Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Why did you read anything about Bonds into that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because you had previously asked:

"If Bonds is listed in the Mitchell report, does that change any minds about the probabilites of BB using some sort of PED?"

Naturally, i questioned why the prescence of Bonds name in the report would do anything to change your view of it's credibility.

The credibility of the report should stand on it's own merits...not on whether or not it mentions Bonds.


[ QUOTE ]

I think it could:

1) include Bonds and be credible.
2) include Bonds and not be credible.
3) not include Bonds and be credible.
4) not include Bonds and not be credible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Option 3, FTW.

And I'm not guessing. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Can I get a link for these numbers? I am struggling to find anything not in graph form. Then I will respond to your previous couple posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking for a link to a breakdown of easily available baseball statistics?

Um....surely you can't be serious.

But just in case, here is a start.

And if you really need it in graph form, it would be something like this:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
46.1
/
/
/
45.1
</pre><hr />

[RedBean]

BTW...I'm punching the clock for the night, gotta run until probably Thursday.....so Pudge, bottomset, or someone else will have to cover the Tuesday night and Wednesday shifts.

And you guys think I'm good...sheesh...wait until you see the A-team...

Have a nice day. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Can I get a link for these numbers? I am struggling to find anything not in graph form. Then I will respond to your previous couple posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking for a link to a breakdown of easily available baseball statistics?

Um....surely you can't be serious.

But just in case, here is a start.

And if you really need it in graph form, it would be something like this:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
46.1
/
/
/
45.1
</pre><hr />

[/ QUOTE ]

A link please to the source of these numbers. kthx.

[BigSoonerFan]

Don't you people have jobs? I mean jobs that you actually have to work at? :-)

[BigSoonerFan]

Wow, I guess you do have jobs?

[Pudge714]

MBP,
You need to scroll down and do some basic math, but it's all there.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL.shtml

Also can people please explain why Bonds improved so much more than everyone else. Isn't the consensus about steriod users that is can turn marginal major leaguers into below-average to average players. Not top 10 players all time into GOAT.

[manbearpig]

RB says:

[ 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 ]

AB/HR - National League

1965- 42.0
1966- 40.1
1967- 49.9
1968- 61.6
1969- 44.7 (expansion/rule changes)
1970- 39.5
1971- 47.7
1972- 46.4
1973- 42.6

So I would say the overall home run environment proved to be relatively neutral, outside of a couple outlier years. I guess the graph I pulled the other day is misrepresenting something.

But now lets look at the weighted park factors for Aaron. And yes, I understand PF isnt the best way to measure when talking about HR's, but I think it is usable. From what I understand this is average park factor weighted by number of at bats for Hank Aaron.

Year PF
1966 102
1967 99
1968 100
1969 100
1970 106
1971 106
1972 109
1973 108

Part of this is Fulton County Stadium. Starting in 1969 the Braves and their opponents hit HR's there at a 1.35/1 rate when compared to other parks. So that would certainly lead to a jump in the weighted park factor. And to a jump in home AB/HR.

The road rate is not as easily explainable. As RB pointed out, Aarons road AB/HR moved from 16.47 (1966-69) to 14.97 (1970-73), while the league numbers remained pretty steady.

Stay with me here, I think this could be interesting. As I mentioned earlier, there were 5 new stadiums built from 1969-71. 3 of them depressed offense, two helped it. Overall the PF moved from 101.6 (1966-69) to 98.7 (1971-74) across those 5 stadiums. Which is significant as there were only 12 teams in the NL at the time. Looking at those numbers you would expect the AB/HR rate to drop across the league by some amount. But we have already established it remains relatively constant. So there has to be some other variable that is driving AB/HR up at a rate that would make the overall numbers seem steady. Expansion teams and rule changes, LDO.

But that would only explain Aarons road AB/HR staying constant, not increasing. So I hypothesize that if you took the 3 new stadiums that depress offense as well as the new Fulton County Stadium out of the mix, you would see that AB/HR increased across the rest of the National League stadiums. So if Hank played 81 road games a year, 24 of those would be at "new" stadiums that depress runs (HR's), while the remaining 57 road games would be at stadiums that actually saw an increase in runs (HR's), leading to an overall uptick in AB/HR.

[manbearpig]

LOL at my last post. If you can follow that and pull some meaning out of it good on you cause that is one rambling cluster [censored] of a post.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I guess you do have jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I got a lot done on Wednesday and then this morning. But RB said he would be back today so I thought I should answer his questions.