re: HR results from the flat seam baseball

quote:

---

Here is what the 40% increase means.

It means on average, teams that hit 10 last year, hit 14...
It means on average, teams that hit 20 last year, hit 28...
It means on average, teams that hit 40 last year, hit 56...

---

You know that this perfect little curve only applies to sets where all of the numbers are positive right? When you throw in the fact that teams aren't forced to hit a perfectly proportionally increasing number of home runs based upon what they did the year before and look at the fact that teams can hit fewer then it kinda fricks up your claim that a team has to hit 56 home runs because it hit 40 last year. The only situation where those numbers would apply would be if you added this year's average (40%) to everybody's home run totals last year to see how the new balls would've effected the season that already passed

And that's not even addressing the fact that how many home runs a team hit last year doesn't mean jack shite when it comes to how many more home runs a team is expected to hit the next year. The two numbers have absolutely no relation to each other and you can see that for yourself if you go and pick a bunch of random teams from the top 50 last year and average together their home run differences from last year to this year. As you do more and more of the top 50 the number's going to approach 9, not 20-25 like you keep claiming. That's the quickest way to completely destroy your argument, just go look at the average difference in home runs from the top 50 from last year to this year. And go do the same for the bottom 50. The number is going to be somewhere close to +9 for both. How do you explain that if "a 40% increase means that teams who hit more home runs last year are more likely to hit more the next year"? (directly paraphrasing you)

The data says that every team is equally likely to hit 9 more home runs than they normally would have, but considering that last years' events don't have any bearing on this years' events this entire conversation is dumb as shite because there wasn't a "normally would have" to base this conversation off of. Aside from speculation, the only thing that we can say for a 100% fact is that teams combined to hit an average of 9 more home runs a piece from last year to this year. In no way does that imply that it was likely for LSU to hit 20 more this year from baseballs alone. None of you can grasp that though apparently.

And it was noticeable at the CWS, tons of warning tract outs as opposed to outfielders playing 5 feet behind the infield dirt.

Can you explain to me why our relative home production means jack shite in this discussion? We're not talking about whether or not LSU could've hit 60 home runs, we're talking about how many HR's the BALLS ALONE ADDED. I've repeatedly showed stats that say that it's around 9 per team. You keep posting all of these random arse stats like doubles and pretending that the increase of home runs this year per team was dependent on their HR totals last year and that's false. This discussion was about how many home runs the balls alone were likely to add this year to each team. It turns out that it was 9 PER TEAM.

You keep changing the subject and it's making you look like a dumbass, you even started this thread and titled it "HR results from the flat seam baseball" and now you want to discuss talent and home runs hit by Nevada? What happened to you claiming that it's realistic to expect 20 more home runs per year based off of physics and aerodynamics? The answer was 9.

I'll even quote you morons in the original thread telling me that I was an idiot for not expecting a 50% increase from 40, when it's a logical fallacy to think that we should expect a bigger increase in home run totals than the average team just because we hit more last year. Quit taking about individual performances or our team talent or how many doubles we hit and focus on this discussion which is about how many home runs the flat seam baseball added by itself. Read your thread title and stay on topic dumbass

The discussion we had been having is about estimating LSUs total this year... And how adding 20 wasn't so far fetched both at the beginning of the year and now. Remember?

ETA:

And if you also remember, the physics I used had assumptions based on the number of warning track shots by a team that would typically hit 40. I guessed at 1 warning track shot every 2 games (a low estimate). And I said that 2/3 of those would end up leaving... Which brought me to 20 more HRs.

We can't make those assumptions with every single team. We were talking specifically about LSU which was bringing back a ton of offense. Not every team has that power. Many, many more have less.

9 extra home runs was an average. Teams with less power compared to the year before... Teams with more... LSU obviously was a team with more. Our doubles went way up... Our average went way up. All pointing to LSU's HR total going way up too. Just didn't happen.

quote:

---

And how adding 20 wasn't so far fetched both at the beginning of the year and now. Remember?

---

It was completely far fetched if you're not taking a bunch of other shite into account, as I said, we're talking JUST ABOUT THE BASEBALLS

quote:

---

And if you also remember, the physics I used had assumptions based on the number of warning track shots by a team that would typically hit 40. I guessed at 1 warning track shot every 2 games (a low estimate). And I said that 2/3 of those would end up leaving... Which brought me to 20 more HRs.

---

Ah back to your low estimate bullshite. Well I'll tell you what, since you keep arguing that because LSU hit 40 home runs last year that it makes them more likely to hit 20+ more this year and beat the national average, why don't you go take the top 50 HR hitting teams from last year and give me their average increase in HR's from last year to this year? It's going to be 9 because the average increase for this year per team isn't dependent on how many home runs they hit last year. Your thinking is flawed

quote:

---

Which brought me to 20 more HRs.

