Thanks bbrool. good to see you chime in.
I'm guessing that the value of 0.38 runs per out is based on the 108 PA found on the offensive card, which would be in-line with the value of 0.185 runs per out based on 216 PA (average pitcher + offensive card combined).
But shouldn't the two values be the same numbers. After all, if the hitter saves you 20 outs on his card, it's still 20 outs after 216 PAs, not 40 outs.
Am I missing something?
Offense vs. Defense article
by MARCPELLETIER » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:54 pm
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by childsmwc » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:09 pm
I base everything off of a combined 700 PA's so pitchers results have been filtered in. I will have to go back and recreate the math to see where that number was derived.
Also I agree with your point on clutch in strat, I had a similar discussion with Riggo several years ago, about wether the results of clutch were sufficiently factored into the RC values we were using already since hitting with runners in scoring position would be one of the events for a single. What we finally decided was that an adjustment had to be layered on for clutch +/-, this adjustment doesn't make or break a card value but it can be a few runs since everytime you get a hit in a clutch situation you have probably increased the value of that particular single by a run over an "average" valued single.
Also I agree with your point on clutch in strat, I had a similar discussion with Riggo several years ago, about wether the results of clutch were sufficiently factored into the RC values we were using already since hitting with runners in scoring position would be one of the events for a single. What we finally decided was that an adjustment had to be layered on for clutch +/-, this adjustment doesn't make or break a card value but it can be a few runs since everytime you get a hit in a clutch situation you have probably increased the value of that particular single by a run over an "average" valued single.
- childsmwc
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by childsmwc » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:23 pm
Based on readings over at the baseball think factory, helped me refine my pricing model. The Tangotiger articles on different RC values depending on the period, has made me question if I should fundamentally have differences in pricing each 200X game and ATG. I haven't been able to find significant differences to justify it yet, so I use the same values for all strat products.
On another pricing front, one of the biggest implementations that was made in this seasons pricing was pricing to the optimal park. Pricing has always been built off of an average park environment, which makes sense. However, what this promotes is building teams on the extreme ends and finding the players that maximize this environment. Effectively the pricing structure rewarded extreme ballparks, and if you played in a nuetral park there weren't many bargains to be found since everyone in the set was priced accordingly to play in that park, since that was the baseline.
This year the set was priced three times, once in a hitters environment, pitchers environment, and a nuetral park. A players maximum price was used as the starting point for determining the final salary. I won't go further into the math that makes all of this work, but the results this season is that there is now a group of players that are bargains for the nuetral environment. I believe this season we have made playing in a nuetral park a viable winning strategy.
It also left bargains at both park extremes, but it should have reduced the bargain element in their price that would have been there using past pricing. I personally think this has been one of the best strat seasons to play in a long time.
On another pricing front, one of the biggest implementations that was made in this seasons pricing was pricing to the optimal park. Pricing has always been built off of an average park environment, which makes sense. However, what this promotes is building teams on the extreme ends and finding the players that maximize this environment. Effectively the pricing structure rewarded extreme ballparks, and if you played in a nuetral park there weren't many bargains to be found since everyone in the set was priced accordingly to play in that park, since that was the baseline.
This year the set was priced three times, once in a hitters environment, pitchers environment, and a nuetral park. A players maximum price was used as the starting point for determining the final salary. I won't go further into the math that makes all of this work, but the results this season is that there is now a group of players that are bargains for the nuetral environment. I believe this season we have made playing in a nuetral park a viable winning strategy.
It also left bargains at both park extremes, but it should have reduced the bargain element in their price that would have been there using past pricing. I personally think this has been one of the best strat seasons to play in a long time.
- childsmwc
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm
Wow. Pretty cool stuff. I didn't know you went this far for pricing this year.
[quote:9788797437]On another pricing front, one of the biggest implementations that was made in this seasons pricing was pricing to the optimal park.[/quote:9788797437]
actually, I wonder if you haven't been too heavy on the new change. I'm in the process of fine-tuning a new way to calculate ratings, but I have a first draft, and so far the three worst bargains in neutral parks (assuming that all bad defenders are restricted to dh) are Monroe, Thames, and Shoppach.
These three cards are very similar: right-handed hitters whose sole value come from hittng the long ball. If I put the stadium ratings to 15=homerun, there are still in the basement in terms of value per dollar, though not the worst anymore. I have to put the stadium ratings at 20=homeruns so that their values, according to my ratings, is reflected by their salaries.
Problem is, in normal leagues, you'll never play a full year with homerun ratings as high as 20. The highest rating for right-handed hitters this year is 17, and you will always play some games on the road with lower ratings, so on average, the highest rating for right-handed homeruns you can get in TSN leagues is around 13-14. With these ratings, those three cards appear as three bad investments.
