[quote:9b3e4226e0="Palanion"][quote:9b3e4226e0="trimhunter"]The cards should be as accurate as possible. I want to see as true a representation as possible to see how Greg Maddux would perform against Babe Ruth or how Barry Bonds plays against Cy Young. Too me that is a important aspect of playing a stat simulated game.[/quote:9b3e4226e0]
What exactly is a [b:9b3e4226e0]true [/b:9b3e4226e0]representation of a matchup like Maddux and Ruth? Since it never happened, and they played in distinctly different eras, we have no idea how this matchup would have been in real life. I suppose a "true" representation would be that if they Ruth had 700 PA against Maddux, then their numbers would be something akin to the mean. However, maybe Maddux would have symied Ruth IRL. Or maybe Ruth would have feasted on Maddux.
Since the cards are created with only the specific season in mind (e.g., 1927 for Ruth or 1994 for Maddux), and the cards are true representations of the players within the seasonal context (at least best sim representation ever made), then I can only assume that the results of mixing seasons will create "untrue" results.[/quote:9b3e4226e0]
shaq
GBA on pitchers cards
by JAMESOSSWALD » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:37 pm
[quote:008650b4b2="Palanion"][quote:008650b4b2="trimhunter"]The cards should be as accurate as possible. I want to see as true a representation as possible to see how Greg Maddux would perform against Babe Ruth or how Barry Bonds plays against Cy Young. Too me that is a important aspect of playing a stat simulated game.[/quote:008650b4b2]
What exactly is a [b:008650b4b2]true [/b:008650b4b2]representation of a matchup like Maddux and Ruth? Since it never happened, and they played in distinctly different eras, we have no idea how this matchup would have been in real life. I suppose a "true" representation would be that if they Ruth had 700 PA against Maddux, then their numbers would be something akin to the mean. However, maybe Maddux would have symied Ruth IRL. Or maybe Ruth would have feasted on Maddux.
Since the cards are created with only the specific season in mind (e.g., 1927 for Ruth or 1994 for Maddux), and the cards are true representations of the players within the seasonal context (at least best sim representation ever made), then I can only assume that the results of mixing seasons will create "untrue" results.[/quote:008650b4b2]
True representation would be too have the cards be as statistically accurate as possible in accordance with their time period.
Obviously mixing seasons will create untrue results, you can create untrue results in a regular season. If you recreate a season and a pitcher gives up a home run when in real life he never gave up a home run then you created a untrue result. We play simulation games mixing seasons as a whatif, that does not mean it really happened or it would happen as we recreated by us the player base, its for enjoyment only. However if the results are not reasonably realistic under the circumstances given then the enjoyment will be low.
The advanced cards were made with hitters having GBC and Pitchers having GBA on their cards. The Super advanced cards were made with GBA on the pitchers cards and GBC on the hitters cards. The game was not designed too play the advanced cards in super advanced. When pitchers that were made in advanced were then made in super advanced all GBA on the pitchers cards were switched to GBC. When the sporting news changed the cards from advanced to super advanced they did not make this switch, which is something they should of done.
What exactly is a [b:008650b4b2]true [/b:008650b4b2]representation of a matchup like Maddux and Ruth? Since it never happened, and they played in distinctly different eras, we have no idea how this matchup would have been in real life. I suppose a "true" representation would be that if they Ruth had 700 PA against Maddux, then their numbers would be something akin to the mean. However, maybe Maddux would have symied Ruth IRL. Or maybe Ruth would have feasted on Maddux.
Since the cards are created with only the specific season in mind (e.g., 1927 for Ruth or 1994 for Maddux), and the cards are true representations of the players within the seasonal context (at least best sim representation ever made), then I can only assume that the results of mixing seasons will create "untrue" results.[/quote:008650b4b2]
True representation would be too have the cards be as statistically accurate as possible in accordance with their time period.
Obviously mixing seasons will create untrue results, you can create untrue results in a regular season. If you recreate a season and a pitcher gives up a home run when in real life he never gave up a home run then you created a untrue result. We play simulation games mixing seasons as a whatif, that does not mean it really happened or it would happen as we recreated by us the player base, its for enjoyment only. However if the results are not reasonably realistic under the circumstances given then the enjoyment will be low.
