All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > SimLeague Baseball > Happy about the update.
10/15/2009 2:34 AM
Am I the only one that is optimistic about the update? The way I see it, admin has at least made an effort to close the biggest sources of underpriced players: secondary position and hitting pitchers. They have atempted to make range meaningful and made deadball era guys at least somewhat useful. Perhaps most importantly they are at least trying to limit the use of short rosters (in terms of IPs and PAs). At lot of this screws some of my strategies, but I am willing to take on fresh challenges.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/15/2009 7:12 AM
i'm excited. i think change is always good when it's moving in the right direction. yes, there will be some pain along the way, but it's good to shake things up so they don't get stale. we were just starting to get to the point where every team looked the same, even though the last sim engine was miles better than any previous version.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/15/2009 8:46 AM
I'm 90% happy with the update. I'm still rolling around in my head what my pitcher/fielding strategies will be. No surprise, my only issue is that the IP floor is the same in all parks.

I'm thrilled that salaries have changed. I now can't talk myself into Tony Phillips in an OL instead of not being able to talk myself out of him. Boy, that probably could have been worded better.

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/18/2009 11:23 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By grizzly_one on 10/15/2009I hope you guys are right. This new fielding makes me fear that bogus fielding stats will rule the SIM. I hated the SIM when silly range was the be-all-end-all
Normalized fielding isn't as bogus as you may think. Errors when compared over decades are very subjective and the trend has benefited fielders and fielding percentage. Modern scorers are rather reluctant to score errors and errors are now only given on botched routine plays. 20 years ago a would-be-spectacular play that was mis-executed was scored an error. 100 years a go, if a fielder came within "spiting distance" of a ball but didn't make a play it was scored an error

The end result of the trends in error scoring over decades is that some of the change in hitting that we see from the dead-ball era to the steroid-era is due to how errors have been scored. It therefore makes sense to normalize fielding-- at least to an extent.

10/19/2009 1:53 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By grizzly_one on 10/19/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By zubinsum on 10/18/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By grizzly_one on 10/15/2009
I hope you guys are right. This new fielding makes me fear that bogus fielding stats will rule the SIM. I hated the SIM when silly range was the be-all-end-all.
Normalized fielding isn't as bogus as you may think. Errors when compared over decades are very subjective and the trend has benefited fielders and fielding percentage. Modern scorers are rather reluctant to score errors and errors are now only given on botched routine plays. 20 years ago a would-be-spectacular play that was mis-executed was scored an error. 100 years a go, if a fielder came within "spiting distance" of a ball but didn't make a play it was scored an error

The end result of the trends in error scoring over decades is that some of the change in hitting that we see from the dead-ball era to the steroid-era is due to how errors have been scored. It therefore makes sense to normalize fielding-- at least to an extent.

Any game that tells me Curt Blefary is a better fielder than Roberto Clemente (see 1967 I think) is BOGUS
According to baseball reference, Blefary was a better OFer-- at least in terms of FP-- than Clemente in 1967. As far as range goes, we all know the the RF/ RRF system is flawed, but it is the best historical data-based system WIS can deliver. I stand by my earlier, post. Normalizing fielding percentage is a step in the right direction and does make logical sense to an extent.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/19/2009 9:08 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By steve9781 on 10/19/2009
I personally think the fielding sucks, and the update makes it worse. Here's my opinion......

1. Game looks at fielding in the wrong way. To do it you need to look at all players vs there own era. Figure out who the great / average / and poor fielders are and continue to use the A,B,C,D rating method. After that comparing fielders over different generations becomes easy. I don't care what era O.Smith plays in he would still be great. A C fielder would make most average plays.

2. What pitcher is on the mound should make 0 difference.

3. Range should be used more for + & - plays. You should see more +/- plays in a game then errors. Not the other way around.

4. You should be penalized for playing players at secondary positions. If T.Phillips spent most of the year in OF, then that's where he needs to play MOST of the time. If he played 20 games at 2b, then the more games over 20 he plays then his fielding starts to decrease. You don't get to go back and change history. If he was sooo amazing at 2B his real life team would have played him there more

5. Most of all, STOP THE ERRORS! As long as no one out there is a D fielder they shouldn't be booting the ball around every game. I have a C.Figgins a C fielder, he's made 3 errors in 6 games. That's a joke. He's on pace for 81 errors!!!! Love to see what a D fielder would do!

One other change I would make is set the innings requirement at 1450, and force teams to draft mediocre pitching. Force teams to have a min of a 4 man rotation. It's amazing to me how many players are just unuseable in the sim. No more cookies!!! Players of the same ilk are priced similar. Let's open up the database!

Just my opinion

How can you talk about opening up the database in the same paragraph in which you advocate going to mandatory 4-man rotations? That would make the pitchers from 1/3 of the seasons in the database virtually unusable due to the fact that they pitched in <4-man rotations and have way too many innings for that... And how exactly do you want to get rid of cookies? You have a plan for that?

With regards to #4, absolutely untrue. Alex Rodriguez is playing 3B now; does that mean he can't play SS? No, he was a pretty solid defensive SS. Actually statistically better than Jeter... I think the 20-game level is pretty good; if you played a guy at a position that many times in a season you were probably pretty confident he knew how to play it decently.

On #5, I can only say that when you look at the performance history the old felding system had guys generally coming well within the anticipated standard deviation of their RL fielding % based on the number of opportunities they had. Under the new system you have to anticipate guys from good fielding seasons doing somewhat worse than that, while guys from poor fielding seasons will improve on their RL numbers. But the amount of errors is certainly reasonable. Lots of people have always seemed to like to complain about them, but it almost always comes out right in the end.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
of 7
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > SimLeague Baseball > Happy about the update.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.