TRTR : Day 7

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by sixto

Certainly it's impossible that Jim Thome's ability to hit for average is unrelated to his incredible plate patience - but I guess it could be possible that there is no correlation if Jim Thome's patience is an unusual skill. I guess it would have to mean that a player who strikes out less gets enough seeing-eye singles to counterbalance a patient hitter's ability to hit for average? I am with Josh in wanting to see proof of this concept.

But Josh, HR/PA correlates with LD%? I'm not saying it's not true but that's not intuitive to me.

Adam Dunn = Jim Thome - Exceptional BABIP skill?

Just because 1 person has a skill mix, it does not mean that all people have skills in that same mix or with that same relationship. Jim Thome's ability to take walks may well be translating into his ability to get base hits on balls in play--but it doesn't seem to work for Adam Dunn.

[kingcharlesxii]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

I'm interested in the studies as well. I'm not sure how you get one, as players who are low in both don't hang around long enough to be studied.

Well one example of a guy who is low in both is Randall Simon. There's a few of them around but they are quite rare.

[zukes]

Originally Posted by Vris

Figures; now the site is blocked.

My work blocks it now as well. I have always been able to get into it and today, no dice. Stupid work place expecting me to actually be doing work.

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by zukes

My work blocks it now as well. I have always been able to get into it and today, no dice. Stupid work place expecting me to actually be doing work.

Same here. Today is the first day I haven't been able to get to the site.

Wonder if we work for the same company.

[sixto]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Oh - Yeah, I've no study that shows it, so I've no idea if it is true.

It was intuitive to me b/c both skills show a batter who hits the ball hard and in the right part of the bat. The scoring for LD% is probably a bit biased: hits are called LDs. But the point I had in mind is that if you can hit the ball hard enough to have consistently above average HR rates, I'd expect the same for LDs, too. But I don't know if it is true.

I'm curious: Why do you think otherwise?

I suppose the distinction we are looking for is FB%+LD% versus LD%+GB%? Players with high results in the former would have more HR/PA than those in the latter?

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by zukes

Stupid work place expecting me to actually be doing work.

Yeah, what's up with that?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by kingcharlesxii

Well one example of a guy who is low in both is Randall Simon. There's a few of them around but they are quite rare.

Yes, and that pairing is probably among the reasons he's never been able to keep a fulltime job for long.

[sixto]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Adam Dunn = Jim Thome - Exceptional BABIP skill?

Just because 1 person has a skill mix, it does not mean that all people have skills in that same mix or with that same relationship. Jim Thome's ability to take walks may well be translating into his ability to get base hits on balls in play--but it doesn't seem to work for Adam Dunn.

Yes, but I was trying to avoid making comparisons because I certainly can't vouch for the validity of any one comparison. I mean, Joe Carter and Dave Kingman had a lot of power, and very little patience, but I can't use them to say that it's valid for the game to generate hundreds of players like that because I can think of two.

I brought up Jim Thome because obviously it would be false to say that a player's BB and SO rates have no bearing on his ability to hit for average. What concerns me isn't the notion that it's impossible to predict how one of a thousand players will hit based on his SO rate. It's that we would use the fact that it's impossible to correlate the two to justify the idea that it doesn't matter.

Let's face it: some people are still scarred by the players in the game who hit .173 with 40 HR, or who hit .340 with 180 SO. Sure, that may have been common in OOTP4; maybe it's totally eradicated now. But it's part of the game's history and it's going to take a lot of work to earn the trust back, and statements like Syd's are just a little scary to me. Even though it seems to me like OOTP2007 really will be a big improvement on 2006.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by sixto

I suppose the distinction we are looking for is FB%+LD% versus LD%+GB%? Players with high results in the former would have more HR/PA than those in the latter?

Yeah - Players with higher FB% should have more HR/PA, in general. I guess if the FB% or (more specifically) the Hr/FB% goes up, I'd expect the BABIP to go up just b/c FBs have a higher BABIP, but also b/c the balls are hit harder.

[sixto]

Are there players who have high LD% and low FB%?

[kingcharlesxii]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Yes, and that pairing is probably among the reasons he's never been able to keep a fulltime job for long.

Yep, because for most players there is a relationship between strikeouts and power. Walks give OBP. If you don't do either well and you play first, you're not going to have a job for long.

[Vris]

Originally Posted by zukes

My work blocks it now as well. I have always been able to get into it and today, no dice. Stupid work place expecting me to actually be doing work.

Yup, just today. The only day of the month were I can just twiddle my thumbs.

[NomarHits400]

Originally Posted by sixto

Yes, but I was trying to avoid making comparisons because I certainly can't vouch for the validity of any one comparison. I mean, Joe Carter and Dave Kingman had a lot of power, and very little patience, but I can't use them to say that it's valid for the game to generate hundreds of players like that because I can think of two.

I brought up Jim Thome because obviously it would be false to say that a player's BB and SO rates have no bearing on his ability to hit for average. What concerns me isn't the notion that it's impossible to predict how one of a thousand players will hit based on his SO rate. It's that we would use the fact that it's impossible to correlate the two to justify the idea that it doesn't matter.

Let's face it: some people are still scarred by the players in the game who hit .173 with 40 HR, or who hit .340 with 180 SO. Sure, that may have been common in OOTP4; maybe it's totally eradicated now. But it's part of the game's history and it's going to take a lot of work to earn the trust back, and statements like Syd's are just a little scary to me. Even though it seems to me like OOTP2007 really will be a big improvement on 2006.

