Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

He improved. Are his and Bonds increases "eerily similar?" IMO, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, you may not think the numbers are similar when you refuse to acknowledge half of them.

But, glad to see you concede that Hank did, in fact, improve later in his career.....which is kinda the point that got this all started. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
MBP, for what it's worth, I think we've come a long way from your original assertions that Hank's increase was due solely to FCS amidst your calling my assertions "wrong".......

But three quick questions, just to clarify:

1. I originally asserted that their overall HR rate increase from 35-39 vs 30-34 were similar relative to their respective leagues.

Do you now agree this is correct?

2. Despite your objection regarding Home Park "explaining it all", I asserted that Hank's HR rate on the road also increased relative to the league.

Do you now agree this is correct?

3. Considering the right answer to #1 & #2 is "Yes", what left on this issue is there to discuss?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Yes. The raw numbers were very similar.

2. Hanks HR rate on the road increased by a much smaller amount than his HR rate at home. His HR rate from ages 30-34 was 2.665x the league average. By my rough calculations Aaron's road rate from 35-39 was 3.24x the league average. His home rate was 4.2x the league average at a ballpark that promoted homeruns.

Bonds HR rate from ages 30-34 was 2.58x the league average. His road rate from 35-39 was 3.64x the league average. His home rate from 35-39 was 3.97x the leage average at a ballpark that is arguably deflating to HR's.


So what is left to discuss? That the two are "eerily similar" when you take home ball park into account. That AT&T is deflating to left handers? That none of this by itself is definitive proof of anything?

Do you agree or disagree with these statements:

1)Barry Bonds saw a significantly bigger increase than Hank Aaron when comparing road HR rates to the league average.

2)If both played their home games in neutral stadiums Bonds would have a bigger change in his rates.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">RedBean to manbearpig, 9 days ago:</font>
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you know very, very little about baseball.

Please put up some more statistical arguments so we can enjoy a good laugh, though.


[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about having a 'read' on a guy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But lets take a step back and look at Bonds Fly Ball outs. He has a lot more outs to deep right center and center than to dead right. Extrapolate that data out into a neutral ballpark and he hits a lot more HR's to center and right center.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many fly ball outs do you think he hits to a 399' dead center that will translate into homeruns elsewhere on a pure linear foot extrapolation?

And just how easy can you extrapolate based just on the number of feet to the fence, and disregarding every other factor involved?

I mean, after all, Coors Field is one of the bigger parks in the game...it must be hard to hit homeruns, amirite?

Sheesh....I got an idea...

Instead of measuring the number of feet for Bonds flyball outs....and instead of pretending Hank never hit any homeruns in Atlanta.....how about we just count the ones that actually landed over the fence in both cases?

Novel idea...I know...

[/ QUOTE ]

You know better than this. Park Effects have to be taken into account when discussing this.

Seriously, if someone who played in pre humidor Coors Field day hit 80 HR's a season with 55 of them coming at home would you not want to discuss the effect that altitude had?

Figuring out exactly how many home runs Aaron gained because of the altitude at FCS or from the fences being moved in; or how many Bonds gained due to the short right field fence, or how many he lost because of the RCF and CF dimensions or cool temperatures or the wind is above my paygrade.

But the concept has to be in the conversation. Agree?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. I originally asserted that their overall HR rate increase from 35-39 vs 30-34 were similar relative to their respective leagues.

Do you now agree this is correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet....

And on that note, have a good Thanksgiving week, man....I'm off to the shuttle and a trip to South America for the holiday...going to take in some winter ball, eat some turkey, and chase some ass.

Hopefull Mitchell doesn't drop his report while I am gone...it'll be such a shame to miss the massive show of media hypocrisy.

Have a good one. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He improved. Are his and Bonds increases "eerily similar?" IMO, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, you may not think the numbers are similar when you refuse to acknowledge half of them.

But, glad to see you concede that Hank did, in fact, improve later in his career.....which is kinda the point that got this all started. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I compared road HR rate to road HR rate, in relation to the league. Explain to me why this comparison is not useful.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. I originally asserted that their overall HR rate increase from 35-39 vs 30-34 were similar relative to their respective leagues.

Do you now agree this is correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet....

And on that note, have a good Thanksgiving week, man....I'm off to the shuttle and a trip to South America for the holiday...going to take in some winter ball, eat some turkey, and chase some ass.

Hopefull Mitchell doesn't drop his report while I am gone...it'll be such a shame to miss the massive show of media hypocrisy.

Have a good one. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. Pick and choose. Pick and choose.

Have a good holiday.

[ArcticKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't care either way, but let's not pretend that the asterisk is insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...a fashion designer bought a baseball, and decided to put an asterisk on it.

If anyone is pretending about the significance, it isn't me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I mean, seriously, I don't know about you guys, but I don't usually make a habit of letting a guy who designs women's fall fashions tell me what to think about what happens on the baseball field.

But that's just me....hey...if you'd rather eschew the facts, details, and proof...and instead go with the opinion of the guy who makes your wife's dresses....more power to you.

I'll take what happens on the field.
You guys can have what the fashion designers of the world think about it.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Redbean, I fully respect the fact that the asterisk won't have any meaning for you. However, I think you will agree that nothing anyone says or does on this forum will control how others will perceive its significance.

[ArcticKnight]

Why is Bond's name not coming up in any free agent talks/ rumours, etc. The silence is deafening.

[manbearpig]

Lets have a little fun with this before I hang it up for a couple days.

From 1969-74, the league hit 1.35 home runs at FCS for every 1 away from FCS. Aaron's rate was slightly higher, 1.39/1.

From 1964-68, Aaron hit HRs at a rate of 17.5 ab/hr.
From 1969-73, he hit them at a rate of 11.5 ab/hr.

Now lets take out the "jump" he experienced at FCS. This is a dirty way to do it and not 100% accurate, but it could be fun.

From 69-73, Aaron hit 203 HR's. 120 of those came at FCS. If we take 1/3rd of those away we get 163 total HR's.

Which would work out to a rate of 14.3 ab/hr. Still an increase for sure, but not as huge a jump as before. This would be an 18% jump in his rate, while the league rate increased by about 6%.

And we could do the same math and get an increase for Bonds if we are in agreement that AT&amp;T limited him somewhat. Maybe I will get around to that tomorrow.

All of which would further separate Bonds improvement as being much larger than Aarons.