Re: Bonds Responds
Now you're just being flat out disingenuos in taking my quotes out of context.
[ QUOTE ]
When calculating Aaron's road rate you included 1968.
[/ QUOTE ]
In reply to *your* cherry picked age ranges that also included 1968.
[ QUOTE ]
When calculating the league rate, you excluded it.
[/ QUOTE ]
In a seperate discussion, much later, on the effect of the 1968 aberration.
Naturally, in highlighting 1968 as an aberration, I isolated it to demonstrate that.
[ QUOTE ]
All I did was give you the numbers when 1968 was either included or excluded in both sets of data. No cherry picking.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've arbitrarily included or excluded it when it suits your needs, which is why I pointed out in the first place that it was an aberration.
Oops...
[ QUOTE ]
An excluding the league number slows that rate up. Convenient for someone whose intention is to show that Aaron improved relative to the league.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, very early on I showed Hank's rate improved relative to the league both with and without the 1968 season.
From age 30-34: Hank's rate was 2.665 times the entire league.
From age 35-39: Hank's rate was 3.721 times the entire league.
<u>Removing 1968:</u>
From age 30-33: Hank's rate was 2.617 times the entire league.
From age 35-39: Hank's rate was 3.721 times the entire league.
Like I said, with or without....he increased relative to the league.
Yahtzee!
|