Should you manage from the card or the performance?

[honestiago1]

The big thing I look for (at least lately) is run production. If OPS is low, but the player is scoring and/or driving in runs, I don't worry much about him. The thing about Strat and run production is that the historical RBI guys will usually also be good RBI guys in the computer game (Joe Carter, Gary Carter, for example). Top of the order guys who can get me 80+ runs are fine, especially if they lpay D. Middle of the order dudes need 80+ of either (or both). Bottom, really doesn't matter. So, card or probability makes little difference if the team scores enough runs to win (my 3.256 cents)

[Proverbial Psalms]

And remember, player cards are based on the assumption that the carded player will be facing the "average major league" player.

Thus a batter card assumes the "average major league pitcher" is pitching and similarly, a pitcher's card assumes the pitcher is facing the "average major league" batter.

Of course, in these 12 team leagues, the "average simulated league" batter is BETTER than the "average major league" batter... and the "average simulated league" pitcher is BETTER than the "average major league" pitcher.

All of which means... on average a hitter will achieve simulated results that will be WORSE than his batter card... and on average a pitcher will achieve simulated results that will be WORSE than his pitcher card.

When anyone who KNOWS which card is in play expresses disappointment that the numbers do not equate to the card... they clearly do not understand that it's SUPPOSED to be worse results.

Thoughts? Anyone disagree?

[Outta Leftfield]

We know that ballparks influence hitting performance, so why not good pitching throughout the league? One could say that in any given at bat, the batter's performance is influenced by not only his own card but by the pitcher, the platoon effect, the opposing defense, the park, and random chance. Over the course of a season, this variety of elements can come into effect 600+ times, giving results that don't always fit expectations.

It could be that some players or cards might be more affected by this than others. I have a couple of thoughts on this. One is that the tendency toward home run parks in the 80's leagues tends to mean that HR are less suppressed than BA by the good pitching. It's not uncommon for teams to hit 300+ HR in this league, which doesn't happen often in real life, and even good pitchers in good years can give up 35+ HR in 300 IP.

Another thought, which I've expressed in the past (I'm not sure if it's true ) is that while HR's are favored in this game, batters with high HR and walks but low BA can often struggle. These are the guys, like Ken Phelps, Deer, Kittle, Balboni, Kingman and a few others who hit .240 in real baseball but were good offensively because of their HR and BB. In theory this should work in the 80's too. In practice, however, in my observation, they often seem to have trouble performing in the 80s game. I think this is because of the low hits on the pitchers cards. If you look at the cards of the Ken Phelps all-stars, they're mostly walks and HR. The singles are supposed to come off the pitcher's card. BUT if the pitcher has low hits too, then these guys can easily end up hitting .180. And it's hard to get enough walks and HR to cover a .180 BA and make the guy useful offensively. This may also explain why Darrell Porter often struggles (we were discussing this recently). His overall OPS and OBP look good, but except for his great year he's a fairly low BA guy, and he gets hurt disproportionately by the environment. Somebody said they've had good years out of him in Fenway. Could this be because Fenway gives a lot of singles to LHB, and that puts him into the range where his BA becomes viable when factored together with his walks, HR and defense? Anyway, in the 80's environment, I've come to look for guys with decent BA as well as the walks and HR.

[yak1407]

The other thing to consider is that the probability is that a hitter is going to get out on any AB.
A hitter with a .300 BA, gets out 70 per cent of the time.
So there is a 7 in 10 chance the batter will get out on any given plate appearance.
Put another way, 27 outs are recorded each game. On a team with a .340 OBP, it means they are getting say 11 hits, 3 walks and 27 outs, which is a pretty typical game, regardless your line-up and regardless the pitcher. Whether you manage acccording to probability or performance, the real probablity is that for each plate appearance, the batter has about a 2 in 3 chance of getting out.
So the challenge is to find that little bit extra, those random results, those lucky rolls.
For most players, you do play the probability, but in the case of the Oberkfell/Beuchle example, the change meant the team got the benefit of Buechle's overperformance when Oberkfell was underperforming and Oberkfell's performance when he started to perform as expected. Now you have no way of knowing when the transition took place, but that's an argument for riding the hot hand, riding the performance, and making the switch at the first sign of a player cooling off.
And even if a change doesn't seem to be working on an individual basis, it might make sense for the team. I started using Rick Leach as a DH against RHPs about 15 games ago and even though he hitting .226 against them, since he went in the line-up, my team has won something like 12 out of 15. I'm afraid to make any line-up changes.
I'm also wondering if you need a couple of soft outs in your line-up, to absobrb some of those 27 outs so your better players have a better chance of not being out. I know it sounds weird, but if Leach is getting out, is it reducing, ever so slightly, the probability that a Murray or Evans will make an out?