[quote:9788797437]On another pricing front, one of the biggest implementations that was made in this seasons pricing was pricing to the optimal park.[/quote:9788797437]
actually, I wonder if you haven't been too heavy on the new change. I'm in the process of fine-tuning a new way to calculate ratings, but I have a first draft, and so far the three worst bargains in neutral parks (assuming that all bad defenders are restricted to dh) are Monroe, Thames, and Shoppach.
These three cards are very similar: right-handed hitters whose sole value come from hittng the long ball. If I put the stadium ratings to 15=homerun, there are still in the basement in terms of value per dollar, though not the worst anymore. I have to put the stadium ratings at 20=homeruns so that their values, according to my ratings, is reflected by their salaries.
Problem is, in normal leagues, you'll never play a full year with homerun ratings as high as 20. The highest rating for right-handed hitters this year is 17, and you will always play some games on the road with lower ratings, so on average, the highest rating for right-handed homeruns you can get in TSN leagues is around 13-14. With these ratings, those three cards appear as three bad investments.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:15 pm
[quote:e9dbeb34fd]I had a similar discussion with Riggo several years ago, about wether the results of clutch were sufficiently factored into the RC values we were using already since hitting with runners in scoring position would be one of the events for a single.[/quote:e9dbeb34fd]
Yeah, actually, I think I took part of some of this discussion. Back then, I underestimated the value of clutch single, as I was using a system that was based on OPS, which doesn't consider much the context. A clutch single has the same OPS as a regular single, I thought. But not all singles are made equal. Compare to an out, a clutch single adds at least ONE run, and it lets the inning continue in a very high scoring environment (as opposed to hitting a single with bases empty and two outs). So the overall value of a clutch single is actually closer to the value of a homerun than to the value of an "average" single.
Hitting the horseshoe is a rare event, but it pays a lot when it occurs.
Yeah, actually, I think I took part of some of this discussion. Back then, I underestimated the value of clutch single, as I was using a system that was based on OPS, which doesn't consider much the context. A clutch single has the same OPS as a regular single, I thought. But not all singles are made equal. Compare to an out, a clutch single adds at least ONE run, and it lets the inning continue in a very high scoring environment (as opposed to hitting a single with bases empty and two outs). So the overall value of a clutch single is actually closer to the value of a homerun than to the value of an "average" single.
Hitting the horseshoe is a rare event, but it pays a lot when it occurs.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by maligned » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:12 am
[quote:10823380ad]+/- *.38 is layered onto his NERP.[/quote:10823380ad]
Bbrool, did you ever go back and look at the math for this? Simply considering 4.5 runs/game and 27 outs/game tells us that each out less than average is worth about .17 runs. Marcus' further description earlier suggests a slightly higher value per out saved, but still the point is that .38 seems high. Thanks for jumping back into this discussion, by the way.
Bbrool, did you ever go back and look at the math for this? Simply considering 4.5 runs/game and 27 outs/game tells us that each out less than average is worth about .17 runs. Marcus' further description earlier suggests a slightly higher value per out saved, but still the point is that .38 seems high. Thanks for jumping back into this discussion, by the way.
- maligned
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by childsmwc » Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:33 am
Been on vacation, so no I haven't looked at anything. As far as pricing for the optimal parks, I think the three environments used were 1-8, 1-8 for neutral, then I used AT&T for 50% of the games averaged with a neutral park and I probably used Cell One for the hitters park and took the same average.
Some of the players you mention are definitely poor values in a neutral park, but they should still rate as solid values in a hitters park. That being said nothing is ever perfect in pricing and if I overpriced one of the parks I would actually argue I over priced the pitching environment. Pedroia and Rollins excel in this environment and are priced accordingly but I think most of the community think they are over priced.
I will have to revisit this, but I think it was a move in the right direction, because I do think I have created a third park niche, and I think the goal is to get more players being used.
Some of the players you mention are definitely poor values in a neutral park, but they should still rate as solid values in a hitters park. That being said nothing is ever perfect in pricing and if I overpriced one of the parks I would actually argue I over priced the pitching environment. Pedroia and Rollins excel in this environment and are priced accordingly but I think most of the community think they are over priced.
I will have to revisit this, but I think it was a move in the right direction, because I do think I have created a third park niche, and I think the goal is to get more players being used.
- childsmwc
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by maligned » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:26 pm
Is it possible to consider prices weighted toward particular environments as opposed to fixed for particular environments? For example, maybe a Rollins or Pedroia would have more success if they were priced at an average of their pitchers' park value and neutral park value.
There are always plenty of stadiums that you could argue are somewhat "neutral," while there are few that are true pitchers' parks. This means pitchers' park players potentially become overpriced players for almost all stadiums. Perhaps a synthesis of the values you mentioned would both challenge managers to find players that are valuable in their park and still allow most players to be viable options in the majority of environments.
Whatever the case, I think the pricing work you've done is excellent. Any comments I or anyone else would make are simply nitpicking or brainstorming in an effort to continue the discussion. Thanks for making the process so transparent.