---

As I said, the fact that the top 50 and bottom 50 teams from last year all averaged +9 home runs this year destroys this argument. The amount of home runs that LSU hit last year has absolutely no bearing on how many more they were expected to hit this year. Are we more likely to hit 40 home runs this year than a team that hit 10 last year? Sure. Are we more likely to see an increase above the national average than a team who hit 10 home runs last year? frick no, and go do the math if you disagree. Take 50 teams at random who hit any amount of home runs last year, and you'll get +9. Your entire argument is based on a nonexistent correlation of the higher home run teams from last year somehow doubling the national average of added home runs just because they hit more last year. As I've said 1000 times, go do the math

quote:

---

We can't make those assumptions with every single team. We were talking specifically about LSU which was bringing back a ton of offense. Not every team has that power. Many, many more have less.

---

We don't magically get double the benefit from the new balls just because we're LSU, you're assuming that we hit twice as many balls as most other teams in the nation from 300-315 feet just because we hit 19 more balls from 315-450 feet. That isn't how that works.

But gotcha, glad you're back to pulling bullshite warning track estimates out of your arse that are completely wrong because I've dismantled all of your other arguments. We could've realistically expected to double the national average in home runs added due to the balls because we bring back a lot of power and you estimate that we "hit 1 warning track shot every 2 games (a LOW estimate ) and 2/3 of those would end up leaving" very scientific breakdown bud, remember when I called you out because that was completely wrong and we only added 10 home runs in reality this year? Are you going to circle back to your incorrect argument that we somehow are going to hit 40% more home runs because the national average rose from 21 to 30?

There are literally zero stats out there to back up what you're saying. You can easily go to NCAA and calculate how many more home runs the top 50 and bottom 50 teams from last year hit this year and kindly shut the frick up because that destroys your argument. I just did it, both of them averaged close to +9 a piece. But because LSU is LSU that means that we're going to defy common sense and what every statistic points toward right?

quote:

---

we're talking JUST ABOUT THE BASEBALLS

---

That was never the case in the other thread. You're just now bringing that up because it's the only thing you have left.

quote:

---

why don't you go take the top 50 HR hitting teams from last year and give me their average increase in HR's from last year to this year?

---

Did all 50 of those teams return almost the same exact lineup? Of course not. This is your strawman and I understand you have to stick to it. But that's not how this works. The teams that showed improvement in average and doubles showed the same improvement in HRs. LSU didn't. Outlier. It's not just about the 40 number as I stated. We assume hitters returning and getting better.

quote:

---

the fact that the top 50 and bottom 50 teams from last year all averaged +9 home runs this year destroys this argument

---

But they didn't. You are only looking at 1/3 of the teams so of course the average would likely be different. Why don't we pick the teams that improved as LSU did in the average and doubles category... or performed equally this year? Oh yeah, that supports my argument instead of yours so you ignore it. Even though it's the best indicator.

quote:

---

you're assuming that we hit twice as balls as most other teams in the nation from 300-315 feet just because we hit 19 more balls from 315-450 feet. That isn't how that works.

---

The assumption is that LSU is one of the best hitting teams in the nation... which is 100% true.

quote:

---

because I've dismantled all of your other arguments.

---

quote:

---

There are literally zero stats out there to back up what you're saying

---

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao::rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao::rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao::rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao::rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

quote:

---

That was never the case in the other thread. You're just now bringing that up because it's the only thing you have left.

---

Ho Lee shite. I didn't realize that I was talking to someone that actually has something wrong with them. Look at the title of this thread that YOU started. I'm out bud, no sense in arguing with somebody that's completely delusional

quote:

---

Did all 50 of those teams return almost the same exact lineup? Of course not. This is your strawman and I understand you have to stick to it. But that's not how this works. The teams that showed improvement in average and doubles showed the same improvement in HRs.

---

Again, the entire point of this discussion was to discuss the "HR results from the flat seam baseball". Look at YOUR thread title

quote:

---

But they didn't. You are only looking at 1/3 of the teams so of course the average would likely be different

---

My point is that the average was +9 across the board. It doesn't change no matter which 50 teams you look at, or if you look at 100 teams, or all 300 teams. It's always +9 which means that the balls added around 9 home runs per team no matter how many HR's they hit the year before.

quote:

---

The assumption is that LSU is one of the best hitting teams in the nation... which is 100% true.

---

No it's not...you're fricking delusional I can't believe that you actually said that this discussion isn't about how many home runs are added by the balls when you started this fricking thread

quote:

---

Alone? Then why is it the other two teams in the top 5 of those categories are also in the top 20 of HRs? But LSU barely made the top 50? "Very little". Why? Numbers to back that up please. I have them that says they do...

---

How does this refute the fact that the new baseballs only added 9 home runs per team? It's completely irrelevant to this discussion

quote:

---

Because not every fricking team is LSU... which returned 7 starters... none of which were chinea or foster!

---

Explain exactly why this means that we were more likely to hit more than 9 more home runs because of the balls this year. I just told you to take the top 50 teams from last year and average how many more HR's they added a piece since YOU'RE arguing that the better HR teams from last year are more likely to add a disproportional amount to their total this year.

You're not even posting stats at this point, you're just floundering and saying random shite that you're hoping makes you sound like you know what you're talking about