Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Asterisks don't make any sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, they don't.

They also don't make any difference...
They don't unhit any homeruns...
They don't change what happened on the field...
Nor do they change the numbers recorded in the books...

All they really seem to do is appease the angry mob that is frothing at the mouth to villify a man who hit baseball's for a living...because he doesn't conform to their expectations in how he should lead his life.

Enjoy the asterisk, it's all you got. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


bingo, bango, bongo...762 and counting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't care either way, but let's not pretend that the asterisk is insignificant. After all, look at the cloud that hung over Roger Maris, and I don't think he even got an asterisk - it was just the perception that he had one.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't care either way, but let's not pretend that the asterisk is insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...a fashion designer bought a baseball, and decided to put an asterisk on it.

If anyone is pretending about the significance, it isn't me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I mean, seriously, I don't know about you guys, but I don't usually make a habit of letting a guy who designs women's fall fashions tell me what to think about what happens on the baseball field.

But that's just me....hey...if you'd rather eschew the facts, details, and proof...and instead go with the opinion of the guy who makes your wife's dresses....more power to you.

I'll take what happens on the field.
You guys can have what the fashion designers of the world think about it.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

It'll be significant if it ends up being the reason for Bonds to be the first person to reject an invitation to the HoF.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

Um...a fashion designer bought a baseball, and decided to put an asterisk on it.


[/ QUOTE ]


Your facts are as usual, wrong. It was thousands of Americans that voted for the asterisk. He just bought the ball and obliged with what the VAST majority of Americans wanted.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your facts are as usual, wrong. It was thousands of Americans that voted for the asterisk. He just bought the ball and obliged with what the VAST majority of Americans wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ecko decided to buy the ball. Ecko decided to let thousands of people (OMG the VAST majority of Americans!) tell him what to do with it. Just because he's heeding some ridiculous vote doesn't mean that he's not making a decision. He could, for instance, decide to dump his dumb idea and decide for himself what to do with it. Or take Gilbert Arenas up on his offer and let the facts decide on Bonds' legacy, not a swarm of uninformed fans. Believe it or not, the vast majority of Americans can be wrong about a lot of things. I don't want to get political in a non-political thread, but there are many, many examples.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Um...a fashion designer bought a baseball, and decided to put an asterisk on it.


[/ QUOTE ]


Your facts are as usual, wrong. It was thousands of Americans that voted for the asterisk. He just bought the ball and obliged with what the VAST majority of Americans wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this isnt serious right? How many people do you think live in the US?

EDIT: And maybe even more importantly, who is more likely to vote in this poll? For example, I didnt vote in it. Redbean? Anyone here? Go figure.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

Your facts are as usual, wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, huh?

Interesting.

[ QUOTE ]

It was thousands of Americans that voted for the asterisk. He just bought the ball and obliged with what the VAST majority of Americans wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...technically, Ecko bought the ball, and said that even though his desire was to brand it with an asterisk, he would let the fans decide.

Which he did in an uncertified and unverified private poll on his own website.

I only point this out as he claimed 10 million people had voted in the one week timespan, despite Alexa tracking results showing less than 1 million total visits to his site over the same time period, not even reducing for multiple visits from the same entities.

And even assuming the 60% of 10 million voters as claimed is accurate, which it certainly isn't...but even assuming it is...that is hardly the "vast majority of Americans."

Truth be told, the vast majority of Americans could care less either way, and it's rather foolish to assert different.

Put simply...three years ago, the angry mob was hoping for jail time and Barry's formal suspension from the game....and after all that we've seen...now all they have left is latching their frustrations onto the publicity stunt of some eccentric dude who makes purses for a living.

Sweet...

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your facts are as usual, wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite ironic, considering I just realized you are the guy whose major "fact" when claiming Barry "obviously" juiced is based on your anecdotal opinions on the size of his head...

Yikes...

And when we talked about him turning down the invitation to the HOF...you said "assuming he gets elected in the first place".

I mean, seriously...

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other thing you are missing is that 25% of the NL at the time moved to run depressing parks. So you would expect the overall HR rate to drop, and the AB/HR of the teams who played in those stadiums to really drop.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you expect is not always what actually happened.

<u>Let's take a look:</u>

Analyzing from 1969-1973, post-expansion and post-rules, in order to isolate the park effects of the three new stadiums:

<u>AB/HR</u>
1969-1970 Crosley Field - 31.02
1970-1973 Riverfront Stadium - 45.18

Big Decrease, as you expected.

<u>AB/HR</u>
1969-1970 Shibe Park - 43.73
1970-1973 Veterans Stadium - 39.50

Oops...INCREASE!

<u>AB/HR</u>
1969-1970 Forbes Field - 77.23
1971-1973 Three Rivers - 52.19

Oops... BIG INCREASE!


[ QUOTE ]

The point is that the league AB/HR is artificially depressed when compared to Aarons AB/HR. If you could remove those 3 parks from the equation I think you would see that the league wide AB/HR actually increased slightly.


[/ QUOTE ]

As luck would have it, we can do just that through the magic of math.

<u>AB/HR Rate :</u>
1962-1967 Leaguewide: 45.1
1969-1975 Leaguewide: 46.1
1969-1975 Without the 3 new parks: 46.08

So, like I said, the theory looks nice on paper, but when we set out to prove it using the numbers, we still see that the HR rate from 1969-1975 decreased from the HR rate from 1962-1967, both with and without the new parks included..

Yahtzee!

[/ QUOTE ]


manbearpig has been conspicously absent from this thread since my last reply to him demonstrated that the actual statistics did not support his fantastic theory, and in fact showed the exact opposite.

Funny how that works. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other thing you are missing is that 25% of the NL at the time moved to run depressing parks. So you would expect the overall HR rate to drop, and the AB/HR of the teams who played in those stadiums to really drop.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you expect is not always what actually happened.

<u>Let's take a look:</u>

Analyzing from 1969-1973, post-expansion and post-rules, in order to isolate the park effects of the three new stadiums:

<u>AB/HR</u>
1969-1970 Crosley Field - 31.02
1970-1973 Riverfront Stadium - 45.18

Big Decrease, as you expected.

<u>AB/HR</u>
1969-1970 Shibe Park - 43.73
1970-1973 Veterans Stadium - 39.50

Oops...INCREASE!

<u>AB/HR</u>
1969-1970 Forbes Field - 77.23
1971-1973 Three Rivers - 52.19

Oops... BIG INCREASE!


[ QUOTE ]

The point is that the league AB/HR is artificially depressed when compared to Aarons AB/HR. If you could remove those 3 parks from the equation I think you would see that the league wide AB/HR actually increased slightly.


[/ QUOTE ]

As luck would have it, we can do just that through the magic of math.

<u>AB/HR Rate :</u>
1962-1967 Leaguewide: 45.1
1969-1975 Leaguewide: 46.1
1969-1975 Without the 3 new parks: 46.08

So, like I said, the theory looks nice on paper, but when we set out to prove it using the numbers, we still see that the HR rate from 1969-1975 decreased from the HR rate from 1962-1967, both with and without the new parks included..

Yahtzee!

[/ QUOTE ]


manbearpig has been conspicously absent from this thread since my last reply to him demonstrated that the actual statistics did not support his fantastic theory, and in fact showed the exact opposite.

Funny how that works. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

RedBean: The Bill Bellichick of Sports Events.