Yankees

I'm sorry that I don't have the time to fully research and come up with mounds of data to support my assertions. I know what I've heard and read over the years. I'm sorry I didn't journal it all for the Sports Forum. I mean, I thought it was a given that people shared their views on this thing. I didn't know I was supposed to come armed with loads of data at my fingertips. And you guys have been pretty dismissive of my theory, yet neither have you shown any evidence or made any argument to the contrary, save for Ed's one season of home/road differential.

Let me ask you this - Do you think that every team in the majors has exactly equal advantage in their home park? To agree with that statement would be nonsense. Of course some teams have more of an advantage with their home park than others due to the peculiarities of the stadium. So the next question is, which teams have the greatest advantage due to the peculiarities of their home park? Is that such an outrageous question to ask? No, it's not. My answer is the Twins, yet I'm being dismissed as a nutcase. Probably a good argument could be made for Coors Field.

This isn't theology or life or death. So just tell me why you think I'm wrong in my assertions, and I promise not to ask you for every piece of evidence for your conclusions. It's just sports, man. :wavey:

 

Andy, you have over 800 posts on this board. You should know by now that if you present an opinion and say that it's fact, the other denizens of this board are going to ask for evidence. I don't understand what's so unreasonable about asking for something, anything, that backs up what you're saying.

No kidding. We know this. Everybody here knows that sports has little to do with the price of gas, the latest political scandal, poverty or the fact that people are going to Hell. Thank you for reminding us of this. Now, if you're going to present your opinion as objective fact, then please provide evidence of such.

 

Right, you share your views. You are welcome to share any view you have around here. I have absolutely no problem with you holding to your view.

You are even allowed to say that others agree with your views. But if you do that, then you should be able to provide support for this claim. You have not done that one time in this entire discussion. This is where my problem comes in to play.

I do not like the St. Louis Cardinals, and I can come in here and proclaim that they have won so many games the last 5 years because their bullpen area is better than all the other bullpens around the league. I can even go a step further and say that this is a widely held opinion amongst "baseball" people. Yet that in no way makes my silly idea fact.

You keep trying to evade the issue by throwing the ball in our court. Again, the burden of proof is on your hands, not ours. With that said, Ed gave you some statistical proof that your claim is mere opinion and not fact. Yet what do you do? You dismiss it as just one season, blah blah...

 

Will be back in a few days with some stats. Never said my assertion was an "objective fact". I'm quite confident in my assertions, but there are differing "categories of truth" when it comes to sports arguments. Quick preview:


What is pythagorean winning percentage?
Pythagorean winning percentage is an estimate of a team's winning percentage given their runs scored and runs allowed. Developed by Bill James, it can tell you when teams were a bit lucky or unlucky. It is calculated by
(Runs Scored)^1.83--------------------------------------------------------- (Runs Scored)^1.83 + (Runs Allowed)^1.83

My original theory was that the Twins are lucky, which I will show later with the above.

 

So while I gather my data, you oh-so-objective naysayers, answer my previous question:

Let me ask you this - Do you think that every team in the majors has exactly equal advantage in their home park? To agree with that statement would be nonsense. Of course some teams have more of an advantage with their home park than others due to the peculiarities of the stadium. So the next question is, which teams have the greatest advantage due to the peculiarities of their home park? Is that such an outrageous question to ask? No, it's not. My answer is the Twins, yet I'm being dismissed as a nutcase. Probably a good argument could be made for Coors Field.

I'm curious to hear your answers with supporting reasons and/or data.

 

First of all, calm down Andy. Being asked for evidence to support a factual claim you are making isn't all that unusual on Baptist Board. We're not a debate forum in the Sports section, but you did make a fact based claim. When asked about the "why" behind this claim, you are committing two logical fallacies: one is the appeal to authority fallacy ("Experts believe this, so it must be true"), even though you've yet to prove that an expert believe this even though this would not in and of itself establish the veracity of your claim. The second logical fallacy is asking to prove a negative, or formally known as an argument from ignroance ("here is my claim - prove it isn't true"). Logically, you're assertions are not holding water.

