Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?
Hamilton hits 4 hrs in game
#1
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:26 PM
#2
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:28 PM
#3
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:31 PM
#4
Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:49 PM
#5
Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:20 PM
#6
Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:32 PM
18 total bases with the four homers and a double....
That's one off the ML record, set by Shawn Green (6 hits) of the Dodgers in 2002, for total bases in a game. Joe Adcock also had 18 in one game for the Braves (1954) and Fred Lynn holds the Red Sox record (18 -- 3 HR, triple, single -- 1975l).
#7
Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:33 PM
#8
Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:51 PM
Edited by Deathofthebambino, 08 May 2012 - 09:51 PM.
#9
Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:05 PM
#10
Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:07 PM
#11
Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:30 PM
Ha! Nice.Kinda like hitting for the cycle. But better.
Seriously unfuckingbelievable night for him
#12
Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:31 PM
Freddie Lynn's triple was about one foot away from going out in left field in Detroit.
Adcock's double didn't miss by much more.
#13
Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:18 AM
#14
Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:35 AM
Josh Hamilton could go 0 for his next 200, and he'd still have a better slugging percentage than Albert Pujols.
Edited by mabrowndog, 09 May 2012 - 08:39 AM.
#15
Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:49 AM
#16
Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:25 AM
Are the drugs what made him miss 40 games a year on average during his MLB career?Amazing to think about what could have been if he didn't turn to drugs. Best hitter ever?
#17
Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:39 AM
Are the drugs what made him miss 40 games a year on average during his MLB career?
No, but they're what made him miss his age 23, 24 and 25 seasons in their entirety.
Not saying I agree with the "best hitter ever" premise, but we'd most likely be talking about an historically great playing record for a guy who'll turn just 31 in a couple of weeks.
#18
Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:42 AM
From the Dan Patrick Show:
Josh Hamilton could go 0 for his next 200, and he'd still have a better slugging percentage than Albert Pujols.
Had to doublecheck this myself, but it is actually true. That would put Hamilton at .291, Pujols is currently at .281 (!).
#19
Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:51 AM
#20
Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:57 AM
Had to doublecheck this myself, but it is actually true. That would put Hamilton at .291, Pujols is currently at .281 (!).
Yeah, I checked it as well before posting. It just sounded far too insane to be accurate.
If Josh Hamilton fell into a lengthy slump of 0-for-4's while Pujols began a similar streak of going 1-for-4 with a HR, it would take 16 games -- over half a month of one player's epic futility combined with another's record-breaking HR string -- for Pujols to catch him in SLG.
Edited by mabrowndog, 09 May 2012 - 10:59 AM.
#21
Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:11 AM
I was mainly responding to the "best hitter ever" idea.No, but they're what made him miss his age 23, 24 and 25 seasons in their entirety.
Not saying I agree with the "best hitter ever" premise, but we'd most likely be talking about an historically great playing record for a guy who'll turn just 31 in a couple of weeks.
But if we say Hamilton had come up at age 23 and shown the same fragility, he'd have great rate stats, but still be under 200 HR as he'd probably only have about 950 games played.
When healthy he is probably the best hitter out there. But he's not healthy enough. He was clearly hurt in the playoffs last year and only hit one HR, for example.
#22
Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:21 AM
I was mainly responding to the "best hitter ever" idea.
But if we say Hamilton had come up at age 23 and shown the same fragility, he'd have great rate stats, but still be under 200 HR as he'd probably only have about 950 games played.
When healthy he is probably the best hitter out there. But he's not healthy enough. He was clearly hurt in the playoffs last year and only hit one HR, for example.
This is an epic example of the fallacy of the pre-determined outcome. Because the only thing we know is that he would not have shown the same fragility. Perhaps he would have been better. Perhaps worse. But you can't just use his performance to date as a benchmark for what he would have accomplished if he had come up earlier.
The most likely scenario is that he would have been healthier if he came up early - and not just in the early part of his career, but over the past several years. But again, I don't know this to be true. I just know that everything would have been different. And given his evident talent, that's an intriguing thought.
#23
Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:31 AM
Are the drugs what made him miss 40 games a year on average during his MLB career?
Might have something to do with it. I mean the guy was down to something like 80 pounds. I would think that would have broken him down a bit and taken some years off so to speak.
#24
Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:41 PM
Look at his minor league track record. During the time when he was between 18 and 21 years old, he spent parts of 4 drug riddled seasons bouncing around the minors, high and drunk the whole time. He was then completely out of baseball from age 21-25. He gets clean, plays just 15 games of low A ball at the end of the 2006 season when he's 25 years old, and then the next year makes the opening day of roster of the Reds as a 26 year old. He was immediately an impact bat and a superstar the very next season. This was despite having absolutely no meaningful minor league development.
He is clearly one of the most supremely talented baseball players of all-time. If he never got into drugs he might have been a full-time major leaguer by the time he was 20 years old. We'll never know quite how great his career could've turned out, it'll remain one of the great "what ifs" in baseball history.
#25
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:51 PM
I think we're nuts to even suggest that, without the drugs, Hamilton would've been stuck in the minors until he was 23.
Look at his minor league track record. During the time when he was between 18 and 21 years old, he spent parts of 4 drug riddled seasons bouncing around the minors, high and drunk the whole time. He was then completely out of baseball from age 21-25. He gets clean, plays just 15 games of low A ball at the end of the 2006 season when he's 25 years old, and then the next year makes the opening day of roster of the Reds as a 26 year old. He was immediately an impact bat and a superstar the very next season. This was despite having absolutely no meaningful minor league development.
He is clearly one of the most supremely talented baseball players of all-time. If he never got into drugs he might have been a full-time major leaguer by the time he was 20 years old. We'll never know quite how great his career could've turned out, it'll remain one of the great "what ifs" in baseball history.
Well said. The drug abuse didn't steal 4 MLB years from Hamilton. It's likely that they stole 5 or 6.
Edit: "I was told there would be no math ...."
Edited by Average Reds, 09 May 2012 - 05:53 PM.
#26
Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:49 PM
Plus the abuse on his body from the drugs could likely end his career earlier than someone who didn't use them.Well said. The drug abuse didn't steal 4 MLB years from Hamilton. It's likely that they stole 5 or 6
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users












