Is anyone else noticing that....
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:55 pm
Is anyone else noticing that when you are analyzing mystery cards, it seems like (mathematically) the incidence of walks occurring in actual games seems to be excessive - even when you know what the actual card is?
This is what I'm seeing, from some actual batters/pitchers/leagues (although it is admittedly a small sample size).
I'm thinking that there are 2 possible explanations for this:
1. That the effect of smart managers figuring out which are the best cards, leads to a higher than usual occurrence of walks arising on the batter cards, compared to historical league averages (i.e. when I am analyzing pitchers' performances and comparing to possible cards, or known cards). And/or:
2. That some of the computer-simulated/generated strategies are being used, like "pitch around" in actual games. (By the way, I actually take the time to count and exclude the intentional walks, so I'm not talking about IBB's). The use of the "pitch around" strategy could result in a larger number of walks than what would be predicted by the cards, with a normal random bell curve.
Your thoughts?
Geoff
This is what I'm seeing, from some actual batters/pitchers/leagues (although it is admittedly a small sample size).
I'm thinking that there are 2 possible explanations for this:
1. That the effect of smart managers figuring out which are the best cards, leads to a higher than usual occurrence of walks arising on the batter cards, compared to historical league averages (i.e. when I am analyzing pitchers' performances and comparing to possible cards, or known cards). And/or:
2. That some of the computer-simulated/generated strategies are being used, like "pitch around" in actual games. (By the way, I actually take the time to count and exclude the intentional walks, so I'm not talking about IBB's). The use of the "pitch around" strategy could result in a larger number of walks than what would be predicted by the cards, with a normal random bell curve.
Your thoughts?
Geoff