Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

[Rod_Carew29]

@ K_GUN

well..I don't do it, but a lot of guys here do...those that do, they all have their formulas for dumbing down the various attributes if a guys is in AA or in AAA

so....


then how do you handle the guys in the minors?

their numbers should be adjusted accordingly.....yes?

[theotherguy619]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

This thread reminds me of the thread that turned into a David Price pitch type thread. lol

If Longoria's AVG vs. L was .242 (somewhere around there), it should be in the below average area and not in the 70s. I don't like the idea of projections, because that's opinion and opinions don't belong in ratings. They need to be 100% fact. So if Longoria was below average vs. L in MLB (not AAA or AA or A), his rating should stay there until he proves otherwise.

I'm with Carew.

[baa7]

Re: @ Rob_NYY

i also noticed jason bartlett had a 99 for i believe it was l contact, i know he had a good avg. against them but...

There are a ton of scrubs who have an L or R rating in the 80's and 90's. It really is ridiculous. It's pretty clear how they decided who gets what rating. They based it on the team's overall. If a team like the Rays are rated high, their players get incorrect, jacked ratings, including the scrubs.

The thing I don't like is it makes puts half the league on the same playing/ability level as the All-timers, making all those guys ordinary. I just got through my first stage of editing/creating players. My next project before I begin a season is to go through every player and basically lower their ratings by as much as 50%... to where they should be, in other words.

[MBMavs20]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

God, I love a good argument about stats. Every year, as soon as I would get Madden, I woould start to edit ratings because they were so inflated.

As for Carew, he is dead on balls accurate. Baseball is a stat driven sport, and you really can't throw potential around too much. In my opinion, you can only base a guy's ratings off what he did the year before. The ratings are not a lifetime achievement award, and you can't base it on what he did the previous couple of years. Ivan Rodriguez is a perfect example. His numbers have declined the past 3 years in avg. and homeruns. Why would I make his ratings then based off those 3 years? They will be higher than they should be, and it's not like he is getting better, he is getting older and his numbers will not be increasing anytime soon. (unless he goes back on the juice. :-)

Keep in mind to that just because Longoria hit .242 against lefties last year, that doesn't mean he is going to do it again this year in the game. Baseball is about matchups. There are so many factors that determine what a player will hit during the season.

Will Longoria face a lot of great pitchers? Will he hit with a lot of players on base, changing the way a pitcher will pitch to him. Where he hits in the lineup? Day and night games, interleague play. If he faces CC Sabathia 20 times in a season, and then Dontrell Willis 20 times, I am positive he will have a better average and slugging percentage against Willis, regardless of his contact rating vs. lefties.

Has anyone simmed a season yet to see how he does against lefties? I am sure it will be higher than .242 for the season. He might do great against lefties, and then all this arguing may be for not.

Keep up the great work Carew!

[baa7]

Re: @ Blzer

yes, we were told on OS a few weeks ago that a three-year plan (for lack of a better word), is incorporated into player attributes

Except many of the players' ratings don't match up with those stats either. SCEA jacked ratings for two reasons: to ensure the good teams have great players, and to make sure the sim stats pan out. The idea that these ratings are an accurate reflection of many players' 3-year splits is pure nonsense.

[Rod_Carew29]

@ theotherguy619

LMAO

yeah, it was looking like it was going the way of the David Price thread...or the Yu Darvish one..where this fly-by-night creep from another site TRIED to tell me I ddn't know what I was doing....please

LOL

Anyways to your point...
to me, if one wants projections, isn't that why that factor is built in the game, as one plays year after year in their Franchises?

And let me shoot down the power-thirsty people right now. If we go one this three-year issue as we were told by SCEA, then can someone explain WHY Luis Castillo STILL HAS POWER ATTRIBUTES?

The last three years: 1 homer, 1 homer and 3 homers--all in full seasons. THAT is way I ZERO his out (along with the usual suspects...lol)

This thread reminds me of the thread that turned into a David Price pitch type thread. lol

If Longoria's AVG vs. L was .242 (somewhere around there), it should be in the below average area and not in the 70s. I don't like the idea of projections, because that's opinion and opinions don't belong in ratings. They need to be 100% fact. So if Longoria was below average vs. L in MLB (not AAA or AA or A), his rating should stay there until he proves otherwise.

I'm with Carew.

[Rod_Carew29]

@ baa7

great points....I honestly didn't look at it the same way you do...specifically how these inflated attributes bring other teams up in the rankings....

There are a ton of scrubs who have an L or R rating in the 80's and 90's. It really is ridiculous. It's pretty clear how they decided who gets what rating. They based it on the team's overall. If a team like the Rays are rated high, their players get incorrect, jacked ratings, including the scrubs.

The thing I don't like is it makes puts half the league on the same playing/ability level as the All-timers, making all those guys ordinary. I just got through my first stage of editing/creating players. My next project before I begin a season is to go through every player and basically lower their ratings by as much as 50%... to where they should be, in other words.

[Rod_Carew29]

@ baa7

baa...what I don't get is after all of the damn editing I did for The Show '08 (I still saved the Franchise, I'm in the 2nd week of August), when I looked around the league at the other 28 teams, the stats form 99% of them were WHERE THEY SHOULD BE, or pretty close. There's nothing alarming (like Norris Hopper from The Show '07).

So why are they messing around?

Except many of the players' ratings don't match up with those stats either. SCEA jacked ratings for two reasons: to ensure the good teams have great players, and to make sure the sim stats pan out. The idea that these ratings are an accurate reflection of many players' 3-year splits is pure nonsense.

[The Management]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

I'm in the midst of editing ALL of the Rays players. Longoria is the first that I'm doing for position players. I already see (IMO) that his power numbers are too high (vsR +79; vsL +88)...that's Hoawrd, Pujols, Manny territory.

So...I just happened to look at the contact splits, and I see:

vsR +70; vsL +86....


I don't agree with this.

Longoria batted .242 vs lefties (+60)* and .284 (+71)* vs. righties.


* my formula

I've 'done' (or thought I did) three teams already, now it looks as though I'll HAVE TO check each players' contact splits for those teams.....damn

Longoria hit 27 HRs in 450 AB, over 600 ABs that is 38 HRs... yeah, "Manny Pujols" territory, as you put it.

Using batting average to determine contact is pretty silly as well. He struck out once ever 3.4 ABs vs lefties, and once every 3.8 ABs vs righties. Again, you're wrong, sorry. He makes better contact vs. lefties and will almost certainly hit for a higher average against lefties over his career. In fact it's pretty rare for it to be the other way around and with such a small sample size it could easily fluctuate in a given year.

Avg is probably tied to plate vision, and power as well, since the type of contact is what determines BABIP in baseball (FB/GB/LD% and some luck). If it was just based on contact, Placido Polanco would hit 400 every year. (Power is probably tied to SLG and not just HRs, just showing that judging off his one season, his power is up there)

[sask3m]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

Longoria hit 27 HRs in 450 AB, over 600 ABs that is 38 HRs... yeah, "Manny Pujols" territory, as you put it.

Using batting average to determine contact is pretty silly as well. He struck out once ever 3.4 ABs vs lefties, and once every 3.8 ABs vs righties. Again, you're wrong, sorry. He makes better contact vs. lefties.

i think contact has to do with avg., as for k's isn't that more the vision attribute?

[royals_fan_16]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

Carew, not trying to start anything, but the "creep" in the Darvish thread does know what he is talking about. I know him from a couple of other forums. You act just as hostile as he did. Yelling at anyone that disagrees with you or throwing them away as if they have no clue what they are talking about isn't the best way to deal with criticism.

[CubbyFan23]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

Don't mean to hijack your thread, but I think it would be a mistake basing all of these re-ratings off of just 2008. If someone hits .370 against LHP and .240 against RHP, that's not a trend that's going to continue down the line.

I think what you're doing is great -- but I wouldn't make wholesale roster adjustments based off something like that. I'd either look career, three year splits, etc. but there's no one out there that's going to have that pronounced of differences in splits.

[Rod_Carew29]

@ TheManagement

Dont be sorry, I'm not wrong at all. I mean do some of you guys even understand how they come up with contact ratings?

I'll help you out a little:

if you're batting .000, you get '0'

if you're batting .400, you get '+99'

those are the parameters...and that's how it has been for a few years now.

Baseball, unlike the other major sports, is a stat-driven game..if you don't like it, no one can help you.

Longoria hit 27 HRs in 450 AB, over 600 ABs that is 38 HRs... yeah, "Manny Pujols" territory, as you put it.

Using batting average to determine contact is pretty silly as well. He struck out once ever 3.4 ABs vs lefties, and once every 3.8 ABs vs righties. Again, you're wrong, sorry. He makes better contact vs. lefties.

[Rod_Carew29]

@ royals_fan

Let me tell you something, that CREEP...and I didn't mince my words was a straight-up ***** and he knows nothing, nada, zip...and there is nothing else to say on it. I'll show you hostile....if you or anyone comes at me, not even knowing me, with foolishness, you'll get burned, if we talk, discuss and eachange idea like MEN, what's the problem? I'll help you out, he was of the former, that's why he got what he got.

LOL

Carew, not trying to start anything, but the "creep" in the Darvish thread does know what he is talking about. I know him from a couple of other forums. You act just as hostile as he did. Yelling at anyone that disagrees with you or throwing them away as if they have no clue what they are talking about isn't the best way to deal with criticism.

[42]

Re: @ TheManagement

Dont be sorry, I'm not wrong at all. I mean do some of you guys even understand how they come up with contact ratings?

I'll help you out a little:

if you're batting .000, you get '0'

if you're batting .400, you get '+99'

those are the parameters...and that's how it has been for a few years now.

Baseball, unlike the other major sports, is a stat-driven game..if you don't like it, no one can help you.

Rod, I've sent you a couple PM's for some help and you never got back to me.... Check 'em out!