- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: HR results from the flat seam baseball
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:15 pm to southeasttiger113
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:15 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
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 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
quote:
I'm out bud
1
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:18 pm to lsufball19
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:56 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:I never said that. We are looking only at LSU in that case where we assumed the same, if not more, amount of power from the year before.
YOU'RE arguing that the better HR teams from last year are more likely to add a disproportional amount to their total this year.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 2:01 pm to ell_13
quote:
At the end of the regular season, home runs over all of college baseball were up 41%. Advocate Article
quote:
The college game saw an increase of homers by 41 percent — 0.39 per game last year to 0.56 this year. The average team has 30 homers this season over a 56-game schedule. It had 21 last season.
LSU saw an increase from 41 to 51 home runs. So we were a little below average in terms of percentage increase. The number suggest we should have had at least 58 HRs with 65 being a good guess considering we were a top 5 hitting team by average. So the preseason guess of 60 HRs was spot on. Just some bad luck didn't get us there.
Really? You never said that it was fair to assume that LSU was going to hit 20 more home runs because they hit 40 the year before and the national average went from 21 to 30? Check all of your posts, and check the title of this thread. You were talking about the baseballs until you realized that your logic was fricked and now you're backpedaling and trying to pretend that you were talking about the players. Just admit that you were wrong and move on.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 2:15 pm to southeasttiger113
I've got some stats for you...
Out of 293 teams:
160 teams increased their HR total by at least 40%
123 teams increased their total HRs by at least 11 (More than LSU)
54 teams increased their total HRs by at least 20 (The number we keep arguing)
20 teams increase their total HRs by at least 30
5 teams increased their total HRs by at least 40 (3 SEC teams: Vandy, A&M, and Florida)
52 teams decreased their HRs from last year... TOTAL
Of the teams that hit at least 40 last year...
Samford increased their total by 28
Mercer increased their total by 27
Belmont increased their total by 29
Average increase in HRs by the bottom 50 of 2014: 12.36
Average decrease in HRs by the top 50 of 2014: 0.06
Largest increase for 50 consecutive 2014 teams: 14.38 (84th thru 133rd)
Average decrease in HRs by the bottom 50 of 2015: 0.84
Average increase in HRs by the top 50 of 2015: 23.36
LSU was 19th in total HRs last year and fell to 29th overall. If we had stayed 19th, we would have had 57 HRs (right at the 40% increase).
Of the 28 teams that hit more HRs than LSU, ONLY 3 HIT FEWER THAN 20 OVER THE AMOUNT THEY HIT THE YEAR BEFORE!!! Those 3 teams??? Eastern Ky, ULL, and Dallas Baptist.
We lost only 3 players with any HRs from 2014: McMullen (7), Moore (6), Ibarra (3). That's it. 16 HRs. And you don't think we should have been able to easily replace that number while adding 20 more??? Hale hit the same amount (4). Scivicque actually hit 1 less (6) despite is great year. Same with Fraley who only hit 2. Chinea went half the year without one yet still finished with 11.
I seriously can't see how anyone with 2 brain cells seriously thinks that we should not have hit more HRs this year. And that 60 was a great guess. Right on the money of what it should have been.
Out of 293 teams:
160 teams increased their HR total by at least 40%
123 teams increased their total HRs by at least 11 (More than LSU)
54 teams increased their total HRs by at least 20 (The number we keep arguing)
20 teams increase their total HRs by at least 30
5 teams increased their total HRs by at least 40 (3 SEC teams: Vandy, A&M, and Florida)
52 teams decreased their HRs from last year... TOTAL
Of the teams that hit at least 40 last year...
Samford increased their total by 28
Mercer increased their total by 27
Belmont increased their total by 29
Average increase in HRs by the bottom 50 of 2014: 12.36
Average decrease in HRs by the top 50 of 2014: 0.06
Largest increase for 50 consecutive 2014 teams: 14.38 (84th thru 133rd)
Average decrease in HRs by the bottom 50 of 2015: 0.84
Average increase in HRs by the top 50 of 2015: 23.36
LSU was 19th in total HRs last year and fell to 29th overall. If we had stayed 19th, we would have had 57 HRs (right at the 40% increase).
Of the 28 teams that hit more HRs than LSU, ONLY 3 HIT FEWER THAN 20 OVER THE AMOUNT THEY HIT THE YEAR BEFORE!!! Those 3 teams??? Eastern Ky, ULL, and Dallas Baptist.
