- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How much difference will the flat seam baseball make?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:06 pm to southeasttiger113
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:06 pm to southeasttiger113
So why did they hit 47 more and we only hit 10 more?
You keep skipping this question... tell us why?
What did you see that the rest of us didn't? Again, the only thing you kept spewing over and over was the bats... did Vandy change bats and us not know it?
You keep skipping this question... tell us why?
What did you see that the rest of us didn't? Again, the only thing you kept spewing over and over was the bats... did Vandy change bats and us not know it?
1
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:07 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:And your main argument is poor and incorrect. Vanderbilt hit 22 HRs last year. They hit 69 this year. Is it fricking ridiculous to think that we could've gone from 40 to 60+? No.
My main argument was that it's fricking ridiculous to say that we hit over 60 HR's this year and I was 100% right
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:07 pm to southeasttiger113
What's the reason? Please enlighten me.
This post was edited on 6/24/15 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:08 pm to ell_13
They must've sneakily changed their bats and no one else noticed. New balls probably only gave them 5 more hrs.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:11 pm to OneMoreTime
Our lineup was basically the same with less power. Vandy's obviously wasn't.That means that we would've been 100% dependent on the ball being the reason that we hit 20 more home runs. That's completely unrealistic. And as I've said, ride my dick all y'all want but it doesn't make LSU any closer to hitting 60 HR's this year
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:15 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:This was your reasoning. Why didn't you mention our weak players back then?
As I said, the balls might add 10% more to the home run total and production but I really need to get a hold of what anyone that thinks that we hit 40-50% more homers is smoking. Whether y'all want to agree or not, the problem is that the players are swinging bats that have a sweet spot the size of a walnut and feel crappier than swinging a wood bat and nothing's changing noticeably until they change the bat regulations
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:16 pm to ell_13
Hey man do me a favor and tell me how many teams hit 20+ more home runs from last year to this year then I'll get back to you
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:18 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:You also said this.
We're comparing two balls with a .015" difference and it's not going to noticeably change shite. You're massively exaggerating the effect that again, a hundredth of an inch is going to produce. It isn't anything
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:19 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:
Does a .015" difference in seam height make such an impact that it overcomes exit speed, rotation, trajectory, and all of the other major components that go into hitting a home run? If you spent a month writing out a formula for it, I'm just saying that I'd bet my life that the changing the seam height wouldn't change the final distance
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:21 pm to ell_13
And I was even trying to be rational with you:
quote:
Now if you want to talk about this year, I already addressed that there's a ton that goes into a homerun and agreed with you. But let's not pretend that it won't possibly have the effect people are talking about. And I also explained why people were associating PM's 60+ numbers to the change in the ball.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:22 pm to ell_13
Who cares? I was right. Batting average barely changed, teams hit an average of 10 more home runs, and more people got out because lazy line drives carried to the outfielders instead of dying and dropping in, and I said that in response to someone acting like the seams were going to effect pitchers too, which they didn't at all. Y'all are acting like batting averages increased by 50 points and every team hit 40 more home runs. It's the same hyperbole circle jerk as when I initially jumped into this thread
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:23 pm to ell_13
Quoting half of what I said now 
you sure you don't work for CNN?
you sure you don't work for CNN?Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:25 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:Again... this is what you used as an explanation.
The warning track is 15 feet wide, even if the ball does add what I think is a ridiculous 20 feet to every hit, then only 25% of warning track shots would leave the stadium. If one happens every 2 games, which I also think is a high estimate, then that's a whopping 7.5 extra home runs last year, which falls squarely in my 5-10% estimate.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:25 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:So basically I predicted the exact number? Hmm, and you used this as a quote as to why I'm wrong? I literally predicted that we hit 51 home runs
Of more than 10 balls last year into home runs
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:29 pm to southeasttiger113
That was later on... you'r number kept getting higher and higher as I explained it...
first you said 5%... then 5-10%... then 10 total. It was great to read through again.
first you said 5%... then 5-10%... then 10 total. It was great to read through again.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:31 pm to southeasttiger113
quote:See... eventually, you agreed.
wasn't thinking at all right there. Substitute 20 for 6 and do the same math, that's more realistic imo and it'd add 10 extra homers to last year even if there was a warning track shot every 2 games which wasn't even close to happening
ETA: what I was getting at in the post that I fricked the numbers up was that the new balls would add between 0 and 20 feet on a 15 foot track which would lead to 25% being gone.
I proved my point and your numbers changed.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:37 pm to ell_13
No....I misspoke and I still think you're a moron that only cares about posting percentages that don't tell the whole story. I settled on 10 because I did the math based off of how much more flight was added to a ball with perfect spin and how many balls I thought were hit to the warning track (which ya'll were grossly exaggerating) and I was exactly right. Exactly right, not even off by one. I perfectly predicted that we went from 41 to 51 home runs. Why are you still talking to me again?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:46 pm to southeasttiger113
That wasn't a prediction by you... read again. You were merely saying that in a perfect scenario, 10 would be the max... the MAX. You were laughing it off as if that wasn't even possible because the circumstances had to be perfect.
My point is that the 60 prediction wasn't far fetched. That was always my point from the moment Paul made it. I first explained it with physics and now I have to explain it with real data form across baseball. Because 51 was on the low end. If you look at our power hitters... at our batting average... at what other teams were able to do. We absolutely should have hit close to 60 HRs. It wasn't a bad guess at all. 51 was the low end. We lead the league in average all year... we had the power hitters. We just didn't get those 8 or 9 more that would have put us in the middle of the pack on the increase. Which definitely should have happened considering all we brought back and the change in the balls. Hardly anyone in college baseball had such a seasoned team. Yet we only increased HRs by 25% instead of 40% which was the AVERAGE.... meaning lots of teams increased by many more. We brought that average down. Which again, is surprising considering our great batting average and power in the lineup returning.
Put at it this way... we were 30th in HRs per game last year (0.65 in 63 games)... this year... we fell to 49th (0.77 in 66 games)!!!! We fell! If we had just stayed in the same spot... 30th (or 0.9 HRs per game)... that would have put us at... you guessed it! 60 HRs.
That's what we were saying. 60 was a great guess. At the time... and all the numbers after the fact point to it being really good.
My point is that the 60 prediction wasn't far fetched. That was always my point from the moment Paul made it. I first explained it with physics and now I have to explain it with real data form across baseball. Because 51 was on the low end. If you look at our power hitters... at our batting average... at what other teams were able to do. We absolutely should have hit close to 60 HRs. It wasn't a bad guess at all. 51 was the low end. We lead the league in average all year... we had the power hitters. We just didn't get those 8 or 9 more that would have put us in the middle of the pack on the increase. Which definitely should have happened considering all we brought back and the change in the balls. Hardly anyone in college baseball had such a seasoned team. Yet we only increased HRs by 25% instead of 40% which was the AVERAGE.... meaning lots of teams increased by many more. We brought that average down. Which again, is surprising considering our great batting average and power in the lineup returning.
Put at it this way... we were 30th in HRs per game last year (0.65 in 63 games)... this year... we fell to 49th (0.77 in 66 games)!!!! We fell! If we had just stayed in the same spot... 30th (or 0.9 HRs per game)... that would have put us at... you guessed it! 60 HRs.
That's what we were saying. 60 was a great guess. At the time... and all the numbers after the fact point to it being really good.
This post was edited on 6/24/15 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:37 pm to ell_13
Not really sure what to tell you if you can't understand this man. The 40% stat that you keep shoving down my throat is based on the AVERAGE NCAA team adding 10 home runs to their total. If LSU would've added 20, sure, it would've continued the 40% trend but it they would've doubled the average amount of home runs added per team. That's not a realistic expectation. And guess what...we followed the trend of the other 95% of teams in the NCAA that hit 10 extra home runs and did the same. There's no rule that says because we hit 40 home runs last year that it has to increase proportionally with some random percentage. Not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. You keep bitching about adding 40% to our total based off of what the 90% of teams in the NCAA that only hit 15 home runs are doing. You can't make an argument about a team that hit 40 home runs using a stat taken mainly from teams that don't come close to that. Replace every time you've said "40%" with "10 more home runs per team" and suddenly nothing you're saying makes sense
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:45 pm to southeasttiger113
And just to clarify what I just said: you keep quoting your 40% stat but what does that mean? It means that there were 10 home runs on average added per team this year, some hit more, some hit less. There's literally no reason to think that a team would add 20 just because of they hit more than the average team last year, that's called a logical fallacy and it's wrong.
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News