That doesn’t mean anything. Don Larsen’s top game and Len Barker’s top game sure beats Nolan Ryan’s top game, but I don’t think anyone will argue that Larsen and Barker were better pitchers than Ryan.
Zev Steinhardt
Spiritus, are you implying that should I lose a wager, I would not honor my commitment? 
I mean all you would have to do is post your home address and home phone number on the Message Board and I’d be happy to send your money! 
Besides, being the sportsman that you are, you would of
course give me 10-1 odds, right?
Look, betting money is too complicated, not to mention illegal, so why don’t we do something else, like you put your posting privileges on the line, and if I lose I post an apology and admit I was wrong.
I think that is a fair bet.
Odds? What happened to teh certainty of your convictions.
Ah – so your sudden lack of confidence extends to posting priveleges as weel. Surely you haven’t come to doubt the existence of the Cal Conspiracy?
I think you already offered a fair bet which I accepted. I think this is a feeble attempt to weasel out of that bet.
Ya know what? I think I’ll take some of that action too.
I’m fine with Gaudere holding the checks for us.
Huh huh huh huh huh huh huh. Huh huh huh huh huh. Cool. 
Steve Carlton comes to mind as an example. Roger Clemens has done it twice with Toronto.
You’re right about W/L, but my intent was to try to include all the objective criteria and include, to some extent, the Keltner HoF Questions. The Cy Young voting doesn’t matter much; what matters, to me, is that there were three or four years where Carlton was clearly the best pitcher in his league, but there was only one season when you might have been able to say that of Nolan Ryan. To my mind that is a major issue in determining relative greatness; was this guy the best at his position for a substantial amount of time? I don’t think you could have ever said that Nolan Ryan was the best pitcher in baseball. You certainly could have said it of Steve Carlton. That, IMO, means a lot.
Why indeed. Well, except that most of the stuff you mention is irrelevant. See, most of those things always even out. Weather’s irrelevant (affects both teams equally) and most of the other stuff will end up evening out over time. I can see a pitcher getting screwed by an ump on Tuesday, not we’re comparing the career of two guys who pitched a LONG time. I think we can safely say that after 700 or 800 starts, the umping, travel time, and strangth of the opposition will end up about the same.
But not adjusting for league and park is crazy, because those things DON’T EVEN OUT. A pitcher in Dodger Stadium the 1960s was pitching in really, really different conditions than a pitcher in Enron Field in this decade. The difference between Ryan pitching in the Astrodome and Carlton pitching in Veterans Stadium is quite significant.
You don’t want to take adjusted ERA too far by any means, but I think you’d be crazy to look at their unadjusted ERAs and come to the solid conclusion that Ryan was a better pitcher; there’s just as much reason to think that Carlton was better. Ultimately it’s just my opinion, but that’s my rationale.
The one thing you did mention than can make a big difference, however, is defensive ability, and I’m not sure how to adjust for that without spending a few months studying it. But I can’t think of any obvious reason why this would move Ryan significantly ahead of Carlton.
Ryan’s no hitters are really cool, but I am sure anyone would agree they’d rather take the four Cy Young seasons. Hideo Nomo has more no-hitters than Roger Clemens; who’s the greater pitcher?
Put another way, Carlton’s Cy Young years were significant parts of two division titles, one of which led to a World Series, in 1980. You can’t honestly say that Ryan’s no-hitters had a significant impact on winning anything. In fact, Ryan’s teams never won their division in any year he threw a no-hitter.
RickJay, I’m not saying that good pitchers on average teams NEVER win the CYA, just that it generally goes with good pitchers on good teams. And it almost always follows the W/L record, which is unfair. If a guy gets a little lucky, his good pitching on an average team can be rewarded by his team scoring a lot of runs when he pitches. If not, well someone with a worse ERA but better W/L record will win it. And don’t forget the psychological factor of having to pitch consistently for poorer teams. I’m sure it gets a little tough to always give it your best when your team is rarely in the playoff chase.
I think you are likewise falling victim (slightly) to this same W/L record skewing when you emphatically state Carlton was clearly the best pitcher in his league for 3 or 4 years. I assume you are talking about his CYA years of 72, 77, 80, and 82. But a quick comparison of stats excluding W/L record during those years is interesting. In 72, arguably Carlton’s best year ever, his ERA was 1.98(!), but Nolan’s was 2.28, so not too shabby. Carlton had his career-best 310 SO, and Nolan still beat him with 329 in 60 fewer innings. Carlton had a career-best 8 shutouts, but Nolan still beat him with 9. The only significant difference in their stats that year was Carlton’s W/L record, and it won him the CYA. 1977 and 1982 tell a similar story, though 1980 was clearly a better year for Steve.
