Bonds' HR rate

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Tom MacInty » Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:22:29


What are the current expert projections for him this season? My simple
projections show him on a pace for 87 HR if he plays every game, and
72 or 73 if he misses the usual 1/6 of his team games (I think I read
that he usually plays 135 games). Thanks.

Tom

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by James Ka » Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:13:40


Quote:
>What are the current expert projections for him this season? My simple
>projections show him on a pace for 87 HR if he plays every game, and
>72 or 73 if he misses the usual 1/6 of his team games (I think I read
>that he usually plays 135 games). Thanks.

I don't know where that comes from.  His *median* games played over his
career is 150.  Since 1995 he's averaged 144, basically because of
one season '99 where he played 102 (in three of his last 6 seasons he had
over 156+ games).  
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by A is A Exterminator » Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:53:23

He misses more like 1/12 of his team's games, considering that he's played 50 of
54 so far, meaning that he should play around 150 games this year.  (Where on
earth do you get the idea that he usually plays only 135?  There are enough
websites on the net where you could verify that and find out that it's false.)

And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
rising.


Quote:

>What are the current expert projections for him this season? My simple
>projections show him on a pace for 87 HR if he plays every game, and
>72 or 73 if he misses the usual 1/6 of his team games (I think I read
>that he usually plays 135 games). Thanks.

>Tom

--
A is A Exterminators
Here to check your premises

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Tom MacInty » Mon, 04 Jun 2001 21:17:14

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

Quote:

>He misses more like 1/12 of his team's games, considering that he's played 50 of
>54 so far, meaning that he should play around 150 games this year.  (Where on
>earth do you get the idea that he usually plays only 135?  There are enough
>websites on the net where you could verify that and find out that it's false.)

I thought that I saw it here...my memory isn't what it should be
anymore. :-)

Quote:

>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>rising.

How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
for HR?

I realize that he may not continue at this pace, but what if he does a
Sosa? He'll hit 100 HR then. :-)

Tom

Quote:


>>What are the current expert projections for him this season? My simple
>>projections show him on a pace for 87 HR if he plays every game, and
>>72 or 73 if he misses the usual 1/6 of his team games (I think I read
>>that he usually plays 135 games). Thanks.

>>Tom

>--
>A is A Exterminators
>Here to check your premises

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Abby Powe » Wed, 06 Jun 2001 01:17:57


Quote:

>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>>rising.
>How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
>87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
>simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
>or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
>numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
>simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
>for HR?

Well, here's an answer to the last question.  Here are Bonds' games played
through his career: 113 (rookie season), 150, 144, 159, 151, 153, 140, 159,
112 (of 115, strike year #1), 144 (of 144, strike year #2), 158, 159, 156,
102 (injury), 143 (injury).  So barring injury, there's every reason to
believe he'll play 150 games this year.

Now, of the various ways to project his HR total:

1. Straight extrapolation: 84.
2. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/team's games) (1994) and project the
rest of the season that way: 63.
3. Same as number 2, excluding shortened seasons (so, using 2000): 61.
4. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/Barry's GP) (2000) and project
forward, assuming he plays 150 games: 62.5.
5. Take his HR rate over the last 3 years, average it, and project
forward: 58.
6. Take his career HR rate and project forward: 51.5.

It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

-Jim

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Tom MacInty » Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:53:39


Quote:



>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>>>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>>>rising.

>>How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
>>87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
>>simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
>>or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
>>numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
>>simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
>>for HR?

>Well, here's an answer to the last question.  Here are Bonds' games played
>through his career: 113 (rookie season), 150, 144, 159, 151, 153, 140, 159,
>112 (of 115, strike year #1), 144 (of 144, strike year #2), 158, 159, 156,
>102 (injury), 143 (injury).  So barring injury, there's every reason to
>believe he'll play 150 games this year.

More if he's after the record...

Quote:

>Now, of the various ways to project his HR total:

>1. Straight extrapolation: 84.

Okay...20% better than the record...how much must he do before he is
recognized?? I LOVE Mark McGwire, but if BB gets him into
second-place...c'est la vie!

Quote:
>2. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/team's games) (1994) and project the
>rest of the season that way: 63.

How about take his best previous 2 month/60 day (irrespective of
calandar date) total, and extrapolate, based on the final total that
season? How about adding his worst 2/3 of a season to his current
total?

