Pitcher inconsistency

[daves]

Every season there seems oi be one pitcher in my rotation that caught a bug and can't pitch at their correct level. This year for me one of those pitchers that fell off the cliff was DeGrom. After going 20-6 last season in perfect, He quickly was 0-7 with an ERA above 9.00 before I put him in long relief.

Granted I did not expect another 20-6 season, but a reasonable era and maybe 500 ball? This consistently happens every season to one of my pitchers. I know this was discussed before, but this really seems buggy!

[Dogberry99]

If we're not careful, we're going to wind up with a variance thread where all these discussions get moved, not unlike the 84 pages on competitive balance

[daves]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

If we're not careful, we're going to wind up with a variance thread where all these discussions get moved, not unlike the 84 pages on competitive balance

Not trying to make a big issue out of it. It just seems buggy. It's as if this needs to be updated for OOTP20.

[webdox]

Originally Posted by daves

Every season there seems oi be one pitcher in my rotation that caught a bug and can't pitch at their correct level. This year for me one of those pitchers that fell off the cliff was DeGrom. After going 20-6 last season in perfect, He quickly was 0-7 with an ERA above 9.00 before I put him in long relief.

Granted I did not expect another 20-6 season, but a reasonable era and maybe 500 ball? This consistently happens every season to one of my pitchers. I know this was discussed before, but this really seems buggy!

Happens here, too. Now that I am at the Perfect level I am noticing it more with my core of 4 Starters I have been running with for a couple seasons down at Diamond. Every year one of them got some sort of disease and forgot how to pitch.

I have also noticed that some individual cards seem like they are born with some defects that carry on every season. Could never figure out why one players Kevin Brown (just using as an example) will always go 2.50 or below while mine can't get below 5.00 (again just an example, my Brown is actually pretty good).

I saved up and bought a 96 Christy Mathewson and put him into my rotation and he started out 0-6 with a 8.00+ ERA.

I never check after I bought the card, however, after he started out so poorly I checked his stats and apparently the previous owner had the same luck with this card. 6 previous season, all at Diamond and above and never less that a 5.00 ERA for a full season of work and probably why he dumped him in the AH.

Should have held out another season but for what I spent I decided to sell him back at a slight loss so I have save up once more for a top 10 upgrade.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by daves

Not trying to make a big issue out of it. It just seems buggy. It's as if this needs to be updated for OOTP20.

Unfortunately, intentions don't matter. What matters is the preponderance of threads on the subject.

There were some very good and productive discussions that got combined into the toxic dumpster fire of the competitive balance thread, all because there were too many threads popping up about an issue that the devs were over and done with.

There are a lot of threads about variance. While I personally agree that our inability to predict production is an problem, the devs seem very consistent in stating their belief that the game is performing as intended and expected and that this amount of variance is desirable.

[BidPro]

It is the hitters too.

I had Sale and after 4 seasons I sold him. he was truly awful. The inconsistency is the worst part of this game.

I decided the only way to fix this problem is to stop putting actual money into my team. Those who are the decision makers will fix the problem if the customer stops spending money.

[Maddox]

Originally Posted by BidPro

It is the hitters too.

I had Sale and after 4 seasons I sold him. he was truly awful. The inconsistency is the worst part of this game.

I decided the only way to fix this problem is to stop putting actual money into my team. Those who are the decision makers will fix the problem if the customer stops spending money.

My 100 rated Mike Trout is batting .224 in Gold league currently and has the lowest average on the team. A team that consists of 3 golds, 4 silvers and 1 bronze. So, it is not like I have a bunch of diamonds that he is falling behind.

Luckily, he is still drawing his walks.

[zrog2000]

This really isn't that hard to understand. These unbelievably great players are merely average in the advanced leagues, which leads to a huge variance in outcomes, just like for average players in a regular baseball season. I'm not sure where this idea that players should perform like they did in baseball history when they're all playing against each other came from. It simply is not possible for that to happen, because the stats just do not work out. If all the Babe Ruths and Barry Bonds hit 60-70 home runs and got on base 50% of the time, every deGrom wouldn't have a 1.something ERA because they're facing each other. But it makes sense that there would be a huge disparity in outcomes if deGrom is facing Babe Ruth 100 times and that sometime there would be 10 strikeouts in a row and other times there would be 5 home runs in 10 at bats. These are matchups between baseball gods.

Plus, it really seems like people have a hard time with what determines a meaningful sample size.

[Neezer]

I dont know what you tell you. Ive played OOTP going on 15 years. Love the game. Loyal customer. I finally decided to create an account to discuss PT. I made one thread about what I called "luck" with my first post and they closed it. Not sure how Im supposed to feel about that.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by BidPro

It is the hitters too.

I had Sale and after 4 seasons I sold him. he was truly awful. The inconsistency is the worst part of this game.

I decided the only way to fix this problem is to stop putting actual money into my team. Those who are the decision makers will fix the problem if the customer stops spending money.

Judging by the price some players go for and the availability of uncommon and/or rare players in the AH, it doesn't seem like there has been a shortage of money spent or continuing to be spent. I don't believe it is as much now as it was, but that could be because of other factors and was probably expected.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by webdox

I have also noticed that some individual cards seem like they are born with some defects that carry on every season. Could never figure out why one players Kevin Brown (just using as an example) will always go 2.50 or below while mine can't get below 5.00 (again just an example, my Brown is actually pretty good).

