Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

Who do you start in LF and who do you DH:

The 3(0)e7 or the 3(-1)e13?

The difference in error ratings is just one every 27 games, so my inclination is to start the 3(-1)e13 in the field. I thought I would check, though, if someone had done some sort of analysis on this.

Well, I look at it a bit different. The e13 is going to give up about 5-10 more "doubles" per year--all OF errors are worth 2 bases.

The arm difference only effects runners who are already on base, and even then it is only when the split is off by 1. So, take every split that matters for a left fielder's arm (very small number) and divide it by 20 (even much smaller number) and I think you'll find it's much less important than those additional errors.

Good information! Thanks!

Thank you, apolivka, for your stat and probability analysis. It never ceases to amaze me what I learn from you veterans here. Thank you.

The only thing I would add is the psychological intangible, which, apolivka, you may be able to quantify for us from the following:

Let's stick with the same two players and call them Player A (3(0)e7) and Player B (3(-1)e13)

[i:c74a4d46d6]a. Would not the presence of Player B in the lineup cause X % of managers to change their setting from "Aggressive" to "Normal" on the baserunning setting? [/i:c74a4d46d6]

[i:c74a4d46d6]b. And assuming this is true, what does this mean as to the value of the negative arm as a deterrent alone? [/i:c74a4d46d6]

Thanks in advance for your analysis of that.

[quote:1cf169b6c8]a. Would not the presence of Player B in the lineup cause X % of managers to change their setting from "Aggressive" to "Normal" on the baserunning setting?

b. And assuming this is true, what does this mean as to the value of the negative arm as a deterrent alone?[/quote:1cf169b6c8]

It could be that - if putting a negative arm in there causes other teams to turn off their aggressive baserunning - that you are better off with the "0." I think I'd rather have other teams be too aggressive and try to make it home against an "0" arm in left-field.

Al Hogg wrote:

[quote:ff18388e60]It could be that - if putting a negative arm in there causes other teams to turn off their aggressive baserunning - that you are better off with the "0." I think I'd rather have other teams be too aggressive and try to make it home against an "0" arm in left-field.[/quote:ff18388e60]

Interesting. To me, I think the opposite: I [b:ff18388e60]don't[/b:ff18388e60] want teams running aggressively.

But am I wrong?

SHOULD I want to temp them to run on my outfielders? Is my "0" arm outfielder a match for a 1-15 runner? 1-16? 1-17?

Thoughts?

I think it's highly unlikely any manager would change their baserunning strategy setting based on a one point arm difference in LF. In this very forum there is a thread about the how OF arms effect runs given up. As I recall, a 1 point arm difference couldn't be measured since the samples were so small that luck was a much more important factor than the arm!

I look at baserunning strategy as a function of how "desperate" I am to score runs. If I have a high octane home run hitting team I go conservative or very conservative no matter what kind of arms are out there. I don't want to make any outs on the base paths because I want someone in my lineup to hit a three run homer.

If I play in a pitchers park and spend a lot on pitching and defense, every possible run is precious, so I'll crank it up to normal or even aggressive because scoring from 2nd on a single is worth much more to that type of team.

But basically, I'll tune that parameter based on my offense--the arms out there really don't play much into it. It's a risk/reward thing based on how many outs I find acceptable on the bases with the team I am working with.

Remember that HAL takes the arm into account when deciding to take that extra base or not, so in theory your success rate is independent of the arms out there. (i.e. if a team does tune that parameter based on the outfield arms, it is probably going to hurt them assuming they have it set optimally for their team in the first place)

No way I alter my strategy based on a 1 point difference in LFf arm. Actually I look at my own team and decide based on my team makeup if I want to be aggressive or not. And it does not totally depend on running ability of my players. Of more importance to me is whether I expect to generate runs because middle of lineup is high average types or do I expect to generate runs by having power in middle of lineup.

This was taken from the work of DeanTSC from another post. It was based on 50 season tests per new situation with the CD-ROM game.

LF arm -5: -6 runs
LF arm -2 (original): 0
LF arm +1: 6 runs

CF arm -3 (original): 0
CF arm 0: +2 runs
CF arm +3: +17 runs

RF arm -3: -2 runs
RF arm 0 (original): 0
RF arm +3: +5 runs

In leftfield, the difference from a 0 arm to a -1 arm seems to be approximately 2 runs. The new runs produced by 6 "doubles", according to NERP (new estimated runs produced), is 3 runs. So, by a whopping one run saved for the season, your 3(0)e7 should own the starting LF spot.

so what is the impact of that one LF 3(-1) on the 'psyche' of the opposing manager when there's also a CF (-3) and RF (-3), for example? Does the cumulative effect mean more in this case?

The unrealistic aspect is that you can't choose to run more on the LF than the RF, just on the outfield as a whole. HAL makes the individual calculation for the runner and individual OF and compares it to your 'vs total OF' setting. In effect, if you're afraid of the CF and RF, it helps the LF out by making runners less aggressive.

I don't remember DeanTSC's research (sweet, by the way) dealing with the other OF's, have to go back and check.