Barry Bonds

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by hchamp

But that isn't the supposition. The problem is that pitchers didn't throw good pitches to hit. The solution isn't to have Barry swing at bad pitches. The solution is to have those pitchers throw good pitches, like they did the 9000+ at bats. Then, there's no reason to think Barry wouldn't hit for the same average.

(And even if you assume his average would be lower, the results would still be in the same ballpark. Say he bats .270 instead. Then that translates into 81 home runs, instead of 90. The point remains the same. The lost opportunities offset the alleged steroids-induced shots.)

Why do you assume it's all a question of good or bad pitches? It's entirely possible that Aaron was asked, or chose, to be a more aggressive hitter and go after borderline pitches because even though his batting average might end up being lower the belief was he'd produce more runs overall.

It's not a question of a "solution". The statistics measure what happened. Nobody can know what would have happened if the facts were other than they were. You could be right, you could be wrong. But you're making a huge assumption without any factual basis, and the statistics you cite don't lead to the conclusion you offer.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Why do you assume it's all a question of good or bad pitches? It's entirely possible that Aaron was asked, or chose, to be a more aggressive hitter and go after borderline pitches because even though his batting average might end up being lower the belief was he'd produce more runs overall.

It's not a question of a "solution". The statistics measure what happened. Nobody can know what would have happened if the facts were other than they were. You could be right, you could be wrong. But you're making a huge assumption without any factual basis, and the statistics you cite don't lead to the conclusion you offer.

The factual basis is Bonds' lifetime stats. Over a 21+ year career and nearly 10,000 at bats, Bonds hit about .300. Why wouldn't he hit about the same average if he'd had another 1200 similar at bats?

And what is the "factual basis" for saying that Aaron made a conscious decision to swing at borderline pitches because he thought it would be more productive? The facts are that Bonds had nearly 1200 more walks than Aaron, and twice as many intentional ones. The fact is that many of the ones that weren't counted as intentional actually were because pitchers threw away from him. The fact is Bonds has a reputation for being pitched around. Aaron doesn't have the same reputation. The fact is Bonds has a reputation for changing the way the game is played. Aaron doesn't. The fact is Bonds had 14 seasons in which he had 100 or more walks. Aaron never had even one.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by hchamp

The factual basis is Bonds' lifetime stats. Over a 21+ year career and nearly 10,000 at bats, Bonds hit about .300. Why wouldn't he hit about the same average if he'd had another 1200 similar at bats?

And what is the "factual basis" for saying that Aaron made a conscious decision to swing at borderline pitches because he thought it would be more productive? The facts are that Bonds had nearly 1200 more walks than Aaron, and twice as many intentional ones. The fact is that many of the ones that weren't counted as intentional actually were because pitchers threw away from him. The fact is Bonds has a reputation for being pitched around. Aaron doesn't have the same reputation. The fact is Bonds has a reputation for changing the way the game is played. Aaron doesn't. The fact is Bonds had 14 seasons in which he had 100 or more walks. Aaron never had even one.

Bonds' lifetime stats are that he got the number of official at bats, and the number of walks, that he got. Anything else is supposition. So his lifetime stats don't provide a factual basis for your assumptions.

Read more carefully (reason more carefully, while you're at it). I never said that there is a "factual basis" that Aaron made a conscious decision to swing at more borderline pitches. I said it was entirely possible, highlighting the fact the neither you nor I can know what the contrafactual world would look like. Your failure or refusal to grasp the fundamental distinction between empirical fact and conjecture renders your attempts at analysis utterly useless. Believe what you want, that's part of the fun of sports. I'm just pointing out that your attempt to cloak your speculation in some sort of mathematical rigor fails.

 

[Thracozaag]

Any stats Bonds compiled after 1992 I consider inflated due to his illegal equipment.

koji

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Bonds' lifetime stats are that he got the number of official at bats, and the number of walks, that he got. Anything else is supposition. So his lifetime stats don't provide a factual basis for your assumptions.

Read more carefully (reason more carefully, while you're at it). I never said that there is a "factual basis" that Aaron made a conscious decision to swing at more borderline pitches. I said it was entirely possible, highlighting the fact the neither you nor I can know what the contrafactual world would look like. Your failure or refusal to grasp the fundamental distinction between empirical fact and conjecture renders your attempts at analysis utterly useless. Believe what you want, that's part of the fun of sports. I'm just pointing out that your attempt to cloak your speculation in some sort of mathematical rigor fails.

