Adrian headed to the Red Sox!

[bodiaz]

I am not taking away from Adrian Gonzalez, he is a great player. I am just saying Miggy is a consistant .325 hitter with great power, and it would be even better in Boston! Adrian plays in a park similar to Comerica. Both are tough to hit Home Runs in, but bothe are condusive to high batting averages with the large power alleys. Gonzo is not as good a hitter as Cabrera. Gonzo is slighlty better in the field, but it is 1B.

GOOD LORD! That picture may be the real reason Rose is banned! Keep him out!

 

[Tomlinson21RB]

I am not taking away from Adrian Gonzalez, he is a great player. I am just saying Miggy is a consistant .325 hitter with great power, and it would be even better in Boston! Adrian plays in a park similar to Comerica. Both are tough to hit Home Runs in, but bothe are condusive to high batting averages with the large power alleys. Gonzo is not as good a hitter as Cabrera. Gonzo is slighlty better in the field, but it is 1B.

I'll give you Miggy hits for a better average. I don't think their ballparks are even close though. Petco has been last in park factor for runs and home runs that last two years (29th in HR in 2008 instead of 30th). Detroit was in the middle for both in 2009 and 5th and 6th in 2008. Miggy hit .348 at home and .302 on the road last year. Adrian hit .244 at home and .306 on the road. Gonzalez hit 12 HR at home and 28 away. Miggy hit 19 at home and 15 away. I don't think those ballparks are similar at all.

 

[bodiaz]

Part of those low #s in that park are the crap hitters on the Padres team! Not to mention the division they play in does not score alot of runs. The Tigers have a $130 million payroll, so they will put up more offense than the Padres no matter which park they play in. Yes San Diego is probably the worst hitters park in baseball, but Comerica is top 10 also. Oh, and Cabrera would not hit .240 in any ballpark like Adrian did in Petco!

 

[Tomlinson21RB]

Part of those low #s in that park are the crap hitters on the Padres team! Not to mention the division they play in does not score alot of runs. The Tigers have a $130 million payroll, so they will put up more offense than the Padres no matter which park they play in. Yes San Diego is probably the worst hitters park in baseball, but Comerica is top 10 also. Oh, and Cabrera would not hit .240 in any ballpark like Adrian did in Petco!

I agree, there is no doubt that Cabrera is a better average hitter.

FYI, park factor doesn't depend on who is doing the hitting.

Park Factor compares the rate of stats at home vs. the rate of stats on the road. A rate higher than 1.000 favors the hitter. Below 1.000 favors the pitcher.

PF: ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))

I'm still saying the Red Sox would choose Gonzalez over Cabrera any day of the week. Similar offensive production, better defensive production, cheaper, in better physical shape, less off the field baggage.

I guess it doesn't matter anyway since they won't be getting either.

 

[bodiaz]

Quality of hitter does play into park factor. If The Padres had the Tigers hitters, and played in a division with Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Grady Sizemore and the like, the "park factor" would read better toward the hitters, and thus make the pitching numbers look worse. It is all relative.

 

[Tomlinson21RB]

Quality of hitter does play into park factor. If The Padres had the Tigers hitters, and played in a division with Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Grady Sizemore and the like, the "park factor" would read better toward the hitters, and thus make the pitching numbers look worse. It is all relative.

I don't think you're reading the formula correctly.

 

[joey12508]

my stomach dropped when i read the title. glad its beltre.

 

[bodiaz]

I am reading the formula correctly. My point is if you put the 27 Yankees in Petco, it will change the park factor. Quality of hitters will change things.

 

[Tomlinson21RB]

I am reading the formula correctly. My point is if you put the 27 Yankees in Petco, it will change the park factor. Quality of hitters will change things.

I'm not trying to argue with you, so I'll try and explain it one more time so you know it.

The formula takes the average runs scored in all home games for a team (total runs for both teams in each game).
The formula takes the average runs scored in all away games for a team (total runs for both teams in each game).

It then divides average home runs over average road runs. If the ballpark is similar to the average road ballpark then the average runs scored at home will be similar to the average runs scored on the road. This means the park factor would be 1. If it is a hitters park a team will have a higher average runs per game at home and the park factor will be greater than 1. If it is a pitchers park there will be less runs scored in a game there than on the road and the park factor is less than 1.

