|
||||
|
|
OOTP 20 - General Discussions Everything about the newest version of Out of the Park Baseball - officially licensed by MLB.com and the MLBPA. |
|
Thread Tools |
10-07-2019, 03:48 AM | #1 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 11,905
|
Hall of Fame or nah? - Follow-up
I just posted over there in the original thread, but then noticed how dead the OOTP 19 Forums are at this point.
But Jonny Toner, the subject of this thread of old has appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot, and we'll find out whether he makes it in but brief a time. Depending on how the offseason continues for me (dead 94-losses team has lots of terrible players to sort through ), I might make it to the ballot reveal to-day ...!
__________________
Portland Raccoons, 83 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA | RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here. |
10-07-2019, 11:18 PM | #2 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Eureka, Ca
Posts: 533
|
Looks like he had a couple injury years in his prime, innings pitched and Games Started were lower, or he would have got closer to 200 Wins. Still 183 wins and sub 3.00 ERA should be good enough to get in.
__________________
"A passion for statistics is the earmark of a literate people." - Paul Fisher "Baseball isn't statistics. Baseball is (Joe) DiMaggio rounding second." - Jimmy Cannon |
10-07-2019, 11:41 PM | #3 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 579
|
As an avid follower of your dynasty thread for 2 years now there is no doubt Toner is a lock Hall Of Famer
|
10-08-2019, 02:31 AM | #4 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 11,905
|
Didn't quite get there yesterday, but I'll now throw up why over in the dynasty thread. We might be victims, but we're not the worst victims!
__________________
Portland Raccoons, 83 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA | RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here. |
10-08-2019, 04:19 AM | #5 |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 252
|
One thing to keep in mind when evaluating pitchers for the hall of fame is that the game calculates career ERA+ incorrectly.
Toner's career ERA+, calculated correctly, should be 140. Still excellent, but not over-the-top excellent like 152 would be. |
10-08-2019, 05:40 PM | #6 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 11,905
|
Mmm-mm-mm... …mmmww- -m-m-m-hh...h...ha-aappy …!!
__________________
Portland Raccoons, 83 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA | RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here. |
10-08-2019, 10:17 PM | #7 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
|
152 era+, if it was a struggle to get in, that's a shame.
why doesn't it calculate it correctly? 140 is still a sure-fire hoF in all but the tightest selection processes. if your hof is only the top 1-2 percentile of qualified players, that might get tight. it's not a standard distribution curve, so i don't really have a good feel for where some basic points lie. |
10-09-2019, 04:07 PM | #8 | |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 252
|
Quote:
Let's say that the league average ERA was exactly 4.00 for three years in a row. We would expect two pitchers who had exactly the same number of earned runs over those three years and pitched exactly the same number of innings would also have exactly the same career ERA+ for those three years. But that's not what you get by doing a weighted average of ERA+. Say our two pitchers both pitched 180 innings each year. Pitcher 1 was Mr. Consistency and had 80 earned runs each of those years. This works out to an ERA of 4.00 each year and an ERA+ of 100 each year. The weighted average comes out to 100 - as it should. Now consider pitcher 2, who had exactly the same number of earned runs over those three years, but distributed like this: 120 the first year, for an ERA of 6.00 and an ERA+ of 67 (66.66667). 20 the second year for an ERA of 1.00 and an ERA+ of 400, then 100 the third year for an ERA of 5.00 and an ERA+ of 80. Exactly the same number of earned runs, but distributed differently. The weighted average method says this pitcher has a career ERA+ of 182! The correct way to do the calculation is to average the inverse of ERA+ (100/ERA+ = ERA-). Then you do the weighted average as normal. This gives you a career ERA-. When you take the inverse of this, you get the correct value for career ERA+. Do that for the two pitchers above and you see that the both now have career ERA+ of 100. Clearly this is the correct result. Are you listening developers? (I did post this recently in the bug reports forum) |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|