Pinch Hitters

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by thehef

So, if there is a PH penalty in OOTP, how does that apply to historical? For example, from 1974 to 1980, Manny Mota hit .316 in 250 pinch-hit at bats, and .286 in 28 non-pinch hit at bats. Of course OOTP would not "know" that Manny's battings stats were accumulated primarily as a pinch-hitter, and that a PH penalty should not apply to him. Does that mean that we would expect Mota to therefore underperform (compared to real life) in OOTP simulations if he were used in OOTP similar to how he was used in real life, and that he would only be expected to perform at real-life levels if used - unlike in real life - as starter?

Yes.

Assuming the PH penalty exists in real life, an assumption OOTP makes (and there is evidence for it and OOTP has to assume one way or the other and I have no problem with their choice), then Mota's hitting better as a PH was a sample size fluke. 250 PH at-bats and 28 non-PH at-bats is way too little to tell you anything.

Even if there is no real life PH penalty, I'd still say it is a sample size fluke and Mota would not have hit better as a PH (just not worse, in that case) if there were enough AB's to make a good judgment.

It is true, though, that with the PH penalty in OOTP, whether or not one exists in real life, the engine won't "know" that Mota's stats were mostly as a PH and will apply the penalty to him, so that used mostly as a PH he will, given average luck, underperform his real life stats, despite the fact that those were accumulated mostly as a PH, meaning any real life PH penalty already harmed his stats.

He'll also underperform for another reason: The game adjusts stats for each historical season when there are a low number of AB (or IP), to prevent a guy who has a fluke year and hits .370 in 100 AB's but is almost certainly not as good as that from being a superstar due to the fluke. If Mota had the number of AB's you list over that many years, it will normalize his stats on the basis that the years will be seen as likely fluky. That's a mechanic I definitely believe should exist, although Mota showed over enough AB's through the years he probably really was a .300 hitter in that era, but that mechanic makes things more realistic much more often than it does the opposite.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Anyone

Yes.

Assuming the PH penalty exists in real life, an assumption OOTP makes (and there is evidence for it and OOTP has to assume one way or the other and I have no problem with their choice), then Mota's hitting better as a PH was a sample size fluke. 250 PH at-bats and 28 non-PH at-bats is way too little to tell you anything.

Even if there is no real life PH penalty, I'd still say it is a sample size fluke and Mota would not have hit better as a PH (just not worse, in that case) if there were enough AB's to make a good judgment.

It is true, though, that with the PH penalty in OOTP, whether or not one exists in real life, the engine won't "know" that Mota's stats were mostly as a PH and will apply the penalty to him, so that used mostly as a PH he will, given average luck, underperform his real life stats, despite the fact that those were accumulated mostly as a PH, meaning any real life PH penalty already harmed his stats.

I would agree that the sample size (28 AB's) is way too small to say that Mota was not as good a hitter when in the lineup vs when pinch-hitting. But, IMO, it is not too small (250 AB's) to conclude that Mota was not a worse pinch-hitter than when in the lineup.

That said, Mota was also was a much-better PH (vs. in-the-lineup batter) from 1970-73, years that he was more of a parttimer/platoon player, but still accumulated significant PH AB's... In those years he hit .377 in 69 PH AB's, compared to .308 in in nearly 1,300 non-PH AB's... So overall, there's enough sample size, IMO, to conclude that from 1970 to 1980, Mota may have been a better PH than when not PH-ing, but clearly did not suffer a PH penalty: 319 PH AB's & a .326 BA, vs 1319 non-PH AB's & a .308 BA.

So - without regards to whether a PH-penalty should be in OOTP, but simply operating under the assumption that it is in OOTP - the OOTP penalty would be inappropriately applied to Mota and others whose batting stats were accumulated either primarily or significantly as pinch-hitters.

