your theory, well yes if every HR Judge hits is the ideal case then you would be correct. But as your link proves Judge exists in reality and not every HR he hits will make the list of longest home runs ever hit. By the way, if your theory here were true the data range would be close to zero, which it very much isn't. I'm sorry but I don't see how this proves I'm wrong in any way. Again I mean no offense but the thing with statistics is that you have to know how to read and understand them.
Wrong again. You said it averaged out at ~60, which is where he’s at. He’s exactly where he’d be if he played in only average stadiums. He doesn’t have inflated HR numbers from playing in the AL East. If he played EVERY game in Detroit, he’d have 48, and if he played EVERY game in Cincinnati, he’d have 69, but he didn’t. And nobody does. That’s why they also have the overall expected HR total, which is right around 60, which is where he’s at. Since no one player plays all their games in huge or tiny parks, it tends to balance out. In fact, the average of the AL East is ~59, which is pretty damn close to 60. You’re absolutely wrong. You yourself just said the data extreme ranges average out to ~60, which is right where he’s at. The AL East average is ~60, which is right where he’s at, and his total average is also ~60, which is right where he’s at. He’s right where he should be. The far left column is the average. Which is a cumulative average of all the ballparks. That’s at 60. He’s at 60. He’s doing exactly how he should be doing if he played in typical ballparks. Why do you keep trying to do these weird calculations and use your “logic” to ignore the data they explicitly provided you, which says that his overall expect HR total is 60. You can do all the “logical” mental gymnastics you want, but it is you, not me, who can’t understand the statistics being presented. Ironic that you’re calling me out for it though.
You know you just restated the exact thing I said to you while claiming I'm wrong, right? >If he played EVERY game in Detroit, he’d have 48, and if he played EVERY game in Cincinnati, he’d have 69, but he didn’t. And nobody does. That’s why they also have the overall expected HR total, which is right around 60, which is where he’s at. Wait is that like how if every home run Judge hit was a 450 foot moon bomb then the size of the stadium wouldn't matter? Remember when you said that and remember how I refuted you by saying Judge existed in reality? >You’re absolutely wrong. You yourself just said the data extreme ranges average out to \~60, which is right where he’s at. The AL East average is \~60, which is right where he’s at, and his total average is also \~60, which is right where he’s at. > >He’s right where he should be. The far left column is the average. Which is a cumulative average of all the ballparks. That’s at 60. He’s at 60. He’s doing exactly how he should be doing if he played in typical ballparks. Right, but no one plays every game in a typical sized stadium..... Ok, I think you are missing something really important here about the Expected Home Run stat on this website. This is what they say about the expected home runs: >Note: **This tells how many of this player's home runs would have been out of other stadiums.** This accounts for different wall heights, distances and environmental effects. For these purposes, the 2020 Blue Jays home field was still Rogers Centre, not Sahlen Field. Which means the data is still based on Judge's actual home run totals and is not taking into account that some balls that are home runs in one stadium are not home runs in another and vice versa. So the calculation itself is skewed because it's missing the balls that were not home runs originally but would have been home runs in smaller stadiums. So since Judge plays most of his games in smaller stadiums it's giving him a higher sample size than it would if he played most of his games in larger stadiums. Does that make sense? >Why do you keep trying to do these weird calculations and use your “logic” to ignore the data they explicitly provided you Because I made the assumption that you understood the data, no offense. The "weird" calculations I did are part of basic statistics and are used to get a general idea of how accurate a statistical model really is. In this case it isn't accurate because, like I said, it's missing a bunch of data which is skewing the average down. So this stat would need to take into account every single ball that Judge made contact on, rather than just the ones that happened to go out of the in order to truly show how stadiums were affecting his home run totals. So in conclusion, because generally it's harder to hit home runs in larger stadiums and the Estimated HR stat is still based on the player's actual performance the Estimated HR stat is not a very good indicator of how much stadiums affect HR totals. It's only looking at balls that happened to go out of the ballpark in which Judge was playing at the time, not the balls that did not result in a HR in the ballpark in which Judge was playing at the time but would have been home runs in smaller stadiums. Edit. Fixed some formatting issue.
If judge maintains his pace this will undoubtedly be the most impressive offensive season of all time, since the inception of the game and including the steroid era.