Strikeout to ERA Correlation

But it DOES differentiate. We're only talking about the X chances here (think of them as the "tough plays") which only account for 28 of the 108 chances on the pitchers card (30 really, but I count the 2 for the pitcher in with his pitching since his pitching and his defense rating are inseparable). This still leaves 80 chances in which k's CAN take away from GBA, GBC, etc

But it DOES differentiate. We're only talking about the X chances here (think of them as the "tough plays") which only account for 28 of the 108 chances on the pitchers card (30 really, but I count the 2 for the pitcher in with his pitching since his pitching and his defense rating are inseparable). This still leaves 80 chances in which k's CAN take away from GBA, GBC, etc

I am not arguing as I am very new. Valen post states defense means absolutely nothing as it applies to errors and missed opps out of a weak fielders range. Specifically the effect of D on high K pitcher vs low was being addressed. Nobody seems to be arguing whether DEF matters as it obviously does overall. So I guess my next question is.....

Does defense have any effect on the outcome of a NON X-play? If it does,and there are less of them on a card due to the presence of more Ks, then I follow your logic.

If it doesn't differentiate in total chance of errors from poor defense from a high K pitcher to a non-K pitcher,then it seems to be lacking some "reality".

You are right here. This is a weakness of the strat algorithm. One of the things you have to do is overlook some of these type weaknesses to enjoy the many parts of the game that can be so much fun.

Steve is correct to some extent as well. A lot of strikeouts on a pitchers card can result in fewer gb(C) which advances runners. But that is not impacted at all by whether that strikeout pitcher has a 1 fielder or a 4 fielder or an e1 verses an e50. So to clarify my contention the quality of your fielders has absolutely nothing to do with whether your pitcher card is filled with strikeouts or filled with some other form of out. The number of X chances where the ability of the fielder will matter is exactly the same for EVERY single pitcher card. There is not one single exception.

Vizquel at short for example does not help a pitcher with no strikeouts on his card any more than he does a pitcher full of strikeouts. That is what I mean by there being no correlation between defense and strikeouts on a card.

This is a weakness of strat. If you can accept it you can have a lot of fun. If you cannot get past the flaws in the algorithm then your enjoyment will decline the more you play.

Why don't they fix it? With the computer game they could. They could make every non-strikeout go to a reconfigured fielding chart. But that would be tedious for the board game and the computer game is designed to follow the board game where possible. An alteration of this type would also make the currently produced cards incompatible with the historical cards and they have well over 100 past seasons out in print. Owners of those printed cards would be ticked off if they made changes that invalidated their cards and forced them to replace them all. Strat has a long legacy and that can be a bit of a double edged sword.

Outs are outs. Let's say you have a staff that manages to get 35-40% of its outs from K's. Granted, that would be pretty remarkable, but with guys like Ryan, Gooden, Randy J., etc. throwing lots of complete games, I don't think it would be impossible. Compare a staff like that to one that gets, say, 10% or fewer of its out from K's. There would simply be fewer x-chance OUTS with the 35-40% strikeout staff, no question about it. How much crappier defense could you get away with? Well, that's really the question.

My reasoning is somewhat oversimplified I think. Even with an elite strikeout pitcher there will still be x-chances that could have bad outcomes, esp with poor defenders. Even though elite K guys might get a high % of K's in 9 innings, there may still be baserunners as a result of x-chance outcomes.

.....This is a weakness of strat. If you can accept it you can have a lot of fun. If you cannot get past the flaws in the algorithm then your enjoyment will decline the more you play.

I enjoy Strat very much and if it wasn't for guys like you I wouldn't have even known there was a "problem".

I'm not overly concerned that I ever understand every aspect of how HAL computes. It's not necessary to my enjoyment. I would however like to avoid drafting particular players for irrelevant reasons.

If it doesn't differentiate in total chance of errors from poor defense from a high K pitcher to a non-K pitcher,then it seems to be lacking some "reality".

You are right here. This is a weakness of the strat algorithm. One of the things you have to do is overlook some of these type weaknesses to enjoy the many parts of the game that can be so much fun.

Steve is correct to some extent as well. A lot of strikeouts on a pitchers card can result in fewer gb(C) which advances runners. But that is not impacted at all by whether that strikeout pitcher has a 1 fielder or a 4 fielder or an e1 verses an e50. So to clarify my contention the quality of your fielders has absolutely nothing to do with whether your pitcher card is filled with strikeouts or filled with some other form of out. The number of X chances where the ability of the fielder will matter is exactly the same for EVERY single pitcher card. There is not one single exception.

Vizquel at short for example does not help a pitcher with no strikeouts on his card any more than he does a pitcher full of strikeouts. That is what I mean by there being no correlation between defense and strikeouts on a card.