I see what's happening here...but...Barry is off to a very good start,
isn't he? :-)

He can hit 11 HR for 2/3 of a season, and end up with 40, and
possibly(?) lead the league with that. If that isn't enough,
then...let's just see what he can do. He is in a groove?

Barry may have this in his sights already...3 or 4 weeks will tell the
tale...should he do a Sammy at the end, I'll hear all "bets" are off!!

GO BARRY!!

I'll stick with the (constantly adjusting) extrapolation, thank you.
It worked for Mark and Sammy...sort of...the line was very uneven on
the graph I followed...

I like the fancy stuff for some analysis, but there are times when
common sense is your guide.

Tom

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>3. Same as number 2, excluding shortened seasons (so, using 2000): 61.
>4. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/Barry's GP) (2000) and project
>forward, assuming he plays 150 games: 62.5.
>5. Take his HR rate over the last 3 years, average it, and project
>forward: 58.
>6. Take his career HR rate and project forward: 51.5.

>It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
>I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
>stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

>-Jim

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by A is A Exterminator » Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:08:49

#5 is the closest to what I'm doing, only I weight the totals from each of the
past 3 years to get the "established pace," which is 42.  I weight the last
year's total by 3, the year before that by 2, and the year before that by 1, and
divide by 6.


Quote:





>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>>>>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>>>>rising.

>>>How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
>>>87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
>>>simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
>>>or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
>>>numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
>>>simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
>>>for HR?

>>Well, here's an answer to the last question.  Here are Bonds' games played
>>through his career: 113 (rookie season), 150, 144, 159, 151, 153, 140, 159,
>>112 (of 115, strike year #1), 144 (of 144, strike year #2), 158, 159, 156,
>>102 (injury), 143 (injury).  So barring injury, there's every reason to
>>believe he'll play 150 games this year.

>More if he's after the record...

>>Now, of the various ways to project his HR total:

>>1. Straight extrapolation: 84.

>Okay...20% better than the record...how much must he do before he is
>recognized?? I LOVE Mark McGwire, but if BB gets him into
>second-place...c'est la vie!

>>2. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/team's games) (1994) and project the
>>rest of the season that way: 63.

>How about take his best previous 2 month/60 day (irrespective of
>calandar date) total, and extrapolate, based on the final total that
>season? How about adding his worst 2/3 of a season to his current
>total?

>I see what's happening here...but...Barry is off to a very good start,
>isn't he? :-)

>He can hit 11 HR for 2/3 of a season, and end up with 40, and
>possibly(?) lead the league with that. If that isn't enough,
>then...let's just see what he can do. He is in a groove?

>Barry may have this in his sights already...3 or 4 weeks will tell the
>tale...should he do a Sammy at the end, I'll hear all "bets" are off!!

>GO BARRY!!

>I'll stick with the (constantly adjusting) extrapolation, thank you.
>It worked for Mark and Sammy...sort of...the line was very uneven on
>the graph I followed...

>I like the fancy stuff for some analysis, but there are times when
>common sense is your guide.

>Tom

>>3. Same as number 2, excluding shortened seasons (so, using 2000): 61.
>>4. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/Barry's GP) (2000) and project
>>forward, assuming he plays 150 games: 62.5.
>>5. Take his HR rate over the last 3 years, average it, and project
>>forward: 58.
>>6. Take his career HR rate and project forward: 51.5.

>>It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
>>I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
>>stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

>>-Jim

--
A is A Exterminators
Here to check your premises
 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Tom MacInty » Wed, 06 Jun 2001 19:20:00

On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:08:49 GMT, A is A Exterminators

Quote:

>#5 is the closest to what I'm doing, only I weight the totals from each of the
>past 3 years to get the "established pace," which is 42.  I weight the last
>year's total by 3, the year before that by 2, and the year before that by 1, and
>divide by 6.

I'll bet if you take his worst 4 months of the last 5 years, not even
consecutive, and add it to his current total, you'll get more than 42.

Tom

Quote:






>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>>>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>>>>>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>>>>>rising.

>>>>How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
>>>>87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
>>>>simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
>>>>or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
>>>>numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
>>>>simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
>>>>for HR?