The advanced cards were made with hitters having GBC and Pitchers having GBA on their cards. The Super advanced cards were made with GBA on the pitchers cards and GBC on the hitters cards. The game was not designed too play the advanced cards in super advanced. When pitchers that were made in advanced were then made in super advanced all GBA on the pitchers cards were switched to GBC. When the sporting news changed the cards from advanced to super advanced they did not make this switch, which is something they should of done.
- JAMESOSSWALD
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Palanion » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:30 pm
Well, Sporting News doesn't make the cards. They get all of the card info directly from SOM.
Plus, I'm not convinced that gbA isn't balanced among all. I believe that we use the Max Rule setting of allowing gbA on pitchers cards, which I believe means that (some? all?) gbC become gbA on all of the pitchers cards.
As a result, we should see a relative balance in GDP results in any given league.
For example, in one league I am in, four teams below represent the most DP turned, my team, and the two teams with the fewest DP turned.
Team A 181 DP, 163 GDP
Team B 159 DP, 152 GDP
Team C 135 DP, 128 GDP
Team D 138 DP, 127 GDP
I was wondering if these results reflected the number of gbA in the pitching staffs.
Each of the four teams had at least one pitcher with 4 to 7 gbA on the card.
One team had 323 ip, one had 305 ip, one had 530 ip, and the other had 63 ip from those pitchers.
Team A 163 GDP - 323 ip
Team B 152 GDP - 63 ip
Team C 128 GDP - 305 ip
Team D 127 GDP - 530 ip
In total, the league had 1735 GDP, an average of 144.5 per team. The range was 127 to 165.
Plus, I'm not convinced that gbA isn't balanced among all. I believe that we use the Max Rule setting of allowing gbA on pitchers cards, which I believe means that (some? all?) gbC become gbA on all of the pitchers cards.
As a result, we should see a relative balance in GDP results in any given league.
For example, in one league I am in, four teams below represent the most DP turned, my team, and the two teams with the fewest DP turned.
Team A 181 DP, 163 GDP
Team B 159 DP, 152 GDP
Team C 135 DP, 128 GDP
Team D 138 DP, 127 GDP
I was wondering if these results reflected the number of gbA in the pitching staffs.
Each of the four teams had at least one pitcher with 4 to 7 gbA on the card.
One team had 323 ip, one had 305 ip, one had 530 ip, and the other had 63 ip from those pitchers.
Team A 163 GDP - 323 ip
Team B 152 GDP - 63 ip
Team C 128 GDP - 305 ip
Team D 127 GDP - 530 ip
In total, the league had 1735 GDP, an average of 144.5 per team. The range was 127 to 165.
- Palanion
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Valen » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:26 pm
Looking at some boxscores. The gb(A) definitely results in a double play.
[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/league/boxscore.html?group_id=142309&g_id=479[/url]
This game has Torriente a LH hitter grounding in to a double play on a 4-6 roll with Garcia pitching. 4-6 on his card is in fact a gb(A). This was in the 8th inning.
Can anyone identify a boxscore where there was a roll result from a pitchers card where gb(C) was on the pitcher card to verify outcome and settle what is really happening?
[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/league/boxscore.html?group_id=142309&g_id=479[/url]
This game has Torriente a LH hitter grounding in to a double play on a 4-6 roll with Garcia pitching. 4-6 on his card is in fact a gb(A). This was in the 8th inning.
Can anyone identify a boxscore where there was a roll result from a pitchers card where gb(C) was on the pitcher card to verify outcome and settle what is really happening?
- Valen
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Valen » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:40 pm
Now check out this boxscore.
[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/league/boxscore.html?group_id=142309&g_id=473[/url]
Chuck Klein in 9th inning with TF Brown on mound. A 4-8 roll results in batter out and runner going from first to second. Looking at that location on Brown's card we see a gb(ss)C.
So this should settle. gb(whatever)C is not converted to a double play. What you see on the cards is what you get. Yes, that does give pitchers from that year a slight edge. And since there are more double plays off pitcher's cards hitters from that year most likely had the number of gb()As on their cards reduced to balance things out. That means that mixing them with other years as we do here where most pitchers do not have the gb-A on their cards will have them hitting in to slightly fewer double plays than in real life.
This is the reason in the past I have lobbied for more pitchers from super advanced seasons because I knew they would have the extra double plays on their cards. How much of an edge this gives such pitchers may be debated and I will leave to others to do the math.
[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/league/boxscore.html?group_id=142309&g_id=473[/url]
Chuck Klein in 9th inning with TF Brown on mound. A 4-8 roll results in batter out and runner going from first to second. Looking at that location on Brown's card we see a gb(ss)C.
So this should settle. gb(whatever)C is not converted to a double play. What you see on the cards is what you get. Yes, that does give pitchers from that year a slight edge. And since there are more double plays off pitcher's cards hitters from that year most likely had the number of gb()As on their cards reduced to balance things out. That means that mixing them with other years as we do here where most pitchers do not have the gb-A on their cards will have them hitting in to slightly fewer double plays than in real life.
This is the reason in the past I have lobbied for more pitchers from super advanced seasons because I knew they would have the extra double plays on their cards. How much of an edge this gives such pitchers may be debated and I will leave to others to do the math.
- Valen
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Valen » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:47 pm
In an ideal world strat would replicate the fo/go ratio for pitchers and the frequency of which infielders the ball is hit to. And this would include how frequently such rolls refer to fielding charts. Thus a ground ball pitcher could be improved by drafting great fielding infielders and teams who go with with lesser fielders could lean toward high fo/go ration pitchers. We could thus match pitcher to fielders for max advantage the same way we match home run hitters to home run parks and vice versa.
But strat is not ideal. It is what it is.
But strat is not ideal. It is what it is.
- Valen
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by PotKettleBlack » Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:46 pm
[quote:7beda27b60="Valen"]Now check out this boxscore.
[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/league/boxscore.html?group_id=142309&g_id=473[/url]
Chuck Klein in 9th inning with TF Brown on mound. A 4-8 roll results in batter out and runner going from first to second. Looking at that location on Brown's card we see a gb(ss)C.
So this should settle. gb(whatever)C is not converted to a double play. What you see on the cards is what you get. Yes, that does give pitchers from that year a slight edge. And since there are more double plays off pitcher's cards hitters from that year most likely had the number of gb()As on their cards reduced to balance things out. That means that mixing them with other years as we do here where most pitchers do not have the gb-A on their cards will have them hitting in to slightly fewer double plays than in real life.
This is the reason in the past I have lobbied for more pitchers from super advanced seasons because I knew they would have the extra double plays on their cards. How much of an edge this gives such pitchers may be debated and I will leave to others to do the math.[/quote:7beda27b60]
I believe that all of the NeL pitchers have GB(a) on their cards. Their use is not disproportionally large or disproportionally successful, so, it's entirely likely that the question is moot.
[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/league/boxscore.html?group_id=142309&g_id=473[/url]
Chuck Klein in 9th inning with TF Brown on mound. A 4-8 roll results in batter out and runner going from first to second. Looking at that location on Brown's card we see a gb(ss)C.
So this should settle. gb(whatever)C is not converted to a double play. What you see on the cards is what you get. Yes, that does give pitchers from that year a slight edge. And since there are more double plays off pitcher's cards hitters from that year most likely had the number of gb()As on their cards reduced to balance things out. That means that mixing them with other years as we do here where most pitchers do not have the gb-A on their cards will have them hitting in to slightly fewer double plays than in real life.
This is the reason in the past I have lobbied for more pitchers from super advanced seasons because I knew they would have the extra double plays on their cards. How much of an edge this gives such pitchers may be debated and I will leave to others to do the math.[/quote:7beda27b60]
I believe that all of the NeL pitchers have GB(a) on their cards. Their use is not disproportionally large or disproportionally successful, so, it's entirely likely that the question is moot.
