|
|
#292
11-13-2007, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 ] Sorry. Actually had to work a couple of days. Couple things for you to digest here: I know you are trying to normalize for rule changes, expansion, etc. but just using a year and a half to come up with these numbers makes them slighly less than representative. Riverfront and Three Rivers were both added mid 1970 so your numbers are a little skewed there. You are also missing the addition of the two expansion ballparks in the National League. I think it is generally accepted that Jack Murphy/Qualcomm is a pitchers park, no? Jarry Park seems to be offensive positive. They very well could "cancel" each other out, but I dont know that for sure. 
|
|
#293
11-13-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
Also, you have failed to address this:
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
|
|
#294
11-13-2007, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So while I will concede the point that Aaron possibly improved with age, albeit just slightly, the improvement we saw with Bonds is unprecedented. [/ QUOTE ] It was the same rate of improvement for both, from 2.5x league average, to 3.75x league average. In the case of Aaron, you call it "slight improvement", yet in the case of Bonds, you call it "unprecedented". Sheesh... Not to mention, Hank's improvement came at a time when the league average was trending down from previous years, making his upward trend all that more impressive....while Bonds improvement came as the league average was trending up, making his improvement more inline with the rest of the league, albeit that he outpaced their upward trend, as opposed to Hank bucking that of the league. If anything, Hank's improvement stands as the most impressive and possibly still to be considered unprecedented, even by what Bonds did. Either way, I sure as hell wouldn't call it "slight". Snap...crackle..pop...762 and counting! [/ QUOTE ] You are diminishing what Bonds has done. Aaron played the majority of his games in a stadium that was offensively positive. Bonds has played the majority of his games in an offensively negative environment. And yet you think the two increases are similar? Where am I missing something?
|
|
#295
11-13-2007, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
I know you are trying to normalize for rule changes, expansion, etc. but just using a year and a half to come up with these numbers makes them slighly less than representative. [/ QUOTE ] As opposed to you not using any numbers at all, nor any statistical basis in previously asserting your exactly opposite theory.... Um...ok. [ QUOTE ] Riverfront and Three Rivers were both added mid 1970 so your numbers are a little skewed there. [/ QUOTE ] No, the numbers are not skewed. I actually broke the 1970 season down between games played in each respective park, and did not assume them all to be played in a given park. I counted games played in the old parks as being played in the old parks, and games played in thew new parks towards the new parks. And in doing so, I proved your expected outcome to be wrong. [ QUOTE ] You are also missing the addition of the two expansion ballparks in the National League. [/ QUOTE ] That is because I was addressing you're theory regarding the 3 new parks that existing teams switched too. Naturally, when addressing your point, I addressed it directly. And put simply... you're wild guess of what would be "expected" was way, way wrong. And naturally, once it is debunked, you're wanting to suddenly change it to the two ballparks we weren;t even discussing originally. Sweet... [ QUOTE ] I think it is generally accepted that Jack Murphy/Qualcomm is a pitchers park, no? Jarry Park seems to be offensive positive. They very well could "cancel" each other out, but I dont know that for sure. [/ QUOTE ] Jarry Park was one of the top 3 or 4 hitter's parks.
|
|
#296
11-13-2007, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
Bonds vs. SBC
Read it, but here are a couple of snippets: All you have to do is look at these numbers. From 2000-2003: The Giants hit 361 homers at home (104 by Bonds) The Giants hit 478 homers on the road (109 by Bonds) Giants pitchers gave up 213 homers at home Giants pitchers gave up 335 homers on the road. So here’s what it means: in those four years, Bonds hit 213 of the 1387 home runs, which is 15.3 percent. If you put that into the 240 more homers that would have been hit if the Giants played in a neutral park (the 239 plus the extra one in the game that got canceled at Shea due to the blackout), that's 37 more home runs (or 9.25 a season).