>>>Well, here's an answer to the last question.  Here are Bonds' games played
>>>through his career: 113 (rookie season), 150, 144, 159, 151, 153, 140, 159,
>>>112 (of 115, strike year #1), 144 (of 144, strike year #2), 158, 159, 156,
>>>102 (injury), 143 (injury).  So barring injury, there's every reason to
>>>believe he'll play 150 games this year.

>>More if he's after the record...

>>>Now, of the various ways to project his HR total:

>>>1. Straight extrapolation: 84.

>>Okay...20% better than the record...how much must he do before he is
>>recognized?? I LOVE Mark McGwire, but if BB gets him into
>>second-place...c'est la vie!

>>>2. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/team's games) (1994) and project the
>>>rest of the season that way: 63.

>>How about take his best previous 2 month/60 day (irrespective of
>>calandar date) total, and extrapolate, based on the final total that
>>season? How about adding his worst 2/3 of a season to his current
>>total?

>>I see what's happening here...but...Barry is off to a very good start,
>>isn't he? :-)

>>He can hit 11 HR for 2/3 of a season, and end up with 40, and
>>possibly(?) lead the league with that. If that isn't enough,
>>then...let's just see what he can do. He is in a groove?

>>Barry may have this in his sights already...3 or 4 weeks will tell the
>>tale...should he do a Sammy at the end, I'll hear all "bets" are off!!

>>GO BARRY!!

>>I'll stick with the (constantly adjusting) extrapolation, thank you.
>>It worked for Mark and Sammy...sort of...the line was very uneven on
>>the graph I followed...

>>I like the fancy stuff for some analysis, but there are times when
>>common sense is your guide.

>>Tom

>>>3. Same as number 2, excluding shortened seasons (so, using 2000): 61.
>>>4. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/Barry's GP) (2000) and project
>>>forward, assuming he plays 150 games: 62.5.
>>>5. Take his HR rate over the last 3 years, average it, and project
>>>forward: 58.
>>>6. Take his career HR rate and project forward: 51.5.

>>>It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
>>>I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
>>>stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

>>>-Jim

>--
>A is A Exterminators
>Here to check your premises

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Abby Powe » Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:50:29


Quote:

>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:08:49 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>#5 is the closest to what I'm doing, only I weight the totals from each of the
>>past 3 years to get the "established pace," which is 42.  I weight the last
>>year's total by 3, the year before that by 2, and the year before that by 1, and
>>divide by 6.
>I'll bet if you take his worst 4 months of the last 5 years, not even
>consecutive, and add it to his current total, you'll get more than 42.

Well, yeah.  Of course he's going to hit more than 42 (if he stays healthy)
and more than 49 (his previous best).  The previous poster isn't suggesting
he'll end up with 42, but rathe that he'll hit homers at a 42-per-season
rate for the rest of the year, which will leave him somewhere around 60
for this year.

As I said, I think he'll do better than that (if he stays healthy), because
I'm guessing that the increase in his HR rate is real, and not just the
product of a couple lucky months.

Do I think he'll hit 84?  No way.

-Jim

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by A is A Exterminator » Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:09:31

Oh, for crying out loud, how hard is it to explain this?  I don't have him
projected for 42 this season.  I have him projected currently for 57, based on
his established pace and how many he hit so far.  Do I need to go into the
details of the math, or can you attempt to figure it out yourself?


Quote:

>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:08:49 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>#5 is the closest to what I'm doing, only I weight the totals from each of the
>>past 3 years to get the "established pace," which is 42.  I weight the last
>>year's total by 3, the year before that by 2, and the year before that by 1, and
>>divide by 6.

>I'll bet if you take his worst 4 months of the last 5 years, not even
>consecutive, and add it to his current total, you'll get more than 42.

>Tom






>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>>>>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>>>>>>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>>>>>>rising.

>>>>>How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
>>>>>87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
>>>>>simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
>>>>>or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
>>>>>numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
>>>>>simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
>>>>>for HR?

>>>>Well, here's an answer to the last question.  Here are Bonds' games played
>>>>through his career: 113 (rookie season), 150, 144, 159, 151, 153, 140, 159,
>>>>112 (of 115, strike year #1), 144 (of 144, strike year #2), 158, 159, 156,
>>>>102 (injury), 143 (injury).  So barring injury, there's every reason to
>>>>believe he'll play 150 games this year.

>>>More if he's after the record...

