Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

Bernie & Co, 1st thing, great job in 2009 and also in the back to the 90's game, plan to try it as soon as I win a credit or two. But I want to say I continue to be really pleased with the gradual improvements you've been making given your limited resources. Good stuff.

So moving towards the 2010 game, now that the 2010 real season is almost over, I wanted to start a thread with enhancement requests. Here are some that come to mind:

[b:a904085add]1) Clutch optional.[/b:a904085add] This is a really big deal in order to keep TSN's version of SOM up with the times. SOM has clutch hitting as a configurable setting and we really need this in TSN's version. SOM admits that their version of clutch hitting is really an "RBI adjuster" and has nothing to do with actual clutch hitting (meaning a player's ability to hit better in clutch scenarios, which in multiple studies has been proven to not exist). So then RBI are really dependent on the OB % of the guys in front of the player in real life, which has nothing to do with the teams we create in TSN. So let me sum it up:

[b:a904085add]Using clutch hitting is acting as an artificial RBI brake on TSN teams, and punishes owners who put together great hitting/OB lineups with a run producer (say, Adrian Gonzalez) who had a weak lineup in front of him in real life.[/b:a904085add]

I know that clutch is currently part of TSN salary value, and it can remain so for default/auto leagues, but most of us in advanced/keeper leagues don't care about whether it is part of the salary equation or not, so please give us an option for ditching clutch.

[b:a904085add]2) Individual pitching matchup capability.[/b:a904085add] It would really be great to set lineups on a game by game basis instead of 3 games at a time. Failing that, the next best option would be to provide lineup slots for reverse RH & LH pitching matchups in addition to standard R/L.

[b:a904085add]3) Closer optional.[/b:a904085add] Similar to clutch hitting, closer rules can go the way of the dodo as more & more MLB teams are plugging any hard-throwing/strike-throwing RPs into the closer role with general success, with previous closer experience not being needed. SOM is configurable for this, would be good for advanced leagues to get this option as well, again with the understanding that salaries would still include the value of a closer rating.

[b:a904085add]4) Pitcher/hitter split roll summary.[/b:a904085add] One of the most difficult decisions to make in TSN is whether to stick with an underperforming player when you think they should be doing better. A great tool to help in this decision would be to include a summary for each player: % of rolls on that player's card vs. % on the opposing pitcher or hitter's. If my $10M hitter is sporting an OPS of .650 after 40 games, this stat could tell me whether he is just a victim of really bad dice, or if that player is not the best fit for that division/park/etc. If I see he only has gotten 20% of rolls on his card through 200 PAs, I can make a more educated decision on whether to keep or cut him.

Again Bernie, thanks for all your efforts, would appreciate some feedback from you on these ideas/enhancement requests when you get a chance.

Thanks,

Qk

I really like your idea on the clutch hitting. I never really thought about it, but it does make sense to NOT include that in the TSN game, since it is an RBI regulator, as you mentioned. And all the other "regulators" for the game or already turned off to the best of my knowledge (ie, HR's, games, etc..).

I think the reverse LHP and RHP lineups would be great additions, and have been kicked around as an idea for a while now.

I don't agree with your closer optional idea. Teams today tend to lean on one closer, and only use more if that one fails and they need to find someone else. I don't believe anyone uses the closer-by-comittee, just plugging in a hard thrower to close out games on any given night. If any reliever were allowed to close (in SOM) without any consequences, the pricing would REALLY be out of whack.

Indifferent on the Pitcher/Hitter split....it might be a nice to have, but would be on the bottom of my wish list.

One item not noted, that I've grown tired of requesting over the past 5 years, is for a listing of SIM v RHP and SIM v LHP compared to Real v RHP and Real v LHP in the lineups section. Right now it just show overall Sim and overall real stats, w/o breaking down the differences versus righties and lefties. This has always seemed like an easy one to fix, since we know the Sim v righties and lefties is already tracked on the main roster page.

I don't know too much about #1 or #3 being that important, and #2 has been mentioned many times before and is already on the "wish list", but I think that #4, a running total of pitcher card vs. hitter card rolls will really help make informed decisions about making transactions.

I'm with Dave on 2 and 4, but to me, "2" is urgent and vital.

To make blanket settings for hitters and lineups for a 3 game set rather than game to game is one of the most unrealistic things about this game.

In addition, it would add to our involvement and enjoyment in the games each night.

Number four could be gleaned by poring over the box scores, but it would be better to have a stat available without that.

Hope Bernie is working on these items.

Collective Somers: "2" is urgent and vital.

I don't know too much about #1 and #3 as well. I guess they could be offered as options, but then again, I wonder if multiplying the options will not make it too difficult to recruit players fast enough to be enjoyable.

Also, I see a real mess about salaries issue. If clutch is off, then Sandoval becomes one of the, if not the, strongest value among positional players. So in leagues with the clutch option off doing current draft, you'll witness a run towards all those artificially inflated values. Payroll of closers, it seems to me, are also slightly increased, although to less a extant than for clutch/bad clutch hitters.

I do understand though the frustration with keeper leagues, though. But it seems to me that TSN might not be the best vehicle for keeper leagues, and this is only additional example why this is so.

[quote:2094fdd791="marcus wilby"]I wonder if multiplying the options will not make it too difficult to recruit players fast enough to be enjoyable.[/quote:2094fdd791]

This

My 2 cents is that clutch hitting is just as much a part of the game as ballpark singles/homeruns. It's just not proper strat without it.

[quote:f2d5776b1e]My 2 cents is that clutch hitting is just as much a part of the game as ballpark singles/homeruns. It's just not proper strat without it.[/quote:f2d5776b1e]

Voovits I would disagree, it may not be "proper TSN strat" but the vast majority of netplay SOM (non TSN) leagues that I know of never use clutch.

MW, I guess my point is, rather than TSN limit their SOM fan base by providing fewer options, I think by making it more friendly for advanced leagues by adding options [i:f2d5776b1e]to the advanced league settings[/i:f2d5776b1e] will help them broaden their base.

My sense is that the business model works like this:

1) Fans that comes to TSN are either a) new to SOM and notice it on TSN, or b) are driven to TSN by advertising through a current SOM hobby/addiction.

2) A significant number of new TSN members go through a process like this:

a) try out some of the various SOM games including past seasons
b) play the current season several times
c) join the Tour or other 1-time/yearly recurring redraft leagues
d) eventually move on to mostly keeper leagues

I have no idea what % move on to mostly keeper leagues, and I probably have a lot of bias, but I play almost exclusively keeper leagues now, and I would bet the vast majority of SOM players that come to TSN from SOM's promotion of the TSN product move to keeper leagues.

Anyway, long story short, I think Bernie's efforts to date already kind of prove the theorem, many of his updates are geared at giving leagues more options for how to form & how to play. The salary structure is only relevant for non-200M leagues, and while those are the majority, I usually see 200M leagues being formed about 1/3 of the time. That's significant.

I think everyone's missing the most important part of the "clutch" ratings, which qksilver pointed out - it's not actually a reflection of how that certain player hit in the clutch, it's just an rbi-regulator.

So if it makes Sandoval more valuable, then Sandoval should be more valuable.

I would agree more options waters the game down, so I say ignore the "clutch" reading altogether (ie, don't make it an option). Why do we have a regulator on RBI's, but not so many of the other categories?? I understand it from a SOM perspective, as it's bigger than TSN. But from a TSN perspective, I don't see the logic...it just lacks consistency with the other "unregulated" items.

And I don't consider it in the same realm as ballpark effects, which, IMHO, are an accurate way to adjust a players performance based on the ballpark he's hitting in....not an artificial regulator implemented to limit overall performance to a level more in line with real season results.

Keyzick,

I think the veterans fully understand the issue. Clutch don't reflect personal ability to perform in clutch situations.

But it does reflect something: it reflects the seasonal variation of that player to drive runs. For some reasons, perhaps not his fault, Sandoval didn't produce runs as he should have. He finished in top 5 or so for hits and total base in 2009 (NL only), but he is not even listed in the top 20 for rbis.

If you don't put the negative clutch [i:8b87d6ce24]or something else [/i:8b87d6ce24]there, then you don't reproduce this result and Sandoval would jump into the top 20 rbi producers regularly. This said, Strat could have chosen something else than clutch to perform this task of rbi-equalizer, but they did not.



Now, to repeat qksilver, we don't really care, in TSN, in reproducing San francisco's season. But Strat does. Hence, there is NO way Strat will allow the complete disparition of this variable.



The point about the salary is entirely different. Sandoval costs 7.11 in a league with the clutch on. Say that TSN got his price correctly. If you decide to play in a non-clutch league, then Sandoval would suddenly be worth 8.03M, but still costs only 7.11. So it will make the bargains and the busts quite easier to identify. Perhaps not a big issue, but worth mentioning.

[quote:51ce8cb4a1]If you don't put the negative clutch or something else there, then you don't reproduce this result [/quote:51ce8cb4a1]

We're getting off topic a bit MW, but I disagree with that. I think if SOM is correctly replicating the OB & baserunning of the teammates in its replay system, and the opponents, environment, etc., then SOM [b:51ce8cb4a1]should[/b:51ce8cb4a1] be able to replicate RBI results accurately [b:51ce8cb4a1]without[/b:51ce8cb4a1] adding an artificial RBI adjuster.

That they need to do this tells us more about the imperfections of SOM as a replay replicator than about the player. Sandoval's lack of RBI had nothing to do with his own performance that can't be tracked via stats (i.e. high GIDPs, slow running, etc). No individual player performance should require an artificial adjustment like SOM's version of clutch in order to replicate accurately, period.