How does the game choose batter of the month?

[fuzzy_patters]

Are rookies not eligible because they have their own award? I recently had a player win batter of the month whose numbers were probably the worst that I have ever seen for a batter of the month. He only hit .291 for the month, which is a good month but not award worthy. Meanwhile the rookie of the month hit .424. I thought that was strange.

New Orleans Center Fielder SSL's Best Batter in May
Sunday, June 1st, 1890
Mike Catanzaro battered Stars and Stripes League pitchers all May and wound up taking home the Batter of the Month Award.

"I've been around Stars and Stripes League long enough to know you really have to work hard day in and day out to be able to put up this kind of consistency," the 29-year-old Catanzaro told reporters. "I put in a lot of work, even on the days I might not take the field, and it's always nice when everything comes together for me like it did this last month."

In 28 games, Catanzaro hit .291 with 4 home runs, 20 RBIs and scored 20 runs.

So far in 1890 Catanzaro is batting .311 with 5 home runs, 35 RBIs and 39 runs scored. He has 64 hits in 206 at-bats and a .395 OBP.

SSL Selects Rookie Star of the Month
Sunday, June 1st, 1890
Erik Manning is still a bit shy, but then, who could blame the newest Stars and Stripes League Rookie of the Month honoree? He hasn't been around the league long enough to fully know the ropes yet, despite the fact that he's putting up veteran-like numbers.

In May the Cincinnati hitter tagged opposing pitching for a .424 average with 25 hits, 2 home runs and 20 RBIs.

This season Manning is batting .389 with 26 RBIs, 10 runs scored and 2 home runs.

[reds1]

In my league, I've had rookies - both position players and pitchers - win both monthly honors at the same time, so I know it is possible. I don't know what the threshold is or whether you can specify whether a rookie can be eligible for the more than just the Rookie of the Month honor or not.

Kyle Pryor

Ben Currall

[Izz]

Originally Posted by fuzzy_patters

Are rookies not eligible because they have their own award? I recently had a player win batter of the month whose numbers were probably the worst that I have ever seen for a batter of the month. He only hit .291 for the month, which is a good month but not award worthy. Meanwhile the rookie of the month hit .424. I thought that was strange.

New Orleans Center Fielder SSL's Best Batter in May
Sunday, June 1st, 1890
Mike Catanzaro battered Stars and Stripes League pitchers all May and wound up taking home the Batter of the Month Award.

"I've been around Stars and Stripes League long enough to know you really have to work hard day in and day out to be able to put up this kind of consistency," the 29-year-old Catanzaro told reporters. "I put in a lot of work, even on the days I might not take the field, and it's always nice when everything comes together for me like it did this last month."

In 28 games, Catanzaro hit .291 with 4 home runs, 20 RBIs and scored 20 runs.

So far in 1890 Catanzaro is batting .311 with 5 home runs, 35 RBIs and 39 runs scored. He has 64 hits in 206 at-bats and a .395 OBP.

SSL Selects Rookie Star of the Month
Sunday, June 1st, 1890
Erik Manning is still a bit shy, but then, who could blame the newest Stars and Stripes League Rookie of the Month honoree? He hasn't been around the league long enough to fully know the ropes yet, despite the fact that he's putting up veteran-like numbers.

In May the Cincinnati hitter tagged opposing pitching for a .424 average with 25 hits, 2 home runs and 20 RBIs.

This season Manning is batting .389 with 26 RBIs, 10 runs scored and 2 home runs.

What was the slugging percentage like for both players? I've noticed that often monthly awards seem to go to hitters with the highest slugging percentage and most HRs.

[NoOne]

the game values power numbers more than batting average. it's just evaluating a bit differently than your peference between those 2 players.

[fuzzy_patters]

Originally Posted by NoOne

the game values power numbers more than batting average. it's just evaluating a bit differently than your peference between those 2 players.

Nope. Here were their triple slashes. Manning had more power, too.

Catanzaro .291/.402/.553
Manning .424/.485/.627

[Marsupilami]

maybe runs scored play into it?

Catanzaro had 20 runs scored in may alone.
manning has 10 runs scored for the season

[fuzzy_patters]

Originally Posted by Marsupilami

maybe runs scored play into it?

Catanzaro had 20 runs scored in may alone.
manning has 10 runs scored for the season

That could be. Manning drove in 20, but he only scored 5. It could be some sort of a compilation of a bunch of different numbers other than the triple slash numbers.

[NoOne]

okay i spoke too specifically... my bad, but same relative concept as explained above:

the game values things differently than you, if you have a different opinions about the importnace of various stats. (i assume reputation also plays a role and whatever else, too).

it's a very simple equation to determine it... with various weights on whatever stats they chose to pay attention to. if you track and catalog all the winners over a long enough period of time, you can even deduce this equation yourself, if you want to.

they could even implement a little randomness so that it's not a 1:1 relationship with inputs and results of batter of the month... so if you reloaded a game bfore the awards and it picks different players, that is why it's doing it (assuming all statistical feedback remained the same).

in rela life they do not apply a uniform standardized evaluation.. each person's opinons vary... so mike trout may win or beat cabrera in any given year specifically due to who is voting and very little to do with what happened on the field, if they both had great years of course. (ie we don't know what "best" is, yet.. incomplete mined data at this time -- and despite what some think there is a best for a season, emprically, whether we know it or not.)

human inconsistency and lack of true knowledge would be what's being modeled, if they add that kind of randomness to it in some way shape or form.

[fuzzy_patters]

Originally Posted by NoOne

okay i spoke too specifically... my bad, but same relative concept as explained above:

the game values things differently than you, if you have a different opinions about the importnace of various stats. (i assume reputation also plays a role and whatever else, too).

it's a very simple equation to determine it... with various weights on whatever stats they chose to pay attention to. if you track and catalog all the winners over a long enough period of time, you can even deduce this equation yourself, if you want to.

they could even implement a little randomness so that it's not a 1:1 relationship with inputs and results of batter of the month... so if you reloaded a game bfore the awards and it picks different players, that is why it's doing it (assuming all statistical feedback remained the same).

in rela life they do not apply a uniform standardized evaluation.. each person's opinons vary... so mike trout may win or beat cabrera in any given year specifically due to who is voting and very little to do with what happened on the field, if they both had great years of course. (ie we don't know what "best" is, yet.. incomplete mined data at this time -- and despite what some think there is a best for a season, emprically, whether we know it or not.)

human inconsistency and lack of true knowledge would be what's being modeled, if they add that kind of randomness to it in some way shape or form.

All of that is obvious and none of it answers the question.