But hey, if you want to stay in your safe little bubble here where nothing but the numbers need be discussed, you're welcome to it.
For the record, I'm a huge fan of SABR metrics. I just hate seeing half-wits arrogantly toss them around without providing any sort of context. Gives the rest of us a bad name.
But more importantly, I'm annoyed and embarrassed when you folks snark and laugh off anyone who tries to bring anything else to the table. It's so childish and insecure.
Wheres my popcorn?
The Internet is a wonderful thing.
That absolutely exists
And a once affected Kent and Aurilia both. They weren't different players but because in certain instances like I stated before, they were able to sit on situations and it reflected in their home run totals.
I think it gives you a small sample of opportunities a season, it's not some big career altering difference
And one might argue Bonds was the one who's numbers were affected by him not having protection, not visa versa. You think Bonds loses years worth of ABs if AP is behind him?
Last edited by KingPosey; 01-28-2013 at 11:32 PM.
The God honest truth is that batters with men on base do not see more fastballs, it is a myth.
As for Kent and Aurilla. You are referring to their prime years.
Kent had his best year (00) before Bonds went nuts, and when Bonds was nuts (01-04) Kent was back to his career norms for his peak like he was before 00, and when he went to Houston and LA, he was the same player with a gradual decline.
Kent held that peak until 01-07 with the Dodgers and Astros with no Barry Bonds.
The pitches he was given were not different, his execution on those pitches wasn't different. He was the same player who had his career year in 2000 at a very typical peak age (32).
Rich Aurilla had one good season (01) and was **** the rest of his career, even though he spent significant time around Bonds in the lineup. He had a career year at a very typical peak age (29). If it was so great in 01 for Aurilla, why was he so bad in 99, 00, 02, 03. He was still hitting next to Bonds for the majority of those PA (usually ahead of him) just like in 01.
Pujols best years were the years he didn't have Rolen and Edmonds but actually Juan Encarnacion and Reggie Sanders hitting behind him.
I actually did a large breakdown on this awhile ago and broke down the pitches Kent and Aurilla saw when Bonds was next to them in the lineup and when he wasn't. They got the same pitches thrown to them, the same frequency of strikes, and their performances in the end ended up being the same overall. They provided their career years and you are using it as an example to prove your 'perception' or 'assumption'. You are looking for anecdotal evidence to prove a theory. But there is so much evidence out there that says the contrary.
You said it exists in the ways that we are unaware. So what are those ways? That's why I responded.