Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

I am looking at diamond dope and I was wondering why his .420 average card projects a less average than the .409 average card? and even the actuals confirm that cobb's .409 card always has a better average than the .420 card. it makes no sense.

Yep, unless I am forced to use him in centerfield I will always defer to the 1912 version.....even in the 200 mil leagues.

If you place the .420 card in a position to drive in runs and have runners with a * in front of him he has the potential to pickup a few extra hits due to clutch hitting and gba+'s. The .409 card does not have any gba+'s and he has a negative clutch rating.

I have the same issue. The .409 card is much better for average and not even close. Never understood it.

Just guessing, but in 1911 the Tigers played in Bennett Park, which was a big hitters park. In 1912, they moved to Navin Field, which was a pitchers park. The Tigers as a team hit .292 in 1911 and .267 in 1912 (the league average was .273 and .265 in those years). I think the cards reflect the park influence.

[quote:98dc4a945c]Just guessing, but in 1911 the Tigers played in Bennett Park, which was a big hitters park. In 1912, they moved to Navin Field, which was a pitchers park. The Tigers as a team hit .292 in 1911 and .267 in 1912 (the league average was .273 and .265 in those years). I think the cards reflect the park influence.[/quote:98dc4a945c]

I think that's it.

WN

Cruiser--you're my hero!
Great catch

[quote:f7039bc140="*Cruiser"]Just guessing, but in 1911 the Tigers played in Bennett Park, which was a big hitters park. In 1912, they moved to Navin Field, which was a pitchers park. The Tigers as a team hit .292 in 1911 and .267 in 1912 (the league average was .273 and .265 in those years). I think the cards reflect the park influence.[/quote:f7039bc140]

Ok, maybe I am missing the point of the above statement. It is Cobb's 1912 (.409) card that consistently excels over the 1911 Cobb (.420). The above from Cruiser can explain Cobb's Real Life stats in terms of park influence but his Strat simulated stats say that he was a better hitter in 1912......the year they moved to the "pitchers park".

[quote:0f3ea0f8ad="OakAth72"][quote:0f3ea0f8ad="*Cruiser"]Just guessing, but in 1911 the Tigers played in Bennett Park, which was a big hitters park. In 1912, they moved to Navin Field, which was a pitchers park. The Tigers as a team hit .292 in 1911 and .267 in 1912 (the league average was .273 and .265 in those years). I think the cards reflect the park influence.[/quote:0f3ea0f8ad]

Ok, maybe I am missing the point of the above statement. It is Cobb's 1912 (.409) card that consistently excels over the 1911 Cobb (.420). The above from Cruiser can explain Cobb's Real Life stats in terms of park influence but his Strat simulated stats say that he was a better hitter in 1912......the year they moved to the "pitchers park".[/quote:0f3ea0f8ad]

Okay:

.406 in a pitcher's park where the team hit .267 (including the .406), against a league average of .265.

or

.420 in a hitter's paradise where the team hit .292 (including Cobb's .420), against a league average of .273.

Figure about 8 points of league inflation and 25 of park inflation... .420 drops to .390 or so if he was the same guy the next year. But instead, he's .406, above the expectation.

Cobb was better in 12 because the league and his park was tougher.

Yes, I think a way to say it--as Cruiser pointed out--is that the cards are like OPS+. IRL, the .409 Cobb has a 200 OPS+, the .420 Cobb has a 196 OPS+.

Presumably, 1917 might be his best card even though he hit .383. His OPS+ was 209.