How to check pitching numbers for fly balls/ground balls

I'm a new player. I don't understand all of the numbers yet...can someone give me a brief on what to look for as to whether a pitcher is prone to ground or fly balls. Many thanks!

I'd like to know if there's a way to do this too. I'm thinking using 'Best Results' numbers and BPHR/GBDP results are the best ways to check, though.

Not sure if the CR-Rom game still has this but there was a 'Best Results' calculation for pitchers. The higher the number the better. A low 'Best Results' value might mean that a pitcher might have more Fly ball out chances (ie. fly(cf)B) that result in tag up opportunities for runners. High Best Results pitchers might have more strikeout and lineout chances where runners cannot advance.

Here are some contrasting numbers for two 2013 pitchers in Chase Field - which I think is the most neutral ballpark:

Best Results:
Clayton Kershaw (10.7M) vs LHB: 62.04 - vs RHB: 42.36
Alfredo Aceves (.5M) vs LHB: 20.79 - vs RHB: 12.96

EDIT: Actually, I don't think 'Best Results' are ballpark dependent.

I wouldn't worry too much about flyball or groundball pitchers with S-O-M in general, but there are a lot of pitchers that induce more double plays--look for groundball "a" on the pitchers card. Some have as many as 12 or 13 chances, but they tend also to be high WHIP allowed pitchers also.

The best of both worlds is a 1995 Maddux card or a 2012 Medlin Card or similar.

I actually take a pretty good look at these stats throughout the year. The site I use is espn.go.com:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching/_ ... expanded-2

Also, the "Sim Misc" tab for your team highlights the season's GB/FB stats. Of course the context (infielder ranges) changes from league to league, but you can definitely learn a lot by knowing some of these trends.

GB/FB stats for hitters is a good proxy for SLG. I've built several very nice teams looking for hitters who achieve FB>GB in previous leagues.

I'm a new player. I don't understand all of the numbers yet...can someone give me a brief on what to look for as to whether a pitcher is prone to ground or fly balls. Many thanks!

SOM sells a rating guide when the new cards come out. One of the listings is gb(a) chances by pitcher.

groundball flyball ratios can be useful in fantasy baseball but are almost useless in strat.

A real life GM can look at a high bg/fb ration guy and if he has a good infield or a park that is prone to fly balls getting caught in the wind and going out and predict that guy will do well for his team. Or he can look at a the opposite and predict that guy should be avoided. Or a GM in a huge park that suppresses fly balls turning in to HRs may look at a pitcher and realize poor numbers in say Colorado or Texas may not transfer to his home park and give the pitcher a shot.

Similar logic may apply for hitters.

But in Strat the outcomes are more fixed. Ignore the ratios and as milleram said focus on the gb(A) you see on the card and the number of #s you see. As to the rest for the most part does not apply. Regarding fielders the only rolls the matter are the X rolls which result in a reference to the fielding charts. But EVERY strat pitcher has exactly the same number of X rolls to short, second, CF, etc as every other pitcher. So on the results that count every pitcher has the same ratios.

In real life sometimes stats like gb/fb from previous seasons can be an indicator of future results, especially when changing teams. But in strat the cards do not change from one league to the next. The 2013 Elvis card is going to be the same card with the same probabilities no matter how many 2013 teams you form.

But in Strat the outcomes are more fixed.

I know we're revisiting an old discussion, and while I generally agree with this, it all depends on what the intended meaning of "more" is. It's a very small distinction, but it's a distinction nonetheless.

I did not do a groundball/flyball team for 2013, but I do have an example from 2012. Here's the team:

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1122832
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/misc/1122832

Before we get into it, here are some background notes. This used to work much better in older sets. Unfortunately, the "Sim Misc" tabs are blank from 2001-2010. However, I used to try and maximize the ratio by having the best GB pitchers and the best FB hitters and putting them in a park like the Cell, with a high HR rate and a very low single rate. The average ratio overall is generally 1.50 (60% ground balls, 40% fly balls, or 60/40= 1.50).