>>>>Now, of the various ways to project his HR total:

>>>>1. Straight extrapolation: 84.

>>>Okay...20% better than the record...how much must he do before he is
>>>recognized?? I LOVE Mark McGwire, but if BB gets him into
>>>second-place...c'est la vie!

>>>>2. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/team's games) (1994) and project the
>>>>rest of the season that way: 63.

>>>How about take his best previous 2 month/60 day (irrespective of
>>>calandar date) total, and extrapolate, based on the final total that
>>>season? How about adding his worst 2/3 of a season to his current
>>>total?

>>>I see what's happening here...but...Barry is off to a very good start,
>>>isn't he? :-)

>>>He can hit 11 HR for 2/3 of a season, and end up with 40, and
>>>possibly(?) lead the league with that. If that isn't enough,
>>>then...let's just see what he can do. He is in a groove?

>>>Barry may have this in his sights already...3 or 4 weeks will tell the
>>>tale...should he do a Sammy at the end, I'll hear all "bets" are off!!

>>>GO BARRY!!

>>>I'll stick with the (constantly adjusting) extrapolation, thank you.
>>>It worked for Mark and Sammy...sort of...the line was very uneven on
>>>the graph I followed...

>>>I like the fancy stuff for some analysis, but there are times when
>>>common sense is your guide.

>>>Tom

>>>>3. Same as number 2, excluding shortened seasons (so, using 2000): 61.
>>>>4. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/Barry's GP) (2000) and project
>>>>forward, assuming he plays 150 games: 62.5.
>>>>5. Take his HR rate over the last 3 years, average it, and project
>>>>forward: 58.
>>>>6. Take his career HR rate and project forward: 51.5.

>>>>It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
>>>>I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
>>>>stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

>>>>-Jim

>>--
>>A is A Exterminators
>>Here to check your premises

--
A is A Exterminators
Here to check your premises
 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by A is A Exterminator » Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:16:05

I'm not suggesting that he won't do better than 57, but I'm making a
conservative estimate, one that has been steadily on the rise as the season has
gone on.  A month ago, it was fluctuating around the 47-49 range, and a couple
weeks ago, it was up to 53.  So the projection isn't static.  If he has 40 by
game 81, his projection will increase to 61.  It's a ~better~ projection than
the raw 84 or so that he's "on pace for" so far this season.

I mentioned that the projection depends on what you want to use as his
established pace.  Since the '99 season, he seems to have increased his
power-stroke enough that it makes the earlier numbers irrelevant.  Plus, he
missed 60 games in '99 but hit them at a rate that translated into 50 or so per
150 games.  Same thing last season.  So if we took 50 as his established pace
and expect him to play around 150 games this year, his projection for this
season is 62.  I'm just being more conservative in my projecting, using 42 as
the Est. Pace.


Quote:



>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:08:49 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>#5 is the closest to what I'm doing, only I weight the totals from each of the
>>>past 3 years to get the "established pace," which is 42.  I weight the last
>>>year's total by 3, the year before that by 2, and the year before that by 1, and
>>>divide by 6.

>>I'll bet if you take his worst 4 months of the last 5 years, not even
>>consecutive, and add it to his current total, you'll get more than 42.

>Well, yeah.  Of course he's going to hit more than 42 (if he stays healthy)
>and more than 49 (his previous best).  The previous poster isn't suggesting
>he'll end up with 42, but rathe that he'll hit homers at a 42-per-season
>rate for the rest of the year, which will leave him somewhere around 60
>for this year.

>As I said, I think he'll do better than that (if he stays healthy), because
>I'm guessing that the increase in his HR rate is real, and not just the
>product of a couple lucky months.

>Do I think he'll hit 84?  No way.

>-Jim

--
A is A Exterminators
Here to check your premises
 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Tom MacInty » Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:56:09

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:09:31 GMT, A is A Exterminators

Quote:

>Oh, for crying out loud, how hard is it to explain this?  I don't have him
>projected for 42 this season.  I have him projected currently for 57, based on
>his established pace and how many he hit so far.  Do I need to go into the
>details of the math, or can you attempt to figure it out yourself?

Your explanation, while clear to you and at least one other person,
wasn't clear to me. It is now. Thanks.

Tom

PS-He'll very nearly beat McGwire's record, but not quite...he is off
his established pace for a long enough time now for it to be
considered moot. Has he ever hit like this before?

