Era+ / ops+

[xxxpunkrock]

The historical numbers in these two stats differ from the ones seen on Baseball-Reference. Judging by a couple guys I looked at (Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, Ubaldo Jimenez, Jake Peavy), it seems to be higher in OOTP for guys that played in pitcher's parks and lower for guys that played in hitter's parks, indicating to me that the ERA+/OPS+ numbers in OOTP are not park-adjusted, and are rather just ERA/OPS relative to league average. Is this accurate?

Also, are the VORP figures park-adjusted?

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

You're talking about in-game, right? If so, maybe a mod could move this to the game sub-forum to avoid confusion.

I'm very interested in hearing the answer as well.

[xxxpunkrock]

Yes, in-game, sorry about that.

[xxxpunkrock]

Anyone?

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by xxxpunkrock

The historical numbers in these two stats differ from the ones seen on Baseball-Reference. Judging by a couple guys I looked at (Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, Ubaldo Jimenez, Jake Peavy), it seems to be higher in OOTP for guys that played in pitcher's parks and lower for guys that played in hitter's parks, indicating to me that the ERA+/OPS+ numbers in OOTP are not park-adjusted, and are rather just ERA/OPS relative to league average. Is this accurate?

Also, are the VORP figures park-adjusted?

Unfortunately Markus might be the only one who can answer this and maybe Andreas because they are the only two who might know exactly what the formulas are. If it looks to you like they're not park adjusted, and as you say you can check via the real life stats tab in the player cards, then they probably aren't. I know for a fact that the VORP figures are different from the BP ones because Markus uses different formulae. They come out alright, but I know they are different, so I wouldn't be surprised if the ERA+/OPS+ ones are different as well. Other than that it's up to the programmers. All I can say (particularly at this time of the year) is to keep bumping this thread until you get a response.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by xxxpunkrock

The historical numbers in these two stats differ from the ones seen on Baseball-Reference. Judging by a couple guys I looked at (Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, Ubaldo Jimenez, Jake Peavy), it seems to be higher in OOTP for guys that played in pitcher's parks and lower for guys that played in hitter's parks, indicating to me that the ERA+/OPS+ numbers in OOTP are not park-adjusted, and are rather just ERA/OPS relative to league average. Is this accurate?

Also, are the VORP figures park-adjusted?

Couldn't you just calculate what a few players' ERA+ or OPS+ would be, assuming it's all simply relative to league average, and see whether your results line up with what's in OOTP? If they do, then the stats aren't park adjusted. In any case, there's pretty much no way (at least for historical stats) that either OPS+ or ERA+ could be park-adjusted, at least if OOTP is calculating these values from available stats.

[xxxpunkrock]

Originally Posted by injury log

Couldn't you just calculate what a few players' ERA+ or OPS+ would be, assuming it's all simply relative to league average, and see whether your results line up with what's in OOTP? If they do, then the stats aren't park adjusted. In any case, there's pretty much no way (at least for historical stats) that either OPS+ or ERA+ could be park-adjusted, at least if OOTP is calculating these values from available stats.

I'm not much concerned with the historical OPS+/ERA+ numbers, but do think they should be park-adjusted in the simmed games. I mean, they lose a lot of their quality if they aren't.

[Renner]

At the end of March baseballreference changed their formula for ERA+. I'm not sure if Markus used the "old" formula, but if he did, the numbers may not match.
Baseball-Reference Blog Blog Archive We Goofed: ERA+ numbers

[xxxpunkrock]

Originally Posted by Renner

At the end of March baseballreference changed their formula for ERA+. I'm not sure if Markus used the "old" formula, but if he did, the numbers may not match.
Baseball-Reference Blog Blog Archive We Goofed: ERA+ numbers

B-R backtracked on that. The numbers that show on their site now are still the old formula, which is:

100*[2-ERA/lgERA]

Brandon Webb's 2008 ERA+ on B-R is 141. In OOTP, it's listed as 130.

100*[2-3.30/4.29] is the formula using the unadjusted National League average and that comes out to 123. Using the MLB average of 4.23 comes out to 124.

So, quite frankly, I haven't a clue as to what formula is used in OOTP. It's not the park-adjusted one (as on B-R), it's not the league average and it's not the MLB average.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by xxxpunkrock

B-R backtracked on that. The numbers that show on their site now are still the old formula, which is:

100*[2-ERA/lgERA]

Brandon Webb's 2008 ERA+ on B-R is 141. In OOTP, it's listed as 130.

100*[2-3.30/4.29] is the formula using the unadjusted National League average and that comes out to 123. Using the MLB average of 4.23 comes out to 124.

So, quite frankly, I haven't a clue as to what formula is used in OOTP. It's not the park-adjusted one (as on B-R), it's not the league average and it's not the MLB average.

Join the club. We are all pretty much Markus' personal mushrooms when it comes to the formulae within the game. It's all some kind of divine mystery.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by xxxpunkrock

B-R backtracked on that. The numbers that show on their site now are still the old formula, which is:

100*[2-ERA/lgERA]

Brandon Webb's 2008 ERA+ on B-R is 141. In OOTP, it's listed as 130.

100*[2-3.30/4.29] is the formula using the unadjusted National League average and that comes out to 123. Using the MLB average of 4.23 comes out to 124.

So, quite frankly, I haven't a clue as to what formula is used in OOTP. It's not the park-adjusted one (as on B-R), it's not the league average and it's not the MLB average.

130 is equal to 100*(Lg ERA/Webb's ERA) (i.e. it's exactly 100*(4.29/3.30) ), which is the old B-Ref formula. That's only one data point, but I'm guessing that's what OOTP is doing. They should update to the new formula if that's the case.

[xxxpunkrock]

Originally Posted by injury log

130 is equal to 100*(Lg ERA/Webb's ERA) (i.e. it's exactly 100*(4.29/3.30) ), which is the old B-Ref formula. That's only one data point, but I'm guessing that's what OOTP is doing. They should update to the new formula if that's the case.

Ah, ok. Thanks. Still, though, I don't see much use in ERA+/OPS+ if they're not adjusted for park. Oh well.