[NoOne]

ron, that isn't even relevant to my issue with it. i don't have a problem with the plug-n-play equation they are using to determine outcome, unelss it's per PA and it is all summarized... yes, similar overall outcomes guarnateed, but not the same as far as getting there.

mostly stream of thought below, but reasoning as to why, too.

it's about resolution of what is being used.. it's cutting a corner early instead of fleshing it out further.. can the math say the same average at the end while doing less, yes. does the game do it inother areas, yes. is it acceptable in many areas, yes... just depends on how far down the rabit hole you go with every relevant factor they chose to code. relative to this concpet, to flesh it all out you'd have to have understanding down to the individual atoms invovled... it can get that deep or even deeper, depending on how accurate our udnerstanding of the phyiscal world truly is. a corner is inevitably cut for a video game and due to lack of knoweldge, but not so early as per PA.

the equation doesn't care of you use summarized or individual... no extra work, not any harder to code etc etc... only reason it wouldn't 'fit' is if the incremental step is as large as 1PA. it all has to be @ the same rate, each incremental step or lap through the logical loop that is 1 PA or 1 pitch thrown etc.

if it's only resolved down to "all pitches summed up" and used, that's the issue i take. it's the resolution of a factor (pitch thrown), not the math. the math stays the same, regardless of resolution. hence, no more difficult to plug them in individualyl as they are used unless it does jive with some other factor that isn't resloved beyond per pitch thrown reso, whic is 100% avoidable and planned out from beginning, not an accident at that point, of course.

also, if the game only resolves down to PA, it makes many decisions you make irrelevant. (this would make sense if it does use a summarized stuff, and lines up with seed being generated once) my rational brain tells me it's summarized as i type this paragraph.. lol.. poop on that. feelings are going to make me irrational about it, lol. this game likely chugs along per pa... anythign beyond that is beyond it's resolution and just asthetic in nature... ugh, wish i hadn't thought about it, now.

however, there's some hope for me:

making a KB drastically different would be more difficult on a 1-200 scale as opposed to the resolving power of each pitch considred per throw (=200^x, conversely). instead of playing it out individually, it's averaged (weighted) to come up with a single 1-200 score that will represent every single pitch combination, gb%, velo possible. so anythign that equates to ~90stuff is the same (ignoring handedness for this, same logic applied, same math idea as i mention above, just simpler, less resolved). if we make 3 pitchers with slightly different repertoires and all 90stuff they should have the same results -- same babip ag, same k/9, same bb/9 etc etc... everything possible would be the ~same, with expected volatility.

i'm betting the guy with the KB doesn't have simialr results in all respects. if it adds up to 90, given all other factors, and 90 is used, then it should have the same results, all other things remaining the same. i'm betting the babip is significantly lower with a KB involved, at minimum, and you cannot find any other combination of 3 pitches that has the same results at same stuff rating as one repertoire that includes the KB. (could still make that happen with 1-200, you'd have a section dedicated to just the KB -- if that's true i'd get physically sick to my stomach, lol...the work required to do that is > than just resolving it per pitch, lol.)

also, it'd be more difficult for the game to resolve 3 pitches that equate to the same stuff but are in different proportions. 2 excelent and 1 ~1/2 scale... or 3 above average that equate to same ~X stuff? there'd be no way to differentiate between the two outcomes, because they are the same # used in the math to begin with. instead of easy math and threshold, yo'd have to have sections dedicated to that combination... it'd just be a mess of nonsense trying to cram all that into 1-200 and expect enough variation in results that gives an hint that each pitch type matters.

i think we all agree that 2 better pitches and one average pitch almost certainly has better outcomes than 3 ~equal pitches that add up to the same stuff. could be wrong on that, but that's my experience too.

if you have experience with a KB pitcher, you know they are a different animal even if they have the same stuff as another pitcher.

still on the fence.. it certainly isn't 100% clear either way just looking at it without the proper tools and approach to flesh it out.

i think whatever bandaid they have for # of pitches affecting outcomes is the real factor here. 3-pitch rp got a 'boost' several patches ago ('18? '17?). they are way too good as RP now, imo. i've used a number of 3-ptich RP that blow 2-pitgh guys away with lower stuff, lower movement and lower control, lol. accross the board lower rated vsL and vsR, yet they are consistently RP of the year type seasons. i can get 3-4 war out of 100-130ip with them. very few 2-pitch guys are capable of that in the pen, yet i can find multiple 3-pitch guys that can do it every single year. as i play thi sgame more, the more i realize how many "bandaids" exist... really glad i don't play out games. can't really tell from a season-wide view.

what i see with kb'er gives me hope, and i don't play games out. so, the drawbacks to such a limited resoultion wouldn't affect what i see... but, on principle of a model, that's ridonkulous if it is that way due to how easy it would be to gear it per pitch thrown and how much more accurate to life that would be by doing it that way. but, it makes no sense that a random seed is only generated 1 per PA, either... it's gotta be a bandaid to cover up some flaw, or i just can't see why it wouldn't go the obvios step further for a modicum of effort..


side note --- Quotes from bill james, and english major:

"My math skills are limited and my data-processing skills are essentially nonexistent. The younger guys are way, way beyond me in those areas. I’m fine with that, and I don’t struggle against it, and I hope that I don’t deny them credit for what they can do that I can’t."

"I hope I’m summing this up effectively — is that WAR does not connect directly to wins. "

the most hilarious thing about 'moneyball' is watching people that don't really get statistical analysis try to use it like a hammer. it's nice to read that bill james recongnizes the fundamental problems with his metrics. i have a totally differnet perspective of him, now. it's plebs blindly using his work without the fundamental and necessary knowledge that is the problem.