I have no problem with you having your opinion. When you stated it as fact, though, it's a different matter. I look forward to hearing your proof for your opinion and we'll discuss it gentlemanly. Don't be so sensitive or antagonistic because you stated an opinion couched as a fact and were asked to validate it.

Thanks for your post, and let's have a good convo about this :thumbsup:

 

This begs the question. Not all teams have a home field advantage due to the field's "peculiarities." Some might. Some believe Boston is at a disadvantage due to Fenway Park. Some believe Wrigley Field's practice of all day games prior to the mid 80s hindered the Cubbies. However, field "quirks" are just one component of home field advantage and not the bene esse of the matter.

 

Actually, I repeated that "stats" since they were kinda' ignored on the first trip by the grandstand. (Or was that the 'grandstander'?)

Ed

 

FWIW, I just looked at the home field differential of every team on a year by year basis from 1948, the year I was born. Fenway year in and year out does seem to give the Red Sox a definite abvantage of a few games. Yankee Stadium does, as well. Some others did better than others. Incidentally, the Metrodome did not seem to give that much advantage over the previous home of the Twins, which I believe was called Bloomington or Metropolitan Stadium, as they seemed to have a definite home field advantage, there, as well. And FWIW, two of the larger advantages in the NL happened to appear to be St. Louis and Houston. (Has anyone considered that the nearness of the "Father of Waters" might havve something to do with it?) But this was not a guaranteed thing for any team, as most every team had years where they had a better record away than at home. I did not write down any, so cannot give stats, here.

I would think that teams that play on a regular basis in a "cookie cutter" type park (Where is it written that a ballpark should have 325' foul lines and be 410' to dead Center field??) would be at a disadvantage when facing a park with more idiosyncrasies. Hence, I would think that they have less of an advantage than some others, meaning that not all teams have an equal "home-field" advantage. And personally, I prefer parks with differences, and prefer to watch a game in the likes of Fenway, Wrigley, the Metrodome (Yes, I happen to like "The Baggie", without which, all you have is another "cookie cutter" that happens to have varying 'air currents' :laugh: ), Yankee Stadium before it was made more symetrical, as RF used to be 296', and LF was 301' to the "wall", the late Cosmisky, and others of that nature, with my all time favorite being Crosley, with the left field terrace, and 387' to dead center field, and my least favorite being the old Atlanta/Fulton Co. Stadium, a near-perfect 'cloned' example. (Now we are geting a new set of 'clones', attempted imitations of Camden Yards and Jacobs Field- Whoopee!! - Duh!) And for years, when I considered myself as a fan, it was of the Braves. Basically, the strikes took care of that.

With little doubt, the "home-field advantage" (+27 over the 162 game season) was the reason the Twins played in the post season in 1967, while three AL teams with far beter records stay home, but that's the system, as was 'home-field advantage through the ALCS, whether the Tigers or Twins had it. And considering the ALCS was only five games in duration, something more than home field was involved, since the Twins had to win two "on the road", at least, with the 2-3-2 format.

And contrary to Andy's assertion, the better team was the Twins, not the Cards, for two seven games series, whch was what was important in the post-season.

Ed

 

Isn't baseball the only team sport without uniform dimensions (with minor tolerances)?

What if Rupp Arena had 8 foot goals and was 108 feet long? What if Thompson-Boling had 12 foot goals and was only 80 feet long? What if the three point line at Duke was 16 feet from the basket and the free throw line was ten feet?

Or think about football. What if Commonwealth stadium had a 125 yard field and 20 yard endzones, but Neyland had an 80 yard field?

That's what you have in baseball. Truthfully, I can live with it. FWIW, Mickey Mantle of all people was one of the first to vocally support uniform measurements for the field-of-play in baseball.

