Control for Diamond P

[Mizzery]

There was a lot of analysis in the past about MOV being the most critical factor for selecting pitchers who could be competitive in the Diamond and Perfect levels, since high MOV would displace potential Home Runs to other pitchers in the league with lower ratings.

In both 19 and 20, that led me to buy pitchers with the best MOV ratings. I have also used some of the FIP estimation formulas that had MOV the highest weighted factor, followed by CTL, and then STF.

My practical experience though is that high STF, good MOV pitchers are absolutely unusable if they have sub 50 CTL, regardless of their other ratings or OVR rating.

Historical Diamond pitchers like 94 Ryan, 91 Maloney, 92 Feller or 96 or 97 historical Aroldis Chapmans consistently put up negative WARs and 5+ ERAs at the Diamond or Perfect level and are completely unusable.

This has led me to evaluate whether FIP estimation formulas need to have some bottom threshold for the CTL factor, regardless of whether the player has top end STF or MOV factors.

Anybody tested this out? It seems this is less of an issue with MOV, because historical Diamonds rarely have MOV ratings below 60.

[Maxfire5]

I can't locate the thread (search isnt working on my phone) but there was a post recently and I think they had determined that above 50, the equations were fine, but below 50 they were not. Essentially equating to additional(double/triple, whatever) punishment for every 1 point below 50.

[Argonaut]

I think it was allenciox that found the 50 level on MOV and CON to be an important threshold for pitchers, along with 55 STU for some reason.

The FIP and wOBA formulas around tend to ignore these factors, and also cannot deal well with other "extreme" ratings. For instance, (78?) Cecil Fielder is supposed to be a pretty good hitter against LHP. But if you actually play him he will just strike out every at bat due to his 8 Avoid K rating and rack up -2.0 WAR.

[Mizzery]

Originally Posted by Argonaut

I think it was allenciox that found the 50 level on MOV and CON to be an important threshold for pitchers, along with 55 STU for some reason.

The FIP and wOBA formulas around tend to ignore these factors, and also cannot deal well with other "extreme" ratings. For instance, (78?) Cecil Fielder is supposed to be a pretty good hitter against LHP. But if you actually play him he will just strike out every at bat due to his 8 Avoid K rating and rack up -2.0 WAR.

Thanks for the info. So are there critical threshold factors for hitters in a category like EYE or Avoid K as well? This may explain why my Live 93 Joey Gallo has been at best a mediocre performer across a dozen plus seasons.

[Argonaut]

Originally Posted by Mizzery

Thanks for the info. So are there critical threshold factors for hitters in a category like EYE or Avoid K as well? This may explain why my Live 93 Joey Gallo has been at best a mediocre performer across a dozen plus seasons.

Yeah, Gallo is my favourite current-day player and works well in today's MLB environment. But put him in an all-time best battle in Perfect Team and he'll suffer. Pitchers with historically good STU/MOV/CON magnify his weaknesses and limit his strengths.

I don't know if there's a specific threshold in batter ratings. Mike Trout does well despite ~32 Avoid K, but like I mentioned Cecil Fielder is awful at 8 Avoid K. EYE is an interesting one where more is always better, and some of the seemingly good contact hitters like Puckett and Ichiro suffer a bit because of their EYE.

[Dogberry99]

I'm of the growing opinion that linear equations are not an appropriate way to predict a card's performance.

However I'm also not smart enough to work with non-linear equations, so... *shrugs*

[QuantaCondor]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

I'm of the growing opinion that linear equations are not an appropriate way to predict a card's performance.

However I'm also not smart enough to work with non-linear equations, so... *shrugs*

Probability is mostly linear, so it just means there's some other variable involved in hit rate. For example, hitters might get a bonus to contact in a 3-0 or 2-0 count, which makes Control more important above some threshold to assure that 2-0 and 3-0 counts aren't frequent.

[Maxfire5]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

I'm of the growing opinion that linear equations are not an appropriate way to predict a card's performance.

However I'm also not smart enough to work with non-linear equations, so... *shrugs*

This is probably the case. Modeling by itself is tough. The number of assumptions we have to make is incredibly tough. Just on the surface, when using an equation based solely on stuff/movement/control, you're missing so many things including batters ratings, batted ball profile, park factors, pitch count, tiredness, and even just plain RNG. That list is not all inclusive.

We don't have their equations in front of us, and if we did, it would ruin it for most even with RNG throwing a wrench into things. A pitcher with high stuff low control, low movement may fair well against a team with mediocre contact, low HR power, low avoid Ks and a mediocre eye, while a pitcher with high movement, low stuff, mediocre control may struggle because the pitcher won't miss as many bats as a pitcher with high stuff. Does a hitter get a boost in a 2-1 count, or a 2-0 count? What about 3-1 or 3-0. Does a pitcher get a boost in opposite settings? So many other scenarios too.


Point being, a linear equation may not be representative, but it's what we have to work with in most cases. There are a substantial number of variables that would have to be accounted for and we can't do that at this point. Without running an experiment in a bubble, pitcher and hitter projections are tough because it's dependent on the opposition faced, park factors, defense faced, RNG and other factors.

So we focus on what we do know and try to make some sense of it. Stuff relates to Ks, movement to HR/9, control to BB/9, avoid k to k%, etc.

Some what related, one thing I haven't looked at is how a pitchers pitch ratings play into it. If a person has 93 stuff but has one pitch at a 10, how much of a detriment is this? How does it compare to say another person with 93 stuff but no pitches below 60.

[One Great Matrix]

Control is most important but you can't rely on it entirely.

In fact, if their control isn't absolutely horrible 21+ stuff can still make a good closer, so long as their move is green+...

Movement is like if you don't want to experience a guy cruising along & then boom double, double, walk, triple, home run: 5 runs scored when the guy was pitching great.

Great movement prevents this.

I will tell no more of my observations without just compensation.