Anyone see Carlos Pena's stats?

by jonk on Aug 27, 2009 5:47 PM EDT

96 hits 22 2B 2 3B 37 HR 61 XBH 35 Singles

64% of his hits have been for extra bases. I wonder what the highest percentage for a qualified hitter has been.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I saw a post about this today on (I think) Beyond the Boxscore, but I can’t find it now. Actually, it was about the fact that Pena has hit more homers than singles, and apparently Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds are the only players to ever manage that feat in a full season.

Bonds in 2001 hit 73 home runs, 3 triples, 32 doubles out of 156 total hits, for a XBH percentage of 69.2. I haven’t checked, but I find it hard to imagine anyone has exceeded that.

by phatj on Aug 27, 2009 7:50 PM EDT reply actions

It was on Fangraphs

Here’s the article: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/carlos-pena-is-pulling-a-mcgwire

by phatj on Aug 27, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Everyone else was on roids

Pena’s clean (as far as we know)

Or maybe he’s just slow, so he doesn’t get many infield singles

"Leave Michael Alone!" - said like that Brittany Spears fan on youtube

by sports00fan00 on Aug 28, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions

bonds

bonds was not on roids .. u cant prove it .. so hes innocent till proven guilty

by jack is better than asante on Aug 29, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Just because he can’t prove it doesn’t mean he wasn’t on them.

by FuquaManuel on Aug 29, 2009 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes, we can

let us have a look at that little list from 2003…

by Screen Name 20 on Aug 31, 2009 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions

you mean the illegally obtained one?

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Aug 31, 2009 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions

I don’t know if that changes his argument, but who gives a crap. That list showed that like 1/7th of baseball players used PEDs in 2003 and I am sure it was at least twice that if not more.

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Aug 31, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions

BURN THE WITCHES!

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Aug 31, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep

legal/illegal (don’t want to get into right/wrong), they’re still on the list.

by Screen Name 20 on Aug 31, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions

So you want access to a list of names of players, and you don’t know what they tested positive for. And they were tested with the understanding the results would remain anonymous. And for what, to satisfy some weird sense of justice?

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Aug 31, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

No, not at all. I'm not arguing that I want the access

I’m just playing devil’s advocate to JIBTA’s comment. Look, I understand the confidentiality, etc, and I don’t want to get into all that. He was saying that you can’t prove Bonds was on roids but I’m willing to bet that he was on that list. Right now, I can’t “prove” that Bonds was on PED’s but just b/c the list is confidential and we don’t have access doesn’t mean he didn’t test positive.

by Screen Name 20 on Sep 1, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions

Since we don’t know what they were testing for, his name appearing on that list would not necessarily mean he was “on roids”, and he might have tested positive for something that was neither illegal nor banned by baseball at the time.

by phatj on Sep 1, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions

They just have a list of people with positive results, but no idea what the positive results relate to? I doubt that.

And the argument isn’t about what’s illegal or banned, it’s about was he on the list (and I’m sure he was) and what was it for (and I’m sure it was for PED’s)?

by Screen Name 20 on Sep 1, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions

It's entirely possible

The 2003 test was intended to be an anonymous survey to get an idea of the breadth of the PED “problem”. It wouldn’t surprise me if the specific drugs the players tested positive for weren’t on the list — were the specifics leaked for A-Rod or Ortiz? Hell, if they’d done it right, they wouldn’t even have names, just a count.

But getting back to my second point. If the so-called PEDs the players tested positive for were neither illegal nor banned by MLB, who cares?

by phatj on Sep 1, 2009 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, it does make Carlos Pena’s “achievement” more unique, which is the topic that got this conversation started.

We don’t always need to be taking stands on PEDs, whether moralistic or contrarian. It’s OK to just shoot the s—- about it sometimes.

by taco pal on Sep 1, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions

^^^^^^^

If it wasn’t illegal or banned, the MLB shouldn’t suspend them or asterisk them and that’s fine, everyone had a level playing field to use the same “enhancers”. But like taco pal said above, I feel it makes it makes more unique or impressive when they’re not on PEDs, which was what got this whole thread started.

by Screen Name 20 on Sep 2, 2009 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Numbers from Baseball Digest for 1900-2002

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_6_61/ai_85481741/

Top ten are Bonds, McGwire, McGwire, Belle, Ruth, Stargell, Ruth, McGwire, Jackson, Ruth

"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"

by The Dark on Aug 28, 2009 10:35 AM EDT reply actions

And he barely made the AllStars

To me the Eagles are like that girlfriend that pisses u off, then u hate her, but the next morning you wake up and remember that thing u love so much about her

by XxBleedGreen5xX on Aug 29, 2009 10:20 AM EDT reply actions