|
|
#221
11-06-2007, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds Responds
So to sum up:
Hank Aaron gets better on the road: rules changes. Hank Aaron gets better at home: rules changes and park effects. What total effect these changes had is I think impossible to know. But to completely attribute his gains to getting better with age is incorrect. Does it not have to be some combination of talent, rule changes, park effects, and luck? 
|
|
#222
11-06-2007, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Another lie. A test did exist for THG in 2003 but MLB did not test for it [/ QUOTE ] MLB began testing for THG in 2003, almost immediately after it was added to the FDA schedule of banned substances....(remember, you were already wrong about that one.) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#223
11-06-2007, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ 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... [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. I should have used ab/hr instead of raw numbers. I was busy at the time. I dont dispute your numbers. They are factually correct as far as I can tell. I ran the home numbers for the same period. I did it quickly so feel free to correct me if they are wrong. From ages 32-35, Aaron hit a HR every 13.8 at bats at home. From ages 36-39, Aaron hit a HR every 9.5 at bats at home. The home difference is much larger than the road difference. I think that is clear. What is interesting is that if you take into account what was happening in baseball around 1969 (age 35) there are pretty clear reasons that you would expect someones rates to increase slightly. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] But they arent just increasing slightly, they are increasing slightly IN THE FACE OF predicted decreases do to age. If you expect something to decrease by 10% but instead it increases by 1%, you dont just have to explain the 1% increase. [/ QUOTE ] I said this in a post after you wrote this, but I think you have to take into account talent, the rule changes, park effects, and luck. How you break down what contributes where is up to you.
|
|
#224
11-06-2007, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Another lie. A test did exist for THG in 2003 but MLB did not test for it [/ QUOTE ] MLB began testing for THG in 2003, almost immediately after it was added to the FDA schedule of bannedsubstances....(remember, you were already wrong about that one.) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Tsk tsk, just takes a simple Google search to prove this wrong.... Read article I'll highlight for you... The newly discovered steroid THG was not tested for, and baseball cannot retest because the samples weren't saved. But it already has been added to the banned list for next year. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#225
11-06-2007, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
What total effect these changes had is I think impossible to know. But to completely attribute his gains to getting better with age is incorrect. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think anyone has attributed him getting better being due to his age....we've merely noted that his HR rate increased despite getting older. [ QUOTE ] Does it not have to be some combination of talent, rule changes, park effects, and luck? [/ QUOTE ] I completely agree it's a combination of those factors, as I've consistently said throughout for both Bonds and Aaron......only you only acknowledge that in the case of Aaron while maintaining that in Bonds case it must have been "something else." [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#226
11-06-2007, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ 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... [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. I should have used ab/hr instead of raw numbers. I was busy at the time. I dont dispute your numbers. They are factually correct as far as I can tell. I ran the home numbers for the same period. I did it quickly so feel free to correct me if they are wrong. From ages 32-35, Aaron hit a HR every 13.8 at bats at home. From ages 36-39, Aaron hit a HR every 9.5 at bats at home. The home difference is much larger than the road difference. I think that is clear. What is interesting is that if you take into account what was happening in baseball around 1969 (age 35) there are pretty clear reasons that you would expect someones rates to increase slightly. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] But they arent just increasing slightly, they are increasing slightly IN THE FACE OF predicted decreases do to age. If you expect something to decrease by 10% but instead it increases by 1%, you dont just have to explain the 1% increase. [/ QUOTE ] I said this in a post after you wrote this, but I think you have to take into account talent, the rule changes, park effects, and luck. How you break down what contributes where is up to you. [/ QUOTE ] Right but thats RedBean's point with the graph highlighting expansion. Bonds increases ALSO correspond to rule changes (being liberal with this term, I'm including general things that increased HR across the board like expansion) park effects (smaller parks in general), and luck.
|
|
#227
11-06-2007, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What is interesting is that if you take into account what was happening in baseball around 1969 (age 35) there are pretty clear reasons that you would expect someones rates to increase slightly. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I see why....which is what I have been trying to get YOU to see..... since you asserted that it "wasn't normal" for someone to have an increase in power so late in their career. Good thing you finally came around. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Also, what's your view on the credibility of the Mitchell report, as you had previously asked vhawk for his? [/ QUOTE ] I dont think it is "normal." It might happen occassionaly but that doesnt make it normal. I dont know how you would go about doing this, maybe someone smarter than me can chime in, but I think if you could quantify the specific effects of the rule changes on the offensive environment you would see that the upward trend would be expected for that period, but it would have nothing to do with it being normal to get better after a certain age. I think run scoring graphs back that point up, but there are obviously factors outside of the rule changes that could affect that line. Here is a hr per 500 ab that seems to show a big jump around 1969. 
|
|
#228
11-06-2007, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Also, what's your view on the credibility of the Mitchell report, as you had previously asked vhawk for his? [/ QUOTE ] This was not just for Vhawk, just a general question. I dont know. Depends on his sources and his methods I guess. If you can track a persons credit card back to a pharmacy that has been implicated in this whole deal I think that is pretty bad.
|
|
#229
11-06-2007, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
I said this in a post after you wrote this, but I think you have to take into account talent, the rule changes, park effects, and luck. How you break down what contributes where is up to you. [/ QUOTE ] My completely speculative and wildly asserted opinion on the breakdown, just for illustrative purposes: Aaron: Talent 70% 1969 expansion 10% 1969 lowering mound 10% Fulton County 5% luck 5% (Hank creates his own luck.) PED's 0% Bonds: Talent 70% 1998 expansion 10% better conditioning through weight training- 10% 1999 switch to maple 5% luck 5% PED's 0%
|
|
#230
11-06-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Another lie. A test did exist for THG in 2003 but MLB did not test for it [/ QUOTE ] MLB began testing for THG in 2003, almost immediately after it was added to the FDA schedule of bannedsubstances....(remember, you were already wrong about that one.) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Tsk tsk, just takes a simple Google search to prove this wrong.... Read article I'll highlight for you... The newly discovered steroid THG was not tested for, and baseball cannot retest because the samples weren't saved. But it already has been added to the banned list for next year. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Tsk, Tsk....the FDA added THG in Oct 2003, and the "2004 baseball year" begins in Oct 2003..... It's all in the details.... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Put simply, MLB begin testing for THG as early as Oct of 2003. Which last time I checked, despite being classified by the CBA as part of the "2004 baseball season"....is most definately still a part of the 2003 calendar year. After all, why would they have tested in the early part of 2003 when the substance wasn't even illegal. Nevermind that you originally and incorrectly asserted that it was illegal all along and that MLB didn't test for THG at all....[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Don't sweat being wrong, bro....you seem to get lot's of practice at it....you're still upset about being dead wrong about THG's legality in 2003, aren't you?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
