look into park effects. they help raw numbers. they are equal in team wrc+ which accounts for that.
Around Baseball
- Thread starter NinersSBChamps
- Start date
look into park effects. they help raw numbers. they are equal in team wrc+ which accounts for that.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
You can't convince anyone the Pirates are a better offensive team than the Reds.
Terrible argument.
I didn't say better. I said equal. And for anyone that knows about park effects would agree with me. The Reds play in one of the better hitting parks in the league. The Pirates are one of the worst. That is going to have a major effect on raw offensive numbers.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
Yes, it does but it's not equal.
Pirates aren't a great offensive team, Reds are a pretty good offensive team, much better than the Pirates.
I guess that's why they essentially have the same team OPS in road games then. 707 for the Reds and 708 for the Pirates. Reds averaging 4.03 runs per road game and Pirates 3.98 runs per road game. It must mean the Reds are just so much better.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Even if they were equal because park effects... At some point we have to play in their park... I'd still rather face the offense in a worse offensive park. But trying to say the Pirates lineup is equal to the Reds bc of park effects is laughable at best. The Reds clearly have a better lineup.
You are right. We would have to play in Pittsburgh and our offense wouldn't be as good and their pitching would be that much better. It works both ways.
If the Reds clearly had a better lineup it would show up in their road numbers. The fact that are essentially equal tells me that overall that have equal lineups. Can't believe in 2013 people still don't understand what park effects can do to raw offensive numbers.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
I completely understand park effects and have for sometime, thank you very much. I also understand it is a human created metric and has flaws just like any statistic. It is impossible to normalize all statistics on an equal playing field adjusting for parks 100%. I am a statistician in many ways and have taken countless statistics classes as a meteorologist. I know the limitations of statistics and in baseball I prefer the eyeball test. I have seen both teams play many times and the Reds lineup passes the eyeball test every time.
The eyeball test. Figured it wouldn't be long before that argument came out. The eyeball test is way more flawed than most advanced statistics. Simply because you can't watch enough games to correctly make any kind of assessment. You say you've watched both teams play man times. I seriously doubt it's that much when compared to every game they have played this year and then compare that to what every other team is doing.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Head the Marlins turned down Starling Marte, Gerrit Cole, Jameson Taillon, and Stetson Allie for Giancarlo Stanton. I think they are going to regret that. Like Hanley they are going to wait until he is almost a salary dump to trade him. I would have even put Fernandez out there to see if I could have gotten a mega deal for him too. Stanton's stock could start to drop with his lack of production, injury problems, and less service time. Fernandez looks great but young pitchers are highly volatile, they could have gotten a whole infield for him.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
Posted the same a few days ago.
If true, pretty dumb.
I doubt anyone offers much better.
Regards to Fernandez, that's like us trading Julio right now, umm would you do that?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The difference is the Braves dont have as many holes to fill and dont have the payroll restrictions the Marlins do. The reason I would have considered it is because if the Marlins did the Stanton/Pirates deal they would already have a lot of good young starters. The outfield would be great with Marte + 3 good prospects in Yelich/Marisnik/Ozuna. The infield however is an abysmal situation however. Fernandez is good enough to make some off limits prospects be put on the table. Depends on the offers but if I could get an offer like Bogarts/Middlebrooks/Owens or Profar/Olt/Odor I would highly consider it. Fernandez is great but you never know with young pitching.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
You aren't wrong, but trading Fernandez is dumb. He's arguably a top 15-20 pitcher already and just turned 21, trading him for prospects is stupid.
All of Fernandez, Alvarez, Eovaldi, Turner are under control until 2018-2019, there isnt a reason to deal them. Not like any of them are getting expensive anytime soon.
You are right on the infield though.
The Braves have one more win than Tampa. I'll be shocked if Boston isn't ahead of Atlanta in ESPN's Power Rankings come tomorrow.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
And people would have said the Braves were stupid if they traded Hanson mid 2011 when he had an ERA under 3 too. People would have said the Cubs were stupid for trading Kerry Wood after 2003. Not saying Fernandez's career will take a nose dive but sometimes you need to diversify your stock if you know what I mean. I would bet you that out of Teheran/Harvey/Fernandez atleast one will have an ERA over 4 and have injury issues next year.
Gary82
Called Up to the Major Leagues
gtcway
Spring Training Invitee
I think the dodgers end up with the best record and homefield.