Quote:


>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:08:49 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>#5 is the closest to what I'm doing, only I weight the totals from each of the
>>>past 3 years to get the "established pace," which is 42.  I weight the last
>>>year's total by 3, the year before that by 2, and the year before that by 1, and
>>>divide by 6.

>>I'll bet if you take his worst 4 months of the last 5 years, not even
>>consecutive, and add it to his current total, you'll get more than 42.

>>Tom






>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>>>>>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>>>>>>>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>>>>>>>rising.

>>>>>>How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
>>>>>>87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
>>>>>>simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
>>>>>>or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
>>>>>>numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
>>>>>>simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
>>>>>>for HR?

>>>>>Well, here's an answer to the last question.  Here are Bonds' games played
>>>>>through his career: 113 (rookie season), 150, 144, 159, 151, 153, 140, 159,
>>>>>112 (of 115, strike year #1), 144 (of 144, strike year #2), 158, 159, 156,
>>>>>102 (injury), 143 (injury).  So barring injury, there's every reason to
>>>>>believe he'll play 150 games this year.

>>>>More if he's after the record...

>>>>>Now, of the various ways to project his HR total:

>>>>>1. Straight extrapolation: 84.

>>>>Okay...20% better than the record...how much must he do before he is
>>>>recognized?? I LOVE Mark McGwire, but if BB gets him into
>>>>second-place...c'est la vie!

>>>>>2. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/team's games) (1994) and project the
>>>>>rest of the season that way: 63.

>>>>How about take his best previous 2 month/60 day (irrespective of
>>>>calandar date) total, and extrapolate, based on the final total that
>>>>season? How about adding his worst 2/3 of a season to his current
>>>>total?

>>>>I see what's happening here...but...Barry is off to a very good start,
>>>>isn't he? :-)

>>>>He can hit 11 HR for 2/3 of a season, and end up with 40, and
>>>>possibly(?) lead the league with that. If that isn't enough,
>>>>then...let's just see what he can do. He is in a groove?

>>>>Barry may have this in his sights already...3 or 4 weeks will tell the
>>>>tale...should he do a Sammy at the end, I'll hear all "bets" are off!!

>>>>GO BARRY!!

>>>>I'll stick with the (constantly adjusting) extrapolation, thank you.
>>>>It worked for Mark and Sammy...sort of...the line was very uneven on
>>>>the graph I followed...

>>>>I like the fancy stuff for some analysis, but there are times when
>>>>common sense is your guide.

>>>>Tom

>>>>>3. Same as number 2, excluding shortened seasons (so, using 2000): 61.
>>>>>4. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/Barry's GP) (2000) and project
>>>>>forward, assuming he plays 150 games: 62.5.
>>>>>5. Take his HR rate over the last 3 years, average it, and project
>>>>>forward: 58.
>>>>>6. Take his career HR rate and project forward: 51.5.

>>>>>It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
>>>>>I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
>>>>>stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

>>>>>-Jim

>>>--
>>>A is A Exterminators
>>>Here to check your premises

>--
>A is A Exterminators
>Here to check your premises

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by A is A Exterminator » Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:44:13


Quote:

>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:09:31 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>Oh, for crying out loud, how hard is it to explain this?  I don't have him
>>projected for 42 this season.  I have him projected currently for 57, based on
>>his established pace and how many he hit so far.  Do I need to go into the
>>details of the math, or can you attempt to figure it out yourself?

>Your explanation, while clear to you and at least one other person,
>wasn't clear to me. It is now. Thanks.

>Tom

>PS-He'll very nearly beat McGwire's record, but not quite...he is off
>his established pace for a long enough time now for it to be
>considered moot. Has he ever hit like this before?

He'll very nearly beat it but not quite . . . is that some hunch of yours?  At
least I base my expectations on his actual demonstrated levels of performances.
I just don't have some hunch or other that he'll finish at some particular
level.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:


>>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:08:49 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>>#5 is the closest to what I'm doing, only I weight the totals from each of the
>>>>past 3 years to get the "established pace," which is 42.  I weight the last
>>>>year's total by 3, the year before that by 2, and the year before that by 1, and
>>>>divide by 6.

>>>I'll bet if you take his worst 4 months of the last 5 years, not even
>>>consecutive, and add it to his current total, you'll get more than 42.

