Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SWC75, post: 1835377, member: 289"] Nobody’s ever been quite sure what happened with BRADY ANDERSON. He came up with the Red Sox as an outstanding outfield prospect and he was an excellent outfielder. But for several years it looked as if he couldn’t hit major league pitching at all. In his first four years he never hit higher than .231 and hit a total of 9 home runs in 484 games. By now with the Orioles, he improved to hitting between .262-.271 for the next four years with 62 home runs and 134 steals. He was a “speed” guy. Then, he suddenly, in 1996: .297, 50 home runs, 21 steals 110RBIs, 117 runs scored. In the next four years he hit 18-24 home runs per year. His best remaining year was 1999 when he hit .282 with 24 homers, 36 steals, 81RBIs and 109 runs scored. But he never had another season like 1997, probably the most “out of context” year in baseball history. Amazingly, Bill James doesn’t rank it among hi “fluke seasons”. That’s because he bases it on “Win Shares” and rates Brady’s 1992 season, when he with 21 homers, 53 steals, 80RBIs and 100 runs scored as his best season with 29 win shares as opposed to 28 in 1996. If you want to figure out why that’s a better season you have to read his book. [URL="http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Win_Shares"]Win Shares - BR Bullpen[/URL] Anderson, quoted by Wikipedia: “"Because I only hit 50 home runs once, it was, in fact, an aberration. However, it was not a fluke", he told the Baltimore Sun (March 20, 2004). "Nothing can be considered a fluke that takes six months to accomplish. Rather it was a culmination of all my athleticism and baseball skills and years of training peaking simultaneously... Hitting in front of [Roberto] Alomar, [Rafael] Palmeiro, [Bobby] Bonilla and [Cal] Ripken didn't hurt, either.” Anderson added that while the 50 homers may have been 26 more home runs than he hit in any other season, "that's just one more home run per week, just one more good swing. That is the data that simultaneously comforted me and haunted me, the small difference between greatness and mediocrity." There’s quite a difference between 24 home runs and 50. Cal Ripken: "Brady always had a much more advanced concept of cross-training and plyometrics and his diet. He was just ahead of the curve... To me, (that season) was all about him being locked in. He had good swings every at-bat. Bearing witness to it all year, he was a marvel to watch. I don't remember him ever being in a slump... Brady always had a fly-ball swing, which he was criticized for as a leadoff hitter, but that year he was right on the ball. He was just in one of those grooves. There were a couple of instances in my career when I seemed to pick up the next day where I left off. It's hard to explain. You wish you could do that every year." You sure do. Here’s a good article examining the issue of whether Anderson sued steroids. The author doesn’t think so because he never tested positive, his name didn’t come up in any of the investigation, he didn’t have the pattern of weight gain typical for steroids and he did have injuries that limited his production after his big year or else he might have had other seasons like ’96: [URL="http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/3/8/11166544/brady-anderson-1996-steroids-50-home-runs-orioles"]The case for Brady Anderson being clean of steroids[/URL] Maybe someday we’ll know who took what and be able to figure out what impact it had. But I doubt it. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?