New In-Game "Pitch to Contact"

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

Exactly, I totally agree with you and I think you might misunderstood what I mean. Using your example, you don't need sabermetric to tell you that this player hit 33 HRs, but you do need sabermetric to tell you how much of it is due to luck/ballpark dimension/altitude/whatever so you can have a more accurate idea of what a given ballplayer will do next season

You can also check his stats in other environments (ballparks, etc) throughout his history. I do not need sabermetric stats to tell me any of that.

The idea we can tell the future in anything is a bit weird to me though.

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

My point is being misunderstood and I don't know any other way of stating it so I won't try.

You have said "all you care about is win or lost" which is totally fine, but sabermetrics are useful and if used correctly would help you win more games.

I don't agree with you that the basic stats provide every useful information. In 2008, Oliver Perez went 10-7 with 180 strikeouts and a 4.22ERA. Meanwhile on the west coast, Randy Johnson went 11-10 with 118 strikeouts and 3.91ERA. Oliver Perez gave up fewer hits and fewer Home runs, as can be seen in both league totals and H/9 and HR/9s. Well, based on these stats, won't you say that at least Oliver Perez is at least as comparable as Johnson?

Well, according to Sabermetricans on Baseball-Reference, Johnson produced 3.0WAR in 2008, Oliver Perez produced half of that. Despite a decent looking record and pretty good strikeouts total, Oliver Perez's ERA+ is just average (100), while Randy Johnson produced an above average ERA+(108)

Now, who do you think is a better pitcher in 2008? Randy Johnson or Oliver Perez? If you say "Oliver Perez", then I don't think we'll ever reach a cosensus because we clearly see numbers in a different way. However, just as me (and a lot of others here) respect your opinion, would you at least respect Sabermetrican's work even though you might not agree with them? And no, I would not call "My guess is people who need all these newfangled stats in the real world, for some reason, are either unable to figure things out by what they see from players or they just don't believe what their eyes are showing them" is a very respectful way of talking.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Sabermatricians have too much time on their hands. In the end, all that matters is did they win or not. I couldn't. Care less about the impact every single thing had an any given game. A solo HR, or any HR for that matter for a team that loses means nothing, even if that HR gave that team a temporary lead. The end result, they lost.

This trend of having to start analyzing every burp that happens in a dugout for it's impact on a game is silly.

My only question: did they win or lose. Even with all these new stats, the best teams still lose around 60-70 games and the worst teams generally lose around 90 games, just as it has been the entire history of the sport so I really don't see where all these sabermetric stats have made any difference. Just people with too much time on their hands looking for something to do.

An analogy I always see are Americans taking a pill for every ailment and Sabermaticians.
Some ARE useful, but most are overkill that blind you to the real cause

And if Sabermetrics WERE the say all be all, wouldn't the teams that use them exclusively win ALL the time?

That's my rant, I will watch Trouble with the Curve again...love that movie

[cblacker]

Originally Posted by Carlton

An analogy I always see are Americans taking a pill for every ailment and Sabermaticians.
Some ARE useful, but most are overkill that blind you to the real cause

And if Sabermetrics WERE the say all be all, wouldn't the teams that use them exclusively win ALL the time?

That's my rant, I will watch Trouble with the Curve again...love that movie

No because the talent of individual players still counts for a whole heck of a lot. The goal is simply to look for that edge that will get you an extra 1 or 2 wins; that will help you find undervalued players and stay away from overvalued ones.

[cblacker]

Originally Posted by injury log

Obviously that won't happen. And you wouldn't want to do that anyway, because your pitcher will pitch worse.

The big question about in-game is how to make it more interesting to users who have seen the same 7 buttons on their screens for six versions. If you have other ideas besides IF and OF shifts, let us know.

How about an option for the first baseman to play behind the runner instead of holding him on if you have a big lead or a really slow runner on first or a 3-2 count with 2 outs.

