Poll: Overall Ratings for Pitchers - Page 4

ctorg · 10-13-2006, 07:54 AM

One of the keys would be not making things too complex. For one, the learning curve for this game can already be tough on newcomers. But also, greater complexity would probably slow the game down and use up resources, I'd imagine. So we'd need a balance of simplicity and accuracy that works well.

Syd Thrift · 10-13-2006, 11:38 AM

I think that per-pitch modelling could work really well so long as you found a way to keep it more or less under the hood. If it made scouting pitchers really, really hard, that's good because scouting pitchers in real life is really, really hard. TINSTAAPP and all that.

fhomess · 10-13-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMax58

I was trying to be as brief as possible in my first post, but control would have to be a modifier for certain pitch types, otherwise sliders hang, curveballs miss, & sinkers do not sink. Some pitch types are affected more than others by control naturally. I had the same thoughts on velocity, which would work as a modifier as well.

I'm not sure I agree that lack of control is what causes hanging breaking balls. That's more about imparting enough spin on the ball, which I would classify as stuff. Control's about being able to throw the ball to the same location. A hanging curveball and a good curveball can actually be thrown to the same location, but if the spin is different, then one will break while the other will not.

andymac · 10-13-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhomess

I'm not sure I agree that lack of control is what causes hanging breaking balls. That's more about imparting enough spin on the ball, which I would classify as stuff. Control's about being able to throw the ball to the same location. A hanging curveball and a good curveball can actually be thrown to the same location, but if the spin is different, then one will break while the other will not.

I think the word "command" is the better description to use. A players' command of his curve ball will effect his control. I think that is probably a bit independent of "stuff". A guy can have a great curve ball but if he doesn't have very good command of that curve ball he has a larger chance of throwing a hanger (as well as "over-throwing" it and getting a bigger or harder break than he intended). Meanwhile a guy can have a tiny little break in his curve ball but have great command of it enabling him to put it more or less exactly where he wants it which simulates better control.

RonCo · 10-13-2006, 07:15 PM

If you want a super-quick step that begins getting you down teh right philosophical path without doing much of anything differently, maybe just replace the parameter we currently know as "endurance" with a new one called "number of major league quality pitches."

MadMax58 · 10-13-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhomess

I'm not sure I agree that lack of control is what causes hanging breaking balls. That's more about imparting enough spin on the ball, which I would classify as stuff. Control's about being able to throw the ball to the same location. A hanging curveball and a good curveball can actually be thrown to the same location, but if the spin is different, then one will break while the other will not.

andymac's comments sort of sum up my thoughts...but I'd add that "something" has to determine the success of hitting the optimal target...and optimal is based individually on each pitcher's individual "stuff", if you will. If one guy's break is greater than another, then the their optimal location is not the same.

Hence why Pitcher A can have (1-10 scale) a 5 in Curveball(for instance), a 10 in Control, and manage to hit his optimal target more often than Pitcher B who has a 10 in Curveball, but 5 in Control. If you say his ability to "hit" his optimal target is wrapped up in his Pitch Rating, then why have Control anyway? It's definitely a thought...but it does stray into overhauling the pitching model, and I imagine thats not an option by next spring.

I think it comes down to 2 schools of thought(perhaps more I havent thought of), either (1) Pitch types & ratings are used to create the Stuff rating & (2) Pitch types are completely independant of Stuff, but perhaps modified. But not using model (1) as the basis, I'm not sure why we'd need Velocity, Control, or Stuff ratings....but maybe thats ok.

endgame · 10-13-2006, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

I think the word "command" is the better description to use. A players' command of his curve ball will effect his control. I think that is probably a bit independent of "stuff". A guy can have a great curve ball but if he doesn't have very good command of that curve ball he has a larger chance of throwing a hanger (as well as "over-throwing" it and getting a bigger or harder break than he intended). Meanwhile a guy can have a tiny little break in his curve ball but have great command of it enabling him to put it more or less exactly where he wants it which simulates better control.

This is where a factor like dynamic endurance actually comes into play. In several interviews with managers I've listened to, when asked about radar guns, command of pitches, etc... almost without exception they referred to being 'velocity conscious' with starters near the 80+ pitch mark and with relievers at almost any interval "once a consistent drop in speed is indicated, it might be an indicator of (paraphrasing) a little fatigue or a lack of sharpness in his pitches; when pitches can get "left hanging."

Suffice to say, the concept of command is an excellent one, but I'd say it cannot exist in isolation apart from the eventual decline of that command, skill-level, or sharpness once a certain number of pitches is reached or 'on any given game day' that endurance/command level just doesn't measure up to normal performance levels.

SSG Troyer · 10-14-2006, 01:07 AM

Just chiming in without reading the thread, please excuse my ignorance if I'm repeating.

I chose "neither" because I think endurance/fatigue needs to be a factor, but roles don't. A pitcher can throw so many pitches before he tires. It's up to the manager to determine how he uses his pitchers.

I still favor the BBPro98 model, where there were no roles except as slots the manager put his pitchers in. Pitchers were rated for endurance on a scale of 1-9, whitch roughly equated to the number of innings a fully rested player could throw before tiring, based on what BBPro98 claimed was a ML avarage of 16 pitches per inning.

View Poll Results: How would you prefer overall ratings for pitchers to be handled?
Pitchers are rated differently based on their role, and endurance is a factor (current model)	28	36.84%
Pitchers are rated on the same "playing field" (role and endurance are not factored in)	33	43.42%
I'd choose neither of these	15	19.74%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

10-13-2006, 07:54 AM	#61
ctorg Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 9,848	One of the keys would be not making things too complex. For one, the learning curve for this game can already be tough on newcomers. But also, greater complexity would probably slow the game down and use up resources, I'd imagine. So we'd need a balance of simplicity and accuracy that works well. __________________ My music "When the trees blow back and forth, that's what makes the wind." - Steven Wright Fjord emena pancreas thorax fornicate marmalade morpheme proteolysis smaxa cabana offal srue vitriol grope hallelujah lentils

10-14-2006, 01:07 AM	#68
SSG Troyer All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere to the left of 2nd base Posts: 1,598	Just chiming in without reading the thread, please excuse my ignorance if I'm repeating. I chose "neither" because I think endurance/fatigue needs to be a factor, but roles don't. A pitcher can throw so many pitches before he tires. It's up to the manager to determine how he uses his pitchers. I still favor the BBPro98 model, where there were no roles except as slots the manager put his pitchers in. Pitchers were rated for endurance on a scale of 1-9, whitch roughly equated to the number of innings a fully rested player could throw before tiring, based on what BBPro98 claimed was a ML avarage of 16 pitches per inning. __________________ MWT Did Tennesee Delaware Mississppi's New Jersey? Idaho ... Alaska!

10-13-2006, 07:15 PM	#65
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,514	If you want a super-quick step that begins getting you down teh right philosophical path without doing much of anything differently, maybe just replace the parameter we currently know as "endurance" with a new one called "number of major league quality pitches."