|
|
#331
11-14-2007, 12:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
In the second case, you'd expect his home rates to increase but his away rates to drop off, right? [/ QUOTE ] I think you already know this, but Hank's HR rate on the road increased both in absolute terms and relative to the league from ages 35-39 as compared to ages 30-34. Completely independent of his home park, and relative to the rest of the league that enjoyed the same expansion, rules, etc.....Hank's rate increased as he got older.... Hmmm.... Not to mention, the last 5 position players inducted into the HOF saw an increase in HR Rate from ages 35-39 as compared to 30-34.... Hmmm.... Could it be that HOF hitters actually see a natural increase in power at this age, as it is more the norm than the exception with the great ones....and Bonds being the greatest of the greats.... Hmmm.... Not to mention that admitted steroid users see the exact opposite trend, in that their HR rates go DOWN at these ages.... Things that make you say hmmmmm... 
|
|
#333
11-14-2007, 03:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
RedBean,
How many of those posts are copied from other threads? Also a very good article about Asterix's http://www.thenaughtyamerican.com/2007/C...terisk-656.html
|
|
#334
11-14-2007, 04:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
RedBean, How many of those posts are copied from other threads? [/ QUOTE ] About half of them, I guess. For the most part, it's on auto-pilot with the "copy and paste" to debunk the same old tired theories, but every once in a while someone insists on using different time period parameters, so I have to get off the couch and run some queries.
|
|
#335
11-14-2007, 05:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
manbearpig just stop posting. you have been completely raped by RedBean already.
Oops...
|
|
#337
11-14-2007, 10:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] NL AB/HR 1964-1968 275,985/5900= 46.7 ab/hr NL AB/HR 1969-1973 327,322/7441= 43.9 ab/hr An increase, right? Do you agree with this or not? This obviously includes 1968, but if we are going to use Aaron's 1968 numbers we have to use the leagues. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it's an increase....I've always said as much. It's about a 6% increase between the two time periods, even including 1968. [/ QUOTE ] Except for you said this: [ QUOTE ] Except when we look at trend of the entire league before and after those changes, it doesn't increase...it decreases.....exactly the opposite of what it did in Hank's case, and exactly opposite of what you say you would "expect". 1962-1968 NL AB/HR: 45.1 1969-1975 NL AB/HR: 46.1 [/ QUOTE ] Which is opposite of what you "always said as much." [/ QUOTE ] Hate to be a stickler for details, but notice how your comparing two different time periods in the two quotes. But, overall, I admire your propensity to take quotes a week old out of context and try to misapply them. If that's all you have left, I must be doing pretty good. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] But see, the thing is, you accused me of using numbers that support my point of view. When it seems like you are doing the same thing. Especially when you have previously said: [ QUOTE ] Man, could you be anymore disingenuos? I've always used ages 30-34 and 35-39 as a basis, and that particular reply you are quoting was in reply to the FIRST time you tried to shift the age range to suit your needs. I mean, seriously. [/ QUOTE ] Bolded the appropriate part. So did you or did you not use different years when trying to make the point that league wide HR rates dropped? Because when you use the same exact years that you have been using for Aarons numbers you get a different picture. NL AB/HR 1964-1968 275,985/5900= 46.7 ab/hr NL AB/HR 1969-1973 327,322/7441= 43.9 ab/hr HR rate increased league wide from the time Aaron was 30-34 and when he was 35-39. True or false? As it is obviously true, who exactly was being disingenuous?
|
|
#338
11-14-2007, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In one case ballpark helps. In the other it hurts. Even if you dont want to attribute all of Aarons change relative to the league you have to recognize that was a huge part of it right? You do see the difference? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, the difference being they moved the fence in 10 feet in both gaps at FCS from 1969-1973, and it had a huge effect in HR production going up for righties and lefties alike. Yet, no one wants to acknowledge that Pac Bell had it's RF line and straightaway RF moved in 20 feet compared to Candlestick during the 2000 move.....and they generalize the park as pitcher friendly due to it's overall effect on all hitters....the majority right handers....not factoring in that Bonds is for the most part a dead-pull, fly ball left handed hitter and he flourished in Pac Bell. [/ QUOTE ] How tall is the right field wall? What is the prevailing wind direction? If you can put some numbers up that show lefties across the board benefit from SBC/Pac Bell more power to you.
|
|
#339
11-14-2007, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
Now we are getting somewhere.
From age 30-34: Hank's rate was 2.665 times the entire league. From age 35-39: Hank's rate on the Road was 3.24 times the entire league. I would be interested in seeing Aarons road rate as compared to the league from ages 30-34. But using the data I have now we see that Aaron's rate against the league increased by .575. An increase, no doubt. But not exactly the huge jump we see in his overall rate: From age 35-39: Hank's rate was 3.721 times the entire league. Same data for Bonds: From age 30-34: Barry's rate was 2.580 times the entire league. From age 35-39: Barry's rate on the Road was 3.64 times the entire league. Barry's rate over the same age range increased relative to the league by 1.06. His overall increase: From age 35-39: Barry's rate was 3.809 times the entire league. The gist of this is that Barry Bonds improved dramatically more than Aaron did when comparing their improvement limited to road games.
|
|
#340
11-14-2007, 11:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, man, if you insist, we'll throw in ages 28, 29, 40, 41, and 42...since you think it "skews against me". Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into that Br'er patch. AB/HR rate: Aaron age 28-34: 16.23 Aaron age 35-42: 14.18 INCREASE! (Oops..) League 1962-1968: 45.10 League 1969-1976: 47.48 [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Let's look at their increase relative to the league: From age 28-34: Hank's rate was 2.79 times the entire league. From age 35-42: Hank's rate was 3.35 times the entire league. [/ QUOTE ] When you use these numbers Aarons increase relative to the league gets smaller. And probably much more attributable to his home field. Those numbers look a little different than these: [ QUOTE ] NL AB/HR 1964-1968 275,985/5900= 46.7 ab/hr NL AB/HR 1969-1973 327,322/7441= 43.9 ab/hr [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Aaron 64-68 17.5 ab/hr Aaron 69-73 11.5 ab/hr [/ QUOTE ] Of course, we can look at a smaller time period and see that Aarons huge increase in ab/hr came at the same time the entire league saw an increase. If you just use consistent time periods this whole argument becomes transparent. Did Aaron enjoy a late career surge? Yeah, probably. But imo not one that comes close to being equal with what Bonds did.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