I think you dismiss my adjustment argument with a little too much handwaving. Why are you so quick to suppose they even out over time? Weather may affect the two teams playing equally, but the two pitchers we are comparing don’t pitch on the same night in the same park. And weather conditions may consistently be worse for one team (say SF) than another team (say SD). Umps may not equal out, because IIRC, certain umps stay in the AL, while others stay in the NL. Likewise, opposition strength may not be equal, particularly between the AL and NL, and there wasn’t always interleague play. Plus, even if you are in the same league, there once was much more focus on playing within your own division. Also, I can easily imagine that an East Coast (or even a West Coast) team could have an easier travel schedule with so many teams nearby. And how about left handed vs. right handed batters?
I’m not saying they don’t even out – I just don’t take it as a given that they do. Add to that the definite factor of defensive strength, and you can see why I don’t like the ‘fudge’ factor being applied without consideration of all the other interdependent variables. By all means, consider the location each pitcher primarily worked when engaging in this type of debate. Just don’t pretend that a simple adjustment calculation can correct for all of the differences. It is a far more complicated situation than it appears on the surface.
Saying that Carlton’s CYA years were part of championship teams, while Nolan’s no-hitters were not, is just another way of stating that Carlton played on better teams. What I am saying is if you replaced Carlton with Ryan on those teams, likely HE wins those awards and titles and has a far superior W/L record than he does now.
Since they weren’t pitching in the same league, there’s not much of a Cy Young argument to be made here.
Look at it this way; Carlton went 27-10, 1.98 in 1972, pitching for the worst team in baseball. The only pitcher with a comparable ERA, Gary Nloan (1.99) pitched 130 fewer innings, so he’s not comparable to Carlton. Don Sutton was at 2.08 but that’s in Dodger Stadium in fewer innings with a good team. Carlton was obviously the NL’s best pitcher.
Ryan had a 2.28 ERA, true, but consider this:
-
The American League scored half a run per game less than the NL. There was a big, big difference between the two teams in run scoring. That right there significantly widens the gap. Steve Carlton’s ERA was 147 points better than league average; Ryan’s was “only” 78 points better.
-
Veterans Stadium was a hitter’s park. Anaheim Stadium was a pitcher’s park.
-
Whereas Carlton was, as I showed above, clearly the NL’s finest pitcher, Ryan was NOT clearly the AL’s finest. Gaylord Perry had a much better year; Wilbur Wood was probably as valuable as Ryan, and I’d rank Catfish Hunter and Mickey Lolich ahead of Ryan as well.
In 1972, I’d say Carlton was the best pitcher in the NL hands down. Ryan was definitely not the best pitcher in the AL.
So, while you say the W/L record is the only significant difference, their ERAs are really quite different; Carlton’s was significantly better, and the fact that he pitched more innings makes it all that much more valuable.
I’m sorry, but I simply do not believe that over 700 or 800 games, either Ryan or Carlton just happened to get better or worse weather. And if one or the other was uniquely suited to taking advantage of local weather conditions, that’s real value, and should not be adjusted for.
LEague scoring levels are a REAL thing you have to account for because that’s the only way to know whether an ERA is good or not. Is a 4.50 ERA good? Bad? Average? How do YOU know? You can only know if you know what the norm is. A 4.50 ERA today isn’t bad; twenty years ago it was awful. You can’t tell me what a statistical measure means unless you can tell me the context - is Steve Carlton’s 3.28 ERA good or bad? How good or bad? Depends what league he was in and where he played.
Now, if Carlton HIMSELF was uniquely good or bad at taking advantage of the situation that shouldn’t be adjusted away by any means. A player’s specific idiosynchracies are a part of the player’s value. I hate it when you hear someone say “Well, Jimbo Johnson isn’t that good because he takes advantage of Corpname Park; he hit 38 homers, but 30 were at home!” Jeez, yeah, he only hit eight homers at home, but THIRTY at home! That’s great! Now, if Corpname Park quadruples home runs that’s one thing, but if Johnson’s the only one whomping thirty dingers out in his home park, good for him. Maybe he learned how to pull it down that shallow foul line. Maybe he likes the local whores. Whatever; it’s part of his value. What you have to adjust for in Johnson’s counting stats is how Corpname Park affects everybody.
A really good example of this is Joe Dimaggio. Joe, as you may know, lost many homers to Yankee Stadium. I can’t remember the exact totals but IIRC his career total of 369 included about a hundred more on the road as at home. Many have argued that you should account for this in determining Dimaggio’s value. They are absolutely unequivocally wrong. Yankee Stadium did NOT hurt everyone like that; for most of Dimaggio’s career it was a neutral park. Dimaggio’s inability to hit at home the way he did on the road had a REAL negative impact on the Yankees. It was part of his value.
Now, if you can show me that this is the case with Carlton or Ryan, be my guest. But what I do know is that the leagues and parks they played in affected EVERYONE in such a manner than Carlton’s ERA is more impressive, in context, than Ryan’s.
Actually it is quite admirable that I give you 10-1 odds. When you think about it, mathematically I would be a sucker to take such a bet!
Let’s assume Ripken is still in his prime, which he hasn’t been since about 1900 games into the streak, and he belts an average of 30 homers a season out of 162 games.
Then the odds of him hitting a home run in his final game would have been 5.4 to 1. However, given his advanced age and noticable decline in skills, it is obvious that Cal should have hung up the cleats in preseason. In 229 at bats this year he has belted out a measly 4 home runs, or 1.7% of his ABs have resulted in round trippers. I won’t mention that your Starting All-Star MVP now has a thrilling .240 average. That’s a topic for another day, since as we all know, batting averages don’t matter. :rolleyes:
Therefore the odds of Cal belting a home run in his final game, even if he takes 4 trips to the plate, and you know he will, because it is all about Cal, is 7%, or 1 in almost 15 (about 1.7% times 4 = 6.8%. 100/6.8=14.7).
I shade a couple points because I think there is a high probability that Cal will be lobbed a girls league softball in his final game for a home run, similar to this years All-Star Game and his fraudalent streak “breaking” game.
I think more appreciation of my risk factor is in order. No matter how feeble the pitch, Cal with his diminshed skills could still wiff. Therefore, me giving you 10 to 1 is a gift. Instead of questioning the certainty of my convictions, why don’t you step up to the “plate” and take what according to you would be an easy win?
**
Ah – so your sudden lack of confidence extends to posting priveleges as weel. Surely you haven’t come to doubt the existence of the Cal Conspiracy?**
[/quote]
First off, almost everyone knew I was making a rhetorical statement, similar to someone on the BBQ Pit saying they would want to stick their foot up someones ass.
Like I said, betting money is complicated and illegal. I would never want to compromise the legal integrity of the SDMB. In addition, I often post from work so engaging in an illegal act would certainly endanger my job.
However, to show that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is that Cal Ripken will be handed a home run in his final game ever, and that I am not all talk and no action. . . . I am willing to make a more than adequate substitute bet to back up my statements- my humiliating apology up against your posting privileges- a 10-1 bet if I ever heard of one!
Perhaps you had a better wager in mind? I’m open to suggestions.
**
Given the mathematics proposed, how can you conclude that there is even a 50/50 chance Cal Ripken will hit a home run in his final game?
Like I said before, I was being rhetorical with my original statement, but you decided to take it literally, grandstand, and take me on with a wager. If you accept my terms now, you have quite an advantage, and an easy way to save face rather than pay the price for your rather brazen statments.
The way I see it, you can either back off or take the deal. Which will it be?
You are getting bogged down in the details and not looking at the overall picture. But what’s a baseball discussion without innumerable stats, huh? 
Take for example what you mentioned – the AL scored half a run per game less than the NL that season. But there is no way on earth to know if that was due to better pitching in the AL, better defense, or weaker hitting. And in order to make any adjustment, you have to assume something that you cannot know.
The '72 numbers weren’t meant to show that Ryan had a better year. I agree that Carlton probably did. I just am trying to get you to see that even in his BEST year, he was only slightly better than Ryan. Much of his accolades that season are due to the freaky W/L record. But certainly his ERA was unbelievable, just as Ryan’s 1.69 in '81.
The weather part of my adjustment argument is easily the weakest, and I agree it probably evens out, but I wouldn’t assume it if I am going to go through the trouble of calculating adjustments. Well, no… in fact, likely I DO assume everything else is a wash just I don’t have to do the math, and that is what I claim is going on. The only reason you see adjustment for park and league is because the calculations are able to be quantified, even if the league comparison has to be done with unknowable assumptions.
Anyway, my point is that there are many other factors involved, and besides, over the course of their careers, Ryan’s adjusted ERA+ was 111, while Carlton’s was 115 - hardly much of a difference.
It doesn’t matter WHY. It just was; whether it’s because AL pitchers were better or NL hitters were better, or parks were different, or whatever matters not a whit. What we know is that AL teams scored half a run per game less than NL teams. What Nolan Ryan actually did - the number of runs he actually gave up - has to be viewed in light of how many runs the average AL pitcher gave up. That’s who you have to compare Ryan to because that’s his competition.
Is it always perfect? Not at all. But it’s a logical adjustment to make. If you don’t adjust for league and park you’d have to conclude that all the greatest hitters in major league history played in the 1930s and all the greatest pitchers played in the 1900s.
I don’t understand your point here at all. Are you actually saying that the only reason anyone adjusts for league is because it’s easy to do?
Come on. In the NL in 1930, the AVERAGE player - including pitchers - hit .303. In the NL in 1989, the AVERAGE player hit .246. Now, are you really going to tell me that Tony Gwynn, who hit .336 in 1989, wasn’t as good a player as Pinky Whitney (.342 in 1930) or Shanty Hogan (.339) or Geroge Watkins? Funny those guys didn’t make it to the Hall of Fame.
I’ll stress the basic question: If I tell you that Smith has an ERA of 3.20, how do you know that’s good? Is there some magical property to the number? No; you know how good it is based on how it compares to what everyone else is doing. If you DIDN’T know what a normal ERA is, how would you know 3.20 is good? You wouldn’t. You always compare stats to the league norm - that’s how you know if they’re good or bad. “Adjusted ERA” is just a precise way of doing something you’re doing anyway.
If I cite numbers like “Mike Schmidt hit 48 home runs in 1980,” you immediately conclude that that’s good, not because 48 is a nice number or because it’s evenly divisible by 8, but because you know that 48 is much higher than what most players do. It’s above the norm. You might happen to know that it was the most home runs by anyone in that year, and that it was quite a bit more than anyone else hit. You might even know that it’s a record for a third baseman, and a record for the Phillies. So knowing those things you say “my, that’s a lot of home runs,” and conclude it’s good… because it’s way, way above the league’s normal home run rate.
Adjusting for league just takes that a step further and say “well, how MUCH better than normal was it, anyway?” It seems obvious to me that hitting 48 home runs in 1980, when the average NL team hit maybe 100, was a lot more impressive and would help your team win a lot more than hitting 48 home runs in 2000, when the average NL team hit about 190.
League and park affect that over the course of a player’s career. Weather doesn’t, in any way that isn’t measured by park effect anyway.
I’ve read many things in this thread that I tood objection to, in one or two cases, strong objection, but I never felt compelled to post until I read this:
Puh-leeze. Comparing Jennifer Aniston to Catherine Zeta Jones is like comparing a triple A player to Roger Clemens. The triple A player is a talented athelete, no doubt, but put him up against Clemens, and he is literally out of his league, just as Aniston is when compared to Mrs. Michael Douglas. Now if the comparison was Halle Berry to Catherine Zeta-Jones, then you’d have a relevant analogy.
Now, back to less important matters. What was the rest of the thread about? Backstops was it? I suspect this will create quite a backlash, but I’m in favor of them.
Yes – I suspected that you were using a rhetorical device. I like to call this one “blowing smoke out the ass”. I accepted your bet quite expecting that you would suddenly discover a nugget of rationality underneath your not-quite-all-consuming hatred of Cal Ripken. You feel quite comfortable making absurd pronouncements and alleging conspiracies until you actually have to back up your words.
How utterly predictable.
No. that is a 10-0 bet. What possible use could I find in your apology? Do I gain from your admission? No. Every person who has contributed to this thread already knows you understand neither baseball nor reason nor statistical analysis. Will I somehow gain in reputation by having you admit what everybody else already knows? No.
And what do you risk? Humiliation? Your reputation in this thread cannot possibly be damaged any further. You have already been humiliated. You just lack the objectivity necessary to realize that fact. Besides, I am quite certain that you would post your apology without truly accepting that your OP was 100% off base. After all, yu have the statistical waffling just posted to reassure yourself that even if the fix is in Cal might whiff on the gopher ball. So, you post an apology that costs nothing while continuing to wallow in the ignorance of your OP, and I am supposed to see this as something worth having?