We lost only 3 players with any HRs from 2014: McMullen (7), Moore (6), Ibarra (3). That's it. 16 HRs. And you don't think we should have been able to easily replace that number while adding 20 more??? Hale hit the same amount (4). Scivicque actually hit 1 less (6) despite is great year. Same with Fraley who only hit 2. Chinea went half the year without one yet still finished with 11.
I seriously can't see how anyone with 2 brain cells seriously thinks that we should not have hit more HRs this year. And that 60 was a great guess. Right on the money of what it should have been.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:25 pm to ell_13
quote:These are the only relevant stats that you posted. You've been saying repeatedly that it's more likely for a team who hit 40 home runs last year to see an increase of 20+. They actually saw a decrease on average.
Average increase in HRs by the bottom 50 of 2014: 12.36
Average decrease in HRs by the top 50 of 2014: 0.06
quote:And how many of those 163 teams hit 40+ home runs last year? That 40% for those 163 teams is going to come out to a numerical average increase of 9...just like I've been saying
163 teams increased their HR/G by at least 40%
quote:No, we've been arguing that it's unlikely that a team who hit 40 home runs is more likely than a team who hit 10 home runs last year to hit 20+ more home runs. How many home runs did those 54 teams hit last year? Probably a lot less than 40 judging by the fact that the top 50 teams saw an average decrease of .5%
54 teams increased their total HRs by at least 20 (The number we keep arguing)
quote:This 40% comes out to a numerical average increase of 9
163 teams increased their HR/G by at least 40%
quote:This skews the numerical average increase up to around 12-15
123 teams increased their total HRs by at least 11 (More than LSU)
54 teams increased their total HRs by at least 20 (The number we keep arguing)
20 teams increase their total HRs by at least 30
5 teams increased their total HRs by at least 40 (3 SEC teams: Vandy, A&M, and Florida)
quote:This returns the average increase back to 9...and does nothing to dispute what I've been saying.
52 teams decreased their HRs from last year... TOTAL
quote:Your friend already quoted this and it has nothing to do with this conversation. Obviously the top 50 teams of 2015 saw a big increase from last year, if you don't understand why that has nothing to do with the new baseballs then I'm not sure what to tell you
Average decrease in HRs by the bottom 50 of 2015: 0.84
Average increase in HRs by the top 50 of 2015: 23.36
quote:This is completely irrelevant
LSU was 19th in total HRs last year and fell to 29th overall. If we had stayed 19th, we would have had 57 HRs (right at the 40% increase).
that doesn't mean that the average who hit 40+ home runs saw an average of a 40% increase and that's what we're talking about. You keep posting a bunch of random stats then rotflmao's but what exactly are you trying to argue? All of those stats agree with me when I say that a team who hits 40 home runs in 2014 isn't any more likely to increase their total by 20+. In fact, it's a LOT more unlikely. Instead of posting random stats and emoji's, why don't you come straight out and tell me why I'm wrong when I say that it's unlikely to expect a team who hit 40 home runs last year to hit more than 9 more home runs due to the new balls, and while you're at it tell me exactly what point you're trying to make.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:28 pm to southeasttiger113
Are you retarded?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:33 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:Link? I've only been talking about a team like LSU. I keep saying that. Jesus.
You've been saying repeatedly that it's more likely for a team who hit 40 home runs last year to see an increase of 20+
quote:Nope... They average 17.7 more HRs.
That 40% for those 163 teams is going to come out to a numerical average of 9...just like I've been saying
quote:Nope... again. 17.7
This 40% comes out to a numerical average of 9
quote:
All of those stats agree with me
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:33 pm to ell_13
It's hard to hit home runs with the coach is giving hit and run once every two innings.
/ thread
/ thread
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:35 pm to ell_13
I just asked a question, what exactly are you arguing at this point and do you disagree with what I've been saying (it's reasonable to expect an average of 9 more home runs per year and it's extremely unrealistic to expect a team who hit 40+ home runs to hit 20+ more this year)? Simple question, answer it. You're really quick to post a bunch of stats followed by no synopsis and then call me retarded but what exactly were you arguing when you posted those stats?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:36 pm to ell_13
quote:I just realized that's because the top 50 saw an average decrease. Does nothing to prove me wrong. What's your point? How many home runs on average did those teams hit last year?
Nope... They average 17.7 more HRs
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:38 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:Do I need to go back and quote myself for every time I've told you that it depends on the team... that we were talking specifically about LSU every time this got brought up??? That we assume the same type of power returns the next year?
(it's reasonable to expect an average of 9 more home runs per year and it's extremely unrealistic to expect a team who hit 40+ home runs to hit 20+ more this year)?
What about Samford, Mercer, and Belmont?
