Normalization?

[DizandMiles]

Seen this term kicked around a bit - what does it mean?

[goffchile]

I don't have the home game, but I think there is a feature where players who are putting up unrealistic numbers (i. e. Ruth on pace for 100 home runs by mid-season) will have their numbers supressed by the computer (i. e. homers turn to fly outs). This is supposed to make the game more realistic statistically, however, most managers don't like it because why should they be punished in the second half of a season just because they got lucky in the first half? It would make you wonder about cutting the normalized Ruth at game 100 even though he has hit 80 homers which is just plain silly.

There was a lot of debate over this phenomenon a few years ago as a number of managers were convinced that TSN was normalizing results. I don't specifically remember the outcome, (I think it was on, but they turned it off, but can't recall exactly) but I know now that TSN officially states that there is no normaliztion.

[Treyomo]

In ATG, I ran a league with 12 teams all in Fenway67. 1 team in each division was loaded with 70M in hitters. The other 3 teams in each division were loaded with the worst pitchers and the worst defensive players I could find. For the first 75 games, the hitters on the 3 great teams were putting up astronomical numbers (i.e. Cobb hitting .430, Ruth with 51 dingers). Suddenly, the brakes were applied. No hitter managed to hit better than .390 or hit 70 HRs. At that point, it was proved that normalization was on, and TSN spoke with SOM and learned that the normalization button was on. They turned it off at that point, and I have seen no proof of normalization since.

[TomP]

In addition, Bernie again confirmed in the live chat last week that normalization is off.

[sschu]

I am of the opinion that there is some "normalizing" going on, not sure if it is seasonal or aggregate.

Nothing scientific, but when I use a player not often used, like Stargell, they have a banner year. Repeating the feat/season is hard to do.

FWIIW, sschu

[GREGDALY]

I'm not sure either way - I've just finished a season where I had Banks in Baker 15 with 55 HR's thru 100 games - and he ended up with 64.

Granted, that's not bad - but to go from hitting a HR every 1.8 games to hitting 1 every 6.88 seems odd to me.

And it's not like I was playing in Forbes in those last 62 games - my division stadiums were Yankee 27, Dodger 77, and Griffith 24 - 2 of 3 "away" parks were HR friendly.

Anyway, I don't care - I still love to play - though when I have B Doran hitting .370 thru 70 games, I do wonder if I should cut him.... :D

[mighty moose]

[quote:9e7a49dd6e="TomP"]In addition, Bernie again confirmed in the live chat last week that normalization is off.[/quote:9e7a49dd6e]

Yep, it was my question. Still not sure I buy it.

[egvrich]

[quote:40e7811826="daly6599"]though when I have B Doran hitting .370 thru 70 games, I do wonder if I should cut him.... :D[/quote:40e7811826]

Well, if Normalization is on in anyway, you should definitely cut him because during the 2nd half of the season he's gonna hit about .125 :lol:

[GREGDALY]

Yup, that happened to me with a team about 4 months ago - I couldn't believe the #'s he was posting and ended up cutting him for F White.

I also remembered having G Thomas hit something like 45 HR's in 90 games with a near .300 avg and I traded him, and he ended up with something like 53 HR's. I felt bad, but what can you do? I knew there was no way he was going to keep on that pace, but I guess it should work both ways right?

If you have T Speaker hitting .220 for 100 games, shouldn't you expect a huge 2nd half where his #'s would be "normalized" but in a positive fashion?

[egvrich]

It just occured to me that you should actually hope your players suck the first half of the season, so that way they can play to their cards the rest of the way ....... :shock: