Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread

[MikeyPatriot]

Just for fun...I recalculated Bonds 2004 numbers to 160 walks, which would place him 5th for all-time non-Bonds seasons. His EqR comes out to 154 (compared to his real 171). I don't know how to accurately calculate adjusted EqA, so I just used some algebra to figure it out based on his real EqR/EqA and came up with .411, which sounds about right. Still higher than any non-2001 to 2004 season, and still higher than anyone else at that age (I believe).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This post should cover all your Hank Aaron comparisons:

park effects.

And a linky for you: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2795

[/ QUOTE ]

Hank definately benefited from HOME park effects at the launching pad, as the article shows.

But...it doesn't "cover all the comparisions" for his late career surge...considering he played half his games AWAY from the home stadium, and through the magic of statistical splits, we can quantify the difference over the same time period independent of his home park.

Let's look at what Hank did over the same time period, away from Fulton County.

AB/HR on the ROAD:
Age 30-34: 19.77
Age 35-39: 14.22

A HUGE increase in ROAD HR Rate.

Oops...

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me have a go at cherry picking numbers:

From 1966 to 1969 (ages 32 to 35)

Aaron hit 84 hr's at home and 74 on the road.

From 1970 to 1973 (ages 36 to 39)

Aaron hit 97 hr's at home and 62 on the road.

Please to be explaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you using HR and not AB/HR, which is, you know, ACTUALLY a measure of power, instead of raw HR which is a measure of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I should be, but I am at work and dont have time to spend all day digging.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont have to dig, RedBean already provided them for you. His AWAY numbers increased from 19.77 AB/HR to 14.22 AB/HR, which as he mentions is a pretty huge jump. So, his raw HR numbers went down but who cares about that...after all, we've learned that when a guys power goes up, the league walks him more often. And in fact, in those 5 seasons after 35, he was both walked AND IBB more often away than at home.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me have a go at cherry picking numbers:


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, you previously asserted that an elite player begins to decline at age 30, and you insisted that we use HR Rate rather that absolute HR totals......

Thus, I used the HR Rate from the 5 seasons beginning at age 30....(comparing ages 30-34 and 35-39.)

And now, since they don't line up with your preconceptions....you suddenly want to change the criteria to a start at a different age (32), and suddenly want to shift back to absolute HR totals, rather than using the rate.

Sweet....

[ QUOTE ]

From 1966 to 1969 (ages 32 to 35)
Aaron hit 84 hr's at home and 74 on the road.
From 1970 to 1973 (ages 36 to 39)
Aaron hit 97 hr's at home and 62 on the road.

Please to be explaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same explanation as before:

1. Hank had a more pronounced late career surge at home due to park effects.
2. Hank's road HR rate still increased. (despite you're attempt to disguise this by using absolute totals.)

HR Rate using your "cherry picked" time periods.

<u>AB/HR on the ROAD:</u>
Ages 32-35: 16.47
Ages 36-39: 14.97

Despite your attempts at cherry picking....it's still an increase in HR Rate on the road.

Oops...

[MikeyPatriot]

Vyse,

Ted Williams EqA for years 35-38

35 .385
36 .378
37 .351
38 .406

38 = roids, obv.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
unfortunately, a lack of a positive test does not prove innocence, as strange as that sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that a test cannot constitute a negative proof, but only the abscence affirmative proof in the contrary.

In short, those who poo-poo the negative tests are relying on the inability of anyone to prove the existence of a negative, in order to hold onto their positions, despite them being in the abscence of any affirmitave proof of their own.

[ QUOTE ]

if you have no or insignificant tests for the PED in question, the fact that you were tested means little.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, the tests administered in 2003 &amp; 2004 could detect 'the clear'.

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
Vyse,

Ted Williams EqA for years 35-38

35 .385
36 .378
37 .351
38 .406

38 = roids, obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Barry Bonds went from an all-time great to the all-time greatest. Comparing that to an all-time great merely sustaining all-time great production, or all-time great production moderately improving, or improving for one season, or having an amazing year after an injury shortened one, or whatever is not relevant to what Bonds did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I heard I don't recall Williams ever dwarving the EqAs he put up when you're in the supposed prime of your baseball career. In fact, he had higher EqAs three times earlier in his career. Bonds set personal career highs in EqAs three times, with all three times also being the highest EqA in baseball history. Not only did Bonds make history after Age 35, he topped it. Twice.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Not really. They maintained, but didn't really grow, especially when you factor in park effects.


[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than concede statistical fact, I see you've taken to the position of misrepresenting the factual numbers as something they aren't.

Put simply, Hank's HR rate increased late in his career, both at home and on the road.

For you to assert otherwise in your lust to argue about Bonds is the epitome of disingenuous.

[ QUOTE ]

I count 5 35+HR seasons before the age of 30 and 6 after, with 4 of those 6 coming after the move to Atlanta and the moving in of the fences.

[/ QUOTE ]

So despite your earlier insistence on using HR RATE instead of absolute numbers, you're back to using absolute numbers after seeing the HR RATE argument destroyed.

Nice...

[SL__72]

[ QUOTE ]
Vyse,

Ted Williams EqA for years 35-38

35 .385
36 .378
37 .351
38 .406

38 = roids, obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but he was the greatest pure hitter in the history of baseball and a great student of the game, so you wouldn't expect him to decline like normal.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
Last I heard I don't recall Williams ever dwarving the EqAs he put up when you're in the supposed prime of your baseball career. In fact, he had higher EqAs three times earlier in his career. Bonds set personal career highs in EqAs three times, with all three times also being the highest EqA in baseball history. Not only did Bonds make history after Age 35, he topped it. Twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please to be not using years when he had 10 and 91 ABs, please.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless there is some large discrepancy in the number of at bats he got over each of those samples that I am missing the raw numbers should be relatively significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, "At-bats" is an obscure statistic that is hard to track down.

Here, lemme help....and as you would have guessed (ahem....as you already knew), there *IS* a discrepancy in the number of at-bats between the two samples....which is why your use of raw HR totals was used to argue your point, yet the HR Rate shows that it isn't the case.

Ages 32-35: 74HR in 1219 AB = 16.47 AB/HR
Ages 36-39: 62HR in 928 AB = 14.97 AB/HR

And oddly enough, while I'd love to believe you weren't trying to be dishonest with you sudden use of raw numbers...(HA HA 74 IS MORE THAN 62!!).....I found it odd that you did so after insisting previously on using rates instead of raw numbers.

Funny how it works, huh?