Does Jose Bautista piss you off?

[ls7plus]

I think virtually all of you have missed the point. We're talking about a player whose performance for SIX YEARS was barely good enough to stay in the major leagues, who then catapulted out of nowhere into THE 99th PERCENTILE of current hitters, and should his production continue at current levels, certainly above the 95th percentile of all time, at age 29! I repeat once more for clarity: IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY IN NATURE--IT NEVER HAS, AND IT NEVER WILL! None of your examples fit that mold at all. Joe Hardy is far closer, and it is not a coincidence that he was purely a fictitious character. Frank Howard doesn't even come close to a fit--He hit 23 homers as a rooke, batting .268 in 1960, 15 in a half season's worth of at bats in 1961, while hitting for a .296 average, 31 homers in 493 at bats in '62, once again hitting .296, 28 HR's in only 417 at bats in '63--he had but one down season similar to Bautista's six, which was 1964, when he hit but .226, although he still managed 24 HR's.

Dave Kingman beyond any question doesn't fit the Bautista mold either, with a string of homerun seasons starting when he was just 23 years old of 29, 24, 18, 36, 37, 26, 28, 48, 18 (in only half a season), 22 (in two-thirds of a season), 37, 13 (in half a season's worth of at bats, 248), 35, 30 and 35. Nope, no Jose Bautista there!

Wally Post? Oops, sorry once again. Post hit 18 homeruns in 1954, a season which he started when he was only 24 years old, and batted just 451 times, hitting what was most likely at least close to a league average of .255. From a solid base, he did indeed progress to 40 homers the next year with 33% more at bats, followed by a run of years in which he was obviously not entirely healthy and played less than full time, playing in only 143, 134, 110, 132, 111, 99 and 109 games, yet posting respectable homerun totals of 36, 20, 12, 22, 19, 20, and 17 (in only 285 at bats in 1962). Sorry, no Jose Bautista there, either considering the factor of six entirely marginal major league performance years, or ANY PERIOD WHATSOEVER WHERE HE WAS EVEN ARGUABLY THE BEST IN THE GAME. Not only no cigar there, but not even any lolipop!

Rico Petrocelli does indeed bear a superficial resemblance, but his years preceding his big 40 homerun year included years of 13 (in less than two-thirds of a season), 18, 17, and 12 (in only 406 at bats), with batting averages which superficially may SEEM to resemble Bautista's, but were actually cose to the league averages in the heart of the pitcher's era, with a much larger strike zone and five inch higher mound. Plus, a shortstop good for 15-20 homers, fields well (Petrocelli did), and hits for the league average would not be considered a mediocre player. Petrocelli's big year came in 1969, when they shrunk the strike zone and lowered the mound, a time when a lot of other hitters achieved their career best years, including the aforementioned Frank Howard, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, arguably Reggie Jackson, etc. And I don't think anyone would have seriously nominated him as being in the running even then for the title of best hitter in the game. We're also not talking a 70-homerun pace here, as Bautista has been on since last May. Maybe a lolipop here for Rico, but certainly no cigar!
More tonight, when I have more time.

Nice lively discussion. Hope you don't take it personally

Larry