This is a weakness of strat. If you can accept it you can have a lot of fun. If you cannot get past the flaws in the algorithm then your enjoyment will decline the more you play.

Why don't they fix it? With the computer game they could. They could make every non-strikeout go to a reconfigured fielding chart. But that would be tedious for the board game and the computer game is designed to follow the board game where possible. An alteration of this type would also make the currently produced cards incompatible with the historical cards and they have well over 100 past seasons out in print. Owners of those printed cards would be ticked off if they made changes that invalidated their cards and forced them to replace them all. Strat has a long legacy and that can be a bit of a double edged sword.

Errors on throws to the plate (catcher defensive Rating)+ Outfielders arm ability
Robbing Home Runs (outfielder defensive rating)
Errors on throws from outfield to 3rd base - rating on defense of 3rd baseman
Attempted Bunts
Hit and Runs

runners on 1st and 2nd no outs do you want a GB where runners can advance to 2nd and third or a K. Or do you want a flyball and runner on 2nd can attempt third? After this play and you get an Xout with one out does not the fact that in one case it was a K and the other not become affected because of the defense and the K’s. The game is far more complex than is being intimated here.

Just out of curisoty if there is the same number of X outs on all pitchers cards, then way does the 11.30 Maddux card have 12 X outs on each side and the 10.99 Alexander have 10 X outs on each side.

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/player/3363/1995/1/281

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/player/30117/1915/1/281

Thanks
Dan

There is a difference between the number of listed X's on each card and the number of X chances.

dice-roll probabilities:
2 = 1 in 36 (2.7=8%)
3 = 2 in 36 (5.56%)
4 = 3 in 36 (8.33%)
5 = 4 in 36 (11.11%)
6 = 5 in 36 (13.89%)
7 = 6 in 36 (16.67%)
8 = 5 in 36 (13.89%)
9 = 4 in 36 (11.11%)
10 = 3 in 36 (8.33%)
11 = 2 in 36 (5.56%)
12 = 1 in 36 (2.78%)

Therefore which number the X appears next to corresponds to the number of chances out of 216 (36x3 (columns))x2 cards (pitcher+batter). Always the same number of X-chances per batter, therefore always the same number of plays affected by fielders range and e rating. However Charlie makes the point that there are other plays that involve the defense besides X-chances, such as runner advances, fielded bunts, Hit and Run plays etc. These all can cause errors so yeah a strikeout might result in a very small percentage of less runner advancement, hence less possible scores. But as Valen said, if you overlook the flaw of the K pitcher vs the GB pitcher (among others) the game will bring lots of enjoyment.

Mike

A good explanation mykeedee of how to accurately count what is on a card.
So every card has exactly the same number of X chances.
1=2
2=3
3=2
4=6
5=3
6=7
7=2
8=3
9=2
Total = 30

gkhd11a is correct the computer does have some additional error opportunities but these are such a small fraction of the total fielding opportunities that they are not going to make much difference.

I would however like to avoid drafting particular players for irrelevant reasons.

This is to me a very key comment. Yes, there may be some very small statistical difference based on OF throwing errors and and runner advancement on gb(C) and such. But I would contend those are not sufficient enough to avoid or choose to draft any given pitcher.

runners on 1st and 2nd no outs do you want a GB where runners can advance to 2nd and third or a K

For fun I will throw out another interesting item about the cards. For almost all the chevy cards count the number of gb(C) on the card. Do it for some strikeout pitchers and do it for some non strikeout pitchers. Even for many of the cadillac seasons you will see a similar pattern with a slight change. Instead of 6 gb(C) on all pitcher cards some cadillac seasons almost all pitchers have either 6 gb(C) or 6 gb(A) on each side of card. I did a quick query on my database.
1874 pitchers in the set. (Does not include recent additions)
1267 have either exactly 6 gb(C) or exactly 6 gb(A). (With 0 of the other)
Strikeout counts range from the 0 of to the 55 of Rob Dibble. So if you were drafting Dibble thinking all those strikeouts would lead to fewer baserunner on infield groundouts .......
Only 3 pitchers have more than 6 gb(C) on the left side.

45 pitchers have 10 or more gb(A) on the left side ranging from Stottlemyre and his 0 Ks to Smoltz and his 51.
111 have more than 6 with Randy Johnson topping strikeouts with 55.
So again little correlation to ability to get a double play and strikeouts.

What is my point? Do not count strikeouts and assume high strikeouts mean fewer baserunner advancements on ground balls. You want to avoid advancement on ground balls count the gb(C). Fewer strikeouts do not mean a ground ball pitcher who will induce double plays or limit baserunner advancement on gb(C). You want double plays count gb(A) on the card, not strikeouts. Ditto for avoiding runner advancing gb(C).