O's Want Helton

[slomo007]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Yoda]

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

But neutral env't would be park adjusting ALL numbers not just the home park no?

[LBJackal]

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]

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.

[LBJackal]

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.

You can park adjust them if you want. I jsut showed you that the PF for their divisions, therefore the teams they play most, are almost identical. Park Adjusting wouldn't do much, if anything, to change the gap between the two players. Helton didn't have to deal with parks that were a lot harder than Casey like you claim he did, and I just showed you that with the division ERA's and the division PF's. Anyway... I'm gonna be gone for a while but you can reply if you want... maybe it'll get bumped back up and I'll notice it later.

[davidmarver]

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.

So he can't take a small sample size of one year but you can claim, as you have in NUMEROUS other posts, that Brian Roberts will hit 20 based on a sample size of three weeks! Dude, I'm not one that has historically gotten along with Jackal, but face it, the guy's right. I've given up trying to argue this because there isn't very much substance that supports a Helton move. While there isn't THAT much to argue for him struggling, how many players have made successful moves out of Coors?