Tim McG Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) Well, that HR spike in 1987 would be after 1985, yes? Secondly, what are the numbers after that time [1987-93]; same or higher than before 1987? It was without question an isolated spike in the data. Here are the NL home run totals for 1988 to 1992: 1279 1365 1521 1430 1262 AVG: 1371 Here are the NL home run totals for 1986 to 1982: 1523 1424 1278 1398 1299 AVG: 1384 See Goodie? In between that isolated spike to 1824 home runs in 1987, there were MORE home runs hit in the prior five years than there were in the following five years. And remember that the data shows that in 1993, with two new teams in the league, hits and home runs jumped. Would the increase after 1993 suggest the ball had been juiced even mo re? I seem to remember the sporting news making juiced ball claims with inceased frequency beginning in the mid-80s. Your stats prove as much. My stats prove nothing of the kind. There is no statistical evidence of a juiced ball outside of the isolated case of 1987. Had the ball been juiced and stayed juiced, then the five years after 1987 would not have seen FEWER home runs hit than in the five years prior to 1987. What do the stats say about the AL...where the DH is? http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL.shtml Same spike in home runs in 1987 but of a distinctly lesser magnitude. No spike in hits in 1987, no spike in the mid 80s at all (there goes your other claim). But here is the astounding data: AVG home runs in the AL, 1988 to 1992: 1829 AVG home runs in the AL, 1982 to 1986: 2086 In short, no evidence whatsoever for a "juiced" ball in the "mid-80s". No, not the average HRs and hits, the yearly totals. An average just crunches the numbers and doesn't accurately reflect the increase each season. As your stats clearly show there was an increase each year from 1982-1986. BTW, reversing the date order was another indication....nice try. And if this is an arguement pitting Jenkins vs Ryan then what are the AL stats on HRs and hits? They pitched for the AL as well, so these stats are very important to prove your point. BTW...this is what I originally wrote: Well, that HR spike in 1987 would be after 1985, yes? Secondly, what are the numbers after that time [1987-93]; same or higher than before 1987? Would the increase after 1993 suggest the ball had been juiced even more? I seem to remember the sporting news making juiced ball claims with inceased frequency beginning in the mid-80s. Your stats prove as much. What do the stats say about the AL...where the DH is? I wasn't saying anything about fewer HRs/hits, so I have no idea what you meant there. I am attempting to show that there was a clear increase in HRs/hits in the time after 1985 until the end of those two pitcher's careers for every season in succession. That is, 1985 and beyond year by year increases. Jenkins was done by 1983 so there is no possible way he could have faced batters when the juiced ball came around. Now, the only other possiblity is that you are trying to say there were no juiced baseballs...which has been debated for years and for all intents and purposes proved wrong in the sporting media. Edited January 16, 2009 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Your breathtaking stupidity continues unabated. You claimed that the "juiced ball" started in the mid-80s. I have proven that it did not. You asked about hits, you asked about home runs, and I have demonstrated that aside from an isolated spike in 1987, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a juiced ball in the mid-80s or at any other time before 1993, when the more intelligent explanation for the increase was MLB expansion. I think I am going to appeal to Quincy here: You have a fascinating ability to reinvent history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) Your breathtaking stupidity continues unabated. You claimed that the "juiced ball" started in the mid-80s. I have proven that it did not. You asked about hits, you asked about home runs, and I have demonstrated that aside from an isolated spike in 1987, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a juiced ball in the mid-80s or at any other time before 1993, when the more intelligent explanation for the increase was MLB expansion. No, Dan...actually you have proven my point: There is a clear increase each and every year and allowing for that 1987 spike, which shows the numbers of HRs have increased incrementally each season leading up to 1987. ONLY IN THE NL. In fact, the HRs in 1982 were 1299. In 1986 there were 1523 That is an overall increase of 224 HRs, Dan. I predict the numbers continue to increase yearly through the end of Ryan's career [1993]. Again: What do the HR/hits yearly stats indicate in the American League? An increase? I will bet you dollars to dooughnut holes they do increase. Edited January 17, 2009 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 You truly have no fucking clue. The jump from 1985 to 86 was only a hundred. There was a jump of 100 from 82 to 83 - WERE THE BALLS JUICED THEN? Followed by a drop of 100 - NO JUICED BALLS NOW! And then another jump of a little over 100 - JUICED!. Do you have any fucking idea what standard deviations are? These "increases" are within a standard deviation. They have no significance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 You want the AL breakdown? Read 'em and weep, for it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no "juiced ball" in the mid 80s: 82 - 1993: 2080 1903 1980 2178 2290 2634 1901 1718 1796 1953 1776 2074 See you contemptible joke? MORE home runs BEFORE the spike of 1987. FAR LESS home runs after the spike, until 1993, which did not even exceed the first year's total. And before you tell me about the rise from 85-87, look at the ranges. Well within the standard deviation, until 1987. And if the ball was juiced, what's up with the collapse after 1987? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) We ended in the NL with the year 1986, yes? Here ya go: YEAR- HRs 1987- 1843 [the spike year] 1988- 1279 1989- 1365 1990- 1521 1991- 1430 1992- 1262 1993- 1956 [Whoa! Another spike? Lookout Dan...here it comes!] Ryan Retires 1994- 1532 1995- 1917 1996- 2220 1997- 2172 1998- 2585 1999- 2909 2000- 2997 2001- 2975 2002- 2602 2003- 2707 2004- 2860 2005- 2616 2006- 2868 2007- 2701 2008- 2632 I dunno, Dan...either those "spikes" have become the norm or that baseball grew wings. That ball is friggin' juiced, Dan. No mistake. Edited January 17, 2009 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) You want the AL breakdown? Read 'em and weep, for it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no "juiced ball" in the mid 80s: 82 - 1993: 2080 1903 1980 2178 2290 2634 1901 1718 1796 1953 1776 2074 See you contemptible joke? MORE home runs BEFORE the spike of 1987. FAR LESS home runs after the spike, until 1993, which did not even exceed the first year's total. And before you tell me about the rise from 85-87, look at the ranges. Well within the standard deviation, until 1987. And if the ball was juiced, what's up with the collapse after 1987? You are aware the DH is in the AL, right? More parity in hitting between teams, more opportunities to hit HRs. The NL has, in effect, only 8 guys who can hit. The pitchers account for very little of the run production in the NL. Nonetheless... OK, I'll play along: 1994- 1774 1995- 2164 1996- 2742 1997- 2477 [interleague Play is introduced. Whoa...just look at those "spikes"**, will ya?] 1998- 2499 1999- 2635** 2000- 2688** 2001- 2506 2003- 2499 2004- 2605** 2005- 2437 2006- 2546** 2007- 2252 2008- 2270 From 1994 to 2008 we saw an increase of 496 HRs. Hm. I don't care how you slice it, Dan...there is a consitant and quantifiable increase of HRs year after year in the AL, too. Ball is juiced, Dan. No mistake. Edited January 17, 2009 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 We ended in the NL with the year 1986, yes? Here ya go: YEAR- HRs 1987- 1843 [the spike year] 1988- 1279 1989- 1365 1990- 1521 1991- 1430 1992- 1262 1993- 1956 [Whoa! Another spike? Lookout Dan...here it comes!] That ball is friggin' juiced, Dan. No mistake. You're friggin' juiced. As noted earlier, in 1993 the National League added the Florida Marlins and the mile high Colorado Rockies. In 1998 2 more teams were added (hi Paps!) New ballparks also came into being with new dimensions. I see no reason to spend a lot of time going into details though as you earlier said "No, not the average HRs and hits, the yearly totals. An average just crunches the numbers and doesn't accurately reflect the increase each season." Do you now see the benefits of averages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 We ended in the NL with the year 1986, yes? Here ya go: YEAR- HRs 1987- 1843 [the spike year] 1988- 1279 1989- 1365 1990- 1521 1991- 1430 1992- 1262 1993- 1956 [Whoa! Another spike? Lookout Dan...here it comes!] That ball is friggin' juiced, Dan. No mistake. You're friggin' juiced. As noted earlier, in 1993 the National League added the Florida Marlins and the mile high Colorado Rockies. In 1998 2 more teams were added (hi Paps!) New ballparks also came into being with new dimensions. I see no reason to spend a lot of time going into details though as you earlier said "No, not the average HRs and hits, the yearly totals. An average just crunches the numbers and doesn't accurately reflect the increase each season." Do you now see the benefits of averages? You're joking, right? Until 1993 there were 14 AL teams and 12 NL teams. Tampa Bay was added to the AL in 1998 and the Brewers went to the NL. That would mean more potential HRs and hits for the AL, simply by default, before 1998. So what's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen archer Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 John Henry just flew down to Georgia to meet with Varitek .....look for him to dump Boras and sign deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 So what's your point? You said 1993 represented a spike because of an increase in total home runs. Yet you did not appear to recognize there was an increase in the number of teams for that year. Alrighty, I'm going to try to resist any more replies, as time & time again you appear to deliberately ignore &/or misinterpret information that doesn't suit your objective. The boys in the band have a good thing going and it's simply a waste of space & time bothering to try to explain anything to you. Good night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Alrighty, I'm going to try to resist any more replies, as time & time again you appear to deliberately ignore &/or misinterpret information that doesn't suit your objective. The boys in the band have a good thing going and it's simply a waste of space & time bothering to try to explain anything to you. Good night. I wholeheartedly agree, but I really must put it into my own words: Timmy, you're the dumbest fuck on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 John Henry just flew down to Georgia to meet with Varitek .....look for him to dump Boras and sign deal. Well, they didn't kiss and make up yet, but according to the Globe: Communicating via text message after the meeting, Varitek said the meeting "went OK" and there was "nothing to report." The Red Sox captain said he met with Henry "to speak [about] how I feel," answering "yes" when asked if his desire was to return to the team for the 2009 season. Varitek declined comment when asked if the Red Sox expressed a desire for him to return. At this point I'm glad that Theo hasn't paid the extortionate prices being demanded for young catchers (starting with Texas - let's see how they feel about having three catchers and NO PITCHING after the season starts) and at this point I think they should get something done to bring Tek back for one year @ 3-5 million; 2 if they want to be hard asses about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkeith Posted January 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 John Henry just flew down to Georgia to meet with Varitek .....look for him to dump Boras and sign deal. Much as I love 'Tek, I hope it's a cheap contract. Thanks for posting some Hot Stove news, Zen... refreshing. Now back to the previously scheduled mudslinging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Did ya guys know the braves signed Derek Lowe??? Used to be a Red Sox player, so that point makes it news, right??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Well the question, Conrad, is what you now think of the Braves' offseason. Three pitchers added, Smoltz lost. Is it a little less depressing than it was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) Trying to size up the Rays' off-season moves, here's what they've done so far: Acquired: Burrell, Matt Joyce (from Motor City Kitties in exchange for Edwin Jackson), Kapler and RHP Joe Nelson. Lost: Floyd, Hinske, Gomes (free agents) Aybar, Bartlett, Navarro are in arbitration. Picking their spots with the the position players, there is a clear upgrade there. And they acquired the RH bats they needed in Burrell and Kapler. But a glaring unfilled need (IMO) remains a closer. Percival seemed to get shakier and shakier as the season went along last year, and then folded completely at the end. The committee thing didn't work so well after that. Balfour is wound much too tight for the roll. All in all: Happy with the tweaking on offense. Don't know enough about Nelson. Worried about the 9th inning. Edited January 17, 2009 by papsrus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 You also in a sense acquired David Price because he will be given Edwin Jackson's spot in the rotation and represents a gigantic improvement, even if he doesn't live up to the hype. But I'd worry about the pen as a whole and not just the closer because a bunch of unheralded arms had career years in 2008. Its been shown that there is a great deal of variability in the performance of middle relievers from year to year; what are the chances that all of the middle relievers have such impressive seasons again? Overall, the Rays should be right back in the thick of it but I suspect that between improvements in New York and potential improvements in Boston, I think a fallback is at least as likely as a repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Phillies sign Cole Hames to three year deal. But unlike the Red Sox deals with their young stars, and the deals most small market teams try to make, they didn't buy out any of his free agent years, this only covers his arbitration-eligible years. So they have cost certainty - if he pitches great he can't get huge raises in arbitration. But I'm not sure what's really gained without keeping him off the market beyond his anticipated free agency season. Is he a Spawn of Satan client who would never give up free agency? Or did the Phils just want the cost certainty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 ... But I'd worry about the pen as a whole and not just the closer because a bunch of unheralded arms had career years in 2008. Its been shown that there is a great deal of variability in the performance of middle relievers from year to year; what are the chances that all of the middle relievers have such impressive seasons again? Good point Dan. They've done next to nothing to address the pen. They were right to add a bat or two first, but other than Nelson and a handful of arms signed to minor league deals, nada. And, according to them, there ain't much $$ left in the till. But the AL bEast should be one helluva show this year!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 One other thing that may be of concern, James - I just saw that Kazmir has been added to the USA team for the WBC. Given his history, I'd be concerned about the likelihood that he'll end up on the DL sometime during the season after being asked to crank it up and compete so early in the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 One other thing that may be of concern, James - I just saw that Kazmir has been added to the USA team for the WBC. Given his history, I'd be concerned about the likelihood that he'll end up on the DL sometime during the season after being asked to crank it up and compete so early in the year. Yeah, that's bad news. I'm not a big fan of that tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) So what's your point? You said 1993 represented a spike because of an increase in total home runs. Yet you did not appear to recognize there was an increase in the number of teams for that year. Alrighty, I'm going to try to resist any more replies, as time & time again you appear to deliberately ignore &/or misinterpret information that doesn't suit your objective. The boys in the band have a good thing going and it's simply a waste of space & time bothering to try to explain anything to you. Good night. No. I said it was a spike in HRs because of my conversation with Dan's assertion that 1987 was the only "spike" year in Ryan and Jenkins respective careers You came in halfway through that exchange. Not my fault. So you didn't understand...well, duh. It wasn't directed at you, Quincy. I was referring to Dan's misinformed commentary, not your inability to grasp it. And if you'd like to further ignore my responses to another poster on this thread [which you obviously didn't read] that is plenty OK with me. So get off that resist replies crap, OK? It just sounds foolish. You want to be Dan's surety, then have a blast. But don't drag me down with it. Edited January 18, 2009 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Timmy, you're the dumbest fuck on the planet. Coming from you, that is quite a compliment, Danny. The baseball is juiced, I proved it and now you're mad. Wow. How sadly childish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Did ya guys know the braves signed Derek Lowe??? Used to be a Red Sox player, so that point makes it news, right??? He was a Dodger, too. Not sure how this helps the Braves....maybe the motivation was the bad economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.