Pitcher inconsistency

[BPS]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Yeah, but we don't.

Thanks! (I feel honored to have got multiple responses to my assertions about hotness.)

But, why no introduction of hotness/coldness? Studies now suggest that these are real things in sporting activities. You don't want to be out of date!

[BPS]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Having a math background, I can't conceive of why a programmer would even want to instill a "trigger" of any sort. Randomness and the "law of averages" gives one all the possibilities needed to simulate reality.

"Simulating reality" can mean different things. It might mean that you generate statistical output that appears plausible (compared to some "reality" including things like hitting streaks. Or, it could mean that the statistical output is produced by processes mimicking reality...say, sometimes players being hot or cold beyond what is explained by random chance). Or, say, playing the part of a manager who must decide whether a players should be sat down because he appears to be cold.

[CrazyWR]

Originally Posted by Orcin

That’s what I said.... dumb luck. You can’t control any of these factors, so whether your card hits a string of favorable or unfavorable is pure luck.

sure but isnt that the case in all games of random chance? at the end of the day you do the best you can to put your team or your bet in the best place to succeed you can but if you want a sure thing you're in the wrong place. It isn't like you have NO CONTROL over your teams success. You simply don't have complete control. This is an important distinction

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by BPS

Thanks! (I feel honored to have got multiple responses to my assertions about hotness.)

But, why no introduction of hotness/coldness? Studies now suggest that these are real things in sporting activities. You don't want to be out of date!

In the base game, they do impact morale, which can have a slight effect on in-game performance. But since morale is off in PT, then they won't have that affect. I actually thought that we did have a small boost for hot/cold streaks, but I did double check and can't see it. Although even if we had it in, it would be a minor effect, along with all the other modifications (home/away, park adjust, times through the order, DH penalties, fatigue effects, weather, etc...) that all may or may not alter the result of a PA.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by BPS

I agree 100% with you. Invoking "small sample size" merely means we don't know. It does not mean the claimed effect isn't real. But, here, those swinging the cudgel of "small sample size" often seem to think they have smite the claims of their opponent (riding on the horse of a small sample).

If someone says, "we don't know" that is very different from "that is explained by random chance, you idiot."

Here swinging the cugel of "small sample size" may also be saying "don't draw conclusions from small sample sizes". It's you who is making assumptions.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

In the base game, they do impact morale, which can have a slight effect on in-game performance. But since morale is off in PT, then they won't have that affect. I actually thought that we did have a small boost for hot/cold streaks, but I did double check and can't see it. Although even if we had it in, it would be a minor effect, along with all the other modifications (home/away, park adjust, times through the order, DH penalties, fatigue effects, weather, etc...) that all may or may not alter the result of a PA.

TIL there's a DH penalty. That explains some underwhelming performances.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by BPS

"Simulating reality" can mean different things. It might mean that you generate statistical output that appears plausible (compared to some "reality" including things like hitting streaks. Or, it could mean that the statistical output is produced by processes mimicking reality...say, sometimes players being hot or cold beyond what is explained by random chance). Or, say, playing the part of a manager who must decide whether a players should be sat down because he appears to be cold.

Hot and cold in baseball seems to be more based on how dialed in a player is on his mechanics. So it's less psychological than it is physiological. And luck is definitely a factor as well, but that can be removed with the use of Statcast data.

And here is where the old schoolers say 'hitting the ball where they ain't' is a unique repeatable skill.

I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with you, just expanding my thoughts on the subject.

[pappyzan]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

In the base game, they do impact morale, which can have a slight effect on in-game performance. But since morale is off in PT, then they won't have that affect. I actually thought that we did have a small boost for hot/cold streaks, but I did double check and can't see it. Although even if we had it in, it would be a minor effect, along with all the other modifications (home/away, park adjust, times through the order, DH penalties, fatigue effects, weather, etc...) that all may or may not alter the result of a PA.

The DH penalty, is that like a rust penalty that pinch hitters may have?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by BPS

I see: others are obliged to present evidence. You, however, feel comfortable making assertions without evidence.

I have all the evidence that I need in that no one can provide any evidence of an influence other than dumb luck.

[DonkeyKongSr]

Originally Posted by CrazyWR

ballpark factors, divisional opponents, quality of opponents, statistical variance.

...player strategies, team strategies, teammates, batting order, platooning, substitution frequencies...

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by DonkeyKongSr

...player strategies, team strategies, teammates, batting order, platooning, substitution frequencies...

Right. You have the secret sauce that no one else has that makes your Trout better than anyone else's. Ok then. See you in PT20.

[Orcin]

I am not a statistician, so I am asking those that are for an honest appraisal. Is this within the expected range of variance?

I took the Trouts in my league that had over 2000 plate appearances (perfect leagues only). Surely that is a big enough sample size and yes there is variation in the competition etc.

To me, a variance in OPS between .841 and .702 for a card that is rated "perfect" is pretty large. However, that .702 could be an outlier. So if you tell me that the difference between the second-best and the second-worst OPS in this list is well within the expected results, then I will accept that this level of variance is normal and shut up.

[DonkeyKongSr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Right. You have the secret sauce that no one else has that makes your Trout better than anyone else's. Ok then. See you in PT20.

I don't claim to have the secret sauce, but isn't something along those lines a more logical explanation than luck why my Mike Trout has been better than every other Mike Trout for 6.5 straight leagues? Unless there is actually some hidden boost the developers are keeping a secret, it's virtually impossible for one card to be that consistently good on luck alone.

Anyway, he's on my second team which I've barely changed in those 6.5 seasons, so below is been pretty much the exact setup the entire time...

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by DonkeyKongSr

I don't claim to have the secret sauce, but isn't something along those lines a more logical explanation than luck why my Mike Trout has been better than every other Mike Trout for 6.5 straight leagues? Unless there is actually some hidden boost the developers are keeping a secret, it's virtually impossible for one card to be that consistently good on luck alone.

Anyway, he's on my second team which I've barely changed in those 6.5 seasons, so below is been pretty much the exact setup the entire time...

With base stealing set that high, I'd expect my team to be thrown out approximately 80% of the time. How does that work for you?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by DonkeyKongSr

I don't claim to have the secret sauce, but isn't something along those lines a more logical explanation than luck why my Mike Trout has been better than every other Mike Trout for 6.5 straight leagues?

So you are saying that your strategy settings are the difference?

Originally Posted by DonkeyKongSr

it's virtually impossible for one card to be that consistently good on luck alone.

Why?

[KleineBiere]

The .702 OPS Trout doesn't look like the "live" card. Just look at the BB rate

[DonkeyKongSr]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

With base stealing set that high, I'd expect my team to be thrown out approximately 80% of the time. How does that work for you?

For the Global Strategy, it doesn't matter because I individually set every player.

For Mike Trout, 208 SB vs. 98 CS for 68% in his career.

My Mookie has maxed running and is 229-101 (69.4%).

Below are all the guys batting ahead of Trout, probably helping him by creating havoc on the bases. They could he helping Trout's stats, or you could just assume it's luck even when other teams are have their Trouts batting in completely different situations.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by KleineBiere

The .702 OPS Trout doesn't look like the "live" card. Just look at the BB rate

Yep, you're right. It is the 2012 card. My bad. So omit that one.

[DonkeyKongSr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

So you are saying that your strategy settings are the difference?




Why?

Not just the strategies, but the lineups and other things like my ballpark.

If it's just complete randomness and you just compare to other Trouts, then the math says it is virtually impossible to do this on luck alone. Let's just say there is an average of 6 Trouts at Gold/Diamond levels counting mine (FYI, there are 6 right now). He's yet to play in Perfect vs. more Trouts, so I'll use this lower number.

Best Trout randomly = 1/6 = 16%
Best Trout randomly 7 straight seasons = (1/6)^7 = 0.0004%

That's nearly impossible luck. Now to be the best player in his conference randomly against all teams where we will just assume each team has 1 MVP candidate:

(1/15)^7 = 0.0000006%

Still impossible luck, although technically this didn't happen because he lost once. EDIT: And he hasn't officially won it in the 7th season yet, but still leads WAR.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by DonkeyKongSr

Not just the strategies, but the lineups and other things like my ballpark.

Ok then.