Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

[Rod_Carew29]

@ CubbyFan23

you're not 'hi-jacking' the thread at all. Let me ask you something: Are or have you been aware, that in baseball sim games, the prior years stats are what the game is built off of? With THIS version, we were told it's built off of a three-year analysis.

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]

@ Member_6590

My bad, yes you did....
I'll get at you

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

[CubbyFan23]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

Totally aware -- I agree that some of these ratings look off -- my only point is when you fix them, I wouldn't base the "new" ratings off of numbers if they're skewed that much (.370 to .240). Those are things that regress back to a mean, and no one is going to keep up those kinds of splits (whether its 3 or 1 year). I'm not sure what the correct way would be to determine these.

I would imagine, given the devs liking stats a bit more than other games, that they simply regressed any outlying splits if they were that extreme, and that's why Longoria isn't as good of a split as you'd think he would be. There's a few statistical analysis out there that show most LH batters are going to hit for the same difference, and likewise with most RH batters. I'm guessing they incorporated something along these lines, which would be the correct way to go about it (if that is indeed what they did).

While I'm sure three year numbers were taken into effect, I doubt it was as simple as Joe Schmoe hit .380 against LHP and .330 against RHP, here's his ratings. I would imagine that some sort of statistical regression was applied against these numbers. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[The Management]

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.

Baseball is stat driven game, thanks. How about not using BA then? LD% and contact rates is more indicative of a player's batting average going forward than their BA over a small sample size. My point is that he makes better contact vs LHP and the numbers back it up.

And my point about the power numbers is correct as well, Longoria slugged .530 in his rookie season. That number put him in the top 10% of hitters in terms of power. And if you want raw numbers to back it up, if he played the full season he'd have 38 HRs, and 40 doubles. Nothing wrong with his power rating. Do I know what they used to determine their numbers? No, but it looks like there is no way to say that they are out and out wrong.

[Rod_Carew29]

@ CubbyFan23

Ok...I see your point, although I don't agree with it totally...

In terms of keeping up splits...well, if one is mainly a one-year Franchise guy like me, then it's never a problem. For those who play multiple seasons, that's what the game progression feature is for. To me, ya overcompensate for any kind of in-game progression if your artificially inflate a players contact. If a guy hit .217 vs righties in 2008, then we should NOT see the corresponding attribute at 75. That just doesn't fly with me.

Cubby, I'm just tired of this stuff that has to be done year in, year out. I was HOPING and was pretty sure that all of this edting stuff would not have to be...but I was wrong

Totally aware -- I agree that some of these ratings look off -- my only point is when you fix them, I wouldn't base the "new" ratings off of numbers if they're skewed that much (.370 to .240). Those are things that regress back to a mean, and no one is going to keep up those kinds of splits (whether its 3 or 1 year). I'm not sure what the correct way would be to determine these.

I would imagine, given the devs liking stats a bit more than other games, that they simply regressed any outlying splits if they were that extreme, and that's why Longoria isn't as good of a split as you'd think he would be. There's a few statistical analysis out there that show most LH batters are going to hit for the same difference, and likewise with most RH batters. I'm guessing they incorporated something along these lines, which would be the correct way to go about it (if that is indeed what they did).

[Rod_Carew29]

@ TheManagement

your point(?) about contact was no even fit for debate. The power issure, admittedly I perused over....

But you know what? At 24, it's apparent you're part of that 'new wave' of fans...where SOME of your age grouping are not looking at that particular aspect of the game as people a lot older and more experienced do.

You can't help it, but that's the way it is

Baseball is stat driven game, thanks. How about not using BA then? LD% and contact rates is more indicative of a player's batting average going forward than their BA over a small sample size. My point is that he makes better contact vs LHP and the numbers back it up.

And my point about the power numbers is correct as well, Longoria slugged .530 in his rookie season. That number put him in the top 10% of hitters in terms of power. And if you want raw numbers to back it up, if he played the full season he'd have 38 HRs, and 40 doubles. Nothing wrong with his power rating. Do I know what they used to determine their numbers? No, but it looks like there is no way to say that they are out and out wrong.

[dkrause1971]

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.

Do you have any hints what you use for power (ie the range)

[Rod_Carew29]

@ dkrause1971

I wouldn't be able to give a hint since I've been using a few mathematical formulas for the last 5 years or so. And the way some have reacted, I sure as hell ain't gonna post them...lol

Of course, this is NOTHING against you at all...nothing

Do you have any hints what you use for power (ie the range) for homers, 2B whatever your willing to mention

[royals_fan_16]

Re: @ 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

lol, whatever dude. I don't need "helping out."

[The Management]

Re: @ TheManagement

your point(?) about contact was no even fit for debate. The power issure, admittedly I perused over....

But you know what? At 24, it's apparent you're part of that 'new wave' of fans...where SOME of your age grouping are not looking at that particular aspect of the game as people a lot older and more experienced do.

You can't help it, but that's the way it is

New wave of fans? Older and more experienced? I can't help it? That's the way it is? Cut the crap. I'm not about to get into a pissing contest. SCEA is correct, there is no egregious error here. Moving on.

[Navi's_Navy]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

but Adam Dunn sucks because he cloggs up the basepaths! *sarcasm*

[Rod_Carew29]

@ Navi's_Navy

LOL

that he does!

but Adam Dunn sucks because he cloggs up the basepaths! *sarcasm*

[mgoblue678]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

I am seriously lol at people saying Carew is wrong. Like I said earlier in the thread I do the exact same as Carew when it comes to editing even though I do factor career stats into it sometimes.

I got very realistic stats/standings in 08 compared to how the actual season played out editing this way last year.

Honestly no offense to SCEA because they gave us a great game of baseball but just like any sports game anybody who thinks the rating out the box are even remotely accurate clearly doesn't know anything about the sport.

That's all right people bashing Carew in this thread can use the default roster and not give a crap about realism. Meanwhile Carew and the rest of us editors here at OS can use rosters that are actually somewhat accurate.

But I am sure SCEA is right when they give a guy with a .320 career average against LHP a 50 contact rating against LHP .

[K_GUN]

Re: Batting Splits Not Equal to The Actual Splits?

understood but

look at PEDROIA 2 years ago....if you edited his numbers before the 07 season you would have been inclined to give him crap-tacular numbers based on his 2006 end -of-the -season call up (they were atrocious) and 1/2 way through your 2007 season/franchise (when he started raking in real life) your pedrioa would have still been hitting .198

matching a guys numbers to the previous season doesn't allow for any variance moving forward.

what SECA (and EA for madden) should do is put in a 'consistency' rating.....where a guy like Manny who has proven year after year that he can hit would be consistent...versus a guy like longoria may not be as consistent with his ratings until proven otherwise.

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]

@ K_GUN

interesting scenario regarding Pedroia for 2006. What I do and still do before I edit any callups is to weigh what season is more feasible...whatever has the most time, I go with...in that case I went with his numbers in AAA before he was called. If need be, I pro-rate any players numbers for a full 500AB's if they ain't there already.

For guys who missed like 90% of the minors and aint made it to the majors, I'll take the last 'real' year they have and go with that. Like the PHils' Rodrigo Lopez. He basically did squat in the Braves' minors in 2008, so putting him The Show '09 in AAA, I'm taking his pretty much full season with the Rockies in 2007. The system aint perfect, but I ain't complaining.

understood but

look at PEDROIA 2 years ago....if you edited his numbers before the 07 season you would have been inclined to give him crap-tacular numbers based on his 2006 end -of-the -season call up (they were atrocious) and 1/2 way through your 2007 season/franchise (when he started raking in real life) your pedrioa would have still been hitting .198

matching a guys numbers to the previous season doesn't allow for any variance moving forward.

what SECA (and EA for madden) should do is put in a 'consistency' rating.....where a guy like Manny who has proven year after year that he can hit would be consistent...versus a guy like longoria may not be as consistent with his ratings until proven otherwise.