Well- assuming your example of the guy who hit .340 with 180 So had 600 AB's for the season- he would have had to have a BABIP of .486. Hopefully OOTP 2007 utilizes statistical data for the actual historical range of BABIP- and can therefore all but filter out the rare statistical beast of which you speak....Has anyone EVER had a BABIP of .486...(Crap, I don't think my slow pitch softball BABIP is that high!)

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by sixto

Yes, but I was trying to avoid making comparisons because I certainly can't vouch for the validity of any one comparison. I mean, Joe Carter and Dave Kingman had a lot of power, and very little patience, but I can't use them to say that it's valid for the game to generate hundreds of players like that because I can think of two.

I brought up Jim Thome because obviously it would be false to say that a player's BB and SO rates have no bearing on his ability to hit for average. What concerns me isn't the notion that it's impossible to predict how one of a thousand players will hit based on his SO rate. It's that we would use the fact that it's impossible to correlate the two to justify the idea that it doesn't matter.

Let's face it: some people are still scarred by the players in the game who hit .173 with 40 HR, or who hit .340 with 180 SO. Sure, that may have been common in OOTP4; maybe it's totally eradicated now. But it's part of the game's history and it's going to take a lot of work to earn the trust back, and statements like Syd's are just a little scary to me. Even though it seems to me like OOTP2007 really will be a big improvement on 2006.

Actually, strikeout rate does correlate significantly with batting average. Its at a strength of about .35 in MLB if I'm remembering right. This is among the reasons sabermetricians get so excited when a hitter reduces his K-rate. His average rises specifically because his BABIP does not change (as much)--hence he gets more hits as his K-rate falls. Hitters in OOTP 2007 will tend to exhibit this behavior.

[Exodor]

Thus, there's a need to define them as 2 separate skills. As a result, what you see on the main screen as "Contact" is actually a combination of "Avoid Ks" and the brand new rating "BABIP", which basically means "how often a guy manages to squeak out a hit when he does put a ball into play

How does this affect imported 2006 leagues? Is that rating just assigned randomnly when the league is loaded into 2007?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by NomarHits400

Well- assuming your example of the guy who hit .340 with 180 So had 600 AB's for the season- he would have had to have a BABIP of .486. Hopefully OOTP 2007 utilizes statistical data for the actual historical range of BABIP- and can therefore all but filter out the rare statistical beast of which you speak....Has anyone EVER had a BABIP of .486...(Crap, I don't think my slow pitch softball BABIP is that high!)

Not in 350+ AB, anyway.

Play the game yourself and see what you think. But if I were a betting man, I would put a lunch on the idea that you'll be happy with this aspect of the stats/results engine.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by sixto

Yes, but I was trying to avoid making comparisons because I certainly can't vouch for the validity of any one comparison. I mean, Joe Carter and Dave Kingman had a lot of power, and very little patience, but I can't use them to say that it's valid for the game to generate hundreds of players like that because I can think of two.

I brought up Jim Thome because obviously it would be false to say that a player's BB and SO rates have no bearing on his ability to hit for average. What concerns me isn't the notion that it's impossible to predict how one of a thousand players will hit based on his SO rate. It's that we would use the fact that it's impossible to correlate the two to justify the idea that it doesn't matter.

Let's face it: some people are still scarred by the players in the game who hit .173 with 40 HR, or who hit .340 with 180 SO. Sure, that may have been common in OOTP4; maybe it's totally eradicated now. But it's part of the game's history and it's going to take a lot of work to earn the trust back, and statements like Syd's are just a little scary to me. Even though it seems to me like OOTP2007 really will be a big improvement on 2006.

Who said anything about BB rates? I'm not sure there's a lot of correlation there either, but I will clarify here. In OOTP, as in real life, there are several different skills a player has:

1. The ability to avoid striking out
2. The ability to get hits out of balls in play
3. The ability to draw walks and get ahead in the count
4. The ability to hit the ball out of the park
5. The ability to get long hits in the park

The salient point is, the first 2 abilities are not correlated. Jim Thome is a great example of a guy who isn't so good at avoiding Ks but who is solid at generating hits out of balls in play. Ichiro(!) is good at both skills. Rob Deer was good at neither (although still good enough at hitting HRs and drawing walks that he was a solid player for a couple years). It should also be pointed out that Thome benefits from good power as well - homeruns are considered hits but not balls in play.

I never said that a player's K rates don't affect his ability to hit for average. Of course they do! When a player strikes out, he's not getting a base hit. The point is, some players are able to overcome this and some are not. In prior versions of OOTP and in every other baseball sim ever made, there is a tacit negative correlation between BABIP and K rates because there is no correlation between K rates and straight batting average. Does that make sense?

6, you may want to take another look at the projections Luis Rivera did, as they're based in part on this BABIP/K rate phenomenon.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Yeah - Players with higher FB% should have more HR/PA, in general. I guess if the FB% or (more specifically) the Hr/FB% goes up, I'd expect the BABIP to go up just b/c FBs have a higher BABIP, but also b/c the balls are hit harder.

FB have a lower BABIP, but those hits have higher value. You see this dynamic in pitchers most obviously...high GB % pitchers give up more base hits (but obviously few HR), hence setting up the great debate of whether a fly-ball pitcher who strikes out a bunch of guys is better than a GB pitcher who doesn't.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

The salient point is, the first 2 abilities are not correlated.

Why do you think this, though? It can't be just based on a few examples out of the thousands of baseball seasons. Is there a study?

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by RonCo

FB have a lower BABIP, but those hits have higher value. You see this dynamic in pitchers most obviously...high GB % pitchers give up more base hits (but obviously few HR), hence setting up the great debate of whether a fly-ball pitcher who strikes out a bunch of guys is better than a GB pitcher who doesn't.

Yes - I realized that after I wrote it. You are right, 100%.