Quote:
Originally Posted by pstrickert
I'm rather pleased with the consistency from one sim to the next. I didn't expect that. I wonder, however, if the Lahman DB import works right for pitchers. I'd welcome any thoughts on that subject. RonCo?
|
Trial runs should be fairly consistent overall, but individual players can and will vary a bit just through the mathematics of random chance.
There is no doubt that the Lahman->OOTP import is not quite right for pitchers, given the new development curves. I've already spoken about that earlier. Markus has a TTed item on that, and I expect him to work on it.
A point on the "resulting stats" issue: I'm assuming your historical sims are not being played in a neutral, modern MLB setting. They are being played in with era-specific settings, and almost certainly in environments that are better for pitchers (and worse for hitters) than the calculation indicates.
I know a lot of folks use that "Resulting Stats" line to level set expectations, but, personally, I ignore it. Stats are the result of the rating/talent pool overlayed with ballparks and league totals. I don't think the "resulting stats" calculation is keyed to the league's parks or totals, so it's almost always going to be off--unless you play in all neutral parks and a modern day setting. For example, I import 1955, and look at Sandy Koufax...he is expected to K 86 and walk 84. I then change the league totals to 0 BB and double the league's Ks, then look at Koufax again and see that his "resulting" BB/K numbers have not changed.
The "resulting" numbers are still useful in that they give you a sense of ranking between players. And if you are baseball-smart and understand the nuances of how offense and pitching varied across the eras, you can mentally translate modern/neutral into 1955/Brooklyn. But overall, using "resulting stats" as a waypoint for your expectations is fraught with danger.
