60 Midway-Normalization Kicks In? YES!

[Quincy Wilson]

Here is a breakdown on hr's from Bonds in a season he hit 102.
First quarter 41 games 33 HR
Second quarter 40 games 23 HR
Third quarter 41 games 28 HR
fourth quarter 40 games 18 HR

In the first quarter he hit 19 HR in 20 games and 14 HR in the next 21 games.
His rate in the second half of the first quarter was the same as his rate in the
entire third quarter.

[macnole]

Bill does bring up a great point regarding the quality of the RNG. That's a key component, and unless you get into high-end algorithms, RNGs are not that random.

Dice are.

[nevdully's]

Sad To The Bone - 2 nevdully's (32015) 88 68

Like this team in 200m where there's not much wiggle room to re-work teams from the wire...and no significant trades made.

Started out 43-17 in the first 60....Should be pretty representative of having a good team....Since, and with 6 games left they've fallen to second place going below .500 45-51 in the last 96...Puzzling

[honestiago1]

Let's some of you are right, and normalization is found and removed. Is it really going to make the game more fun if Bonds and Ruth consistently break 100 HR's? Won't it just force a rush to the same old tired strategies, forcing the more casual non-number crunching of us to turn away from even bothering, as the grognards have completely taken over? Is there anything at all to be gained from ferreting out this so-called problem?

[bernieh]

Hey guys.

I'm not sure what I can say that's going to convince you that there's none of this stuff going on in the game engine, because no matter what I say, Nev will say, "Well maybe you're wrong". And there will always be hunches by people that something is awry based on their anecdotal evidence; that's just human nature, and statistics.

But I will put in the inquiry with Strat-O-Matic, and I will gather whatever empirical data I can, and I will do my best to post an update with some answers to these questions.

I have been and will remain reluctant to speak on these matters because doing so always snowballs into a mess... I spend a lot of time posting answers, and then I am inevitably asked more questions - fair ones - but then I am chastised for not answering all of them. I don't blame anyone for looking for answers to questions; I only ask that you understand that providing them is often a losing battle for me, especially on amorphous subjects such as these.

I am putting aside development work for the time being (for one thing, I may have to forego a full set of teasers for the next batch of new ATG cards) to spend time on this research, because as always I respect the concerns of all customers. I want to answer your questions. Just please be patient and understand that I'm doing my best.

Thanks.

[Palanion]

[quote:3e123e5268="nevdully's"]Funny, many think similar to me and post such, but some people seem drawn to mention only me.

But Dean is probably right after all he's never been wrong before.

Let's see the game does have (on or off)

HR normalization as Prof Dean mentions
Weather effects
here's a good one....out re-distribution
Fatigue
Irom man Catcher
Bullet-proof players regardless of an injury on their card....Oh that's one that both Dean and Bernie have wrong...these bullet-proof players Never ever get hurt....Not even for the remainder of the game....Never Ever.
Fielders crashing into the wall giving up two bases on the sac fly.
Trips to Dubs...sometimes outs...is this Tuesday are we in Belgium?
Bunts for Doubles.
HR saving catches.
Both positive and negative hitter clutch (which we can see)
Both positive and negative pitcher clutch (which is top secret)
Forced injuries.
A fav of mine the Pitch Around feature....
But the best one might be forcing an sp from a complete game (10-1 two outs in the 9th he might get pulled) Bernie was befuddled when he uncovered that one...and said "it wasn't working properly anyway"

Many, many more...too many to list..Oh you'll find a list somewhere but that's not complete either....

Everything...For better or worse they've thought and covered everything....Everything....but not something as common in this game as the grass on the field "momentum". I, and apparently regardless of who agrees with me, it's only I that gets singled out, must be way out playing in left field to believe that something like that is in here.[/quote:3e123e5268]


Nev, the Strat-O-Matic game is transparent when only and wholly using the cards and charts. However, Strat-O-Matic has never rested on their attempts to replicate SINGLE SEASON statistical similarity. Thus, they added the Advanced side, then they added Super Advanced features, all of which are still transparent when holding strictly to the cards and charts. But, Strat-O-Matic continues to tweak their model with the computer version of the game, which includes many/most of the features you list above as enhancements to the replication efforts of the SADV game. Some people turn some or all of these features on or off when using the game. The SN-SOM game is the Strat-O-Matic computer game with many of those "black box" features turned on.

