GBA on pitchers cards

[rburgh]

And the flip side of this is that the hitters from the no pitcher gbA cards will hit into double plays more frequently that they most likely did.

This is a simulation based on imperfect information. Don't get bogged down in the imperfections, it will drive you nuts.

[Mean Dean]

If we really want to get technical, [url=http://www.rsbl.org/somrules.htm]the copy of the rules I see online[/url] says:

[quote:257fb49c15]If you are playing recent teams against earlier teams, you may wish to reverse any readings that appear with an underline (i.e. the gb()A readings revert back to gb()C and vice versa).[/quote:257fb49c15]
"May" implies that it is optional, not a "rule" per se.

That said, yes, you probably technically are not supposed to be playing the "old" cards (created before pitchers had gbA) and the "new" cards together. I think it's safe to assume, however, that most people would find it far more important to have hundreds more interesting cards to use than to be playing gbA and C in the exact way that the game makers intended.

[JAMESOSSWALD]

[quote:b5cf91580d="DeanTSC"]If we really want to get technical, [url=http://www.rsbl.org/somrules.htm]the copy of the rules I see online[/url] says:

[quote:b5cf91580d]If you are playing recent teams against earlier teams, you may wish to reverse any readings that appear with an underline (i.e. the gb()A readings revert back to gb()C and vice versa).[/quote:b5cf91580d]
"May" implies that it is optional, not a "rule" per se.

That said, yes, you probably technically are not supposed to be playing the "old" cards (created before pitchers had gbA) and the "new" cards together. I think it's safe to assume, however, that most people would find it far more important to have hundreds more interesting cards to use than to be playing gbA and C in the exact way that the game makers intended.[/quote:b5cf91580d]

I appreciate the list of rules. I did not know there was a online site for rules.

I think you are taking the semantics of the word MAY too literally. There is a reason why they made this suggestion. It's too balance the advanced and super advanced cards so they are on equal grounds.

If you don't make the switch then hitters from advanced rules are at a disadvantage when facing pitchers from super advanced rules as there will be too many GBA, and visa versa as with hitters from super advanced rules play against pitchers from advanced there will not be enough GBA.

Yes, you are correct in 1 aspect. Advanced cards were not meant to be played with the super advanced rules because super advanced had yet to be created, however super advanced cards were made so they were compatible to play in advanced. I agree its more interesting to use as many cards as possible, however when simple changes can be made for realism like switching all the GBA on pitchers cards to GBC and switching all the GBC on hitters cards to GBA then that switch should be made.

[macnole]

I still don't understand the aspect of considering it an "advantage" however. Could say the same about a great many things on the older era players--stolen bases, data on where they actually hit the ball to...I mean fba vs fbc vs gba+, gbc+. The data simply isnt there.

Addie Joss and friends seem to be doing fine. Don't forget the bias of the deadball era either--an advantage? Very little bp hrs...

[JAMESOSSWALD]

[quote:e56fd61393="macnole"]I still don't understand the aspect of considering it an "advantage" however. Could say the same about a great many things on the older era players--stolen bases, data on where they actually hit the ball to...I mean fba vs fbc vs gba+, gbc+. The data simply isnt there.

Addie Joss and friends seem to be doing fine. Don't forget the bias of the deadball era either--an advantage? Very little bp hrs...[/quote:e56fd61393]

You don't understand the advantage of having a GBA on your card instead of a GBC?

If you took 2 walks on Barry Bonds cards and changed them to strikeouts Barry Bonds would still be doing fine, however it would not be a true representation of what he should be doing.

I can live with it either way,I am not complaining as much as discussing this topic. It gives strategy in drafting having some pitchers with GBA and some with GBC instead of all the pitchers having GBA, however I prefer the players to be as statistically accurate as possible. For me its not the pricing, it's the example I gave if Mario Mendoza had a 80 home run card it would matter to me even if he was priced accordingly, what would bother me is that his card is not accurate for how he should produce in comparison to other players in the league..

[macnole]

I understand the advantage of a gba vs gbc--the same as an advantage of a HR vs a SI.
Again, you originally spoke of advantage and I didn't understand because if one card has 6 gbas and another doesn't, all other things equal, then yes it's a stronger card--I just didnt see the controversy or secret. Now if they were flipping clandestinely, or were not showing the cards as rolled, that would be different.

But if it's statictical accuracy, in ATG where we play with, well ATGs, in addition to all the other crazy items like duplicate stadiums, I dont see it. Is it realistic that Alomar doesn't perform to his card, or that Kiner will hit 75 HRs against ATG pitching? Or that we can artifically create situations where guys greatly out hit their card.

That's the part I wasnt following. Not arguing with you about whether a gba or a gbc is better--that's not debatable, so yes I "understand" the difference.

With all the other statistical inaccuracies, it seemed like a forest-but-for-the-trees argument.

[JAMESOSSWALD]

I don't believe in dismissing 1 inaccuracy by saying there is other inaccuracies so its ok, that goes along the lines of 2 wrongs don't make a right.

When you take players out of the parks and vs pitchers they played, and you place them in stadiums they never played and pitchers they never played against, you are going to get statistical anomalies. In these settings you may find situations where Kiner can hit 75 home runs.


The cards should be as accurate as possible. I want to see as true a representation as possible to see how Greg Maddux would perform against Babe Ruth or how Barry Bonds plays against Cy Young. Too me that is a important aspect of playing a stat simulated game.

[rburgh]

1. I seriously doubt that the outs on the cards have much relation to the real performance of the players. They are put there for devious reasons having to do with the minutiae of the game, or (even worse) randomly. Pitchers with monstrous GB/FO ratios often have few or no gb on their cards (Kevin Brown as a shining example of this) and vice versa.

Hitter data is tougher to track, but there is limited data available and I think you will find, as I did, that there is little correlation between GB/FO ratio for the batters and their cards.

Their entire intent in making the cards and programming HAL is to make the end of season primary stats numbers come out as close to reality as possible for players and teams.

[Palanion]

[quote:d2b7b92b71="rburgh"]1. I seriously doubt that the outs on the cards have much relation to the real performance of the players. They are put there for devious reasons having to do with the minutiae of the game, or (even worse) randomly. Pitchers with monstrous GB/FO ratios often have few or no gb on their cards (Kevin Brown as a shining example of this) and vice versa.

Hitter data is tougher to track, but there is limited data available and I think you will find, as I did, that there is little correlation between GB/FO ratio for the batters and their cards.

Their entire intent in making the cards and programming HAL is to make the end of season primary stats numbers come out as close to reality as possible for players and teams.[/quote:d2b7b92b71]

Pitchers' cards definitely have a relationship of outs to real performance, though I am sure the modern era cards are more exacting. You will find groundball pitchers, flyball pitchers, and strikeout artists, and the cards reflect this.

As for out distribution on hitters, I cannot vouch for every hitter's card, but I know that SOM has accounted for gidp when making their modern sadv cards. However, I have no clue at all how they ssplit them, since I know there are guys with more gbA vs. RHP than vs. LHP on their card but the rate was different IRL (e.g., 2000 Todd Helton).

[Palanion]

[quote:293b1b552b="trimhunter"]The cards should be as accurate as possible. I want to see as true a representation as possible to see how Greg Maddux would perform against Babe Ruth or how Barry Bonds plays against Cy Young. Too me that is a important aspect of playing a stat simulated game.[/quote:293b1b552b]

What exactly is a [b:293b1b552b]true [/b:293b1b552b]representation of a matchup like Maddux and Ruth? Since it never happened, and they played in distinctly different eras, we have no idea how this matchup would have been in real life. I suppose a "true" representation would be that if they Ruth had 700 PA against Maddux, then their numbers would be something akin to the mean. However, maybe Maddux would have symied Ruth IRL. Or maybe Ruth would have feasted on Maddux.

Since the cards are created with only the specific season in mind (e.g., 1927 for Ruth or 1994 for Maddux), and the cards are true representations of the players within the seasonal context (at least best sim representation ever made), then I can only assume that the results of mixing seasons will create "untrue" results.