>>>Tom






>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>>>>>>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>>>>>>>>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>>>>>>>>rising.

>>>>>>>How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
>>>>>>>87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
>>>>>>>simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
>>>>>>>or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
>>>>>>>numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
>>>>>>>simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
>>>>>>>for HR?

>>>>>>Well, here's an answer to the last question.  Here are Bonds' games played
>>>>>>through his career: 113 (rookie season), 150, 144, 159, 151, 153, 140, 159,
>>>>>>112 (of 115, strike year #1), 144 (of 144, strike year #2), 158, 159, 156,
>>>>>>102 (injury), 143 (injury).  So barring injury, there's every reason to
>>>>>>believe he'll play 150 games this year.

>>>>>More if he's after the record...

>>>>>>Now, of the various ways to project his HR total:

>>>>>>1. Straight extrapolation: 84.

>>>>>Okay...20% better than the record...how much must he do before he is
>>>>>recognized?? I LOVE Mark McGwire, but if BB gets him into
>>>>>second-place...c'est la vie!

>>>>>>2. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/team's games) (1994) and project the
>>>>>>rest of the season that way: 63.

>>>>>How about take his best previous 2 month/60 day (irrespective of
>>>>>calandar date) total, and extrapolate, based on the final total that
>>>>>season? How about adding his worst 2/3 of a season to his current
>>>>>total?

>>>>>I see what's happening here...but...Barry is off to a very good start,
>>>>>isn't he? :-)

>>>>>He can hit 11 HR for 2/3 of a season, and end up with 40, and
>>>>>possibly(?) lead the league with that. If that isn't enough,
>>>>>then...let's just see what he can do. He is in a groove?

>>>>>Barry may have this in his sights already...3 or 4 weeks will tell the
>>>>>tale...should he do a Sammy at the end, I'll hear all "bets" are off!!

>>>>>GO BARRY!!

>>>>>I'll stick with the (constantly adjusting) extrapolation, thank you.
>>>>>It worked for Mark and Sammy...sort of...the line was very uneven on
>>>>>the graph I followed...

>>>>>I like the fancy stuff for some analysis, but there are times when
>>>>>common sense is your guide.

>>>>>Tom

>>>>>>3. Same as number 2, excluding shortened seasons (so, using 2000): 61.
>>>>>>4. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/Barry's GP) (2000) and project
>>>>>>forward, assuming he plays 150 games: 62.5.
>>>>>>5. Take his HR rate over the last 3 years, average it, and project
>>>>>>forward: 58.
>>>>>>6. Take his career HR rate and project forward: 51.5.

>>>>>>It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
>>>>>>I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
>>>>>>stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

>>>>>>-Jim

>>>>--
>>>>A is A Exterminators
>>>>Here to check your premises

>>--
>>A is A Exterminators
>>Here to check your premises

--
A is A Exterminators
Here to check your premises
 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Gregg Rosenber » Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:12:58

: It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
: I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
: stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

I'm betting it's real. He's got muscles like Popeye this season, and he
never has before. When he was in Atlanta it looked like he was going to
burst out of his uni.

--Gregg

--
http://ai.uga.edu/~ghrosenb

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm
frightened of the old ones."
   --John Cage

 
 
 

Bonds' HR rate

Post by Tom MacInty » Fri, 08 Jun 2001 07:29:09

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:44:13 GMT, A is A Exterminators

Quote:


>>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:09:31 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>Oh, for crying out loud, how hard is it to explain this?  I don't have him
>>>projected for 42 this season.  I have him projected currently for 57, based on
>>>his established pace and how many he hit so far.  Do I need to go into the
>>>details of the math, or can you attempt to figure it out yourself?

>>Your explanation, while clear to you and at least one other person,
>>wasn't clear to me. It is now. Thanks.

>>Tom

>>PS-He'll very nearly beat McGwire's record, but not quite...he is off
>>his established pace for a long enough time now for it to be
>>considered moot. Has he ever hit like this before?

>He'll very nearly beat it but not quite . . . is that some hunch of yours?  At
>least I base my expectations on his actual demonstrated levels of performances.
>I just don't have some hunch or other that he'll finish at some particular
>level.

Gut feeling that he has a new handle on hitting HR's, or that this is
his year. Has he ever had 2 months like this before, I wonder? I admit
that there is no sound statistical reason to assume that he'll get
more than mid 50's to low 60's (29+ 2/3 of 42 or 49).

