How many HRs every park HR 1-19 and no pitchers over 1 mil?

It is interesting to have our very own Doug Neidermeyer here, to outline all the acts of perversion SO profound and disgusting that you can't detail what you think should be, and instead demand we drop and give him 20. Well it doesn't feel so bad being an independent to me.

It is interesting to have our very own Doug Neidermeyer here, to outline all the acts of perversion SO profound and disgusting that you can't detail what you think should be, and instead demand we drop and give him 20. Well it doesn't feel so bad being an independent to me.

Charlie, are you bi-polar by any chance?
You go from having reasonably on topic posts sometimes to this kind of nonsense.
The fact is that you had some of your stats wrong on the last one, but at least
you were making a correct comparison for once.
From mathematical equations to accusing SoM of cheating for Bruce?
From there is no normalization to there is normalization but there cant possibly be anything more.
Bizarre.

Ill agree a lot of these leagues had similar stadiums

Then why did you accuse me of "making comparisons that are purposely different"?

its confusing to me why you don't just go play some math algorithm game

I am playing some math algorithm game. It's confusing to you why I continue to play a game that I'm the best at? I guess you're easily confused.

you assert everyone should treat the game like a math problem and ignore the baseball aspect altogether

Definitely never asserted that. Everyone should play the game in whatever way is fun for them.

Like hey, Ive just copied everyone's strategies, and maximized them- look at me, a totally original thinker.

The strategy understander has entered the chat. What would it even mean to "copy everyone's strategies and maximize them"? Those words arranged in that order are just utterly meaningless. Truly impressive how I can detail my entire system and you still have zero comprehension of it. And I never claimed to be an "original thinker." In fact I've repeatedly mentioned that I copied one man's strategies in particular - Marc Pelletier. But no matter how many times I say that you keep coming back to this bizarre idea that I "copied everyone's strategies," as if that would produce anything but mediocrity. Anyway, the whole point of my system is it exists outside of me. My teams are simply the truth, I am but a humble conduit.

Just to get this down for the record, because you're trying to steer the thread away from your original post: You came here convinced that you had evidence of some kind of black box shenanigans because only 2 players in your league hit more than 100 homers. Then other people posted similar leagues that also had only 2 such players. Then I (politely) pointed that out and you testily accused me of "purposely comparing things that are different" despite the leagues being extremely comparable, which you've now admitted. And then when my next reply matched the level of mild hostility that you initiated, you accused me of starting a pissing contest. And now you're so eager to move off the thread's original topic, you're baiting me with stuff about my system that has no relevance to anything. And yes, I'm taking the bait because I can't always help myself and who am I to judge your apparent humiliation fetish. Takes all kinds, and helps explain the constant references to urination too now that I think of it. But before you continue being wrong about other unrelated things, just wanted to nail down that you were wrong about the original thing as well.

"I am playing some math algorithm game. It's confusing to you why I continue to play a game that I'm the best at? I guess you're easily confused."

So much urine everywhere, better get re-hydrated for the next round.
also as an aside, don't think you understand how peeing and humiliation fetishes actually work-
see its not just about spraying everywhere-

Second of all- so you are able to maximize someone elses strategy?
that makes you the 'best'?
NOT in my mind...
that makes you the best at maximizing- certainly not the best thinker or strategist-
and I guess you don't recall saying 'you don't know why everyone treat this game like a math problem?'

Yep...its cool though right bc you know its not cheating if SoM doesn't prevent it
Hear ya dude, hear ya.

and BTW- lets pretend that you aren't the one who came on accusing me of having conspiracy theories from the 'other thread' yeah- revisionist history is always best for you yeah?

Bear with me on this, but I'm a math / stats fanatic, so I tried something. My existing data is for Wrigley 78 (18/18):

HR chance for top 80 RPs 0.85M or less: 4.2% vs LH, 3.3% vs RH
HR chance for top 70 SPs 1.00 or less: 3.1% vs LH, 3.8% vs RH
RPs face their weak side slightly less than average with matchup, so let's round to 3.5% of Pitcher card chances end in HRs

HR chance for top 150 hitters (defined as hitters over 8M with the highest HR rates): 14.2% vs LH, 14.5% vs righties
There's some top hitters excluded from my set that we know are used (Duffy, Cobb, Lajoie), and there some duplicates of HR hitters in the top 150 (Ruth, McGwire, Bonds, etc), so I would round down to 14% of hitter chances end in HRs

Season 13: 95,000 chances
Hitters card expected: 47,500 chances x 14% = 6,650 expected HR
Pitchers card expected: 47,500 chances x 3.5% = 1,663 expected HR
Total expected HR: 8,313
Total actual HR: 8,195

I also took a look at 6 specific hitters from last season. Using the same assumption of 3.5% of rolls on pitchers' cards end in HR and assumes the same% of HvsP for lefty and righty ABs, here's the comparison of expected vs actual HR (apologize for format):

Hack HR BP HR % HR H Card P Card % Hit % Pit Exp HR Act HR
RH 11.3 8.0 17.5% 481 409 54% 633 70 78
LH 14.7 8.0 20.7% 481 409 54% 257 33 33