This is good to know as I am currently in the middle of the 1974 season, semi-managing the Dodgers. And '74 is when Mota's role transitioned from that of a parttime player to primarily a pinch-hitter. I think I'll go edit some stats to counteract that ill-applied penalty

Originally Posted by Anyone

He'll also underperform for another reason: The game adjusts stats for each historical season when there are a low number of AB (or IP), to prevent a guy who has a fluke year and hits .370 in 100 AB's but is almost certainly not as good as that from being a superstar due to the fluke. If Mota had the number of AB's you list over that many years, it will normalize his stats on the basis that the years will be seen as likely fluky. That's a mechanic I definitely believe should exist, although Mota showed over enough AB's through the years he probably really was a .300 hitter in that era, but that mechanic makes things more realistic much more often than it does the opposite.

That is a good point. I typically lower those AB/IP adjustments - just personal preference - but not enough to save Mota. And in a historical reply, any player who was - for a year or a stretch of years - a top-level pinch-hitter is going to suffer the double-whammy in OOTP.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by thehef

This is good to know as I am currently in the middle of the 1974 season, semi-managing the Dodgers. And '74 is when Mota's role transitioned from that of a parttime player to primarily a pinch-hitter. I think I'll go edit some stats to counteract that ill-applied penalty

That seems fair to me, because even with the assumption there is a real life PH penalty (which as I've said I think is likely to be true, just not proven as there are other explanations), Mota's stats are already harmed by it.

However, if you do that I think you should lower his (I'd guess already very low) fielding abilities so that you don't gain overall when starting him rather than using him to pinch hit. The extra offensive ability you give him that will be applied no matter what, make him give it back with his glove if he plays the field, so he only really gains when pinch hitting.

You don't have to, of course: I believe in "It's your game; play it your way," but I'd do it that way.

[NoOne]

i click save game, then i bring in a pinch hitter and crash/reload until they get a hit... sometimes they can't but that's another discussion.

PH's hit nearly 1.000 in my league! don't know what ya'll are talking about with a penalty and this and that.

Best answer to acutall quesiton: Totally depends on the situation at hand + consider ph penalty, because it's in the game. maybe somoeone would make a matrix with all possible situations and a 'best' choice for each one...


oh and the wolf is wrong i won't say what about... just that he's wrong about at least 1 thing in life, or i'll start believing in god, but will never capitalize it.

[andrewv500]

I always figured it was hard to pinch hit by sheer virtue of coming into an actual game "cold." That, despite whatever routines a batter may have, there is always some difference to hitting in a cage and facing live pitching in a game that counts.

The best pinch hitters probably felt that effect, if real, to a lesser extent than most.

And certainly some pinch hitters are in that role because their bat demands their presence on the roster, but are somehow such a liability in the field as to negate their offense should they be started. Players like Harold Baines or Matt Stairs. Players who excelled in getting the hit when called upon but rarely, if ever, started.

I do think that the majority of bench players are there because they are not as good as those who consistently start. It may be with the bat, with the glove, mental concentration, whatever it may be. Your everyday position player is there for a reason.

So I wonder just how much the stats simply reinforce that in most pinch hitter situations the batter is not as good as the 8 players starting nor (and maybe just as importantly) as good as the pitcher being faced, plus whatever difficulties may be inherent to the task itself.

It doesn't surprise me that the stats say there is a penalty, and even though I'm inclined to agree in a general way it feels a step too far to say anything sports related is a proven and known certainty, inviolate to change forever more.

Even valuing OBP over AVG as a poster mentioned before, I know I've seen on MLB Now at least one stat guy saying the actual ability to put bat on ball and in play may now be undervalued. A Willie McGee type player may be needed to turn around this morass of HR/K/BB that the game is in currently.

And kudos to the vast majority of posters here who keep things civil and argue their points, as opposed to bickering endlessly. As great as some source material may be, neither expect nor require people to read it. If you believe it's right make your case, back up your points and please remember respect is a two way street. It's hard to give respect to someone who presumes disagreement is equal to ignorance and/or provocation.

It belittles and devalues one's own self to act like that over and over again.