Aramis Ramirez or Scott Rolen?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

One more time.......

 

Rolen is a little over 3 years older than Ramirez, NOT 4 years older.

 

If you assume that Rolen's best years are behind him (prime years), then you have to assume the same thing for Derrek Lee. Right?

 

In comparison to Pujols, yes.

 

No, in comparison to himself. "Past his prime", I think, is the term that we're using.

 

You're missing the point. When comparing Ramirez and Rolen, you have to take into effect that Ramirez will likely improve and Rolen will likely plateau or decline because of their ages. The same holds true for Lee and Pujols, even though no one has really compared who will be better going forward(correct answer: Pujols).

 

I don't necessarily buy into the idea of Derrek Lee suddenly declining because of his age. I think he's FOUND his prime. Some find it later than others. That's why this whole discussion of Ramirez' prime versus Rolen's prime is completely arbitrary, in my mind. We don't know when their prime was, is, or will be.

 

There are exceptions(Luis Gonzalez, come on down), but when you're predicting performance over several years, assuming that someone is an exception isn't the way to go.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Pujols is 46.

 

 

:shock:

[Catman61]

But Rolen's fragility compounds his age, so that has to be a consideration as well.

 

fragility?????

 

games played 2000-2005

ARam 800 or approx 133/season

Rolen 786 or approx 131/season

 

games played 2000-2004

ARam 677 or approx 135/season

Rolen 730 or approx 146/season

 

Rolen has fragility issues in comparing him to ARam? Even considering Rolen's freak injury from his collision with Choi, one could hardly give the health advantage to Ramirez.

[Andy]

The stuff about Pujols' age was funny back in 2004. Now? I just don't get it. It's not like I attacked someone for saying it........ I just didn't find the humor in it. Relax. It goes both ways.

 

As for being argumentative......... yeah. It's a freakin' baseball message board. Why be "rivals" if we can't argue? It's not personal...... I haven't called anyone names......... haven't insulted anyone. Keep it in context, folks. That's all.

 

There's nothing wrong with arguing, but it seems like that's all you do here. Mix it up a little.

 

It's harmless fun. A victimless crime. Save your frustration for someone who actually makes personal attacks and doesn't know what he's talking about. :wink:

Is it a good or bad sign that I think I know exactly which poster you're hinting at here? :lol:

[Andy]

There's a discussion about Edmonds and steroids on the "Rivalry" board. At the risk of getting Cub fans worked up (which isn't my intention), could A-ram be just as much of a suspect?

Absolutely ridiculous. Does anyone who suffer an injury or two have to deal with this crap now? Ramirez's problems have stemmed from poor conditioning and swinging the bat 800 miles an hour, not from anything that would be related to steroids.

The question was raised because Edmonds was more or less accused of steroids in another thread because of his injury and horrible start. I think it's a perfectly acceptable question in response to the Edmonds thread considering Ramirez has nagging injuries and is off to a horrible start.

What's good for one is good for another.

 

By the way, are you a doctor?

I don't have to be a doctor when every single item about Ramirez's injuries mentions that they are the result of poor conditioning. It's widely-known by now that Aramis is not the best-conditioned player and he ends up with sore hamstrings and similar injuries because his body is not as well-equipped to deal with a long season as, say, Derrek Lee's.

 

Nagging injuries should not automatically equal steroid speculation. Now, if the injuries in question are elbow/knee/other joint problems, that's a different story, because we know now that prolonged steroid use can lead to that due to the inability of the bone to withstand the growing muscle.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The question was raised because Edmonds was more or less accused of steroids in another thread because of his injury and horrible start. I think it's a perfectly acceptable question in response to the Edmonds thread considering Ramirez has nagging injuries and is off to a horrible start.

What's good for one is good for another.

 

THE EDMONDS STEROIDS THREAD WAS A JOKE

 

edmonds = steroids

 

discuss

 

I'm just messing around.

 

Not a single person in that thread "more or less accused" Edmonds of using steroids.

[jjgman21]

 

Nagging injuries should not automatically equal steroid speculation. Now, if the injuries in question are elbow/knee/other joint problems, that's a different story, because we know now that prolonged steroid use can lead to that due to the inability of the bone to withstand the growing muscle.

 

should we speculate about steroids when a chronically injured player changes to a team with a manager who oversaw the development of several of the most notorious steroid users/suspects, and suddenly that player isn't injured anymore and/or seems to recover amazingly quick from nagging type injuries and his OPS+ jumps about 30 points, then just as suddenly has a 40 point drop off in OPS+ the year MLB starts testing for and penalizing steroid use, and appears to fall completely apart early on in the second year of steroid testing/penalties?

 

almost all of the steroid suspicions are based on anecdotal evidence. as strong as a case as any can be made against Edmonds.

[jjgman21]

The question was raised because Edmonds was more or less accused of steroids in another thread because of his injury and horrible start. I think it's a perfectly acceptable question in response to the Edmonds thread considering Ramirez has nagging injuries and is off to a horrible start.

What's good for one is good for another.

 

THE EDMONDS STEROIDS THREAD WAS A JOKE

 

edmonds = steroids

 

discuss

 

I'm just messing around.

 

Not a single person in that thread "more or less accused" Edmonds of using steroids.

 

in a round about way, I just did in this thread.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The question was raised because Edmonds was more or less accused of steroids in another thread because of his injury and horrible start. I think it's a perfectly acceptable question in response to the Edmonds thread considering Ramirez has nagging injuries and is off to a horrible start.

What's good for one is good for another.

 

THE EDMONDS STEROIDS THREAD WAS A JOKE

 

edmonds = steroids

 

discuss

 

I'm just messing around.

 

Not a single person in that thread "more or less accused" Edmonds of using steroids.

 

in a round about way, I just did in this thread.

 

That was a little more than "round about".

[CubinNY]

Wright had 3 errors today.

[elconq05]

The question was raised because Edmonds was more or less accused of steroids in another thread because of his injury and horrible start. I think it's a perfectly acceptable question in response to the Edmonds thread considering Ramirez has nagging injuries and is off to a horrible start.

What's good for one is good for another.

 

THE EDMONDS STEROIDS THREAD WAS A JOKE

 

edmonds = steroids

 

discuss

 

I'm just messing around.

 

Not a single person in that thread "more or less accused" Edmonds of using steroids.

 

With all of the Edmonds hating going on in here...how was I supposed to know?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The question was raised because Edmonds was more or less accused of steroids in another thread because of his injury and horrible start. I think it's a perfectly acceptable question in response to the Edmonds thread considering Ramirez has nagging injuries and is off to a horrible start.

What's good for one is good for another.

 

THE EDMONDS STEROIDS THREAD WAS A JOKE

 

edmonds = steroids

 

discuss

 

I'm just messing around.

 

Not a single person in that thread "more or less accused" Edmonds of using steroids.

 

With all of the Edmonds hating going on in here...how was I supposed to know?

 

From the exact quotes I provided in the above post.