3 and Out

Using rburghs analysis the likelihood of 10 in a half season would be the same as 70 so Bonds would be as likely to hit 20 in a season as 140 for a season. Ten is 2.5 standard deviations from 36.5 for a half season and also at a 3% chance by his method.

Me thinks there is a flaw in his method. If not, then my crazy theory seems more plausible to me than ever.

I have followed this debate about Bonds and 120/140 HR's and was thinking the same as what Mr Baseball World points out.

As far as Nev leaving the game, that is unfortunate. I fully support anyone leaving the game if they are not enjoying it.

Guys,
To estimate the probability that Bonds hit 140 home runs in a season, you don't need standard deviations or simulations. In fact, the formulas are fairly simple, see : http://www.probabilityformula.org/binom ... rmula.html

So, for Bonds, assuming on average that he hits in BPHR=15 (fairly high), and assuming that he gets 3 HR per 108 chances on opponents cards, the probability that he hits 140 homeruns if the system is not rigged is 0,00000002374. The probability of that event to occurr in 1156 seasons is 0,000002744. Assuming 710 Pa for a full season.

So I think we can safely say that it's a nearly implausible event that Bonds hit 140 home runs.

I repeated the same exercise for 70 homeruns in a half season. There was a 5% probability that this could happen once in 1156 seasons. So not nearly impossible

Edit:Corrected 35 by 70.

If we repeat this exercise but assuming high homeruns chance on the pitchers card and stadiums homeruns rating of 20, as we find in some theme leagues, I'm pretty sure we can have a higher probability of having a few half-seasons of 70 homeruns, but the probability that two half-seasons coincidently happen back-to-back to have a 140 homeruns season still appears to me as highly implausible.

Re-read my post, I just realized that the probability that I calculated is the probability that Bonds exactly 140 homeruns, whereas the probability that the community is interested in is the probability that Bonds hits 140 homeruns or more, but in any case, the probability of former is so low that I am pretty sure that the probability of the latter is also infinitisimal.

Nevdully complains that there is too wide variation, one season Bonds hits 55 homeruns, another he hits 94 season, etc. But it seems to me that this wide variation happens all the time

Brady Anderson goes for 16 homeruns, then 50 homeruns, then 18 homeruns.
Bucholoz goes from 4.56 to 1.74 to 5.34
and I'm sure there are thousands of example like these one.

It really doesn't matter to me if such a huge range of possibilities are normal SD or created in a black box..I realized a long time ago that if, as your example, Bonds hitting between 55 HRS and 91 HRS in any given season is "normal" or to be expected, than that is just too big a field "of expected" "For Me" because too much luck is involved.

Nevdully complains that there is too wide variation, one season Bonds hits 55 homeruns, another he hits 94 season, etc. But it seems to me that this wide variation happens all the time

So I guess if I say the field of "normal or expected results" is too big For Me I must be complaining.

Because I didn't say it was too big...or too big for you...or too big for anyone else...I simply said it was too big "for me".

The problem to me of Bonds and some others is that there is a flaw in the strat algorithm for creating cards with respect to ballparks. The ballpark portion of his card is such that with hitting in hitter parks his numbers get over inflated. Anyone who watched Bonds in those roid inflated years knows the ballpark was not a limiting factor. When he got a ball in the air it was going out. It was going out of his pitcher park in SF. It was going out no matter where he was. So even if he had played in a hitter park like Wrigley or yankee stadium or anywhere his HR total was not going to go up. He was not hitting 30 balls a year in SF where the ball was dying on the warning track and would have been a HR somewhere else. Now granted there probably have been some players where that was true and that pitcher park limited their output. But Bonds was not. But the strat algorithm is going to have him with 8 #s simply by virtue of being a big HR hitter in a pitcher park.

So while I may or may not understand why Nev is unhappy, and I may or may not believe the results we get are flawed for the same reason if he believes the results to be flawed I agree. If root of his frustration is that strat does not care that the cards are producing unrealistic results or incorrect results for whatever reason I agree with the end belief that something is broke.

My personal view is the altorithm has always had a flaw in it. But it was only after the game was taken online that it was really pushed and tested in volume to expose the shortcomings. But like any other form of entertainment if you can get past the flaws it can be a fun hobby. If you cannot accept the flaws then your enjoyment will ultimately diminish.

Nevdully,

I am French-speaking person, so please don't roll your eyes if my choice of words is not always optimal. "Complainte" in French has nothing pejorative, only means it's not at someone's taste. So sorry for my choice of words is that word has another feel in English.

what if I replace complaint by "quibble"?

Anyway, my point is that we are probably witnessing the same level of random variation in baseball...and for most of the fans, it's only part of the game, but I feel sometimes that we hold Strat with different standards...

To give another example, how many years in a row did we witness in real-life a wild card team making the world series? Yet, wildcards making the world series too frequently seem like the no.1 quibble of many owners in this forum.

A sad day Michael - fhere aren't that many of us left that were playing in YR 1. I'm down to 1 or 2 teams total now and just don't have the fire for it that I once did when I was setting my alarm for 1 am so I could swoop players in the "frenzy" Good luck, amigo.

-Drew

Nevdully,

I am French-speaking person, so please don't roll your eyes if my choice of words is not always optimal. "Complainte" in French has nothing pejorative, only means it's not at someone's taste. So sorry for my choice of words is that word has another feel in English.

what if I replace complaint by "quibble"?

Anyway, my point is that we are probably witnessing the same level of random variation in baseball...and for most of the fans, it's only part of the game, but I feel sometimes that we hold Strat with different standards...

To give another example, how many years in a row did we witness in real-life a wild card team making the world series? Yet, wildcards making the world series too frequently seem like the no.1 quibble of many owners in this forum.

Actually than complainte it is.

A sad day Michael - fhere aren't that many of us left that were playing in YR 1. I'm down to 1 or 2 teams total now and just don't have the fire for it that I once did when I was setting my alarm for 1 am so I could swoop players in the "frenzy" Good luck, amigo.

-Drew

Drew don't be sad, turns out there's porn on the internet..I'm not sad.

Beware of the viruses that come with the porn