|
|
#297
11-13-2007, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
You are diminishing what Bonds has done. [/ QUOTE ] I am not diminishing anything. I am stating statistical fact. [ QUOTE ] Aaron played the majority of his games in a stadium that was offensively positive. Bonds has played the majority of his games in an offensively negative environment. And yet you think the two increases are similar? Where am I missing something? [/ QUOTE ] You forgot the part where I pointed out that Hank's <u>road AB/HR</u> saw an increase too, to which you gave some cockeyed theory about the switch to 3 new pitcher's parks artificially depressed the league's numbers...to which I used facts and details and stats and stuff to <u>prove that wrong</u>....to which you went back to only wanting to talk about Hank's surge at <u>home</u>, despite him also seeing a similarly surge on the <u>road</u>. But, back to the beginning, you said Bond's late career surge was unnatural, and explained that Hank's surge was due to his <u>home</u> park effect. Yet, you won't address Hank's surge in <u>road</u> games, removing completely the FCS effect, and during a time in which the leaguewide trend in AB/HR went down. Cliff notes on the logic: manbearpig: Bonds had a unprecedented late career surge in power. RedBean: So did Hank. manbearpig: Yeah, but that is because he play in Fulton County stadium. RedBean: Um...he saw a surge in road games too. manbearbig: *throws out random theory concerning 3 new parks* RedBean: *proves theory about 3 new parks wrong using facts and details and stats and stuff* manbearpig: (crickets chirping) RedBean: Well? manbearpig: Hank benefitted from his home park. RedBean: Um...what about his surge on the road? manbearpig: HOME PARK DAMMIT!..FULTON COUNTY STADIUM...LA LA LA...HOME PARK EFFECT!...LA LA LA.. RedBean: Jeesus christ....
|
|
#298
11-13-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I know you are trying to normalize for rule changes, expansion, etc. but just using a year and a half to come up with these numbers makes them slighly less than representative. [/ QUOTE ] As opposed to you not using any numbers at all, nor any statistical basis in previously asserting your exactly opposite theory.... Um...ok. [/ QUOTE ] Still questioning their accuracy. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Riverfront and Three Rivers were both added mid 1970 so your numbers are a little skewed there. [/ QUOTE ] No, the numbers are not skewed. I actually broke the 1970 season down between games played in each respective park, and did not assume them all to be played in a given park. I counted games played in the old parks as being played in the old parks, and games played in thew new parks towards the new parks. And in doing so, I proved your expected outcome to be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Thought maybe you did, but the way you listed the years made me unsure. Specifically, Three Rivers and Veterans. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You are also missing the addition of the two expansion ballparks in the National League. [/ QUOTE ] That is because I was addressing you're theory regarding the 3 new parks that existing teams switched too. Naturally, when addressing your point, I addressed it directly. And put simply... you're wild guess of what would be "expected" was way, way wrong. And naturally, once it is debunked, you're wanting to suddenly change it to the two ballparks we weren;t even discussing originally. Sweet... [/ QUOTE ] My theory was that while the league wide run scoring environment was deflated Aaron played the bulk of his games in offensive positive environments. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think it is generally accepted that Jack Murphy/Qualcomm is a pitchers park, no? Jarry Park seems to be offensive positive. They very well could "cancel" each other out, but I dont know that for sure. [/ QUOTE ] Jarry Park was one of the top 3 or 4 hitter's parks. [/ QUOTE ] And Jack Murphy?
|
|
#299
11-13-2007, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Bonds vs. SBC Read it, but here are a couple of snippets: All you have to do is look at these numbers. From 2000-2003: The Giants hit 361 homers at home (104 by Bonds) The Giants hit 478 homers on the road (109 by Bonds) Giants pitchers gave up 213 homers at home Giants pitchers gave up 335 homers on the road. So here’s what it means: in those four years, Bonds hit 213 of the 1387 home runs, which is 15.3 percent. If you put that into the 240 more homers that would have been hit if the Giants played in a neutral park (the 239 plus the extra one in the game that got canceled at Shea due to the blackout), that's 37 more home runs (or 9.25 a season). [/ QUOTE ] I concede all of this completely unrelated point about Bonds hitting more homeruns at home than on the road, and have never debated it as being any different. But it does nothing to address our discussion of Hank Aaron seeing a similar late career power surge on the road, nor how you can explain his performance increase in road games based on where he played his home games. Let's stay on point, and then we can move along to the discussion of why Barry Bonds hits more homeruns than his teammates at home.
|
|
#300
11-13-2007, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
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 [/ QUOTE ] Huh? "Average park factor weighted by at-bats for Hank Aaron"? Can you give the methodology/formula for that one? Because these park factors you list aren't the same as derived from the commonly accepted PF formula as originated by Totalbaseball and used by Baseball Reference and others. I mean, seriously....are you grabbing them off some guy's blog that is making up numbers?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
