Noted.  I didn't read it that he was referring to FIP, only that FIP was included within the area he was asking about.  

 Thanks.  There's an interesting "trick of perception" thing there, granting that there are interesting trick of perception things everywhere.   But because the Braves had SO MANY great home run hitters in that era (Aaron, Mathews, Adcock, to a lesser extent Crandall, Wes Covington).  .because the Braves hit so many home runs, people perceive it as a home run park, although the data clearly shows that it was not.    I think Adcock was actually the best home run hitter of the group, on a per-at-bat basis.   

 Thanks; good point about the three seasons rather than four, and I should have spotted that myself.  THe point about it being impossible to hit .247 in 552 at bats, it seems to me, would only be relevant if .247 was an especially difficult or especially easy point to land on.   In other words, it would be relevant if the number was .250, because .250 is (I would assume) a relatively "easy" target to hit, and it would be relevant if it was .249, because .249 is (I would assume) a target that cannot be hit from a larger-than-normal number of at bats.   But it probably would not effect the calculations at .247 because .247 is probably no more difficult to land on than an average number.  

 

But I'm not SURE that is right. . . .would have to do simulation to help me think it through completely.  Thanks.  

 Weather.   It played as a hitter's park in June and July, but as SUCH a pitcher's park in April, May and the second half of September that the balance was pitcher-friendly.   I studied it once in one of the Abstracts.  That's been a long time ago, 30-some years, and it would be easy to study it much better today; you might find something different.   But that was what I found at that time, that the weather was the dominant factor.  

 

Might also consider the altitude.  I assume that the park was near sea level, because it was near the lake, but I don't actually know.  

 

I my view, we can't simply decide that everything not measured by the three true outcomes is not real and not significant.   Pitchers certainly have differing abilities to control the running game, different vulnerabilities to the running game.   Pitchers have different abilities to get a double play ball when they need a double play ball.  Pitchers may have. . . .certainly do have to some extent. . .different abilities to pitch to the situation, different abilities to give the hitter what the situation allows them to give the hitter.   They may react differently to defensive mistakes behind them.   They have different levels of game endurance, and probably have different levels of inning endurance. . .meaning some pitchers may be fine with the 20th to 25th pitches in an inning, whereas other pitchers may be in trouble in a long inning.   

 

The essence of the issue is whether we focus on the ELEMENTS of production, one thing at a time, or whether we focus on the SUM TOTAL of production.   Historically, old school, pre-sabermetric analysis, oddly, focused all evaluation of hitters on elements, and ignored the sum total, whereas evaluation of pitchers focused entirely on the outcomes--wins, losses, and runs allowed--and ignored the elements.   Historically, there were no counts of stolen bases allowed/caught stealing by pitchers, of double play support by pitchers, of RBI even against a pitcher, of doubles or triples allowed by a pitcher, whereas these things WERE counted for hitters, but hitters had no bottom-line summary such as runs created, OPS, or offensive WAR.  THe first challenge of sabermetrics was to balance the analysis by isolating the details for pitchers and creating a bottom line for hitters.

 

But to just focus on three elements and ignore everything else that makes a pitcher effective or ineffective--whether a hitter or a pitcher--would just, to me, seem like an obvious error.   You would be, in essence, deciding to pay no attention to 40%  of the game.   I just don't see how that is smart.   

 I did some research about this. . .meant to make it into an article but have not gotten that done yet.   

 I'll try to look at it.  Thanks.  

 The Bondses would seem to be a pretty obvious example, if I understand your question.  

 It's a shame Bill Singer will never get to pitch to him.  

 It would be very unusual, yes.  Who's the Cleveland guy, forget his name, who had the phenomenally high HBP rate a couple of years ago.  

 

Brandon Guyer.  Had to look it up.  Hit by pitches 31 times in 345 plate appearances in 2016.  

 I can't tell you that it is absolutely right the way that it is.   It was a process that I set up to estimate something that we don't actually know.   If you can make a more accurate estimate of what it should be, I'd certainly listen.   

 Thanks.  

 I don't believe I have ever taken a position on that.  

 No, I don't.  

 I think it has never happened before, if that's a clue.   I guess you could figure it.  You'd have to make some assumptions.