Given my track record, I've likely jinxed him now, anyway. :-(

Tom

- Show quoted text -

Quote:


>>>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:08:49 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>>>#5 is the closest to what I'm doing, only I weight the totals from each of the
>>>>>past 3 years to get the "established pace," which is 42.  I weight the last
>>>>>year's total by 3, the year before that by 2, and the year before that by 1, and
>>>>>divide by 6.

>>>>I'll bet if you take his worst 4 months of the last 5 years, not even
>>>>consecutive, and add it to his current total, you'll get more than 42.

>>>>Tom






>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:53:23 GMT, A is A Exterminators

>>>>>>>>>And educated projection has him in the 57-62 range, depending on what you
>>>>>>>>>consider to be his "established pace," but the projection has been steadily
>>>>>>>>>rising.

>>>>>>>>How is this calculated? 29 HR in 1/3 of his team's games translates to
>>>>>>>>87 HR if he plays at the same rate that he has so far, at least in my
>>>>>>>>simple world. What fudge factors must be applied to reduce him by 25%
>>>>>>>>or so, and how are these fudge factors arrived at? His "date to"
>>>>>>>>numbers are better than McGwire's record season, right? Why is the
>>>>>>>>simple translation okay for projecting games played, but it isn't okay
>>>>>>>>for HR?

>>>>>>>Well, here's an answer to the last question.  Here are Bonds' games played
>>>>>>>through his career: 113 (rookie season), 150, 144, 159, 151, 153, 140, 159,
>>>>>>>112 (of 115, strike year #1), 144 (of 144, strike year #2), 158, 159, 156,
>>>>>>>102 (injury), 143 (injury).  So barring injury, there's every reason to
>>>>>>>believe he'll play 150 games this year.

>>>>>>More if he's after the record...

>>>>>>>Now, of the various ways to project his HR total:

>>>>>>>1. Straight extrapolation: 84.

>>>>>>Okay...20% better than the record...how much must he do before he is
>>>>>>recognized?? I LOVE Mark McGwire, but if BB gets him into
>>>>>>second-place...c'est la vie!

>>>>>>>2. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/team's games) (1994) and project the
>>>>>>>rest of the season that way: 63.

>>>>>>How about take his best previous 2 month/60 day (irrespective of
>>>>>>calandar date) total, and extrapolate, based on the final total that
>>>>>>season? How about adding his worst 2/3 of a season to his current
>>>>>>total?

>>>>>>I see what's happening here...but...Barry is off to a very good start,
>>>>>>isn't he? :-)

>>>>>>He can hit 11 HR for 2/3 of a season, and end up with 40, and
>>>>>>possibly(?) lead the league with that. If that isn't enough,
>>>>>>then...let's just see what he can do. He is in a groove?

>>>>>>Barry may have this in his sights already...3 or 4 weeks will tell the
>>>>>>tale...should he do a Sammy at the end, I'll hear all "bets" are off!!

>>>>>>GO BARRY!!

>>>>>>I'll stick with the (constantly adjusting) extrapolation, thank you.
>>>>>>It worked for Mark and Sammy...sort of...the line was very uneven on
>>>>>>the graph I followed...

>>>>>>I like the fancy stuff for some analysis, but there are times when
>>>>>>common sense is your guide.

>>>>>>Tom

>>>>>>>3. Same as number 2, excluding shortened seasons (so, using 2000): 61.
>>>>>>>4. Take his best season rate (Barry's HR/Barry's GP) (2000) and project
>>>>>>>forward, assuming he plays 150 games: 62.5.
>>>>>>>5. Take his HR rate over the last 3 years, average it, and project
>>>>>>>forward: 58.
>>>>>>>6. Take his career HR rate and project forward: 51.5.

>>>>>>>It seems to me that 2 through 5 are more reasonable than 1 or 6.  Personally,
>>>>>>>I believe (hope?) that the step up in his HR rate is real, and that if he
>>>>>>>stays healthy, he's got a good chance at 70.

>>>>>>>-Jim

>>>>>--
>>>>>A is A Exterminators
>>>>>Here to check your premises

>>>--
>>>A is A Exterminators
>>>Here to check your premises

>--
>A is A Exterminators
>Here to check your premises