asalerno wrote:I think he addressed this question: "How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?"
"The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors."
But, his argument for hitters s based on slugging percentage, while his argument for pitchers is based on WHIP. So, looking solely at HRs, doesn't tell the story for either.
Until he does a better job at normalization, and uses consistent metrics across the comparisons, this is just a useless exercise.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
But, his argument for hitters s based on slugging percentage, while his argument for pitchers is based on WHIP. So, looking solely at HRs, doesn't tell the story for either.
I think you have to connect the dots. The article also says "the average number of home runs are off by 11%".
Unless you are making the statement that slugging percentage is not closely correlated to HRs?
asalerno wrote:I think he addressed this question: "How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?"
"The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors."
But, his argument for hitters s based on slugging percentage, while his argument for pitchers is based on WHIP. So, looking solely at HRs, doesn't tell the story for either.
Until he does a better job at normalization, and uses consistent metrics across the comparisons, this is just a useless exercise.
It's only useless insomuch as it can't prove any connection to PEDs.
But, his argument for hitters s based on slugging percentage, while his argument for pitchers is based on WHIP. So, looking solely at HRs, doesn't tell the story for either.
I think you have to connect the dots. The article also says "the average number of home runs are off by 11%".
Unless you are making the statement that slugging percentage is not closely correlated to HRs?
Slugging percentage depends on many things, not just HRs. Yankee Stadium increased HRs by 26 percent, but reduced doubles by 19% and triples by 50 percent. As a result, its run index was 4 percent below average.
It's not as simple as this guy makes it out to be. That's my statement. And, if he's too lazy to make the simplest of adjustments for park effects, why the heck should I trust his judgment on the rest?
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
Slugging percentage depends on many things, not just HRs. Yankee Stadium increased HRs by 26 percent, but reduced doubles by 19% and triples by 50 percent. As a result, its run index was 4 percent below average.
Why does Runs Index make a better statement about the new Yankee stadium being a Pitcher/Hitter park over HR index? I read somewhere that there is more variability (year over year) in Run factor than HR factor. Besides in looking at the data from Run factor and the new ballparks built from 2000 (and up) verses the old ballparks, I see Run Factor slightly favoring the new ballparks being more hitter friendly. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor/_/year/2009
It's not as simple as this guy makes it out to be. That's my statement. And, if he's too lazy to make the simplest of adjustments for park effects, why the heck should I trust his judgment on the rest?
I think you are missing the point, his statement is not about HR Index. It's about the return of normal statistics from the swing we saw in the early part of 2000. He alludes to the PEDs era as the likely culprit and I agree with him.
Slugging percentage depends on many things, not just HRs. Yankee Stadium increased HRs by 26 percent, but reduced doubles by 19% and triples by 50 percent. As a result, its run index was 4 percent below average.
Why does Runs Index make a better statement about the new Yankee stadium being a Pitcher/Hitter park over HR index? I read somewhere that there is more variability (year over year) in Run factor than HR factor. Besides in looking at the data from Run factor and the new ballparks built from 2000 (and up) verses the old ballparks, I see Run Factor slightly favoring the new ballparks being more hitter friendly. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor/_/year/2009
It's not as simple as this guy makes it out to be. That's my statement. And, if he's too lazy to make the simplest of adjustments for park effects, why the heck should I trust his judgment on the rest?
I think you are missing the point, his statement is not about HR Index. It's about the return of normal statistics from the swing we saw in the early part of 2000. He alludes to the PEDs era as the likely culprit and I agree with him.
I got no dog in the PED issue. My comments are about his use of the numbers with respect to fantasy ball. My point is that no ONE number--not slugging percentage, not run index, not HRs--tells the full story about how player values change. And one number, not even adjusted for ANY factors, even the most simple ones, certainly tells you little to nothing about player values (or PEDS, for that matter).
So, as I said, I wouldn't trust it. The guy has done a half-assed analysis of the data.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes wrote: I got no dog in the PED issue. My comments are about his use of the numbers with respect to fantasy ball. My point is that no ONE number--not slugging percentage, not run index, not HRs--tells the full story about how player values change. And one number, not even adjusted for ANY factors, even the most simple ones, certainly tells you little to nothing about player values (or PEDS, for that matter).
Maybe you should go back and actually READ the articles, he doesn't just point to ONE number as evidence. If it makes it easier for you I will quote from the articles, along w/ Slugging Percentage:
These numbers are not just an anomaly, they are a clear trend over the last 3 years, as compared to the 1999-2001 period....The number of runs scored per game is also off by almost 10%, the average number of RBIs are off by 10%, the average number of home runs are off by 11%. Also, as expected FPI or Fantasy Production Indicator has also dropped from an average of .70 to .62.
At the same time among the top 120 pitchers, the average ERA has dropped from 4.61 to 4.40, and the average WHIP has also dropped from 1.43 to 1.35. While Fantasy Production Index or Indicator (FPI) has increased by 9% to 1.30 from it’s low point of 1.21 in 2000. Clearly pitchers have rebounded from the early lows of the 2000 decade.
Are you still unclear that hitter production has dropped off since the 1999-2001 highs?
I'm busy, so I only skimmed it. Here's what I got from his take:
New parks are pitcher-friendly, but their predecessors were more pitcher-friendly. Coors humidor basically negates the hitting gain from the new stadiums. Ergo, aggregate park effects have barely changed, if at all.
I think I got that right. I'll sit down and read it more thoughtfully later tonight when I have more time.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by GotowarMissAgnes » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:28 pm 
