Creditting of wins unrealistic

dburden · 07-18-2004, 10:24 PM

I've been going with the ol' Sabremetric ploy of starting middle relievers and then pulling them at their first PA. Thus, my starters almost never win a game; I only leave them in five innings if I'm ahead by a lot by the time they come up to bat.

What I've noticed is that, if I'm ahead when I pull the starter, and maintain my lead throughout the game, the win is *always* creditted to the second pitcher.

This isn't inherently wrong, but it's unrealistic if the second pitcher pitched badly. I don't have a box score handy - I can try and get one if needed - but I've seen games where the second pitcher gave up two runs in his first and only inning, and still got the win even though the third pitcher gave up only one run in four innings. In real life, although it's subjective, the scorer is supposed to give the win to the most effective pitcher if the starter isn't eligible. Instead, the second pitcher always gets the win.

I know the game has some formula for determining the effectiveness of each player's performance for the sake of determining the Player of the Game, so I would suggest that the game use this formula to determine the "most effective" pitcher and thus which pitcher gets the win.

Cheers,
-Dave

phenom · 07-18-2004, 10:49 PM

just curious - you're starting middle relievers but worrying about wins being credited "unrealistically"?

dougaiton · 07-19-2004, 05:19 AM

You're right, the second pitcher is always credited. This is pretty much the status quo IRL as well, though - I'm not sure how OOTP would simulate the odd occasion when the official scorer picks someone else (most times, they err on the 2nd pitcher also).
Unless the 2nd pitcher doesn't get an out and gets rocked, the official scorer almost always sides with them, IIRC!

dburden · 07-20-2004, 02:24 AM

I don't have any data on how scorers tend to do this in real life, but seeing as the game already has a mechanism to evaluate pitchers' performances, it seems reasonable to use it. As for me complaining about realism when using an unreal system . . . well, I suppose I can't argue with that. :P

disposableheros · 07-20-2004, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phenom

just curious - you're starting middle relievers but worrying about wins being credited "unrealistically"?

is it really that unrealistic to think that it could work to have a MR start? im actually surprised that it doesnt happen. if ive got SPs that are way better than or that i think are more "clutch" than my pen but know that they usually only pitch 6-7 inn then why not?

phenom · 07-20-2004, 12:09 PM

I'm not saying it's unrealistic to think that it could work to have a MR start, I'm just saying it's unrealistic to actually have a MR start in more than a spot role.

dburden · 07-20-2004, 04:43 PM

Just for clarification's sake, I did reclassify the MRs who are starting to be SPs in the game, and made the SPs who now come in later as MRs. I'm not sure how confused the AI would get, if at all, if I hadn't done that reclassification.

Also, starting MRs is certainly not my idea. The idea was presented by Alan Schwarz in his recent ESPN.com chat, and he came across the idea while writing his book "The Numbers Game." I forget the guy that was really pushing for this in the 60s-70s, but that's the guy that deserves the "credit." His argument was that pitchers generally hit so horribly that any strategy that reduced their PAs was worth it. OOTP seemed like a good place to try it, since the players don't get pissed off about not starting.

I bought Schwarz's book partially because Schwarz is my mom's maiden name . . . her dad, Jack Schwarz, ran the Giants' farm system, which is what brought me to fantasy GM-type games in the first place.

07-18-2004, 10:24 PM	#1
dburden Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 21	Creditting of wins unrealistic I've been going with the ol' Sabremetric ploy of starting middle relievers and then pulling them at their first PA. Thus, my starters almost never win a game; I only leave them in five innings if I'm ahead by a lot by the time they come up to bat. What I've noticed is that, if I'm ahead when I pull the starter, and maintain my lead throughout the game, the win is always creditted to the second pitcher. This isn't inherently wrong, but it's unrealistic if the second pitcher pitched badly. I don't have a box score handy - I can try and get one if needed - but I've seen games where the second pitcher gave up two runs in his first and only inning, and still got the win even though the third pitcher gave up only one run in four innings. In real life, although it's subjective, the scorer is supposed to give the win to the most effective pitcher if the starter isn't eligible. Instead, the second pitcher always gets the win. I know the game has some formula for determining the effectiveness of each player's performance for the sake of determining the Player of the Game, so I would suggest that the game use this formula to determine the "most effective" pitcher and thus which pitcher gets the win. Cheers, -Dave

07-18-2004, 10:49 PM	#2
phenom Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Near the Great Wall. On the GOOD side. Posts: 3,774	just curious - you're starting middle relievers but worrying about wins being credited "unrealistically"? __________________ reported

07-19-2004, 05:19 AM	#3
dougaiton Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Location: Posts: 3,414	You're right, the second pitcher is always credited. This is pretty much the status quo IRL as well, though - I'm not sure how OOTP would simulate the odd occasion when the official scorer picks someone else (most times, they err on the 2nd pitcher also). Unless the 2nd pitcher doesn't get an out and gets rocked, the official scorer almost always sides with them, IIRC! __________________ tThis shower of clowns My park-adjusted, historically split Born in '69 league file! (also at Joe's wonderful site +BBSC)

07-20-2004, 12:09 PM	#6
phenom Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Near the Great Wall. On the GOOD side. Posts: 3,774	I'm not saying it's unrealistic to think that it could work to have a MR start, I'm just saying it's unrealistic to actually have a MR start in more than a spot role. __________________ reported

07-20-2004, 02:24 AM	#4
dburden Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 21	I don't have any data on how scorers tend to do this in real life, but seeing as the game already has a mechanism to evaluate pitchers' performances, it seems reasonable to use it. As for me complaining about realism when using an unreal system . . . well, I suppose I can't argue with that. :P

07-20-2004, 04:43 PM	#7
dburden Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 21	Just for clarification's sake, I did reclassify the MRs who are starting to be SPs in the game, and made the SPs who now come in later as MRs. I'm not sure how confused the AI would get, if at all, if I hadn't done that reclassification. Also, starting MRs is certainly not my idea. The idea was presented by Alan Schwarz in his recent ESPN.com chat, and he came across the idea while writing his book "The Numbers Game." I forget the guy that was really pushing for this in the 60s-70s, but that's the guy that deserves the "credit." His argument was that pitchers generally hit so horribly that any strategy that reduced their PAs was worth it. OOTP seemed like a good place to try it, since the players don't get pissed off about not starting. I bought Schwarz's book partially because Schwarz is my mom's maiden name . . . her dad, Jack Schwarz, ran the Giants' farm system, which is what brought me to fantasy GM-type games in the first place.