Gentlemn- We are playing by different rules!

Now that makes sense...

It's sorta like double secret probation...


It seems fairly simple to me. Research how many times a guy gets up in a clutch situation.
Research how many times he gets a hit. There's your +/- clutch and where his +/- should be.

Hal makes it seem like he's Stephen Hawking explaining a black hole.

I thought it was the opposite about clutch. . . That it was a way of evening things out within a team and to keep RBIs from concentrating on sluggers. Take Kiner and Mantle . . .Unless I'm wrong, both of these guys have considerable negative clutch. Also, Ruth, Bonds, Foxx, Gibson all have either negative or zero clutch.

Willard Hershberger, for example, has excellent positive clutch.

If a hitter has a lot of RBIs, then the hitter will most likely be a positive clutch since they can't replicate RBIs very well without it. If a hitter doesn't have a lot of RBIs, then he will either be neutral or a negative clutch.

One problem with this RBI adjustor is that the number of RBI a player has often depends on where in the lineup they hit and who hits in front of them getting on base. Thus many real life leadoff hitters get saddled with negative clutch cards because of low RBI totals when that was due to weak 8 and 9 hitters setting the table. A definite flaw in Strat model in my opinion.

I have always used the pure numbers to determine the makeup of my teams. Along with this I mix in a bit of art about how much of each piece, hitting, pitching and defense to have on your squad.

For about the last 20 teams I have started to think much more about how certain players will perform in a given park. Many guys have been doing this for years and this is their primary method of building a team, learn what works and do more of it. Not so much me.

So picking BBonds in an extreme hitters park may or may not give you the results you expect. I have had it where he hits 107 HRs in Penmar, but also significantly less. As the ATG game engine attempts to maintain "statistical accuracy" (whatever that is) then Valen's point is accurate, extreme performances in extreme parks are not likely to be reproduced. You end up overpaying for real-life stats/card info that are hard to recreate in the simulated game.

So far my attempts at this have been marginal, so still learning. My suspicion is there are A LOT of things that happen in the game engine that they will not tell us and may not even know are in there. So it goes.

sschu

For those that actually give a crap about trying to win -

How many know (I didnt!) That the rules listed on this site are not the ones we are playing by?

Those rules are 'overridden' by the CD-ROM/ONLINE! mechanism rendering many effects on the cards null and void.

http://somonline.wikia.com/wiki/Maximum_Rules

READ IT-
THE (Single **) that you think you are getting on the card dont even apply.

Here is another the game says- which explains why things dont make sense when we play:

Turning on this option improves the statistical accuracy of certain players who had extreme performances. For instance certain pitchers such as Greg Maddux allow very few walks. Using this option will enable Maddux to duplicate his real-life dominance in this area. A number of categories are affected by this option including home runs, walks and strikeouts. Also pitchers hitting will be affected by using this option, resulting in less walks and extra base hits by pitchers.

TO ME THIS IS FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOR!
You cant tell us one way are the rules and know its false.

What you linked to was a stratomatic explanation of all the maximim rules, at the bottom is a little chart that shows which ones our little group is playing by, statistically accuracy, which would effect the walks is not one of the options we are playing with. This certainly has been discussed in the past on the old website ad nauseaum, don't think they have changed at all in the last few years.

I now return you to your crazy uncle conversations, I particulary like the crazy uncles that change their name and are mad that someone isn't tracking the name changes for them

As the ATG game engine attempts to maintain "statistical accuracy" (whatever that is) then Valen's point is accurate, extreme performances in extreme parks are not likely to be reproduced.

You have misinterpreted. I do not believe the model should have much difficulty reproducing extreme hitting performances. No matter how many HRs a batter hits in real life they can always add more HRs to the card. There is plenty of room. The extreme performances that are hard to duplicate are the extremely good pitching performances. Because once a pitcher's control reaches a certain point where it warrants no more walks on a card that pitcher could pitch another 500 innings never walking a batter but the card could not be improved because there are no walks to remove. ditto for hits. Once the no hits threshold is reached for a card throwing additional hitless innings is pointless because there are no more hits to remove. If a pitcher gives up 5 HRs in 250 innings he probably warrants a card without any HRs. If he improves and gives up no HRs you cannot improve the card performance because once there are no HRs on card no more can be removed.

So for pitchers at least I do not have a problem with statistical accuracy helping out a Maddux or a Cliff Lee or whomever puts up a historically extreme performance. In fact I am a proponent of turning on pitcher clutch. I just want it transparent the feature is on so everyone can know. And I want some description of how that feature is implemented. I do not need the computer code details but think we should have at least 2 things. Knowledge the feature is on and a general understanding of what the ramifications are.

So how do you know the game engine is not modifying the roll result irrespective of where it lands, hitter or pitcher? If the engine determines Maddux will not walk any more, then it matters not where this dice roll occurs.

Now I do not think this is happening, but if they admit to modifying results to maintain this "statistical accuracy" objective, then how do we know where this ends and how it is done?

ATG is totally ill-suited to the statistical accuracy model since the accuracy is based upon a season of data for those who played that season.

All is fine by me, but I would just wish they would let the cards be the cards.

sschu

... I would just wish they would let the cards be the cards.

sschu

I like this.

What you linked to was a stratomatic explanation of all the maximim rules, at the bottom is a little chart that shows which ones our little group is playing by, statistically accuracy, which would effect the walks is not one of the options we are playing with. This certainly has been discussed in the past on the old website ad nauseaum, don't think they have changed at all in the last few years.

Charlie-
that is not correct- We 'SUSPECTED' and asked many times about these SORTS of rules but kept getting the answer that they didnt exist- AND MANY MANY people kept asking Nev, me, Pet others what proof we had- because it was all anecdotal...

SECONDLY- and Ive said this already- given the history I just mentioned above- would you believe that little charts accuracy thats not even taken from the online game?

We can argue back and forth over 'how much' effect these things have- but the point is that they aren't being disclosed to people on this site- and I think almost all agree that whatever rules and effects are going on should be known by all players.

How bout I take a random amount of money out of your paycheck every month? Itll just be a little bit here and there- you might not even notice it.