Because it compares the average runs of the same team it doesn't matter if it is the Padres, the Yankees, or an all star team.

 

[bodiaz]

I do understand what you are saying, and maybe the 27 Yankees was a bad example. The way the team is built would make a difference though. If you have a bunch of slappy .300 hitters with no power, a bigger park would actually benefit them, thus they would put up better home #s in said big ballpark than the would in the smaller road parks. I guess we will agree to disagree since both of us feel the other is not getting our point. I did enjoy the discussion though!

 

[baseballguy350]

vwnut13 - You don't like the moves the Red Sox have made, and you think they will be worse off because of it. Here's your chance to prove you are more than just a homer. My $400, to your $150, the Red Sox in 2010 will post a greater run differential, then they did in 2009. Simple. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut your mouth.

 

[vwnut13]

vwnut13 - You don't like the moves the Red Sox have made, and you think they will be worse off because of it. Here's your chance to prove you are more than just a homer. My $400, to your $150, the Red Sox in 2010 will post a greater run differential, then they did in 2009. Simple. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut your mouth.

I don't doubt that the run differential will be greater. That still doesn't mean that they are going to be the best team in the AL East.

Remember to win a game you just need to score one more run than the other team.

A team that gives up 850 runs and scores 1000 runs has the same chance of winning as a team that scores 650 runs and gives up 553.

Better Pitching and worse offense has no advantage over an overpowering offense and good pitching.

Also, I thought there was no betting on this site, no?

 

[iphoner111]

vwnut13 - You don't like the moves the Red Sox have made, and you think they will be worse off because of it. Here's your chance to prove you are more than just a homer. My $400, to your $150, the Red Sox in 2010 will post a greater run differential, then they did in 2009. Simple. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut your mouth.

Baseballguy get off beltre's nuts, here is an argument for you, Beltre, a .176 hitter with no homers in 16 career games at Fenway Park.

 

[baseballguy350]

Beltre, a .176 hitter with no homers in 16 career games at Fenway Park.

Great sample size. :lol:
Good thing he will be hitting 7th or lower in the lineup. As it was kindly pointed out to me, there i no betting on this site, but I would wager my car that Beltre puts up better numbers then that.
FYI, it's a .179 average in 56 at bats.

I seriously think you fell off the short bus, making an argument with a sample size of 56 at bats?

That's the length of roughly an extended homestand. It's like arguing that in 2008, Beltre posted a 1.025 OPS against the Yankees, or that in 2009 he posted a 2.000 OPS after facing a 2-0 count. Stats with a small sample size like that are irrelevant! You are a moron.

I don't doubt that the run differential will be greater. That still doesn't mean that they are going to be the best team in the AL East.
A team that gives up 850 runs and scores 1000 runs has the same chance of winning as a team that scores 650 runs and gives up 553.

In the statistical example you provided (that I bolded), wouldn't the team with a run differential of 150 runs, have a better chance of winning more games then the team with a run differential of 97 runs? Look at the run differential in 2009, (http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings). In every division with the lone exception being the Braves and Marlins flipped, the team with the higher run differential, posts a higher winning percentage in each division. With those stats, in your argument, which team would likely produce more wins? The team with a differential of 150 runs.

It all goes back to my point, which I still think is plain to see, that a run prevented = a run created. Run differential is a positive indicator of wins and losses. Do you think the Red Sox have improved this offseason? Obviously, you do think they have improved, since you admitted that their run differential likely will be greater.

I haven't crowned anyone the champion, I've just provided points, and counterpoints to arguments. The team to beat, is the team that won in the previous season. 11 of the 15 times the wildcard has been awarded since its creation in 1994 (strike year), to the American League East. The 2010 Red Sox improved by your own admittance, from the 2009 version, and they are constructed to be in the playoff race.

(EDIT) And FWIW, that's two posts in a row that you have actually tried to make an argument, which I appreciate, as opposed to throwing out something dumb. I'm all for debate, but just do it with the intentions to actually debate something with points, and counterpoints.

 

[vwnut13]

In the statistical example you provided (that I bolded), wouldn't the team with a run differential of 150 runs, have a better chance of winning more games then the team with a run differential of 97 runs? Look at the run differential in 2009, (http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings). In every division with the lone exception being the Braves and Marlins flipped, the team with the higher run differential, posts a higher winning percentage in each division. With those stats, in your argument, which team would likely produce more wins? The team with a differential of 150 runs.