Remember, Strat-O-Matic was never created to achieve statistical replication when mixing seasons, let alone eras.

Side note: I would love to test gbA settings. I wonder if Bernie could set up a test leagues in which
- all teams have ZERO gbA on the pitcher cards and little to no gbA on the hitter cards
- all teams have gbA on the pitcher cards and little to no gbA on the hitter cards
- all teams have gbA on the pitcher cards and 20+ gbA on every hitter card
This would be the only way of proving whether the "pitchers given gbA" rule is on or off.

[nevdully's]

[quote:ed4a1ed836]I am putting aside development work for the time being (for one thing, I may have to forego a full set of teasers for the next batch of new ATG cards) to spend time on this research, because as always I respect the concerns of all customers[/quote:ed4a1ed836]

I don't think anyone here wants you to put aside a full set of teasers etc...No one asked that of you (that I'm aware of).

[The Last Druid]

Seems like a cop out. And a very lame one at that. It sure looks like a passive-aggressive attempt by Bernie to cast Nev in a bad light and blame him for Bernie shirking his responsibility to do what he says he'll do, i.e. get the new cards and teasers out in a timely manner. :roll:

Since Bernie is so concerned about responding to our needs, perhaps he'll listen to the results of the poll I created.

[Mr Baseball World]

Please craft a response for Bernie that would have met with your approval Petrosian.

Please note that it says nothing about delaying the cards only that he "may have to forgo a full set of teasers".

[Mean Dean]

Let's think a bit about what would be involved in this conspiracy theory, and what anyone's motivations would be.

If a player hit .250 in real life, and SOM wants him to hit .250 in their simulation, there's a really simple way to do that: Set up all the cards so that the guy has a 25% probability to get a hit.

Trying to make corrections midstream -- especially if it's trying to correct as many player and team stats as Nev seems to think it is -- would get very hairy, very quickly. After all, if the .250 hitter is set up to hit .250 without you messing with him, then logically, if you do start messing with him, you're just going to have to make an equal correction in the opposite direction later. So right there, one would ask, what is the point.

Furthermore, what happens when I make a .250 hitter hit .300 and I'm also correcting team wins? When he hits .300, the team is going to win more. I guess now I've gotta start damping down on the other players? And of course, if this team is winning more, other teams are losing more. I guess their players have to get better now?

The issue gets out of control, exponentially. I actually wouldn't think it's even possible to juggle all those balls successfully. If it is, it would in all probability be a huge, complex piece of code. I can't imagine that it's already in there and Bernie is somehow missing it.

And why would SOM even [i:1c9e85583a]do[/i:1c9e85583a] this? What would be the point of making a .250 hitter more or less than a .250 hitter for certain stretches, while still making sure he ends up at .250 anyway?

If I'm not mistaken, Nev's answer is "because momentum exists in real life." But:

1. Becoming a worse hitter because you're doing well (or vice versa) is a truly unique definition of "momentum".

2. The "hot hand" (which, again, is the [i:1c9e85583a]opposite[/i:1c9e85583a] of what is usually claimed here) doesn't exist.

3. (acknowledging that a lot of people believe in the "hot hand", while simultaneously, yet again, pointing out that it is the opposite of what is usually claimed...)

If SOM does think momentum is something that -- even though it makes more things exponentially more difficult -- is so important that it [i:1c9e85583a]must[/i:1c9e85583a] be captured... then why the heck would they then refuse to tell the public about it?? It would be something that no other game has, that in their opinion makes the game more realistic.

It's both practically and psychologically implausible, IMO.

[quote:1c9e85583a]What I really hear you saying, Dean, is that there's only a slight chance normalization is real!

But there's still a chance! Let the debate continue![/quote:1c9e85583a]Yeah, I know what you mean. :oops: