Re: [閒聊] 棒子爺 VS 普侯斯

看板MLB (美國職棒/大聯盟)作者時間14年前 (2011/10/25 13:12), 編輯推噓1(436)
留言13則, 10人參與, 最新討論串5/6 (看更多)

10/25 07:19,
3.史上單季52+轟裡頭(共31人)14次來自類固醇世代 確定有問
10/25 07:19

10/25 07:22,
題的Bonds、阿肉、馬怪和索沙占10次 04年後只有4次
10/25 07:22

10/25 07:40,
把標準降到50轟 則從10:4變成11:6 還是很懸殊
10/25 07:40

10/25 07:43,
把標準提高到55+轟就更有趣了
10/25 07:43
摘錄自一個十年前對用球的研究: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml 彈性: Platek and Gregory conducted another series of bounce tests on the pills; the scientists conducted about 20 drops with each. They found that the average height of the bounces from the 1995 and 2000 pills, when dropped from a height of 182 inches, was 83 and 82 inches respectively. None of the pills from 1963, 1970, and 1989 averaged over 62 inches. The newer pills each bounced at least 1/3 higher than the older ones. 結構: The URI study showed that baseballs from two well-separated years in the post-1993 era (1995 and 2000) were very like each other, yet very different from balls from pre-1993 years; it also showed significant categorical differences between the older Spalding and newer Rawlings balls. The Penn State study showed a marked increase in zip from 1977 on. All that agrees with the stats-indicated and common-sense indicated belief in a big jump when the ball maker was changed between 1976 and 1977, as well as the belief that there was a subsequent jump starting in 1993 and in full force in 1994. 很多事情不是只看表面數據加上腦補就可以說明一切的 (看看今年日職打擊降多慘,怎麼沒人懷疑是不是之前禁藥爽爽吃?) -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.25.133

10/25 13:21, , 1F
恩! 看不懂
10/25 13:21, 1F

10/25 13:32, , 2F
又在腦補了 唉
10/25 13:32, 2F

10/25 13:41, , 3F
還不是靠__球
10/25 13:41, 3F

10/25 13:44, , 4F
日職今年真的很誇張...
10/25 13:44, 4F

10/25 13:56, , 5F
依你的觀點 這篇好像也是腦補
10/25 13:56, 5F

10/25 14:02, , 6F
可憐的56。
10/25 14:02, 6F

10/25 14:06, , 7F
恩恩
10/25 14:06, 7F

10/26 07:54, , 8F
又在__了
10/26 07:54, 8F

10/26 17:14, , 9F
因為罷工球迷跑掉太多 <=這才是腦補
10/26 17:14, 9F

10/26 22:13, , 10F
你有沒有看本文結論?結論是93年後的球沒啥差別(本文只比到
10/26 22:13, 10F

10/26 22:15, , 11F
2000年)但和93年以前的球差別甚大 而我比較的是類固醇世代
10/26 22:15, 11F

10/26 22:20, , 12F
前後 要反駁我說我腦補可以 好歹拿個2003、04年前後的用球
10/26 22:20, 12F

10/26 22:22, , 13F
比較文吧!隨便拿一篇英文研究來搞笑喔?
10/26 22:22, 13F
文章代碼(AID): #1EfaKZv4 (MLB)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1EfaKZv4 (MLB)