I'd also like to see a 'Green Light' button for base stealers where the hitter doesn't necessarily have to take the pitch like he does with "Steal 2nd/3rd", but the runner doesn't necessarily have to run like he would with "Run & Hit" or "Send Forced." The runner could wait for a good jump and the hitter could take or swing away as normal

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Carlton

An analogy I always see are Americans taking a pill for every ailment and Sabermaticians.
Some ARE useful, but most are overkill that blind you to the real cause

And if Sabermetrics WERE the say all be all, wouldn't the teams that use them exclusively win ALL the time?

That's my rant

I'm curious to know who you think you're disagreeing with when you say this. Is there someone you've heard state the opinion that sabermetrics is the "say all be all"? I've never heard any sabermetrician say that, and there are no front offices in baseball that use sabermetrics "exclusively". Even the most ardent devotee of sabermetrics will acknowledge the importance of scouting in evaluating baseball players.

Obviously using sabermetrics appropriately is not going to allow you to win "ALL the time", because (among many reasons) there is luck in baseball, just as knowing the math of poker won't let you win at poker all the time. But it will sure help you win more often, and if you feel otherwise, let's please play poker some time.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by injury log

I'm curious to know who you think you're disagreeing with when you say this. Is there someone you've heard state the opinion that sabermetrics is the "say all be all"? I've never heard any sabermetrician say that, and there are no front offices in baseball that use sabermetrics "exclusively". Even the most ardent devotee of sabermetrics will acknowledge the importance of scouting in evaluating baseball players.

Obviously using sabermetrics appropriately is not going to allow you to win "ALL the time", because (among many reasons) there is luck in baseball, just as knowing the math of poker won't let you win at poker all the time. But it will sure help you win more often, and if you feel otherwise, let's please play poker some time.

Disagreeing with the idea of clinging to 1 or two stats as a be all, not a poster

Nowadays it is Flyball rate, WAR(highly inaccurate) and ERA+

ERA+ is very flawed in that ANY exception to the rule of a certain type of pitcher is dismissed...such as Jack Morris

Use many stats to evaluate and take into account the player is a person with other attributes

And I am not talking Front Office personnel, I am speaking of the new type of baseball "fan"

[boshk]

pitch to contact is a terrible strategy. it may work well in situational spots. but as a 9 inning, 162 game strategy, look no farther then the minnesota twins to see how well that works. it doesnt help that they also are not aggressive at the plate either, so for the past 10 years have struggled to consistently score runs, and leave a ton of runners on base.

[Carlton]

snip

[Flatbush]

Here's where I have (and will continue) to use "pitch to contact"...

if more than one of these statements is true:

1) there are runners on
2) my pitcher is down in the count 3-0
3) he's having control issues
4) (and this may actually be reason #1) the guy up is not as big a hitter as the guy on deck.

Even the best hitters make outs seven out of ten, so if the above situations are present, I'd rather take my chances putting the ball in play rather than put another guy on, especially with sluggers coming up.

I think it's a good feature and I'm glad to have it available ...even if I use it only once in awhile.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Flatbush

Here's where I have (and will continue) to use "pitch to contact"...

if more than one of these statements is true:

1) there are runners on
2) my pitcher is down in the count 3-0
3) he's having control issues
4) (and this may actually be reason #1) the guy up is not as big a hitter as the guy on deck.

Even the best hitters make outs seven out of ten, so if the above situations are present, I'd rather take my chances putting the ball in play rather than put another guy on, especially with sluggers coming up.

I think it's a good feature and I'm glad to have it available ...even if I use it only once in awhile.

I also like it when, as more than one member probably said here, my team is way behind or way ahead. Why burn up pitch counts and relief innings?

[Painmantle]

I think the most usefull time to use it is when a Knuckleballer is on the mound

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Painmantle

I think the most usefull time to use it is when a Knuckleballer is on the mound

I think Markus would have grayed out this option in that case!