Problem with the new Pitching ratings

Falcon52 · 04-26-2004, 05:09 PM

I'm sure this was discussed or touched upon in that big "DIPS" thread, so I apologize for possibly repeating something.

But with the new ratings system of Stuff, Movement, and Control being the only ratings that pitchers have, my view is it's going to "penalize" pitchers such as Jamie Moyer, Tom Glavine, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito.

As I understand it right now, Stuff=affect on K's, Movement=affect on giving up the HR, and Control=affect on giving up walks. But the problem is, take Zito's numbers from last season. He had 88 walks, so his "Control" rating won't be very good. He only struck out 140 or so in 200+ innings, so his "Stuff" rating won't be very high, and he gave up his share of longballs, so his "Movement" rating won't be very high. But the problem is, he is still a good pitcher. He still had an ERA under 4.00 and he only gave up 186 hits. With the new ratings system, those last two stats won't be accounted for, and instead, Zito's ratings would appear as approximately 45/50/55 (stuff/control/movement), which would translate out to a bad pitcher in the game.

Unless I'm mistaken, and a pitcher's ability to "avoid hits" is somehow included in one of the three main pitcher ratings, then guys like Zito, Glavine, Moyer, etc. will never be consistently good pitchers in the game.

Gastric ReFlux · 04-26-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Falcon52
I'm sure this was discussed or touched upon in that big "DIPS" thread, so I apologize for possibly repeating something.

But with the new ratings system of Stuff, Movement, and Control being the only ratings that pitchers have, my view is it's going to "penalize" pitchers such as Jamie Moyer, Tom Glavine, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito.

As I understand it right now, Stuff=affect on K's, Movement=affect on giving up the HR, and Control=affect on giving up walks. But the problem is, take Zito's numbers from last season. He had 88 walks, so his "Control" rating won't be very good. He only struck out 140 or so in 200+ innings, so his "Stuff" rating won't be very high, and he gave up his share of longballs, so his "Movement" rating won't be very high. But the problem is, he is still a good pitcher. He still had an ERA under 4.00 and he only gave up 186 hits. With the new ratings system, those last two stats won't be accounted for, and instead, Zito's ratings would appear as approximately 45/50/55 (stuff/control/movement), which would translate out to a bad pitcher in the game.

Unless I'm mistaken, and a pitcher's ability to "avoid hits" is somehow included in one of the three main pitcher ratings, then guys like Zito, Glavine, Moyer, etc. will never be consistently good pitchers in the game.

You might want to look at the threads about DIPS in this forum. If you don't find it to your liking, you can use the OOTP5 game engine as an option in League Setup.

treedom · 04-26-2004, 05:17 PM

Yeah, I'd say this was touched on in the big DIPS thread.

Malleus Dei · 04-26-2004, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by treedom
Yeah, I'd say this was touched on in the big DIPS thread.

Touched on? It was freaking undead!

Henry · 04-26-2004, 05:24 PM

Here's the correct relationships....

Good Movement (Primary Rating) & Good Control = less Homeruns

Good Stuff (Primary Rating) & Good Velocity & Good Control = more Strikeouts

Good Control (Primary Rating) = less walks

About 20 pitchers in all of 90 years history exceed the results this system will give by no more than 1%

Henry

Falcon52 · 04-26-2004, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux
You might want to look at the threads about DIPS in this forum. If you don't find it to your liking, you can use the OOTP5 game engine as an option in League Setup.

Yes, well excuse me for not wanting to read 32 entire pages, along with a dozen posts of people just arguing for/against the DIPS system in the limited time I had online to ask the question.

Henry, thank you. That's all I needed to know and it took you about as long to type that as it did for every other poster to type their little sarcastic comments about reading the other thread.

Malleus Dei · 04-26-2004, 05:34 PM

Gee, now I wish I'd been cutting and sarcastic.

Joshv02 · 04-26-2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Falcon52
Yes, well excuse me for not wanting to read 32 entire pages, along with a dozen posts of people just arguing for/against the DIPS system in the limited time I had online to ask the question.

Henry, thank you. That's all I needed to know and it took you about as long to type that as it did for every other poster to type their little sarcastic comments about reading the other thread.

Perhaps I read this wrong, but I don’t think GR was being sarcastic; rather, it looked helpful (even if not bend-over-backwards-do-everything-for-you helpful).

Tone is difficult to read online. Which leads to one possible rule: don’t care about having the last word. It won’t help a marriage, it doesn’t help here

Falcon52 · 04-26-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joshv02
Perhaps I read this wrong, but I don’t think GR was being sarcastic; rather, it looked helpful (even if not bend-over-backwards-do-everything-for-you helpful).

Tone is difficult to read online. Which leads to one possible rule: don’t care about having the last word. It won’t help a marriage, it doesn’t help here

My response was more directed at the other two posts, rather than GR's.

Considering MD's attitude on this board, I'd say it's safe to say it fit under condescending/sarcastic.

joncon16 · 04-27-2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
Touched on? It was freaking undead!

Undead? Interesting turn of phrase.

IatricSB · 04-27-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Falcon52
My response was more directed at the other two posts, rather than GR's.

.... and yet you quoted GR's post, not the other two.

Quote:

Originally posted by Falcon52
Considering MD's attitude on this board, I'd say it's safe to say it fit under condescending/sarcastic.

Didn't seem out of line at all. That infamous thread seemed to live forever and wouldn't just die a polite death. I would think MD's response was more humorous poking fun at an overly long thread than the condesceding/sarcastic way you took it. You may be reading it based on his rep rather than what he actually said.

Gastric ReFlux · 04-27-2004, 01:40 PM

Just gonna poke my head in here and say I took no offense. Peace, out.

Malleus Dei · 04-27-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Falcon52
My response was more directed at the other two posts, rather than GR's.

Considering MD's attitude on this board, I'd say it's safe to say it fit under condescending/sarcastic.

ROFL. I was clearly replying to Treedom and we were talking about the DIPS thread. Jumping on Treedom for just trying to steer you in the right direction is low, and you have zero grounds to jump on me for replying to him.

Oh, and you want to see "condescending/sarcastic"? That's easy. Read the message of yours quoted above and then go look in a mirror.

Malleus Dei · 04-27-2004, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IatricSB
Didn't seem out of line at all. That infamous thread seemed to live forever and wouldn't just die a polite death. I would think MD's response was more humorous poking fun at an overly long thread than the condesceding/sarcastic way you took it. You may be reading it based on his rep rather than what he actually said.

Exactly. Clearly he was just being "condescending/sarcastic" himself.

Falcon52 · 04-27-2004, 04:21 PM

I apologize for the remark.

At the time, both yours and his response sounded more like a "duh, we've discussed this to death already, dummy. smarten up and look at that other thread" type thing, rather than trying to be helpful with my question.

But apparently I misread it. Sorry.

Malleus Dei · 04-27-2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joncon16
Undead? Interesting turn of phrase.

The DIPS thread keeps reminding me of those horror movies where the protagonist keeps killing something over and over and it keeps coming back to life over and over and over again.

That thread has led me to develop this nightmare where I am at dinner somewhere and some zombie-looking guy walks up to me and says "But it just stands to reason that good pitchers still have control over balls once they have been put into play." And then I drive a steak knife through his heart, but when I come home he's standing there in the driveway ready to say the same thing all over again.

Gastric ReFlux · 04-27-2004, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
The DIPS thread keeps reminding me of those horror movies where the protagonist keeps killing something over and over and it keeps coming back to life over and over and over again.

That thread has led me to develop this nightmare where I am at dinner somewhere and some zombie-looking guy walks up to me and says "But it just stands to reason that good pitchers still have control over balls once they have been put into play." And then I drive a steak knife through his heart, but when I come home he's standing there in the driveway ready to say the same thing all over again.

That reminds me to start a "You know you've been playing too much OOTP6 when" thread.

Malleus Dei · 04-27-2004, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Falcon52
At the time, both yours and his response sounded more like a "duh, we've discussed this to death already, dummy. smarten up and look at that other thread" type thing, rather than trying to be helpful with my question.

We really were trying to help, or at least Treedom was and I was commenting on the help he was trying to give you. Next time I'll be more serious.

Well, maybe.

BarryZito75 · 04-27-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
Oh, and you want to see "condescending/sarcastic"? That's easy. Read the message of yours quoted above and then go look in a mirror.

I want to start out with saying that I have no problem with you. Obviously I don't come here regularly, but dude, just about every one of your posts that I have seen have been rude and sarcastic. Just listen to some of these people and tone it down a bit.

Malleus Dei · 04-27-2004, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BarryZito75
I want to start out with saying that I have no problem with you. Obviously I don't come here regularly, but dude, just about every one of your posts that I have seen have been rude and sarcastic. Just listen to some of these people and tone it down a bit.

Sorry, not buying it. I posted a poll over in Off-Topic, asking people if they would prefer a new and kinder and gentler Malleus Dei, or if they wanted the old one back - you know, the curmudgeonly rude and sarcastic model. To my surprise, the voting went about 90% for rude/sarcastic.

So enjoy the People's Choice, dude...or use your Ignore function.

04-26-2004, 05:09 PM	#1
Falcon52 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 615	Problem with the new Pitching ratings I'm sure this was discussed or touched upon in that big "DIPS" thread, so I apologize for possibly repeating something. But with the new ratings system of Stuff, Movement, and Control being the only ratings that pitchers have, my view is it's going to "penalize" pitchers such as Jamie Moyer, Tom Glavine, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito. As I understand it right now, Stuff=affect on K's, Movement=affect on giving up the HR, and Control=affect on giving up walks. But the problem is, take Zito's numbers from last season. He had 88 walks, so his "Control" rating won't be very good. He only struck out 140 or so in 200+ innings, so his "Stuff" rating won't be very high, and he gave up his share of longballs, so his "Movement" rating won't be very high. But the problem is, he is still a good pitcher. He still had an ERA under 4.00 and he only gave up 186 hits. With the new ratings system, those last two stats won't be accounted for, and instead, Zito's ratings would appear as approximately 45/50/55 (stuff/control/movement), which would translate out to a bad pitcher in the game. Unless I'm mistaken, and a pitcher's ability to "avoid hits" is somehow included in one of the three main pitcher ratings, then guys like Zito, Glavine, Moyer, etc. will never be consistently good pitchers in the game. __________________ "D-FENCE! D-FENCE!"

04-26-2004, 05:17 PM	#3
treedom Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Transylvania Posts: 2,900	Yeah, I'd say this was touched on in the big DIPS thread. __________________ A rake and a roustabout.

04-27-2004, 04:21 PM	#15
Falcon52 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 615	I apologize for the remark. At the time, both yours and his response sounded more like a "duh, we've discussed this to death already, dummy. smarten up and look at that other thread" type thing, rather than trying to be helpful with my question. But apparently I misread it. Sorry. __________________ "D-FENCE! D-FENCE!"

04-26-2004, 05:24 PM	#5
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Here's the correct relationships.... Good Movement (Primary Rating) & Good Control = less Homeruns Good Stuff (Primary Rating) & Good Velocity & Good Control = more Strikeouts Good Control (Primary Rating) = less walks About 20 pitchers in all of 90 years history exceed the results this system will give by no more than 1% Henry

04-27-2004, 01:40 PM	#12
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Just gonna poke my head in here and say I took no offense. Peace, out.