Most Accurate MLB Experts Past 4 Years
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
slomo007 wrote:Cincy really isn't though...that's a myth. And Houston (for lefties) is also a killer. Pretty much all of the fields in that division are pitchers' parks, whereas at least Helton has BOB.
Yoda wrote:slomo007 wrote:Cincy really isn't though...that's a myth. And Houston (for lefties) is also a killer. Pretty much all of the fields in that division are pitchers' parks, whereas at least Helton has BOB.
They are not really extreme pitcher's parks though. More neutral than anything.
I'm very curious as to see what the park adjusted numbers would be for Casey and Helton. Anybody have them?
LBJackal wrote:Yoda wrote:slomo007 wrote:Cincy really isn't though...that's a myth. And Houston (for lefties) is also a killer. Pretty much all of the fields in that division are pitchers' parks, whereas at least Helton has BOB.
They are not really extreme pitcher's parks though. More neutral than anything.
I'm very curious as to see what the park adjusted numbers would be for Casey and Helton. Anybody have them?
I wouldn't know where to find them... but I have a feeling no matter what they show most people would say Helton is still the better hitter, even if the time span we're talking about is the past 2 seasons.
What I do have is combined division park factors for 2003 and 2004 combined (Colorado and Cinci removed of course):
NL West: 98.4
NL Central: 99.4
Not much difference at all. And Houston was given 100 because it's a hitter's park for righties; it's hell for lefties. I think it's fair to say that the parks they played in didn't significantly sway the results towards a certain player.
Yoda wrote:LBJackal wrote:Yoda wrote:slomo007 wrote:Cincy really isn't though...that's a myth. And Houston (for lefties) is also a killer. Pretty much all of the fields in that division are pitchers' parks, whereas at least Helton has BOB.
They are not really extreme pitcher's parks though. More neutral than anything.
I'm very curious as to see what the park adjusted numbers would be for Casey and Helton. Anybody have them?
I wouldn't know where to find them... but I have a feeling no matter what they show most people would say Helton is still the better hitter, even if the time span we're talking about is the past 2 seasons.
What I do have is combined division park factors for 2003 and 2004 combined (Colorado and Cinci removed of course):
NL West: 98.4
NL Central: 99.4
Not much difference at all. And Houston was given 100 because it's a hitter's park for righties; it's hell for lefties. I think it's fair to say that the parks they played in didn't significantly sway the results towards a certain player.
I don't know why you would remove Cincy though since Casey is still there and will be there.
In any case, until I see park adjusted numbers, we are basically comparing apples and oranges with the Casey/Helton debate.
LBJackal wrote:Yoda wrote:LBJackal wrote:Yoda wrote:slomo007 wrote:Cincy really isn't though...that's a myth. And Houston (for lefties) is also a killer. Pretty much all of the fields in that division are pitchers' parks, whereas at least Helton has BOB.
They are not really extreme pitcher's parks though. More neutral than anything.
I'm very curious as to see what the park adjusted numbers would be for Casey and Helton. Anybody have them?
I wouldn't know where to find them... but I have a feeling no matter what they show most people would say Helton is still the better hitter, even if the time span we're talking about is the past 2 seasons.
What I do have is combined division park factors for 2003 and 2004 combined (Colorado and Cinci removed of course):
NL West: 98.4
NL Central: 99.4
Not much difference at all. And Houston was given 100 because it's a hitter's park for righties; it's hell for lefties. I think it's fair to say that the parks they played in didn't significantly sway the results towards a certain player.
I don't know why you would remove Cincy though since Casey is still there and will be there.
In any case, until I see park adjusted numbers, we are basically comparing apples and oranges with the Casey/Helton debate.
I removed Cinci because we were comparing how good Helton and Casey are in a neutral environment. That's what the entire argument has been about all along
LBJackal wrote:I didn't neutralize the home park numbers. I ignored them; I wouldn't know how to accurately adjust them anyway, because it would take LHB splits for the 2003 and 2004 seasons which I don't have.
All I did was look at the park factors for the parks in their division, and they both had pretty much the same difficulty in parks.
Also, the 2003-2004 ERA's for the divisions, excluding Cinci and Colorado again:
NL West: 4.11
NL Central: 4.21
Again... pretty close. A 0.10 runs per game advantage to the NL West.
This is to counter the idea that Helton had to face much better pitching and harder parks than Casey did.
Yoda wrote:LBJackal wrote:I didn't neutralize the home park numbers. I ignored them; I wouldn't know how to accurately adjust them anyway, because it would take LHB splits for the 2003 and 2004 seasons which I don't have.
All I did was look at the park factors for the parks in their division, and they both had pretty much the same difficulty in parks.
Also, the 2003-2004 ERA's for the divisions, excluding Cinci and Colorado again:
NL West: 4.11
NL Central: 4.21
Again... pretty close. A 0.10 runs per game advantage to the NL West.
This is to counter the idea that Helton had to face much better pitching and harder parks than Casey did.
You are still missing the point. If you want an accurate picture of Helton's numbers away from Coors, you HAVE TO park adjust them. It will only help him since he played 35% of his road games at extreme pitcher's parks. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept.
Yoda wrote:slomo007 wrote:Something else which is being overlooked:
I keep hearing - "In that lineup (Baltimore's), Helton would see a dramatic increase in runs and RBIs because of the extra protection"
Well.....
In 2003, Helton had Preston Wilson (150 RBI Preston Wilson) and Larry Walker surrounding him in the lineup. He still managed to bat only .324 with 10 HRs and 45 RBIs on the road that year. I don't think Swingin Sammy, Ancient Raffy, and Tejada are all that much more protection than Walker and Wilson were...so I expect his road numbers that year (when he was even a better player) times two to be about right. So, .325, 20-25, 100 RBIs. That's about his limit IMO.
That's funny b/c Casey is not a 325, 20-25, 100 RBI hitter. He's topped .325 only once in his career, hasn't hit 25 since 99, never driven in 100.
Casey is a good value pick who will give you solid stats. Helton schools him outside of Coors. If you want to take a small sample size of 1 year then go right ahead. Casey won't come close to what he put up in 04.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests