Too many HR

rudel.dietrich · 12-29-2004, 11:22 AM

My fictional league is experiencing too many of these things.
3-4 guys a season average sixty.

One beast hit 73 in 130 games and drove in 181...I am afraid to see what he will do this summer.
I have been decresing them by 1% every season for 7 seasons now and nothing...

disposableheros · 12-29-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

I can been decresing them by 1% every season for 7 seasons now and nothing...

thats your problem, you need to be increasing them.

rudel.dietrich · 12-29-2004, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

thats your problem, you need to be increasing them.

Huh?

Gastric ReFlux · 12-29-2004, 11:26 AM

Are you decreasing the HR value in League Totals, or are you increasing the HR value? The inversely proportional nature of this relationship has caused many unintended effects, and long threads about that inverse relationship.

rudel.dietrich · 12-29-2004, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

Are you decreasing the HR value in League Totals, or are you increasing the HR value? The inversely proportional nature of this relationship has caused many unintended effects, and long threads about that inverse relationship.

So wait...

Lets say it's set at 5000 if you set it down to 4900 your league hits more homeruns?
What sort of ****ed up nonsense is that?

Why is it when you set hits higher and then calculate that your balls in play average changes?
Is that the only one that is different?

disposableheros · 12-29-2004, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Is that the only one that is different?

yep

increase to decrease everything except babip

Henry used to have a good article that explains the logic, but i dont know if its at the new site. i havent been there to check it out much.

rudel.dietrich · 12-29-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

yep

increase to decrease everything except babip

Henry used to have a good article that explains the logic, but i dont know if its at the new site. i havent been there to check it out much.

Im sure there is a logic but it makes me mad at how many leagues I screwed up because I never knew that increasing did the trick.

I doubt I will ever understand the logic. 10000 HR spread around the league is going to make everyone hit more than 5000 HR spread around.
OOTP says this is not true.

disposableheros · 12-29-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

I doubt I will ever understand the logic. 10000 HR spread around the league is going to make everyone hit more than 5000 HR spread around.
OOTP says this is not true.

you say this because you havent read the article

if you do, it will make logical sense why it is like it is. its one of those things that makes you slap your head and say, "oh, duh!"

Gastric ReFlux · 12-29-2004, 11:50 AM

It's easier to understand if you understand the Pythagorean Method used by Bill James.

Consider this, you have a team which wins 60% of the time in an average league where the average win% is 50%.

Now bear with me. You move that team to a league where the average team would have a win% of 40%. I know, you're thinking it can't be that way, but while win% might be constant at 50% in real terms, homerun% is not. Right, you can easily imagine homerun% going up and down, yes?

Okay, so you take that team that wins 60% of the time and move it to a league where the average team level isn't 50% but 40%. Will that team's win% go up or down? It will go up.

If you can imagine that in homerun terms, you'll begin to understand the effect.

treedom · 12-29-2004, 11:54 AM

As easy as it may be to understand after it is explained, you must admit that it would be far easier to understand if increasing a value increased the result and decreasing a value decreased the result.

Gastric ReFlux · 12-29-2004, 11:58 AM

Actually to me it always made perfect sense because I had long ago read everything Bill James had ever written.

But I may be the only one for whom that was true.

BravesSince66 · 12-29-2004, 12:04 PM

I understand why this is so. Unfortunately, the net effect in an unusually strong pitcher's season like 1968 is that more HRs are hit than ever before becasue the HR league total is unusually LOW. Anyone playing out 1968 will experience a vast number of HRs. So, while it is mathmatically understandable, it doesn't always bring realistic results. In a normal year, I INCREASE the HR league toals by 15% to 20% to bring HRs into something closer to history.

Gastric ReFlux · 12-29-2004, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BravesSince66

I understand why this is so. Unfortunately, the net effect in an unusually strong pitcher's season like 1968 is that more HRs are hit than ever before becasue the HR league total is unusually LOW. Anyone playing out 1968 will experience a vast number of HRs. So, while it is mathmatically understandable, it doesn't always bring realistic results. In a normal year, I INCREASE the HR league toals by 15% to 20% to bring HRs into something closer to history.

Well you seem to understand but not quite. Do not misconfuse League Totals as a place where you would put actual league totals from 1968 or any other year.

rudel.dietrich · 12-29-2004, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

It's easier to understand if you understand the Pythagorean Method used by Bill James.

Consider this, you have a team which wins 60% of the time in an average league where the average win% is 50%.

Now bear with me. You move that team to a league where the average team would have a win% of 40%. I know, you're thinking it can't be that way, but while win% might be constant at 50% in real terms, homerun% is not. Right, you can easily imagine homerun% going up and down, yes?

Okay, so you take that team that wins 60% of the time and move it to a league where the average team level isn't 50% but 40%. Will that team's win% go up or down? It will go up.

If you can imagine that in homerun terms, you'll begin to understand the effect.

So your saying if you took a group of players who hit 50 HR on average in a league where the average is 20 hit, and put them in a league where the average was 10 they would hit more?
Ok...it's way too simple without knowing reasons but I see the logic behind it and I will say that yes, they would hit more.
But I don't see how it applies in this case where we are talking about the macro total as a whole.
If you have a league average of 1000 total HR per season and you move that total down to 500 the less homeruns are going to be hit...
The players who hit 50 will hit 25 and so on.

Do I have it all wrong?

Eckstein 4 Prez · 12-29-2004, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

Actually to me it always made perfect sense

Yeah, I never really had trouble with it once I figured it out back with my first fictional OOTP4 league. It makes logical sense to me....

disposableheros · 12-29-2004, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Do I have it all wrong?

yes

rudel.dietrich · 12-29-2004, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

yes

Ill stop trying then and just accept that it is the way it is for a reason.

Vezna31 · 12-29-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

thats your problem, you need to be increasing them.

Yep...and that's for every category too.

Gastric ReFlux · 12-29-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

If you have a league average of 1000 total HR per season and you move that total down to 500 the less homeruns are going to be hit...
The players who hit 50 will hit 25 and so on.

Do I have it all wrong?

Well first off you have to look at it in terms of a percentage chance. For simplicity, let's say 10 homeruns in the context of 100 AB. Or should I say 200 AB? Or 300 AB? Or 100,000 AB? I mean, if you raised the AB's in the League Totals with the same percentage increase in all other stats, would you expect to see hitters getting more AB's?

An important step in understanding this is conceiving of things as percentages or as a rate, like 1 homerun every 15 AB's or 1 homerun every 20 AB's.

rudel.dietrich · 12-29-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

Well first off you have to look at it in terms of a percentage chance. For simplicity, let's say 10 homeruns in the context of 100 AB. Or should I say 200 AB? Or 300 AB? Or 100,000 AB? I mean, if you raised the AB's in the League Totals with the same percentage increase in all other stats, would you expect to see hitters getting more AB's?

No. It would just 'dillute' the numbers. I always thought that was there if you ever cut out or added teams in your league and no had more or less players playing.

So you have the league total set to 20000 AB. You have HR set to 1000. You then leave the AB alone and set the HR to 1500.
How does this not increase the chance of a HR per AB?

12-29-2004, 11:22 AM	#1
rudel.dietrich Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 8,608	Too many HR My fictional league is experiencing too many of these things. 3-4 guys a season average sixty. One beast hit 73 in 130 games and drove in 181...I am afraid to see what he will do this summer. I have been decresing them by 1% every season for 7 seasons now and nothing... Last edited by rudel.dietrich; 12-29-2004 at 11:30 AM.

12-29-2004, 11:54 AM	#10
treedom Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Transylvania Posts: 2,900	As easy as it may be to understand after it is explained, you must admit that it would be far easier to understand if increasing a value increased the result and decreasing a value decreased the result. __________________ A rake and a roustabout.

12-29-2004, 12:04 PM	#12
BravesSince66 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 238	1968 I understand why this is so. Unfortunately, the net effect in an unusually strong pitcher's season like 1968 is that more HRs are hit than ever before becasue the HR league total is unusually LOW. Anyone playing out 1968 will experience a vast number of HRs. So, while it is mathmatically understandable, it doesn't always bring realistic results. In a normal year, I INCREASE the HR league toals by 15% to 20% to bring HRs into something closer to history.

12-29-2004, 11:26 AM	#4
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Are you decreasing the HR value in League Totals, or are you increasing the HR value? The inversely proportional nature of this relationship has caused many unintended effects, and long threads about that inverse relationship.

12-29-2004, 11:50 AM	#9
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	It's easier to understand if you understand the Pythagorean Method used by Bill James. Consider this, you have a team which wins 60% of the time in an average league where the average win% is 50%. Now bear with me. You move that team to a league where the average team would have a win% of 40%. I know, you're thinking it can't be that way, but while win% might be constant at 50% in real terms, homerun% is not. Right, you can easily imagine homerun% going up and down, yes? Okay, so you take that team that wins 60% of the time and move it to a league where the average team level isn't 50% but 40%. Will that team's win% go up or down? It will go up. If you can imagine that in homerun terms, you'll begin to understand the effect.

12-29-2004, 11:58 AM	#11
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Actually to me it always made perfect sense because I had long ago read everything Bill James had ever written. But I may be the only one for whom that was true.