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.
|