850 RG to 1000 RS = 1.176 Runs scored for every run given up
578 RG to 680 RS = 1.176 Runs scored for every run given up

(578 - 680 is a better example than 553 - 650 as it is exact)

If you have the same ratio of runs given up to runs scored don't you have the same statistical chance of winning?

 

[iphoner111]

Beltre, a .176 hitter with no homers in 16 career games at Fenway Park.

Great sample size. :lol:
Good thing he will be hitting 7th or lower in the lineup. As it was kindly pointed out to me, there i no betting on this site, but I would wager my car that Beltre puts up better numbers then that.
FYI, it's a .179 average in 56 at bats.

I seriously think you fell off the short bus, making an argument with a sample size of 56 at bats?

That's the length of roughly an extended homestand. It's like arguing that in 2008, Beltre posted a 1.025 OPS against the Yankees, or that in 2009 he posted a 2.000 OPS after facing a 2-0 count. Stats with a small sample size like that are irrelevant! You are a moron.

I don't doubt that the run differential will be greater. That still doesn't mean that they are going to be the best team in the AL East.
A team that gives up 850 runs and scores 1000 runs has the same chance of winning as a team that scores 650 runs and gives up 553.

In the statistical example you provided (that I bolded), wouldn't the team with a run differential of 150 runs, have a better chance of winning more games then the team with a run differential of 97 runs? Look at the run differential in 2009, (http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings). In every division with the lone exception being the Braves and Marlins flipped, the team with the higher run differential, posts a higher winning percentage in each division. With those stats, in your argument, which team would likely produce more wins? The team with a differential of 150 runs.

It all goes back to my point, which I still think is plain to see, that a run prevented = a run created. Run differential is a positive indicator of wins and losses. Do you think the Red Sox have improved this offseason? Obviously, you do think they have improved, since you admitted that their run differential likely will be greater.
So tell me if you were not from new england and didnt like the red sox and and you weren't gay for Beltre would you still be talking?
I haven't crowned anyone the champion, I've just provided points, and counterpoints to arguments. The team to beat, is the team that won in the previous season. 11 of the 15 times the wildcard has been awarded since its creation in 1994 (strike year), to the American League East. The 2010 Red Sox improved by your own admittance, from the 2009 version, and they are constructed to be in the playoff race.

(EDIT) And FWIW, that's two posts in a row that you have actually tried to make an argument, which I appreciate, as opposed to throwing out something dumb. I'm all for debate, but just do it with the intentions to actually debate something with points, and counterpoints.

 

[vwnut13]

"Pitching and Defense wins Chamionships, but only if you have the bats to get you there"

vwnut13 - You don't like the moves the Red Sox have made, and you think they will be worse off because of it. Here's your chance to prove you are more than just a homer. My $400, to your $150, the Red Sox in 2010 will post a greater run differential, then they did in 2009. Simple. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut your mouth.

Per baseballguy350's request to post this in this thread,

The Red Sox run differential is at -18.
The Yankees run differential is at +73.

Oh yeah, and Beltre looks GREAT at third. Gold glove I tell you. Only seven errors thus far.

 

[Bosox3]

"Pitching and Defense wins Chamionships, but only if you have the bats to get you there"

vwnut13 - You don't like the moves the Red Sox have made, and you think they will be worse off because of it. Here's your chance to prove you are more than just a homer. My $400, to your $150, the Red Sox in 2010 will post a greater run differential, then they did in 2009. Simple. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut your mouth.

Per baseballguy350's request to post this in this thread,

The Red Sox run differential is at -18.
The Yankees run differential is at +73.

Oh yeah, and Beltre looks GREAT at third. Gold glove I tell you. Only seven errors thus far.

you have nothing better to do than to bump up this thread from January? Nobody cares..the season isnt over yet..so let it be

 

[vwnut13]

you have nothing better to do than to bump up this thread from January? Nobody cares..the season isnt over yet..so let it be

As I said, baseballguy350 requested that I post it in this thread.

 

[KandKCards]

you have nothing better to do than to bump up this thread from January? Nobody cares..the season isnt over yet..so let it be

As I said, baseballguy350 requested that I post it in this thread.

LOL. Go outside.