- PotKettleBlack
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by JAMESOSSWALD » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:23 pm
[quote:e4ec0a0a45="Palanion"]Well, Sporting News doesn't make the cards. They get all of the card info directly from SOM.
Plus, I'm not convinced that gbA isn't balanced among all. I believe that we use the Max Rule setting of allowing gbA on pitchers cards, which I believe means that (some? all?) gbC become gbA on all of the pitchers cards.
As a result, we should see a relative balance in GDP results in any given league.
For example, in one league I am in, four teams below represent the most DP turned, my team, and the two teams with the fewest DP turned.
Team A 181 DP, 163 GDP
Team B 159 DP, 152 GDP
Team C 135 DP, 128 GDP
Team D 138 DP, 127 GDP
I was wondering if these results reflected the number of gbA in the pitching staffs.
Each of the four teams had at least one pitcher with 4 to 7 gbA on the card.
One team had 323 ip, one had 305 ip, one had 530 ip, and the other had 63 ip from those pitchers.
Team A 163 GDP - 323 ip
Team B 152 GDP - 63 ip
Team C 128 GDP - 305 ip
Team D 127 GDP - 530 ip
In total, the league had 1735 GDP, an average of 144.5 per team. The range was 127 to 165.[/quote:e4ec0a0a45]
Sporting News is using a good amount of cards that SOM did not make.
Some cards not made by SOM
All of the Negro players.
Best cards of the following players
Either not made or not made in super advanced.
Mordecai Three Fingers Brown
Willie Stargell.
Hack Wilson
Chuck Klein
George Brett.
Pete Alexander
Catfish Hunter
Roy Campanella
Dave Winfield.
The list goes on and on.
Plus, I'm not convinced that gbA isn't balanced among all. I believe that we use the Max Rule setting of allowing gbA on pitchers cards, which I believe means that (some? all?) gbC become gbA on all of the pitchers cards.
As a result, we should see a relative balance in GDP results in any given league.
For example, in one league I am in, four teams below represent the most DP turned, my team, and the two teams with the fewest DP turned.
Team A 181 DP, 163 GDP
Team B 159 DP, 152 GDP
Team C 135 DP, 128 GDP
Team D 138 DP, 127 GDP
I was wondering if these results reflected the number of gbA in the pitching staffs.
Each of the four teams had at least one pitcher with 4 to 7 gbA on the card.
One team had 323 ip, one had 305 ip, one had 530 ip, and the other had 63 ip from those pitchers.
Team A 163 GDP - 323 ip
Team B 152 GDP - 63 ip
Team C 128 GDP - 305 ip
Team D 127 GDP - 530 ip
In total, the league had 1735 GDP, an average of 144.5 per team. The range was 127 to 165.[/quote:e4ec0a0a45]
Sporting News is using a good amount of cards that SOM did not make.
Some cards not made by SOM
All of the Negro players.
Best cards of the following players
Either not made or not made in super advanced.
Mordecai Three Fingers Brown
Willie Stargell.
Hack Wilson
Chuck Klein
George Brett.
Pete Alexander
Catfish Hunter
Roy Campanella
Dave Winfield.
The list goes on and on.
Last edited by JAMESOSSWALD on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- JAMESOSSWALD
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by JAMESOSSWALD » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:37 pm
[quote:0eecc2a158="Palanion"]Sporting News receives all the card info directly from SOM. Whether SOM provides different cards and info from what they give in their own products is something else.[/quote:0eecc2a158]
I don't think SOM did any research for Negro cards.
I am not sure what you mean by all the card info. Sporting News is using many cards that were never made in super advanced form, and many that were only made in basic, which means SOM did not research those seasons for aspects that Sporting News is currently using. Its hard for me to believe that SOM sent info to SN info for anything they did not create.
I don't think SOM did any research for Negro cards.
I am not sure what you mean by all the card info. Sporting News is using many cards that were never made in super advanced form, and many that were only made in basic, which means SOM did not research those seasons for aspects that Sporting News is currently using. Its hard for me to believe that SOM sent info to SN info for anything they did not create.
- JAMESOSSWALD
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests