Alternate Reality: What's with those early pitchers?

Cobby · 01-30-2018, 12:25 AM

I've just finished the 2017 season in a fictional alternate reality simulation that started in 1871. (I've been working on this for 9 months or so). So now it's time to compare my results with the real world. I was going for a fictional simulation that still nevertheless kept fairly close to how baseball developed IRL. I used historical financials, historical player creation modifiers and did the auto-recalc each year to keep the stats close to real life.

Now it's time to see how the two worlds compare statistically. I'm kind of thinking I'll do this with a handful of different threads. This first one will focus on the pitching - especially pitchers from the early days of baseball. This is where I think the greatest difference lies.

So. First JAWS for starting pitchers. In real life, there are three pitchers above 100 in JAWS. In my simulation there were 12 - all pitchers that pitched the bulk of their careers before 1920. Similarly, for WAR. In real life there are 11 100+ WAR pitchers. I had 33 in my sim. IRL, 6 of those pitchers with 100+ WAR pitched after 1920, In my sim, only 1 of the 33 pitched after 1920.

It a way, it makes sense. In the very early days, pitchers pitched every game. And even after rotations expanded to 2, 3 and 4 pitchers, complete games were the norm for a long time. So it was easy for pitchers to rack up enormous career WAR totals. And a few of them did in real life. But in my world there were a *lot* more. And even mediocre pitchers - pitchers with ERA+ near 100, for instance, could make it to 100 WAR.

So here's where we open it to discussion. Why? And what can I do differently in my next simulation to cut that number down to something close to real-life levels?

My own favored hypothesis at the moment is that it has to do with injuries. I think more pitchers fell by the wayside due to injuries in the early days before modern medical advances like Tommy John surgeries that could extend the careers of pitchers. So, I'm thinking that next time around I'll try using a modified more brutal injury.txt file and wipe out a few promising careers. Only a lucky few would be able to run the gauntlet. Yes?

NoOne · 01-30-2018, 03:16 PM

era+ scales, WAR is relative to RL MLB - some stupid idea of replacement level player being a good baseline.. because comparing to worse than average is a good idea. LoL

so, if war doesn't have a new "replacement level player" value, and they put up better numbers than the rl mlb on average, you'll see skyrocketing WARs with ~100era+

anyway, ops+/ERA+ of ~100 means they are ~average players relative to counterparts that ?season? you'd have to look at the exact equation if it gets more sophisticated than that. the gist is enough, they aren't meant to be read so strictly and rigidly in meaning as far as a specific player comparison. ie it would be folly to say a 101 era+ is better than a 99 era+ wihtout looking at anything else. for that 1 year of results, it happens to be true is all it says for sure.

a guy with a 105era+ doesn't preclude luck or bad luck or anythign really of being the cause.. simply what happened. you'd have to infer the rest.

i mispoke in my other reply... you don't have a mix in with fictional...

so mainly it's the auto-calc an re-calcing that made it too flat... the more you control that the more flat it gets... you'll have to compomise based on what you want most -- individual resutls taht match RL or league-wide resutls that match... and nothing will fit like a glove even if "perfectly" setup. even with ~same %'s of things that "should happen", different results all but 100% guaranteed.

Cobby · 01-30-2018, 09:41 PM

Well, the basic issue here is that pitchers in the very early days pitched so many innings and therefore were far more important to the team than individual hitters were. Just through sheer endurance and not being particularly good pitchers they could still be enormously valuable to the team. I think the simulation gets this absolutely right. What it doesn't get right is that IRL, not too many of these pitchers lasted as long as they have lasted in the simulation. I think that grind took more of a toll in real life than it does in the sim and so I end up with this huge number of early pitchers with amazing WAR totals. I think the solution here is to increase the attrition somehow. Perhaps with injuries or perhaps with increased player aging for that era.

01-30-2018, 12:25 AM	#1
Cobby Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 252	Alternate Reality: What's with those early pitchers? I've just finished the 2017 season in a fictional alternate reality simulation that started in 1871. (I've been working on this for 9 months or so). So now it's time to compare my results with the real world. I was going for a fictional simulation that still nevertheless kept fairly close to how baseball developed IRL. I used historical financials, historical player creation modifiers and did the auto-recalc each year to keep the stats close to real life. Now it's time to see how the two worlds compare statistically. I'm kind of thinking I'll do this with a handful of different threads. This first one will focus on the pitching - especially pitchers from the early days of baseball. This is where I think the greatest difference lies. So. First JAWS for starting pitchers. In real life, there are three pitchers above 100 in JAWS. In my simulation there were 12 - all pitchers that pitched the bulk of their careers before 1920. Similarly, for WAR. In real life there are 11 100+ WAR pitchers. I had 33 in my sim. IRL, 6 of those pitchers with 100+ WAR pitched after 1920, In my sim, only 1 of the 33 pitched after 1920. It a way, it makes sense. In the very early days, pitchers pitched every game. And even after rotations expanded to 2, 3 and 4 pitchers, complete games were the norm for a long time. So it was easy for pitchers to rack up enormous career WAR totals. And a few of them did in real life. But in my world there were a lot more. And even mediocre pitchers - pitchers with ERA+ near 100, for instance, could make it to 100 WAR. So here's where we open it to discussion. Why? And what can I do differently in my next simulation to cut that number down to something close to real-life levels? My own favored hypothesis at the moment is that it has to do with injuries. I think more pitchers fell by the wayside due to injuries in the early days before modern medical advances like Tommy John surgeries that could extend the careers of pitchers. So, I'm thinking that next time around I'll try using a modified more brutal injury.txt file and wipe out a few promising careers. Only a lucky few would be able to run the gauntlet. Yes?

01-30-2018, 03:16 PM	#2
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	era+ scales, WAR is relative to RL MLB - some stupid idea of replacement level player being a good baseline.. because comparing to worse than average is a good idea. LoL so, if war doesn't have a new "replacement level player" value, and they put up better numbers than the rl mlb on average, you'll see skyrocketing WARs with ~100era+ anyway, ops+/ERA+ of ~100 means they are ~average players relative to counterparts that ?season? you'd have to look at the exact equation if it gets more sophisticated than that. the gist is enough, they aren't meant to be read so strictly and rigidly in meaning as far as a specific player comparison. ie it would be folly to say a 101 era+ is better than a 99 era+ wihtout looking at anything else. for that 1 year of results, it happens to be true is all it says for sure. a guy with a 105era+ doesn't preclude luck or bad luck or anythign really of being the cause.. simply what happened. you'd have to infer the rest. i mispoke in my other reply... you don't have a mix in with fictional... so mainly it's the auto-calc an re-calcing that made it too flat... the more you control that the more flat it gets... you'll have to compomise based on what you want most -- individual resutls taht match RL or league-wide resutls that match... and nothing will fit like a glove even if "perfectly" setup. even with ~same %'s of things that "should happen", different results all but 100% guaranteed.

01-30-2018, 09:41 PM	#3
Cobby Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 252	Well, the basic issue here is that pitchers in the very early days pitched so many innings and therefore were far more important to the team than individual hitters were. Just through sheer endurance and not being particularly good pitchers they could still be enormously valuable to the team. I think the simulation gets this absolutely right. What it doesn't get right is that IRL, not too many of these pitchers lasted as long as they have lasted in the simulation. I think that grind took more of a toll in real life than it does in the sim and so I end up with this huge number of early pitchers with amazing WAR totals. I think the solution here is to increase the attrition somehow. Perhaps with injuries or perhaps with increased player aging for that era.