I saved up and bought a 96 Christy Mathewson and put him into my rotation and he started out 0-6 with a 8.00+ ERA.

I never check after I bought the card, however, after he started out so poorly I checked his stats and apparently the previous owner had the same luck with this card. 6 previous season, all at Diamond and above and never less that a 5.00 ERA for a full season of work and probably why he dumped him in the AH.

Should have held out another season but for what I spent I decided to sell him back at a slight loss so I have save up once more for a top 10 upgrade.

My head tells me this is variance and would even out over a larger sample size. However, I have experienced the same thing myself on several occasions. Now, if I buy a card with poor stats from a previous owner, I just sell the card and move on. I don't have time to build that sample size. I want to win.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

This really isn't that hard to understand. These unbelievably great players are merely average in the advanced leagues, which leads to a huge variance in outcomes, just like for average players in a regular baseball season. I'm not sure where this idea that players should perform like they did in baseball history when they're all playing against each other came from. It simply is not possible for that to happen, because the stats just do not work out. If all the Babe Ruths and Barry Bonds hit 60-70 home runs and got on base 50% of the time, every deGrom wouldn't have a 1.something ERA because they're facing each other. But it makes sense that there would be a huge disparity in outcomes if deGrom is facing Babe Ruth 100 times and that sometime there would be 10 strikeouts in a row and other times there would be 5 home runs in 10 at bats. These are matchups between baseball gods.

Plus, it really seems like people have a hard time with what determines a meaningful sample size.

I can't agree more strongly. At the top levels, these are just regular ball players.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

I can't agree more strongly. At the top levels, these are just regular ball players.

Two issues are continually conflated as being the same thing.

I have no issues with players not performing at their historic levels due to superior competition in game.

I do have issues with players not performing at consistent, predictable levels. Building my team is where I derive most of my joy in this play style. If variance makes it so I cannot predict within a reasonable amount how my specific Kevin Brown will perform in any given season, then I cannot build an effective team.

The devs are very consistent in stating that I am wrong, that variance is, in fact, within a reasonable amount. Oh well. Agree to disagree...

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

I do have issues with players not performing at consistent, predictable levels. Building my team is where I derive most of my joy in this play style. If variance makes it so I cannot predict within a reasonable amount how my specific Kevin Brown will perform in any given season, then I cannot build an effective team.

This has been my experience too. If I get a certain card, I expect it to perform in the range of the same card on other teams at the same league level, given some variation for parks. It doesn't make sense that one Kevin Brown would be a consistent 5+ ERA for 5 seasons, while every other Kevin Brown is 4.00 ERA or below (as an example). I have seen this with a lot of cards, and you can see it too if you look around your own league. Start with the Trouts.

[BPS]

A predictable as the sun coming up, a discussion is started about variances but some later posters think they score points by referring to means.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by BPS

A predictable as the sun coming up, a discussion is started about variances but some later posters think they score points by referring to means.

Please explain for the ignorant people (referring to myself) among your audience.

[Mizzery]

The seasonal inconsistency dynamic is not an issue for me, as I generally accept the sample size argument, as well as the concept that the cards are not performing in a static environment- each year, the competition level varies and will have a resultant impact on my player’s performance.

I track career stats for all my players, and generally find that over multiple seasons, they will fall to a predictable range of expected performance.

Having said that, I firmly believe that some players are more consistent year to year, while others will vary dramatically. I haven’t studied this in detail to try and figure out why this occurs- the 97 Randy Johnson is more consistent in range of performance than the 99 Kershaw, for example, or the 83 Votto is far more consistent in year to year performance than the 83 Rizzo, while the 85 Suarez performs closer every year to a normal range of performance than the 87 Longoria.

These trends have been consistent over what has now accumulated to over 1000 games+. At lower levels, two of my teams used the silver Frankie Frisch, and he never deviated more than 30+/- points of a 730 OPS over 5,000 at bats.

It would be possible in theory given enough data to compile a consistency factor, adjusted for league level, that could then be matched up against the underlying player ratings to try and understand at least some of the dynamics of variance.

[BPS]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Please explain for the ignorant people (referring to myself) among your audience.

I have no evidence you are are ignorant.

But others who like to remark-- after references are made to variances--"well, you can't expect Williams to hit .400 facing such good pitching!" are offering non sequiturs.

[BPS]

In my experience, some players display an amazing season-to-season consistency while others seem to have hugely different statistical output each season. My guess is that some combinations of characteristics (say, for batters, some combinations of contact/HR/eye) react more chaotically to variations in the "environment" than other combinations.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by BPS

I have no evidence you are are ignorant.

But others who like to remark-- after references are made to variances--"well, you can't expect Williams to hit .400 facing such good pitching!" are offering non sequiturs.

Just call out who you want to call out and stop with this cryptic trolling. I'm assuming you're talking about me while ignoring half of the post I made.

Would it surprise you if the All-Star game (if they played to win) would be a 1-0 game or a 18-1 game or a 18-17 game? It wouldn't surprise me because of how closely matched the quality of players are.