Horrible Defensive Metrics (How can I fix it?)

[NovaniK]

Thanks for the help guys. I am in an offseason right now so I'll switch my focus to heavily favor ground ball specialists (I had been doing so, but there were Flyballers mixed in). I have AJ Burnett in my farm system who's a 5 star prospect groundballer, can't wait for him to be ready (only 19 though...).

[RchW]

Originally Posted by NovaniK

Ok, so it looks like I was mistaken. I don't have people with more walks than innings pitched, but still an insane amount of walks. Take a look...

From that screen your staff BB/9 is 4.2. That's high but not unprecedented in real life circa 1995. Seattle won 79 games!

Take Bobby Witt out and the staff BB/9 is 3.84. Still high but teams had winning records in 1996 with those results.

Based on this I'd suggest you resist the temptation to make any reactive changes.

The question is what does your league stat output look like now? Is it still like mid 90's, or did you adjust over time. If not pick something like 1995/96, preferably 96-99 and use Baseball Reference to check the rate stats. Unfortunately 1995 is a bad year to use simply because of the strike.

Have you expanded the league or changed the era specific league strategic settings? Something as simple as choosing SB "often" when the era calls for "normal" can add 20% to the SB totals separately from any LT or LTM. Took me several seasons to figure this out on what were supposed to be identical leagues.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...pitching.shtml

Beware of using autocalc blindly (others may have said this already) to correct perceived issues. I've reverted to mostly manual (excel spreadsheets) to adjust LT modifiers because autocalc is too reactive; tending to over-correct, such that you end up in a high-low-high cycle.

A stat output ±5% needs no correction IMO. Over ±10% correct 5%-10%. Over ±15% a good rule of thumb is to apply half the proposed autocalc correction.Better not to get all the way back than to have the opposite.

[NoOne]

1072 runs is ridiculous in a good way.

you could re-allocate a larger portion of resources to pitching. that may not mean an 'extra' arm... it may mean an upgrade of an exisisting arm or 2. even i that park you can at least be average... i'd shoot for top-half at least... never done it, so being conservative in the guessing. i don't think top5 or better is unreasonable, either.

getting high control pitchers is probably even that much more important in a park like coors field. low whip vs high whip pitchers - relative to good results. anythign that reduces baserunners for the inevitablly high HR total. expect a bump from any FA's track record, for sure... maybe even a bit more volatility in yearly results for SP and RP.