Snakes Gould wrote:i disagree whole heartedly. if soriano were to replicate the season before his season in washington, ok, no biggy. but he set a career high in home runs, while in a TERRIBLE lineup, hitting leadoff the whole season, playing a new position (not a big deal in the least, but possibly a distraction).
ThatGuy27 wrote:Still, 23 RBI seems insanely low. Over a 162 games that would translate to a meager 64 RBI.
By this logic: Matt Holliday would steal 44 bases next year if he didn't play in Coors field. 16 in 59 road games. YAY!
HR Factors are not necessarily conclusive (as Citizen's Bank Ballpark has a factor of 0.987 this year) It is affected by the players playing there (See Progressive Field in Cleveland - 2007: 1.104, 2008: 0.723) but it is a place to start.
2006 Home HR: 22 Coors Field HR Factor: 1.167 Normalized to 1: Almost 19 Away HR: 12 Total: 31
2007 Home HR: 25 Coors Field HR Factor: 1.218 Normalized to 1: 20.5 Away HR: 11 Total: 31-32
2008 Home HR 162 Game Pace: 18.5 Coors Field HR Factor: 1.387 Normalized to 1: 13 Away HR 162 Game Pace: 14 Total: 27
Holliday also consistently plays at Dodgers Stadium (2008: 0.790 - 26th easiest HR park) and Petco Park (2008: 0.739 - 29th easiest HR Park) Chase Field is 11th and At&T is 14th.
His RBI and Run numbers on the road are affected by the rest of his team's struggles away from Coors, not his own. Atkins: .277 OBP on the Road Tulo: .305 OBP on the Road Barmes: .279 Tavares: .315 (actually better than his home number) and as Snakes mentioned not having Todd Helton and his CAREER OBP away from Coors of .394 in front of you will bring down the RBI's.
He's hitting .307 (.400 OBP, .891 OPS) on the road this year with an identical K:BB Ratio. He hit .301 last year (.374 OBP, .860 OPS) He had 55 RBI on the road last year and statistically he has been better this year than last on the road.
J35J wrote:I still think he could be a .300/30/100 guy away from Coors.
I agree with this, as you can see above, normalizing his park puts him right around 30. Depending on what team he goes to, I don't expect his RBI to drop much at all. Comparative to this year's rate (105), they would likely go up.
I'm not suggesting that it was a pace he would remain at over 162 games... I just pointed it out.
And I agree that on another team he could be a .300 30 100 guy - did I not say that he would probably still be a top 30 player overall? That's right about where those numbers would put him - which is a far cry from the top 5 player he is in Colorado.
You all seem to think I'm trying to knock Holliday. On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out what I found to be an interesting statistic. I'm a Rockies fan so I'd love to see him stay in Colorado. But all of you Holliday apologists feel free to continue defending him against... well, against nothing.
i was just posting reasons as to why they were low. yes i agree, they're low, but its not just like "oh wow, matt holliday stinks on the road!". everyone knows holliday's stock will drop if/when he leaves colorado. now ill ask you, what exactly is the point of you posting what you did? just to merely point out things? if so, nice job. his numbers are very low on the road. you were pretty spot on with the reasons why, and no im not sticking up for him. i actually hate the inflated colorado numbers, year after year, but hey what are you gonna do.
Yes, basically I wanted to point out a stat that really stuck out to me - I guess I probably should have stated that I do consider the stat somewhat of an anomaly. If I've offended people, I apologize, but I'm fairly certain that I in no way implied he would only knock in 64 runs were he to leave Colorado. I guess in the future, when I find numbers that are somewhat intriguing, I'll go ahead and keep them to myself.
And to snakesgould, I was not mad - merely annoyed at how people can so easily misread the intentions of a post. I start a post pointing out an interesting number and somehow it gets turned into something else entirely.
well you have to expect people to post reasons for why the stat is interesting. if you didnt want any responses, you shouldnt have posted it, but i figured the reason you posted was for a little discussion. i was never offended, nor did i want you to be. if you read my 1st post in this thread, i mostly agreed with everything you were saying.
Snakes Gould wrote:well you have to expect people to post reasons for why the stat is interesting. if you didnt want any responses, you shouldnt have posted it, but i figured the reason you posted was for a little discussion. i was never offended, nor did i want you to be. if you read my 1st post in this thread, i mostly agreed with everything you were saying.
Fair enough. I suppose I misread your intentions then as well. Apologies my friend.