Two Plus Two Newer Archives - Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Sporting Events (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=48)

- - Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=537322)

Re: Bonds Responds

[ QUOTE ]
Still questioning their accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're questioning the accuracy of statistical fact, and my using the historically recorded statistics and a hand-held calculator to determine AB per HR.

Interesting.

Exactly what are you questioning? You think maybe the NL scorekeepers conspired 30 years in advance to fudge the numbers?

[ QUOTE ]

My theory was that while the league wide run scoring environment was deflated Aaron played the bulk of his games in offensive positive environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...here's what you said:

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

You expected a drop in HR rate. It went UP.

You also said:

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

You expected a slight increase....yet when I removed those 3 new parks, the league wide AB/HR rate <u>dropped</u> as compared to the previous 1962-1967 time period.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Jarry Park was one of the top 3 or 4 hitter's parks.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Jack Murphy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, I'd have to look at the numbers.

Unlike some folks, I don't advance wild-ass assertions without seeing if they are factual.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

But, once again... from 1969-1973, the leaguewide HR rate went DOWN as compared to the leaguewide rate from 1962-1967.....and yet Hank's HR rate, both at home and <u>ON THE ROAD</u>, went up from 1969-1973, during the ages of 35-39, as compared to his rate from age 30-34.

An we are beating this discussion to death.

Re: Bonds Responds

[ QUOTE ]
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...

[/ QUOTE ]

id be surprised if he did. I dont anticipate many people think he should be there. Pete Rose etc...

Re: Bonds Responds

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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...

[/ QUOTE ]

id be surprised if he did. I dont anticipate many people think he should be there. Pete Rose etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

So what kind of odds are you going to give me here?

Re: Bonds Responds

ok im gonna leave this thread alone, its quite redundant and overall pretty dumb. To the few Bonds supporters good luck with that. The product you sell is a tough one.

Re: Bonds Responds

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand this is average park factor weighted by number of at bats for Hank Aaron.

Year PF
1966 102
1967 99
1968 100
1969 100
1970 106
1971 106
1972 109
1973 108

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

"Average park factor weighted by at-bats for Hank Aaron"?

Can you give the methodology/formula for that one?

Because these park factors you list aren't the same as derived from the commonly accepted PF formula as originated by Totalbaseball and used by Baseball Reference and others.

I mean, seriously....are you grabbing them off some guy's blog that is making up numbers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure thing. From the BP link. His weighted park factor is computed by taking his at bats and weighting the PF based on the park they came in. So that if someone played more games at Petco than they did at Shea the Petco at-bats would have more of an impact.

Re: Bonds Responds

[ QUOTE ]
ok im gonna leave this thread alone, its quite redundant and overall pretty dumb. To the few Bonds supporters good luck with that. The product you sell is a tough one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly the point. Thats what makes it worth arguing about. We need to be especially cautious when what we are discussing is something we desperately WANT to believe, and in the case of the sports media, that is CLEARLY that Bonds is evil.

The rest is mostly just poor logic and hilarious ad hoc rationalizations, which makes it fun from sort of an esoteric perspective.

Re: Bonds Responds

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bonds vs. SBC

Read it, but here are a couple of snippets:

All you have to do is look at these numbers. From 2000-2003:
The Giants hit 361 homers at home (104 by Bonds)
The Giants hit 478 homers on the road (109 by Bonds)
Giants pitchers gave up 213 homers at home
Giants pitchers gave up 335 homers on the road.

So here’s what it means: in those four years, Bonds hit 213 of the 1387 home runs, which is 15.3 percent. If you put that into the 240 more homers that would have been hit if the Giants played in a neutral park (the 239 plus the extra one in the game that got canceled at Shea due to the blackout), that's 37 more home runs (or 9.25 a season).

[/ QUOTE ]

I concede all of this completely unrelated point about Bonds hitting more homeruns at home than on the road, and have never debated it as being any different.

But it does nothing to address our discussion of Hank Aaron seeing a similar late career power surge on the road, nor how you can explain his performance increase in road games based on where he played his home games.

Let's stay on point, and then we can move along to the discussion of why Barry Bonds hits more homeruns than his teammates at home.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two discussions going on at the same time. One being Aaron's road stats improvement being purely ability and the other being that his overall improvement is similar to the improvement Bonds enjoyed.

Re: Bonds Responds

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok im gonna leave this thread alone, its quite redundant and overall pretty dumb. To the few Bonds supporters good luck with that. The product you sell is a tough one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly the point. Thats what makes it worth arguing about. We need to be especially cautious when what we are discussing is something we desperately WANT to believe, and in the case of the sports media, that is CLEARLY that Bonds is evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

When, in fact, he is not evil. He is just a cheater with poor interpersonal skills. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds

What's the deal with the multiple thread names.. and how does it chang when i click on it....?

Re: Bonds Responds