No thanks. The only person you should be apologizing to is yourself. You’re the one being damaged by this absurd farce of an OP. Then again, complete loss of reputation is a small thing for some folks.
zev_steinhardt wrote:
Lou Gehrig had more strikeouts than Cal Ripken?
I’d just like to add something to Vinnie’s long list of wrong and/or asinine assertions in this thread:
**
The Detroit Tigers beat the San Diego Padres to win the World Series in 1984. Baltimore didn’t even make the playoffs.
P.S. Lou Gehrig was one of the top 5 baseball players in the more than century-old history of the game. Cutting down any player by saying “he is no Lou Gehrig” ain’t sayin’ a whole lot.
That you don’t get that point, after it has been given to you overwhelmingly and in chorus, says more than a little.
Sure you did.
**
A debating technigue never EVER used ever before on the SDMB, until I came along of course.
But let’s say I was being serious with my $500 offer. I said I would bet $500- not what the other person would bet. So already I have you beat with two layers of logic.
**
So in other words what you are telling all of us is that despite all your talk, and all your accusations of me backing out, YOU had NO intention of taking me up on my bet? You were “calling my bluff”? You flamed me by saying I was “blowing smoke out the ass”. . . but who is doing it now? Who is the fraud NOW???
I don’t possess an all consuming hatred of Cal Ripken- I don’t hate anybody. I do hate bullshit however.
I am just asking SDMB readers to take another look at the guy and his record. I understand that I do this at great risk, as we can see by the reaction here.
**
Actually, as I pointed out before, at best it’s a 14-1 proposition. But hey, what do MY numbers matter here?
**
Well, based on your unbelievable obsession with proving me wrong, I find that suprising. Sorry- I kinda figured with the tone of your writing you enjoy people submitting to your superior intellect.
I obviously had the wrong impression, and will apologize for THAT.
**
Actually, there are some people who posted here who agree with my opinions. Not everyone who posted on this thread stated specifically that I “understand neither baseball nor reason nor statistical analysis”. I challenge you to list every single post on this thread and a quote from each that stated such.
You are making a generalization. Even if everyone who posted before this now goes ahead and says I don’t know what I am talking about and then blasts me, at this time your statement is 100% FALSE.
You owe a retraction.
In addition, I have presented enough evidence to prove my case. The debate has whittled down to whether my statistics are valid or Cal’s supporters stats are. Unfortuanately, it lowers the issue into one similar between the two parties arguing over the congressional budget and questioning each others numbers. Who’s numbers do you trust, and what is to stop one party from rearranging the stats to support their argument? I asked this question about the other sides numbers, and was told I was stupid, and that anyone who didn’t believe what they had to say was beneath their baseball intelligence. Hey, whatever you want to believe.
I asked for some names of some experts, and was given a few. However, I am pretty damn sure that those individuals use these newer types of stats as a SUPPLEMENT to their analysis of baseball players, and do NOT completely discount batting average, homeruns and RBIS competely. To tell me otherwise would be an outrage.
That said, the pro-Cal side made a worthy argument for him using these numbers, and I am impressed they stepped up to the plate and gave me specific facts to back up their case.
Nonetheless, even if I was 100% wrong on this aspect of the issue, even with the pro-Ripken jihads numbers, Ripken is STILL just an above average ballplayer.
**
I don’t feel humiliated at all. Humiliation is a state of mind, an emotion. How in the hell do YOU know what I’m feeling right now? If anything, I feel pride in standing up for my opinions.
I took a very, very unpopular point of view. Despite attack after attack, I was able to hold my ground and stay true to my original opinion. Reputation? Reputation to WHOM? It is a fucking Message Board. Like any sort of embarrassment here is going to ruin my life.
As IF.
**
Like I said, feel free to suggest your own wager.
**
Okay, sorry to hear that.
**
That was a real nice parting shot, and one that encapsulates what has been a very empty assault.
Your attack consisted of grandstanding my “bet”, then accusing me of backing out when you yourself, by your own admission, had ZERO intention of going through with it anyway!
When I suggested a viable alternative, and EVEN ASKED YOU for a substitute wager, you chickened out and tried to cover it up with statements about me personally while, unlike others that have taken a contrary point of view to mine, contributing little if anything of factual substance to this thread.
In short, you wasted everyone’s time.
I am apologizing to no one. Not because I am right and everyone else is wrong, I am willing to concede that the other side put up some strong arguments (that wouldn’t be waffling for me to say that, would it?), and they are obviously are not going to change their mind. I will chalk this up to a difference of opinion.
Sadly for you, as I can tell by your feeble attempts to insult me by calling my OP a “farce” and saying I wallow in “ignorance”, it is obvious I have gotten under your skin and you have made it a bit personal, rather than what it is intended to be: a friendly debate.
Unless you can keep this at a debate level, rather than taking shots at my character, I suggest you post your reply in a more appropriate forum, say the BBQ Pit!
How utterly perfect. The weasel just keeps popping.
No. Your reading comprehension is every bit as impressive as your baseball acumen. What I said was I expected you to weasel. I was not disappointed.
My acceptance of your wager was, and is, sincere. I would love to take your money – it is the only thing you possess which is of any conceivable value to me.
We have something in common, then.
Nothing, if you apply them to the wrong objects. I was evaluating the payoffs, not the chance of success. It is a technique often used by gamblers who don’t want to go broke too quickly. You asked me to risk something I value (my posting priveleges) for something of no value (your apology). That’s a sucker’s bet, no matter how strong the chance of “winning”.
Proving you wrong requires little more than prodding you to speak. The only obsession I have seen evidence for is yours regarding Ripken v. Gherig.
A yes, the defense of the picayune. You are correct, early in this thread flymaster expressed solidarity with your OP. Beyond that, the responses have been uniformly negative.
Very well. I hereby ammend “everyone” to “everyone but flymaster.” Everyone else has been able to recognize bullshit by the stink.
Only in your own disturbed understanding, which apparently cannot differentiate between the ideas “Gherig was better than Ripken” and “Ripken was a fraud”.
I rest my case – any apology you offered would have been insincere and worthless. The humiliation you claimed to be putting on the table would have been a hollow sham, much like your arguments.
Like I said, you have nothing I value except beyond material wealth. If you want a wager of value, then put up the cash. If you want a wager of meaningless trifles just say, “I’ll bet you . . .”
One of us chickened out of a bet. It was not I.
My posts to this thread are there for everyone to see. I am happy to accept the “judgment of history” about whether they contain substance.
No thanks, I have two PIT threads going already. If you feel froggy, though, jump away. Frankly, the “level of debate” which you offer is barely distinguishable from unsubstantiated vitriol anyway.
I was not aware of this. How is this determined? Is is by measurements?
In any event, if this is correct, then I retract my previously stated position in this matter.
By measurements (how deep are the power allies, how deep down the lines), the amount of foul territory, how high above sea level (think Rockies), the prevailing winds (Wrigley is a great hitter’s park), the “typical” weather–everything contributes.
I have attended about a bazillion games at the Vet and am a life-long Phillies fan, and I can confirm that the stadium is considered a pretty good hitter’s park–not the best, but better than average. The Dome was long known as the “place where homeruns go to die,” principally (I believe) because of all the dead air. Not a hitter’s park. Busch stadium, prior to the changes they made, was also known as a pitcher’s park, a fact that led to the Cardinals being such a running team (as opposed to a power team) for a long stretch (the Runnin’ Redbirds)…
Park factors are a recognition that scoring runs, and by extension all the components of scoring runs, is easier in some ball parks than others.
Bob Cos, you’re listing elements that can contribute to park-factors, not describing how they are determined. There is no formula you can use to plug in, for example, park elevation, extent of foul-territory, and quality of hitting background, and determine what PF should be for runs scored.
PF’s are calculated based on performance at home by both teams as a ratio to performance on the road for both teams. If the Rockies and their opps average 12 runs in Coors and 10 on the road, we recognize that 20% increase by allotting Coors a PF of 120.
There is no one PF. PF’s can be calculated for any stat: HR’s, SB’s, K’s, whatever you need.
Also, PF’s can change from year to year, sometimes as the result of structural mods to the park itself (think fence distance and height, moving home plate, changing from turf to grass), sometimes just by chance.
RickJay is correct in contending that PF’s help provide context for individual performance. He’s also right that the Astrodome was a park where runs were extremely hard to come by and that ERA records there are biased (lower) than they would be in a neutral park.
As to whether that means you take Carlton over Ryan I’ll leave to you guys.
Wrigley Field has been tossed out as an example of a good hitters park, and while usually, this is true…
However, the three year average for Wrigley is .997, meaning it’s a slight pitcher’s park.
Last year, somehow, the park factor for runs was .80. At Wrigley Field. Yikes. Good luck explaining it, although I’d assume that the new parks have a lot to do with it…changing the Astrodome to Enron makes a lot of other parks look a lot more like good places to pitch.