Bonds HR BP HR % HR H Card P Card % Hit % Pit Exp HR Act HR
RH 20.3 8.0 25.9% 475 429 53% 610 93 85
LH 13.5 8.0 19.6% 475 429 53% 294 35 31


McCovey HR BP HR % HR H Card P Card % Hit % Pit Exp HR Act HR
RH 13.2 8.0 19.3% 436 421 51% 603 70 86
LH 7.40 8.0 14.0% 436 421 51% 254 22 20


Kiner HR BP HR % HR H Card P Card % Hit % Pit Exp HR Act HR
RH 15.3 8.0 21.1% 410 388 51% 594 75 77
LH 15.9 8.0 21.7% 410 388 51% 204 26 24


Lajoie HR BP HR % HR H Card P Card % Hit % Pit Exp HR Act HR
RH 2.25 4.0 5.6% 386 417 48% 582 26 23
LH 2.25 4.0 5.6% 386 417 48% 221 10 11


Gibson HR BP HR % HR H Card P Card % Hit % Pit Exp HR Act HR
RH 8.00 8.0 14.5% 358 415 46% 592 51 43
LH 19.5 8.0 25.2% 358 415 46% 181 24 26


Each season I've tested, and with this new view the hitters I just tested, every hitter is within a reasonable range of their expected HR. Always going to be some outliers based on card roll distribution variance, but overall I'm comfortable with the performance matches the cards based on the extreme situation they are in.

So much urine everywhere, better get re-hydrated for the next round.
I don't think you understand how peeing and humiliation fetishes actually work-
see its not just about spraying everywhere

It's just getting weird man. We really don't need the gory details.

Second of all- so you are able to maximize someone elses strategy?
that makes you the 'best'?
NOT in my mind...
that makes you the best at maximizing- certainly not the best thinker or strategist-

My record makes me the best. If other folks were better overall strategists, they would have better records than me. Note there are a few folks who are close enough that I consider them essentially as good as me. Nobody clearly better though.

Just for the record, "maximizing Pelletier's system" is indeed a fair description of my system/strategy. But a synonymous term for "Pelletier's system" is just "math." An optimal team exists for every situation. Anyone who wants to discover it is going to use essentially the same method.

and I guess you don't recall saying 'you don't know why everyone treat this game like a math problem?'

I recall saying that almost no one approaches the game as such, and wondering why folks who do not approach it as such expect to be successful. That's not making a normative statement that everyone should approach it as such. Everyone should take the approach most fun for them. Winning is secondary for some folks.

Treyomo-

Im definitely not a great maths person- so feel free to correct the thinking here but...
isnt that almost exactly what normalization would be yeah?
minimizing the amount of outliers in stats-
think the way to test some of this would be times when say Bonds has jumped out to having a massive amount of HRs for say the first 100-120 games or so
Or the opposite
say a season where Bonds has minimal (for him) homeruns in that time period and then see what follows-

Does that make sense?

My record makes me the best. If other folks were better overall strategists, they would have better records than me. Note there are a few folks who are close enough that I consider them essentially as good as me. Nobody clearly better though.
.

again, no.
That makes you best at maximizing someone's strategy.
There is a huge difference.
however, it clearly makes you 'best' in your own mind, which i guess is what you wanted to accomplish, so kudos, or something.

Let me take a crazy stab and guess that you don't work anywhere near the arts...

There is a huge difference.

Indulge me...what is the "huge" difference between "having the best record" and "being the best"?

however, it clearly makes you 'best' in your own mind, which i guess is what you wanted to accomplish, so kudos, or something.

Thanks! It does keep me warm at night. Thing is, being the best makes me the boss of the rest of you, sorry but that's just how it works. And I feel like you've been a little insubordinate lately, what with all of this failure to acknowledge my being the best, so I'm afraid I'm gonna have to write you up. The write-up stays in your file for two years but after that gets expunged so long as you keep your points below 5. So don't stress about it too much but let's use this as an opportunity to tighten things up mmkay? Thanks Salty.

Treyomo-

Im definitely not a great maths person- so feel free to correct the thinking here but...
isnt that almost exactly what normalization would be yeah?
minimizing the amount of outliers in stats-
think the way to test some of this would be times when say Bonds has jumped out to having a massive amount of HRs for say the first 100-120 games or so
Or the opposite
say a season where Bonds has minimal (for him) homeruns in that time period and then see what follows-

Does that make sense?

Without getting too geeked out, that's more like a normal bell curve distribution, where you have outliers in each direction (like McCovey at 15 over his expected numbers, Bonds 10 below) that balance each other out. You will get the occasional crazy number in each direction (one year Kiner hit 129 and Gehrig hit 50-some), but the whole population, in that many PAs, should come pretty close to what is expected. Normalization would be some sort of limiting factor across the entire population, where every hitter is affected in the same direction. Way back when, probably 12 years ago, I suspected normalization and created a 12 team league with all .50 pitchers and all 20/20 HR parks. Hitters went crazy the first 1/3 of season, as expected, but suddenly their performance dropped wwwayyyyyy down and no hitter ended with over 70 HRs.