On my part this may have been part delusion, part confirmation bias, but in the end Valen I believe is correct here, in saying that with pitchers, almost all things are equal (with regard to the GB/FB). However, with pitching, you get what you pay for. So better pitching (in terms of dollars spent) generally yield better overall results, because while the X chances are all the same across the board, the results are not. It should also be noted that I asked Strat if singles are rated GB or FB, and the answer was that it was randomized. So my statement above, regarding having infielders with better ranges is probably wrong: a GB is a GB whether it's a ground out or a single randomized into the GB category.

Having conceded all that, a pitcher that has more singles on his card yields more GB, while a pitcher with more home runs yields more FB. A pitcher that has more double play chances (in 2012, Trevor Cahill had 12 vs LHB and 14 vs RHB) will have a better overall GB/FB ratio than someone who does not (Phil Hughes has 2 vs LHB and 0 vs RHB).

As an aside, that year Cahill had the best ratio with 1.69 (in this league he was 1.42). Hughes was among the worst with a 0.50 (in this league he was 1.04). So there is a forecasted outcome to be had, but the hairsplitting might be too painful for the effort.

Now, with regard to hitters, this is MUCH MORE tangible. I would generally sift through 5-10 leagues looking for players with actual SOM Online GB/FB ratios of below one (rather than using ESPN). I would just go position by position, and eventually a lineup would form that wasn't a crazy $60 mil on offense type of situation, but one that would offer a few "value" propositions to keep the hitting salaries in the $50 mil range.

By doing this, you could lop 10 points off the expected ratio and get your offense closer to 50/50 rather than the usual 60/40.

Here's a 2011 team where I did the same thing:

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/810328
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/misc/810328

In both of these instances provided, my pitching was nearly 60/40. I can't remember if I targeted "GB" pitchers, or I "located" my lineup and then went with the best available pitching I could afford. Targeting "GB pitching" was probably futile if I did, but whatever I did, it obviously didn't hurt.

FWIW, I was able to create offenses where the actual ratio was below one, but they're hard to find among the 50 teams I play each year.

A simpler proxy for the experiment would be a High Double Play Pitching/High Slugging Team in a High Home Run-Low Singles Park (using standard salary construction, ie $32 mil on pitching, as opposed to a $20 mil pitching team).

Thx to Valen and Barigood for getting me to get my geek on!

Just for kicks, I checked out the Top 10 GB pitchers from the 2012 set according to ESPN:

1. Cahill 1.69
2. Harrell 1.43
3. Burnett 1.40
4. Alvarez 1.36
5. Masterson 1.34
6. Romero 1.21
7. Richard 1.20
8. Price 1.18
9. Shields 1.16
10. Kuroda 1.16

Here were the actual SOM Online league results:

1. Cahill 1.42
2. Harrell 1.72
3. Burnett 1.82
4. Alvarez (Not Drafted)
5. Masterson 1.49
6. Romero (Not Drafted)
7. Richard 1.68
8. Price 1.55
9. Shields 1.65
10. Kuroda 1.64

The interesting twist is that the Side Planks ( http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/misc/1122860 ) heavily targeted GB pitching in the Cell (Cahill, Harrell, Masterson and Wilson), but were able to add only three points to their pitching ratio (1.53 vs the expected 1.50).

Is three points just noise, or is it a statistic worth exploiting?

The Crabbers also seemed to "search out" GB pitching ( http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/misc/1122823 ) and managed to add 3.8 points to their ratio. But their team did not fare so well in Rangers. Similarly, the Lansing Owls ( http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/misc/1122929 ) had both Price and Burnett, but their ratio was a terrible 1.41 overall in Dodger Stadium.

So, to bring this full circle, some GB pitchers might be worth pursuing, but in the end, to what end??

So better pitching (in terms of dollars spent) generally yield better overall results

AI agree. But better in strat has no relationship to whether a pitcher is a gb or fb pitcher unless the ground balls are gb(A) rolls. Real life ground balls usually better than fly balls because the fly balls can get blown out by the wind.

In strat an out is an out. Only difference, if not a double play, is that a runner on second can advance to third on the force at second if there was also a runner on first. Or maybe the possible sacrifice fly on a fly ball. Don't think either tips the balance.

Having conceded all that, a pitcher that has more singles on his card yields more GB, while a pitcher with more home runs yields more FB.

Not sure this is true. A HR in strat is either a hard HR roll on the card and it is rather irrelevant if the rest of the card is loaded with ground balls or fly balls. It is a HR. Take Mclain 68 for example. Left hand hitter at plate and 5-8 rolled. Only thing that matters is there is a # there. The rest of the card could be all gb(B) and it would not matter. It is a HR or not depending on the ballpark rating and split card roll. The rest of the card is mostly based on the rate of hits of various types and the rest are just outs. You roll 4-8 and it is just a fly ball. Matters not what the ration of gb/fb is on the rest of card. That is a guaranteed fly ball out. In other words the wind never carries any fly ball out in strat unless the roll has a # on it. So bottom line do not waste time looking at fb/fb ratios. Just look for whether the card has #s on it or not. If it does put him in a park with low ballpark HR ratings. If it has none safe to use in a HR prone park even if every roll on card is a FB(). None of those are going to carry out.

Even with hitters. They could have a card full of fly balls. But none of those are going to carry out unless they have a # beside the roll. So again counting number of fly balls or ration does little more than give you a warm feeling inside. Count the number of # on that card. That will tell you something. Regarding general fb/fb rations on hitters the only thing that is going to make much difference are the gb()A rolls. So count those. The rest whether ground balls or fly balls are fixed results and rather meaningless. An out is an out in strat. There is no mystery or chance for anything happening except for ground balls or fly balls that have an X bringing the fielding chart in to play. But again the percentage of X rolls on all cards is exactly equal.

Thx to Valen and Barigood for getting me to get my geek on!

If we accomplished that then our job is done here.

These remind me of college philosophy discussions...do I have free will, or am I unconsciously following a pre-programmed script and choice is only an illusion? (PLEASE DON'T ANSWER THAT! )

One thing to learn, I guess (if anyone even cares) is how SOM rules all extra base hits. I kinda half assumed most extra base hits were ruled as fly balls, although I do understand that grounders down the line (etc) can turn into extra base hits. If you compare fly ball hitters to ground ball hitters, FB hitters generally give you a VERY good proxy for more SLG. So whether you say you were seeking out "fly ball hitters" or "sluggers" is largely irrelevant because they are in fact the same players.

The reason you seek out "flyball hitters" is because statistically, balls hit in the air are better than those hit on the ground. I completely agree that an out is an out. Whether it is "scripted" or "random" does not matter. But all cards are not created equal. A Mike Trout card is loaded with ways to get on base that a Juan Pierre card is not. If the doubles, triples and homers are through the air, then that will be preferable to loads of outs. So while the X chances are equal across the board, the other outcomes are not. If singles are equally divided between GB and FB, then it all comes down to the extra base hits. Lots of # in a hitters park also equal additional home runs. There are no # on ground balls. FB correlate with power, so only the FB can be the more productive "# out" (also, there are sac flies too).

Maybe it is a case of potato and potatoe...

Even with hitters. They could have a card full of fly balls. But none of those are going to carry out unless they have a # beside the roll. So again counting number of fly balls or ration does little more than give you a warm feeling inside.

But I think we're talking about two totally different things. You seem to be saying ground balls and flyballs are both outs and an out is an out (ie, They could have a card full of fly balls). But I'm including hits as ground balls and flyballs too, so a card full of doubles is preferable to that card full of fly-outs, even if they are all FB. So there is a distinction to be exploited, although I will concede that I could have arrived at that distinction selecting my draft choices with the SOM SLG sort as opposed to using the ESPN GB/FB sort.