What about the 25 or 28 teams ahead of us this year that hit at least 21 more HRs than last?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:39 pm to ell_13
quote:It doesn't even apply to LSU fricking dumbass
Link? I've only been talking about a team like LSU. I keep saying that. Jesus.
we're not special. You act like in reality we hit 20 more. We actually hit 10 more and every stat points toward it being likely for us to hit 9 more or see a decrease. A 20 HR increase for a team who hit 40 HR's last year was ridiculously unlikelyPosted on 6/25/15 at 3:40 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:You mean what was the average HR of 163 teams????
How many home runs on average did those teams hit last year?
Less than 40... which I'm sure you're still stuck on.Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:42 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
every stat points toward it being likely for us to hit 9 more or see a decrease. A 20 HR increase for a team who hit 40 HR's last year was ridiculously unlikely
quote:So ridiculous that 3 teams did it. More than 10% of the teams that hit at least 40 in 2014. So impossible!!!
We lost only 3 players with any HRs from 2014: McMullen (7), Moore (6), Ibarra (3). That's it. 16 HRs. And you don't think we should have been able to easily replace that number while adding 20 more??? Hale hit the same amount (4). Scivicque actually hit 1 less (6) despite is great year. Same with Fraley who only hit 2. Chinea went half the year without one yet still finished with 11.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:43 pm to ell_13
quote:We were predicting how many more home runs we were going to see BASED OFF OF THE NEW BALLS. The answer was 9. /thread. You're taking 3 teams that broke the rules and trying to apply it to what was realistic to expect preseason from the new balls. It doesn't depend on the team. The average came out to be 9 for all teams, and it was slightly higher for teams that hit fewer home runs and teams like LSU basically stayed the same on average. If you going off of "specifically LSU", your prediction of 20 added home runs was idiotic. But tell me more about how you were talking about other factors when you started a thread called "HR results from the flat seam baseball" Jesus you're a fricking idiot
Do I need to go back and quote myself for every time I've told you that it depends on the team... that we were talking specifically about LSU every time this got brought up??? That we assume the same type of power returns the next year?
What about Samford, Mercer, and Belmont?
What about the 25 or 28 teams ahead of us this year that hit at least 21 more HRs than last?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:45 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
You're taking 3 teams that broke the rules
quote:wut
It doesn't depend on the team
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:45 pm to ell_13
Not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it makes you an idiot to predict that we were going to do something that only 3 out of 300 teams did. Again, what exactly are you arguing at this point?
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:48 pm to ell_13
The fact that 9 added home runs is the most realistic prediction doesn't depend on the team. You're trying to change the subject again because you're wrong. Predicting 20 more home runs for a team like LSU is idiotic considering most of the top 50 teams saw a decrease in home runs and the average team only saw an increase of 9. That's the entire point of this discussion. Stay on topic dipshit
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:56 pm to southeasttiger113
13.6% of teams who hit 40 HRs one year (22) hit at least 20 more the next.
18.4% of all teams (293) hit at least 20 more the next year.
Why is it so crazy that LSU should be a part of this group? Why is that such a bad guess when that's exactly what a guess is? Look at who we lost and who we had back?
Isn't that where all this started? Do I need to link every BS post you made in the other thread where you swore the bats were too shitty to see any real difference and that you would be shocked to see a 10% increase. Even though now you are pretending like you were expecting that all along.
Scivicque's average went up 50 points but his HR total went DOWN! Anomaly. Hale's average went up over 20 points but his HR total stayed the same. Anomaly.
This is why we don't have 60. Not because "everyone else averaged 9!". That is very shortsighted.
We went from 30th in HR/G to 49th! If we had just kept the status quo.. remained at 30th, guess what??!?! We would have 60 HRs. SHOCKING!!!!!
18.4% of all teams (293) hit at least 20 more the next year.
Why is it so crazy that LSU should be a part of this group? Why is that such a bad guess when that's exactly what a guess is? Look at who we lost and who we had back?
Isn't that where all this started? Do I need to link every BS post you made in the other thread where you swore the bats were too shitty to see any real difference and that you would be shocked to see a 10% increase. Even though now you are pretending like you were expecting that all along.
Scivicque's average went up 50 points but his HR total went DOWN! Anomaly. Hale's average went up over 20 points but his HR total stayed the same. Anomaly.
This is why we don't have 60. Not because "everyone else averaged 9!". That is very shortsighted.
We went from 30th in HR/G to 49th! If we had just kept the status quo.. remained at 30th, guess what??!?! We would have 60 HRs. SHOCKING!!!!!
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 4:00 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News