 

Last time I checked, all major league teams played on a 'square' field that had 90' basepaths, pitching was from 60' 6" away, the baseballs are supposedly uniform for a season as are the bats composition of wood (uh- except for a little cork, occasionally, I add ) etc. The only 'variables' would seem to be turf, the size and configuration of foul territory, and distances to and types of outfield barriers. And all seem to play by the same rule book, the DH and maybe some trainers?? excepted. Personally, I would have no real objection to identical parks, I guess, if all were the exact same? And I suggest all be outdoors, open air, with 300' foul lines, an angled LC and RC, and 400' to dead center field, all oriented due E/W from homeplate to CF, with CF to the East. That way we could assure an average of 80 HR to the HR champion every year, in the NL at least, without any steroids involved, and pretty well assume that Colorado or maybe Atlanta would usually be assured of that title as well , considering that the ball tends to travel farther at the higher elevations. I really don't know how to make this much more sarcastic, actually.

Oh, and while we are at it, let's make all football stadiums open ended with uniform configurations on the sides and a seating capacity of exactly 40,000 for Div. I-AA; 52,000 for I-A; and 64,000 for the NFL. Why should UT or UGa be allowed an advantage of fans over Arkansas or Vandy; or Michigan or 'Joe Pa' to have one over Northwestern or Indiana?? To me, that makes just as much sense.
The old adage still is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Neither of these scenarios are in any need of 'fixin', cause Humpty-Dumpty ain't broke, yet. :thumbsup: But with this, it could be, the late 'Mick' notwithstanding.

Ed

 

P.S. While we are at it, don't replace Memorial Gymnasium at Vandy, either! :BangHead: The 'end-zone' benches give a little class to the bandbox. :thumbsup: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Dang, no more Yankees this postseason:thumbsup:

 

Too bad! So-o-o-o sad! No more Yankees to hate, and also no more Twins for AndyT. to hate! Whatever shall we do? I guess there's still Oakland, but somehow it's just not the same with the East Bay denizens, as it was when the likes of Charlie Finley, Al Davis, 'Catfish' Hunter, 'Snake' Stabler, Sal Bando, John Matuzak, Billy Martin, Jack Tatum, Reggie Jackson, Rollie Fingers, and Dave Caspar were there to hate. - Oh, wait! Did I get my sports teams all confu...??

Ed

 

Ed,
Comparing football stadium size and seating capacity to outfield wall and foul-ground size is comparing apples to lima beans. Seating capacity doesn't affect a scoring mechanism the way the outfield fences affect scoring in baseball and foul ground affects whether or not a foul ball is a souvenir or an out. And we all know all outdoor sports are affected by weather. That's a non-sequitur.

You are right on only :tongue3: one point: I should've phrased my statement differently. Something like "Isn't MLB the only team sport without uniform field sizes (with minor variances)" would've been more clear.

 

It always does - the best team for a run of 3 out of 5; 4 out of 7, and 4 out of 7. For everyone else who hasn't yet figured it out 8 teams out of 30 get to play post season MLB. That's less than (at present) 27%. For the league championship, it's a little over 13%, And for the World Series title, barely over 6 1/2%.

Ed

 

While I'm not about to jump on the Detroit bandwagon, I do have an image to maintain you know :smilewinkgrin: , I do think they're going to win the World Series. It's all about their power pitching and if they can shutdown the Yankees lineup, they can shutdown anybody.

 

When will Steinbrenner learn that you can't buy chemistry? I think the Yankees would be better served to quit signing the highest priced free agent available each year and (gasp) scout!!

I think they would be a better team if they cut their payroll by 2/3, and start infusing some young farm talent, albeit their own or other teams through trades. The problem they have now is who wants to take on such large contracts, especially with aging players? They are a mess!

 

you can't buy chemistry, but you can buy pitching and that's what will happen. Looking forward to next year already... Now I feel like a cubs fan.:smilewinkgrin: