How to check pitching numbers for fly balls/ground balls

I believe that I hear some sort of buzzing noise
maybe its the 'whether'

So, you actually hear "buzzing noises" and think it's the weather? Thank you for showing everyone your "sanity"...

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!

We don't disagree, we agree 100%. I'm just saying that you take the bad with the good. It's a G/F ratio, not a Hits/Outs ratio. Of course a popout is not productive. But by definition, popouts and home runs are both fly balls. In case there is any confusion, I am not suggesting to seek out cards full of outs. I am suggesting to seek out cards full of extra base hits. These cards are just usually full of more "fly ball" outs. So you can find these guys by perusing the Sim Misc tab stats (as well as by the SLG or OPS stats).

The types of hits present on the card does not influence the number of fly balls or ground balls.

To Valen,

Going line by line through every sentence of your last post, I agree with every single one except the quote above. What is on the card exactly and precisely can be defined as a fly ball or ground ball. But your choice of words, esp "influence" is where the confusion may lie. There is no "influence", just like there is no imaginary wind. There is double, triple, home run, fly out, etc, and there is single, ground out, bunt, etc. There is no "tendency" that isn't already defined by the hard data of the card.

I always thought we were more in agreement than disagreement, I just couldn't put my finger on the distinction. If I had said originally to seek out high slugging batters, you would be in total agreement. I am just suggesting that "high slugging batters" can be ferreted out of the Sim Misc tab G/F ratio because a "fly-ball heavy" G/F ratio simply reflects and includes that tendency toward extra base hits.

Apologies to anyone that thought I was suggesting a card full of Fly Out (B) somehow equated to a card full of doubles and homers.

How about an example from ATG. Left side of card. Al Bumbry and Steve Balboni.
Bumbry had a very low G/F ratio on his card: 0.174165457

That card has no HRs on it and and with power W is not going to hit any HRs. The ratio says should get hits. The results will have the manager pulling his hair out wondering why with all those fly balls isn't something falling in for hits and why don't some of those turn in to HRs. They don't because hits and HRs are fixed and based only on real life BA and SLG, actual hits accomplished and actual HRs hit.

Now consider Steve Balboni. G/F ration of 0.168776371

His G/F ratio was only slightly lower than Bumbry. His HR totals will be significant, especially compared to Bumbry. Why? He actually hit HRs in real life and thus actually got HR readings on his card. Virtually identical G/F ratios and yet dramatically different results. If your team is filled with Bumbry type hitters at the end of the season you will look at our G/F rations. You will look at your team's pathetic offensive output and conclude you were wrong. Low G/F ratios do not lead to more offensive production. But if your team is filled with Balboni type hitters your offensive output will be much higher. You may no doubt look at the G/F ratio in the strato reports and see a low number which would prove your hypothesis was correct. But as the sample sizes grow both these teams will have the same G/F ratio with polar opposite results. This will occur because offensive production is a function of the hits on the card and not the ratio of how outs were made.

Now let us examine the 1955 Aaron card and the 1961 Bob Cerv cards. Again for simplicity only looking at left side of card.
Bob Cerv G/F ration from his card is 3.453389831 1955 Hank Aaron was 3.4625 A 0.00911 difference.
So since fly ball hitters generate more slugging the results in that area should be the same.
Cerv's cards has 6.05 non ballpark HRs and 8 $s. He will be helped a lot by a hitter friendly park.
Aaron on the other hand in spite of a statistically irrelevant 0.009 difference in G/F ratio has 7.75 HRs with 8 #s.
He will finish with more HRs than Cerv in spite of identical G/F ratios.

Now consider 1920 Jack Graney and his 3.6 G/F ratio. Slightly higher than either Aaron or Cerv. 0.1375 higher.
But Graney hit no real life HRs and thus his card has none to be found. There are no HRs on the card.

If you focused on G/F ratio you might easily fill your team with Jack Graneys and have very little offense. Proof positive that high G/F rations mean lower offensive production. I ignore those rations and focus on counting actual hits, HRs to be specific and fill my team with Aaron type hitters. My team will finish with an almost identical G.F ration as yours.

You would of course then be free to pick whichever sample results you want and "prove" your conclusion regarding impact of G/F ration on strat offense. But I could prove the opposite.

Why would our scientific study here produce polar opposite conclusions? Because offensive production is a function of the hits on a card, not the artificialy determined G/F ratio.

Of course if you were building a high G/F ration team you would avoid players like Graney who while fitting the specific thing you are looking to test are not very good. You would instead carefully select cards like Aaron. You would get high offensive production but you would not have proven anything about G/F ration leading to more or less offense. That is why I say even if you build a team and appear to prove something I would not accept it. You are going to deviate from your control selection and even if only on a subconscious level choose players who fit a different one, namely a criteria of high hit and HR counts on the cards.

Are we any closer to a meeting of the minds?

How can we not be closer when you throw out Steve "Bye-Bye" Balboni?!?

Yes, I agree with you 99.9%.

As in my last post, I never meant to suggest that a card full of Fly Out (B) equated to a card full of doubles and homers. Think of it this way. I want a card full of homers. But if I can't have all homers, I want all homers and a triple. If I can't have all homers and a triple, I want all homers, a triple and a double. I am seeking out that card that comes closest to the most unrealistic ideal.

Now, let's say that the card I end up with is all fly outs with a home run roll on 7. What kind of card full of singles and ground outs equates to that? Statistically, there is some RC-27 measure that will eventually tend toward the singles card. I get that. And to throw in walks makes everything even harder to evaluate!

But for the purposes of the discussion here, yes, I want all Hank Aarons and I want them for a buck! Where do I find them most easily? Certainly NOT in the ground ball hitter pile. So here's our 1/10 of a percent disagreement. I have nine Hank Aarons who produce two fly balls for every ground ball. That guy will be found in the Sim Misc tab when I go searching for hitters. But you say "No fair! You need a few Jack Graney's on your team, you'll find him in the G/F ratio as well!" No I don't, I can sort out the best fly ball producers in order of production, just like the guy building the 400 home run team can skip Adam Dunn, even though he hits as many homers as Brandon Moss (or whomever).

Does that mean that this home run themed team does not adequately represent home run hitters? Would you not accept that that team proves the conclusion of searching out home run hitters? Of course not.

So if in the end, if I need to modify my experiment from Winning By Exploiting the G/F Ratio to Winning By Exploiting the G/F Ratio With the Most Productive Hitters I Can Afford Who Have a GB to FB Ratio Less Than or Equal to One, I can agree to make that modification!

Group hug - we did it!

There is no "influence", just like there is no imaginary wind. There is double, triple, home run, fly out, etc, and there is single, ground out, bunt, etc. There is no "tendency" that isn't already defined by the hard data of the card.

Congratulations on your compromise. However. you paraphrased my previous argument, which you had erroneously claimed was wrong, to get there. If you're going to wrongly dismiss my posts, you really shouldn't crib my ideas to assist your conclusions.

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.

I also found your post where you apologized to me for the way you rudely ended our last philosophical exchange...when we (as you said) did this once before.

Consider this an olive branch from our other thread. I really didn't intend for it to be personal, only a little exaggerated satire and hyperbole. The problem with a white box on a screen is how emotionless it is. When you can't gauge the emotions in a conversation, it's too easy to run off the rails. I'm as guilty as the next person, but I'm always trying to be better. Apologies again.

I forgave you for "running off the rails," and I forgive you again for misrepresenting the truth...

The Naked Capitalist (aka King of the Trolls) strikes again.

The Naked Capitalist (aka King of the Trolls) strikes again.

Yes you did. You just came on the thread only to antagonize and not to add anything to the discourse.

So, welcome to the thread, your majesty...

Now, let's say that the card I end up with is all fly outs with a home run roll on 7. What kind of card full of singles and ground outs equates to that? Statistically, there is some RC-27 measure that will eventually tend toward the singles card. I get that. And to throw in walks makes everything even harder to evaluate!

My database calculations from years back attempted that type evaluation. The question is whether I can find where I stored that silly database. I remember putting a value to the different types of fly balls and ground balls based on a runs created formula combined with a chart I found somewhere listing the percentages of times MLB hitters came up with various baserunner combinations.

I suspect if we can figure this out and the exact runs prevented by a -3 arm verses a -2 arm we could conquer the strat world.

My recurring daydream is to be locked in a room with HAL (not Hal!) and run experimental sims until the hardware explodes.

I have an ongoing delusion that one day I would sim the perfect lineup, a whistle would sound, and then I could retire from this completely.