Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 15 of 398

Thread: Ryan Braun going down?

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    913

    Re: Ryan Braun going down?

    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling View Post
    The stats prove that scoring and home runs were declining while steroid usage was increasing. Again, that is the exact opposite of what your steroid theory would predict. Steroids causing scoring simply does not compute. I gave you a nice big list of reasons why home runs and scoring began decline after the 2000 season. Did you even read that list before you replied with questions that I already answered?
    Yes, I touched on all of them. Did you read my statement about average and standard deviation? I guess not, because you keep harping on declining. 2000 was the height, but when you compare home runs from 96-99 to 2001-2004, 2001-2004 was larger. There will be deviation in years, and honestly, I don't think you comprehend statistics. You cannot just take 1 year and go "HEY, OTHER YEARS AFTER ARE LESS, THAT DISPROVES IT!!!" When you look at a long timeframe you can see that home runs continued to increase with 2000 being a deviation. Home runs are the most direct correlation to an increase in strength, and as I have stated over, and over, and over again: The average home runs in 2001 to 2004 was more than 96 through 99. There is also no evidence PED use continued to dramatically increase. We don't know how prevalent it was in the late 90's vs. early 2000's, especially considering PED testing began in the minors in 2001. 2001 to 2004 is really no different than 95-2000 from a statistical standpoint, and there is no information that 2001-2004 had a major increase PED users vs. the mid to late 90's. Yet when you look at 2009-2012, there is a distinct statistical decline that is not an anomaly or deviation. There is your decline, and I showed why your reasons do not jive with that decline. I also refuted your articles you take as gospel. Just terrible use of statistics and plain bad math. Both wreak of someone who came to a conclusion and worked backwards cherry picking info that supported their conclusion while making horrible assumptions.

    I will state this again since I don't think you read my posts...

    The statistics in Nate Silver's article are faulty due to ballpark correction over eras (cannot be done), his inability to point out rules changes that directly affected other eras, and the simple fact it does not take into account any players that were using PED's when they entered the league. Eric Walker's website uses a major lie to support his reason for an increase in 1993 (no proof at all the ball was juiced), and his physics calculations reasoning steroids do not help hit home runs are insanely flawed by the assumption body mass can be used when calculating kinetic energy.
    Last edited by scott91575; 02-18-2013 at 01:51 PM.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25