Statistical Outputs

Young Drachma · 09-22-2008, 07:53 PM

What kind of league do you favor statistically?

Young Drachma · 09-22-2008, 07:54 PM

Option 4 was supposed to be "something else" but really, I just wanted to start a discussion about it.

Alan T · 09-22-2008, 08:25 PM

Are we talking about FOOL, or a brand new league, or watching MLB or what?

Young Drachma · 09-22-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan T

Are we talking about FOOL, or a brand new league, or watching MLB or what?

FOOL sir

Alan T · 09-22-2008, 08:46 PM

Which option can I pick that will be translated as I like things how they are?

muns · 09-22-2008, 08:49 PM

I actually like the way we are at the moment stats wise except the HR'S and RBI'S stats. I dont think the league leader in HR'S should be like 27 nor should the we only have a handful of guys with 100 RBI'S.

I wouldnt mind it being bumped up a notch with the leader having 45 HR's and 145 RbI'S. But thats just me. Not sure if that would be Modern ERA or not. Im not looking for 60 HR'S though

Tasan · 09-22-2008, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muns

I actually like the way we are at the moment stats wise except the HR'S and RBI'S stats. I dont think the league leader in HR'S should be like 27 nor should the we only have a handful of guys with 100 RBI'S.

I wouldnt mind it being bumped up a notch with the leader having 45 HR's and 145 RbI'S. But thats just me. Not sure if that would be Modern ERA or not. Im not looking for 60 HR'S though

What he said. I voted modern era, just because I don't exactly see what I would like, but thats the closest to it. Think early 90s, with guys having 45 homers to lead the league.

Young Drachma · 09-22-2008, 09:05 PM

The poll is generally inaccurate. I mostly wanted a discussion, excuse the poll options.

ekcut · 09-22-2008, 09:06 PM

Since you asked....

I like the way it is now EXCEPT there are too many strikeouts and not quite enough walks.
I think fielding% too high, DP's are low. SB's look perfect now though!

Alan T · 09-22-2008, 09:12 PM

Well, just like the stolen base thing from before, I am entirely, completely against a sudden big change since we've all been grooming our team for what the current universe is like here.

I also don't really like the idea of tweaking RBIs any (if that is even possible to do), since I think runs scored and batted in should be a byproduct of other offensive performance.

If enough people feel HR should be increased (which should also have the effect of increasing runs scored and RBIs, and ERAs and such), then we can run the numbers to try to gradually phase it in to make it more to people's likings...

But I personally really like things how they are now. They aren't unrealistic as the record for homers in a season is currently 46, which I think is entirely within the realm of reason. Our universe doesn't have to mirror MLB exactly as long as it is similar enough to be described as baseball.

Since I don't think homers are currently that far out of whack to modify the league factors, I would rather us not toy with that in this case myself, what would our story be? Suddenly a new weight lifting program was developed around the league? That is kind of cheesy

Instead, I would rather if enough people want more home runs, they should make subtle cosmetic differences to their park to encourage the increased long balls. In MLB, there have been many parks that have done that over time (such as San Francisco for Barry Bonds).. If even 4-5 teams who wanted more homers did such, you'd see an increase in home runs around the league and it is a more realistic method that can continue a storyline.

Alan T · 09-22-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekcut

Since you asked....

I like the way it is now EXCEPT there are too many strikeouts and not quite enough walks.
I think fielding% too high, DP's are low. SB's look perfect now though!

2007 MLB, National League Fielding % - .983
2007 MLB, American League Fielding % - .984

1976 FOOL, CL Fielding % - .982
1976 FOOL, RL Fielding % - .980

Double plays do seem alot low, but I am not sure which factor is causing that, but they seem to be at least 50% too low, if not 65%.

Strikeouts don't seem that far off.. Currently the Florida Marlins have the most this season in the MLB in 155 games with 1330. In Fool, Compton had the most K's with 1450, Hartford the least with 845. The least in the MLB so far this season in MLB is Seattle with 842.. So that range is pretty accurate I think.

Walks are perhaps a hair low like you said. Maybe only 15% low if that. However I attribute that to our league having too many good hitters as our league batting is about 10% higher than MLB across the board which obviously would lead to less walks.

Of course I can't stress how much of a bad idea it would be to start tinkering with everything all at once either (which I don't think you or anyone is proposing.. or would hope not)

kaosfere · 09-22-2008, 09:33 PM

Put me down for "ain't broken, don't fix". I have a bit of a laid back philosophy when it comes to stats in baseball sims, though. As long as things are not utterly broken, I don't care if the stats represent 2008, 1988, or 1908.

It's a fantasy world. Why does it have to be perfectly like some external form?

Chief Rum · 09-22-2008, 10:34 PM

If anyone wants to know how I obviously voted, please review my recently reconfigured ballpark. Thanks.

View Poll Results: What sort of league stat output do you favor?
Deadball era	0	0%
1970s baseball (lots of steals, more RBI, less dingers)	3	60.00%
Modern era (home runs, RBI more plentiful)	2	40.00%
Voters: 5. You may not vote on this poll

09-22-2008, 08:25 PM	#3
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	Are we talking about FOOL, or a brand new league, or watching MLB or what? __________________ Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.

09-22-2008, 08:46 PM	#5
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	Which option can I pick that will be translated as I like things how they are? __________________ Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.

09-22-2008, 09:05 PM	#8
Young Drachma Dark Cloud Join Date: Apr 2001	The poll is generally inaccurate. I mostly wanted a discussion, excuse the poll options. __________________ Current Dynasty:The Zenith of Professional Basketball Careers (FBPB/FBCB) FBCB / FPB3 Mods

09-22-2008, 09:06 PM	#9
ekcut College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Edmonton, Alberta	Since you asked.... I like the way it is now EXCEPT there are too many strikeouts and not quite enough walks. I think fielding% too high, DP's are low. SB's look perfect now though! __________________ FOOLX- Alberta Renegades FOOL- Leduc Bullets

09-22-2008, 07:54 PM	#2
Young Drachma Dark Cloud Join Date: Apr 2001	Option 4 was supposed to be "something else" but really, I just wanted to start a discussion about it.

09-22-2008, 08:49 PM	#6
muns Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Baltimore MD	I actually like the way we are at the moment stats wise except the HR'S and RBI'S stats. I dont think the league leader in HR'S should be like 27 nor should the we only have a handful of guys with 100 RBI'S. I wouldnt mind it being bumped up a notch with the leader having 45 HR's and 145 RbI'S. But thats just me. Not sure if that would be Modern ERA or not. Im not looking for 60 HR'S though

09-22-2008, 09:12 PM	#10
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	Well, just like the stolen base thing from before, I am entirely, completely against a sudden big change since we've all been grooming our team for what the current universe is like here. I also don't really like the idea of tweaking RBIs any (if that is even possible to do), since I think runs scored and batted in should be a byproduct of other offensive performance. If enough people feel HR should be increased (which should also have the effect of increasing runs scored and RBIs, and ERAs and such), then we can run the numbers to try to gradually phase it in to make it more to people's likings... But I personally really like things how they are now. They aren't unrealistic as the record for homers in a season is currently 46, which I think is entirely within the realm of reason. Our universe doesn't have to mirror MLB exactly as long as it is similar enough to be described as baseball. Since I don't think homers are currently that far out of whack to modify the league factors, I would rather us not toy with that in this case myself, what would our story be? Suddenly a new weight lifting program was developed around the league? That is kind of cheesy Instead, I would rather if enough people want more home runs, they should make subtle cosmetic differences to their park to encourage the increased long balls. In MLB, there have been many parks that have done that over time (such as San Francisco for Barry Bonds).. If even 4-5 teams who wanted more homers did such, you'd see an increase in home runs around the league and it is a more realistic method that can continue a storyline. __________________ Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.

09-22-2008, 09:33 PM	#12
kaosfere College Prospect Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Chicagoland	Put me down for "ain't broken, don't fix". I have a bit of a laid back philosophy when it comes to stats in baseball sims, though. As long as things are not utterly broken, I don't care if the stats represent 2008, 1988, or 1908. It's a fantasy world. Why does it have to be perfectly like some external form? __________________ FOOL: Toronto Osprey (1973-1988) 1161 - 1149 -- 1981 FOOL Champions, 1975 CL Champions Toronto Osprey (2001) 89-73 -- 2001 CL Champions SBL: Charlotte Monarchs (1992-1994) 237 - 186

09-22-2008, 10:34 PM	#13
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	If anyone wants to know how I obviously voted, please review my recently reconfigured ballpark. Thanks. __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)