More on SOM statistical innacuracy

[JONCHUCKERY]

Rob, good stuff as always.

I had asked a while back about why players don't have the same card in different games, but have different cards. You answered that question better than previous answers I'd gotten. I couldn't figure out why the 69 Reggie card here is different vs the 70's game 69 Reggie card. Dave Parker is another who has a 79 card for ATGIII, the 70's, and the 80's. It makes a little more sense now.

Thanks!

[JOHNEIGENAUER]

Thanks everyone for the replies. And I am sorry to come to be known as "the guy who gets upset". It just peeves me to write something with great accuracy and detail and watch someone sieze some detail that is completely irrelevant to the argument, twist it, etc. I'll be calm.

With that said, thanks for the grace to say "You're RIGHT".

The truth--that no one seems to want to admit--is that the 1969 cards are a hodgepodge of guesswork... period. While parts of the cards are certainly accurate (because SOM's basic formula is correct), significant parts (DPs, K's, lefty-righty, BP HR's) are so significantly wrong as to make the game nearly meaningless and at times uninteresting. It is impossible to believe that under ANY real life conditions, batters could produce the type of numbers that they do CONSISTENTLY in the 1969 game. To think that McCovey would have hit 70 HRs in Fulton in 1969 facing a pitching pool TWICE AS GOOD as in real life is absurd. When a statistical replay produces ABSURD results, it's not a statistical replay... it's a guess... rather like All-Star Baseball (for those old enough to remember the spinner!)

That said, the 1969 game is BETTER than the ATG game because at least there is a limited player pool.

It is my hope that TSN will use the ideas here to two purposes: to integrate the 1969 interface into the other SOM interface (including making the stats look like ATG stats) and to update the game. If SOM did nothing more than allow TSN to overhaul BP HR's, it would be a tremendous improvement.

[ugrant]

Sorry, Jeigenaur, but you're wrong.

Your entire analysis was so poorly presented that when I tried to see what you were doing I wasn't even close - instead you tried to reprimand me for not seeing your point.

Any study of the 69 cards here on TSN Strat - assuming that study is to determine why some players over perform on TSN Strat - has to include a good look at BP effects. My teams are always drafted in the hope the players I get will maximize BP effects to my team's advantage. Most of the managers who do really do well draft the same way. Occasionally it works very well and some players over perform their statistics - but [b:fb80f76b1f]not [/b:fb80f76b1f]their cards. Your analysis disregarded BP effects by your own admission.

McCovey playing in Fulton while in a division with three Forbes will not hit 70 HRs. The total HR chances just aren't there (unless 6-7 of the other stadiums in the league are Fultons or Metropolitans. I haven't seen 7-8 HR parks in a league happen yet).

McCovey (or maybe Jackson) will need two other HR parks in the same division to have those total HR chances available to maybe achieve 70.

As for TSN Strat being a statistical replay, it's not. Never has been. It's 12 guys putting together 12 separate teams using the cards at hand, each trying to beat the other 11 guys. "Statistical replay" isn't even a concern when 12 guys try to maximize everything they can to their own advantage.

I direct your attention to your own Bench Bay Reds. Statistical replay?