I don't know why you're being so hostile, but it doesn't make you more persuasive.

The facts as I just laid them out show that Bonds was walked intentionally more often than Aaron. If you want to suggest this wasn't the case, then the onus is on you to prove this, and that's what I was throwing back at you when I asked you what factual basis there is to support your supposition.

And it's one thing to blithely claim that "Bonds' lifetime stats don't provide a factual basis for my assumptions", and quite another to answer my question, "if he hit .300 lifetime, why wouldn't he bat close to this in another 1200 at bats?", something you conveniently ignored.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by Thracozaag

Any stats Bonds compiled after 1992 I consider inflated due to his illegal equipment.

koji

What's your source for claiming that Bonds was doing anything "illegal" as early as 1992?

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by hchamp

What's your source for claiming that Bonds was doing anything "illegal" as early as 1992?
You have to understand that all New Yorkers are automatically bitter if the biggest or best happens outside of their city

. Take a lot of the bitter comments with a grain of salt.

 

[aportnoy]

Originally Posted by iammatt

You have to understand that all New Yorkers are automatically bitter if the biggest or best happens outside of their city

. Take a lot of the bitter comments with a grain of salt.

The pyramids were actually built on Mott Street and relocated to Egypt.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I said it was entirely possible, highlighting the fact the neither you nor I can know what the contrafactual world would look like. I'm just pointing out that your attempt to cloak your speculation in some sort of mathematical rigor fails.

By the way, no statistician would dispute my statement that Bonds' batting average over the hypothetical 1200 additional at bats would be close to his lifetime average. The walks they susbstitute for were distributed throughout his career - remember, he had fourteen 100+ walk seasons - and both the total at bats (9000+) and walks (1200) are more than robust enough to provide statistically meaningful results.

I know you're a lawyer and are not in the business of making prognostications, but many people are. And while it is true (and trite) to say that no-one can know exactly what might have happened, that isn't the same thing as saying we don't have any idea at all. In fact, prognosticators handle the problem of uncertain outcomes by assigning probabilities to each. In this case, the probability that Bonds would hit for an average much different than his lifetime average would be so remote it could, for all practical purposes, be considered nil.

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by hchamp

In fact, prognosticators handle the problem of uncertain outcomes by assigning probabilities to each.

Are you an actuary?

In this case, the probability that Bonds would hit for an average much different than his lifetime average would be so remote it could, for all practical purposes, be considered nil.

How can you say that? Is it not common for hitters to hit at a lower average in the Autumn of their careers? Say, hypothetically, that Bonds played ten more seasons; how can you be certain that his average over those ten years would not be much different than his lifetime average? It is not statistically impossible, or even improbable.

 

[Thracozaag]

Originally Posted by hchamp

What's your source for claiming that Bonds was doing anything "illegal" as early as 1992?

Uh, the baseball rulebook.

koji

 

[Thracozaag]

Originally Posted by iammatt

You have to understand that all New Yorkers are automatically bitter if the biggest or best happens outside of their city

. Take a lot of the bitter comments with a grain of salt.

I hate the Yankees, I'm a Royals fan.

koji

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by Brad

Are you an actuary?

How can you say that? Is it not common for hitters to hit at a lower average in the Autumn of their careers? Say, hypothetically, that Bonds played ten more seasons; how can you be certain that his average over those ten years would not be much different than his lifetime average? It is not statistically impossible, or even improbable.

But we're not talking about what Bonds would do if he had another ten seasons. We're talking about what Bonds would've done had he had 1200 more at bats DURING his career. And we already have nearly 10,000 data points that tell us what this is. So the chances that another 1200 data points taken from the SAME period would be much different is very small.

I have studied stats and worked with it in risk management.

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by hchamp

But we're not talking about what Bonds would do if he had another ten seasons. We're talking about what Bonds would've done had he had 1200 more at bats DURING his career. And we already have nearly 10,000 data points that tell us what this is. So the chances that another 1200 data points taken from the SAME period would be much different is very small.

That's fair enough. I must have misunderstood the nature of your post.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by Thracozaag

Uh, the baseball rulebook.

koji

Can you cite the passage in the rulebook where it says "Barry Bonds was cheating in 1992"? (And don't forget to send a message to the grand jury cause they've been looking for the smoking gun for four years now.)