There are always plenty of stadiums that you could argue are somewhat "neutral," while there are few that are true pitchers' parks. This means pitchers' park players potentially become overpriced players for almost all stadiums. Perhaps a synthesis of the values you mentioned would both challenge managers to find players that are valuable in their park and still allow most players to be viable options in the majority of environments.
Whatever the case, I think the pricing work you've done is excellent. Any comments I or anyone else would make are simply nitpicking or brainstorming in an effort to continue the discussion. Thanks for making the process so transparent.
- maligned
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:10 pm
I do believe adopting the pricing system to certain types of stadiums are feasible in the manner bbrool suggested and is a move in the right direction; my criticism is mostly a matter of dosage. It seems to me it would be wrong if one coach makes the effort to figure out a line-up that maximize power in a power house only to end up with an "average" line-up.
This said, each rating system will have its own particularities, who knows, perhaps I end up with Thames as being overpriced because I don't value homeruns high enough in my system.
As I said, I am still working on my rating system, it's no more than a draft for now, but I do see systematic differences between my pricing system and TSN pricing. According to my ratings, defensive catching is underrated in TSN, pitchers mixing up onbase with walks and slugging (e.g. Morrow) overpriced, top relievers are underpriced, first basemen, overall, are overpriced (such that, as a rule of thumb, a bad outfielder is almost always better dh than a bad first baseman), the effect of injuries on rating slightly overestimated, clutch is slightly overvalued, running slightly undervalued, right-handed hitters are slightly overpriced, and middle defense, after years of being underpriced, now appears slightly overpriced in TSN. Again, to stress out, perhaps I am the one making the miscalculations.
The differences, for the most part, are small. But a player's card has a combination of these features, the underestimation can be as far as 1.5M, according to my ratings. Bradley (as dh) and Emmanuel Burriss are often the two players that are on top of my lists as being best bargains.
This said, each rating system will have its own particularities, who knows, perhaps I end up with Thames as being overpriced because I don't value homeruns high enough in my system.
As I said, I am still working on my rating system, it's no more than a draft for now, but I do see systematic differences between my pricing system and TSN pricing. According to my ratings, defensive catching is underrated in TSN, pitchers mixing up onbase with walks and slugging (e.g. Morrow) overpriced, top relievers are underpriced, first basemen, overall, are overpriced (such that, as a rule of thumb, a bad outfielder is almost always better dh than a bad first baseman), the effect of injuries on rating slightly overestimated, clutch is slightly overvalued, running slightly undervalued, right-handed hitters are slightly overpriced, and middle defense, after years of being underpriced, now appears slightly overpriced in TSN. Again, to stress out, perhaps I am the one making the miscalculations.
The differences, for the most part, are small. But a player's card has a combination of these features, the underestimation can be as far as 1.5M, according to my ratings. Bradley (as dh) and Emmanuel Burriss are often the two players that are on top of my lists as being best bargains.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by childsmwc » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:47 am
Lucky,
On some of the items you have pointed out I would probably agree with your model. As you recall, the tester group provides a fair amount of feedback and I ultimately have to adjust certain attributes based on the "perception" of value. Injuries is always one of the biggest hot buttons and I had to significantly discount for injuries. Its one of the reasons you will find Furcal on just about everyone of my own rosters, along with 2 or 3 other high injury players.
Also I layered on a modifier specifically for HR's above my NERP value so I do think HR's are overpriced, but again these modifications are based on feedback from the overall tester group. I don't necessarily agree with every aspect that goes into the final pricing, but I can typically find the right lever to adjust to address the primary concerns of the tester group.
The one thing though that we got right this year at the Macro level was the overall hitter/pitcher pricing mix. League runs scored averages are in the 4 to 4.5 range this season, which allows for the dominant pitchers to put up some great performances, as opposed to the ATG environment where the best pitching cards of all time are lucky to post an ERA below 4.00.
And you guys are probably right on the OBP modifier, so OBP is probably slightly overvalued as well, but this may help explain why I had to increase the value of the HR.
On some of the items you have pointed out I would probably agree with your model. As you recall, the tester group provides a fair amount of feedback and I ultimately have to adjust certain attributes based on the "perception" of value. Injuries is always one of the biggest hot buttons and I had to significantly discount for injuries. Its one of the reasons you will find Furcal on just about everyone of my own rosters, along with 2 or 3 other high injury players.
Also I layered on a modifier specifically for HR's above my NERP value so I do think HR's are overpriced, but again these modifications are based on feedback from the overall tester group. I don't necessarily agree with every aspect that goes into the final pricing, but I can typically find the right lever to adjust to address the primary concerns of the tester group.
The one thing though that we got right this year at the Macro level was the overall hitter/pitcher pricing mix. League runs scored averages are in the 4 to 4.5 range this season, which allows for the dominant pitchers to put up some great performances, as opposed to the ATG environment where the best pitching cards of all time are lucky to post an ERA below 4.00.
And you guys are probably right on the OBP modifier, so OBP is probably slightly overvalued as well, but this may help explain why I had to increase the value of the HR.
- childsmwc
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests