How to check pitching numbers for fly balls/ground balls

J-Pav,

with you on TPS sheets, with 5 kids and 2 baby grands princess bride has somehow gotten under my radar however... and yes the Big L is great as well..

JT

I didn't include you in the summary because I don't know if you agree with me, Valen, both or neither. SOM G/F ratios might not reflect actual MLB G/F ratios any more than the stats of 12 imaginary all-star teams reflect the stats of the actual MLB players. But there are probably enough clues in the data to give you a place to start looking.

I made very clear my stance and with whom I agreed in the post below:

I don't enjoy agreeing with Valen, who blatantly lied about me on a public forum, but I do...at least on SOM's semiotics. Strat rolls are deterministic algorithms in a probability game effectively functioning as an MLB simulation. It is not an actual simulation of the physical properties of baseball. So the physical dynamics involved in major league baseball are not relevant to SOM simulation. The only thing that is are the actual results SOM's probabilities and algorithms actually simulate. Player names and actual stadiums may add the veneer of Baseball's physical dynamics. But SOM's algorithms and probabilities do not represent those dynamics and are not interested in them.

If any of this is difficult for you, I will gladly assist your understanding.

As to your assertion about "clues" in MLB G/F ratios relevant to SOM's actual probabilities and algorithms, there are none. You again make the error of treating MLB's actual physical phenomena as the source of SOM's semiotics. I can help you with that as well, if you like.


P.s. Call me "Professor" as much as you like. Unlike you, I'm not embarrassed about people knowing my job...

Professor of B.S. I'm guessing

Your very first post and you're already trolling? That's not very impressive.

If you think anything I have written is "b.s," please show where and how. I'm always grateful for intelligent criticism. At this point, I don't think you're up for that...

Well, I guess another noble thread dies an ignoble death.

I really tried to be reasonable despite knowing the odds going forward.

To I.strether:

We did this in another thread once and I'm not doing this again with you, because I know how this story ends. We were doing fine until your last post. Except for the part about reluctantly agreeing with Valen, not one other word of what you wrote, or what you implied I stated or inferred is true or correct. Further, I do not need your assistance for anything regarding this game or forum.

I addressed you as Professor like I address keyzick as Key or edgecitytx as Edge. It has nothing to do with you personally or professionally, except that I know this is your stated profession, so I apologize if you found this offensive. I figure most students address you as Professor anyway, so it was nothing more than that.

Now do the post where you declare victory and be done with it. At least as far as this particular thread goes, I will address your posts no further.

To Valen or anyone else that wants to plow forward, I'm happy to continue discussing the topic here despite the unpleasant distraction.

Secondly, if what you and Valen are suggesting is that real life G/F ratios do not correlate well with Strat-O G/F ratios

That depends a lot on the year of the cards. I play a lot more ATG so my opinions are slanted. For many seasons at the time the cards were produced G/F ratios were not even available as such things were not yet mainstream. But those are on the cards. For more recent seasons strat card makeup may very well reflect the real life G/F ratios. But those ratios do not in any way impact the results.

It is my contention the number of singles, doubles, triples, HRs on a card are a direct reflection of how many of those the player had in real life. And whatever ground balls or fly balls you see on a card do not in any way influence the number of hit results you will get. Except for the fielding chart and the ballpark rolls those are set in stone. If there are 12 HR chances for example on a card that is what you will get even if the entire rest of the card were filled with gb() whatever. If there were no HRs on the card and it is power W you are not getting any HRs out of it even if the entire card is filled with fb() whatever.

Going back several years each season when the 200x cards came out I would put together a database where I entered all the card data. Did the same for each ATG version that came out beginning with ATG1. I then ran various formulas against the cards. In those formulas I attempted to assign values to the different types of ground balls and fly balls based on probabilities of there being runners on base among other things. So clearly I am not saying that the makeup of those things on a strat card are totally meaningless. I am only saying that once the card is produced it is what it is. What you see is what you get. The types of hits present on the card does not influence the number of fly balls or ground balls. The number of fly balls or ground balls does not influence the number or type of hits the card produces. Any illusion of such is imaginary and for entertainment purposes only. To the extent they entertain you they are of value. But in regards to building a winning strategy or an improved team there is nothing there but the vacuum of space.

Let me add though that my convictions about the above being true does not diminish my enjoyment of reading your discussions on the subject. We are all after all expressing opinions.

"J-Pav" We did this in another thread once and I'm not doing this again with you, because I know how this story ends. We were doing fine until your last post. Except for the part about reluctantly agreeing with Valen, not one other word of what you wrote, or what you implied I stated or inferred is true or correct. Further, I do not need your assistance for anything regarding this game or forum.

There was nothing wrong with my last post. We did do this before, and it ended with you going off the rails, as you yourself admitted. You seem to have forgotten that you ended up sending me an olive branch for it. And while you don't need my help with baseball, you could definitely use help with semiotics, as you keep using it incorrectly.

As to our discourse, you, yourself, just erroneously declared victory yourself by saying "not one other word I stated or inferred is true or correct." So, try to avoid being hypocritical. Secondly, every word I wrote was correct. The fact you can't counter it helps affirm that. I, myself have no interest in continuing, since you have only been evasive and repetitive, as you often are. However, if the discourse does interest me in the future, I will continue to contribute, whether you answer or not.

I addressed you as Professor like I address keyzick as Key or edgecitytx as Edge. It has nothing to do with you personally or professionally, except that I know this is your stated profession, so I apologize if you found this offensive. I figure most students address you as Professor anyway, so it was nothing more than that.

You are being entirely insincere here. From the moment you found out I was a professor, you have only used the term with me scornfully and sarcastically. That is fine; I use sarcasm, too. But don't turn around and pretend you were using it cordially or respectfully when you weren't. That's just dishonest.


P.s. To refresh your poor memory of your previous use of professor:

Professor!!!!!!!!!!! Your inability to grasp this can only lead me to conclude you're just funning with me for fun's sake. Your self-contradictory assertions are without foundation and lead me to believe you do not fully understand the basic definitions of "objective", "subjective", and "arbitrary" as used in this forum, as opposed to how they must be being understood in the faculty lounge!

Coyote,

...

But regarding G/F ratios, since doubles, triples and home runs DO count as fly balls (and fly balls also advance runners, and hence add to run production), you absolutely do want hitters who have more fly balls. So we're in agreement, no? I don't follow the correlation - causation argument. Let's not even call them fly balls anymore, HAL forbid we have to discuss the swirling winds again. Let's call them data inputs that reflect one of the following outcomes: double, triple, home run, fly out A, B, and C, lineout, popout, and foul out. These inputs are not equal in strength, but when one of these happen, you mark an F on the F side of the G/F ledger in the Sim Misc tab. When a single, bunt or ground ball A, B, or C occurs, you tally a mark on the G side of the ledger. When a season is complete, review the G/F results. When evaluating a player's contribution, I think it's safe to say you want guys who add more F's to the ledger. This has nothing to do with correlation and causation. This is third grade math. Ask any kid who he wants on his fantasy team, Mike Trout or Juan Pierre. He doesn't need to understand how to compute RC-27 to know he doesn't want Juan Pierre.

...

I look at it this way:

1. Counting doubles, triples, and home runs to predict slugging percentage is obvious.

2. Counting popouts, flyouts, lineouts, and foulouts to predict slugging percentage is (in my opinion) silly. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point!

Professor,...

PS. While I normally ignore this person, I did read his reply to your remarks. I certainly didn't take your use of "Professor" in any way an insult--quite the contrary actually. However, you have to understand that one of his tactics is to address people in a way to (often subtly, sometimes not so much) demean them. So, he naturally assumed you were trying to do the same. So, while we may not agree on the value of a gb/fb ratio, at least we agree that he's not worth debating. Oh, and I expect his reaction to this comment to be good, but I'm not going to indulge myself in his response.

at least we agree that he's not worth debating. Oh, and I expect his reaction to this comment to be good, but I'm not going to indulge myself in his response.

Gents-
In short, you are not dealing with a sane person.
As a greek philosopher pointed out;
There is no point in debating with a man who insists he sees yellow when something is green.

J-Pav, great job of summarizing the discussions up to this point. Spot on accurate.

To Valen or anyone else that wants to plow forward, I'm happy to continue discussing the topic here despite the unpleasant distraction.

Ignore the distractions. We have had a respectful conversation so far, even if we have not come to agreement.

So I guess where we're at is trying to figure out why I can't get buy-in from Valen. For whatever reason, I can't understand his point of view on this.

Let me approach this from a different direction. A real life power hitter probably hits more fly balls than ground balls. That will show in his real life G/F ratio. In more recent sets that may be reflected in the number of fb() and gb() results you see on a card. But the presence of HRs on the card does not increase the number of fb() results you get in the end. And the number of fb() readings on the card except for ballpark effects will not alter the number of HRs you get.

So when you analyze a season at the end if you were loaded with power hitters you may see a correlation of low G/F ratio. But it will be deceiving. Here is why I say that. Using Mike Trout as an example and keeping in mind I am pulling numbers from a quick visual counting of the card readings.

He has a HR roll on 1-4 of 1-15. So that is worth .75*3=2.25 HRs. He has 4 #s on the card. Not counting the ballpark effects rolls he has 11 fb() readings against lefties. He has 8.25 ground balls. Any assignment of ground balls or fly balls to his accumulated totals for the misc stats reporting page due to hits is completely imaginary. I could alter the programming of that algorithm so it imagined all hits as ground balls or so it imagined them all as fly balls. Neither would change the number of hits that were accumulated. I could alter the card so those fly balls on the 2-6 and 2-7 rolls were gb() whatever and it would not reduce or increase his final total of hits. I could go the other way and change all those 8.25 ground ball out rolls to fb() whatever outs and it would not alter at all the final number of hits he would have.