|
Oh... I misread your first idea. You're talking about a variable that says "hold these guys constant." If you're going to do it, that's the way to do it--but realize that for every player you hold artificially constant, you'll need to make one of the "accidentally constant" players less consistent. In addition, in order to know what to do to make Messersmith (in this example) constant, you'll need a stay-resident "current stats" bucket to force the game to change hits to outs (or visa versa) when necessary to keep things in the "proper" ballpark...in other words, you remove the randon nature of luck when necessary and force-fit a result.
This would have several possible ramifications. Let's say Messersmith has been having a rough time of it for an outing or two, and his BABIP has risen heavily. Unless _very carefully_ designed, the next team Messersmith faces is a strong candidate for a no-hitter. Likewise, if Messersmith goes on a binge and throws two a couple low-hit shut-outs, then hitters on the next team in line are going to feast. This kind of behavoir then, as I noted, could throw hitter performance out of line.
As far as the +/-75% ... I think that's way, way overstating things. That swing doesn't match what Knockahoma got on his tests--which showed OOTP pitchers were _too consistent_ relative to real pitchers.
|