Posted by dedelman on 3/7/2019 7:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hockey1984 on 3/7/2019 9:05:00 AM (view original):
Has anyone in the NL ever had a DH that strictly comes in for PH and occasional pinch running?

Morgan Berkman looks to be a very good hitter and I'll either bring him up this season when expansion happens or next season, but I can't justify putting him anywhere...... maybe RF VsL pitching. Moreso I was thinking 7th inning or later if I need someone on base. Has anyone done this before?

Edit:He has a durability under 40. I guess the occasional pinch hit is all he is capable of without collapsing.

I would never roster this guy in the regular season for an NL team. I'd rather platoon at some other position or carry someone who can keep my starters rested. He's not a good enough bat, even against LHP, to merit the slot. IN the AL he's a solid but not spectacular platoon DH, and could be my 25th man on the right roster.

Now, in the playoffs, when I cut back to 10 or maybe even 9 pitchers? Absolutely.

Well not currently but he still has 2 seasons to gain a few points. I know being 25 will hamper him significantly but so far this season he has gained 2 points in power, VsL, with 1 point in contact, VsR and eye.I'm probably going to bring him up regardless but I'd like to see him gain 2 more points in power, maybe 4 more in contact and or eye and 3 more VsL. Assuming he's 80/80/85/53/77, I think that is good enough to bring in as a bat off of the bench for most games.

Power isn't gained in-season, unless you're using the medical bug

I'm pretty sure its just SSS but my bullpen is currenly causing me to tear my hair out and go grey at a fairly young age. I know they aren't a 'Great' bullpen but they shouldn't be as bad as their numbers....... should they?

San Diego

Edit: I have them all on a pull of 5 with minimum pitch count because I don't trust any of them.

They should not. Yeah, it's just SSS. They will be fine.

Is there any credence to the possibility that players have ratings variations that are not published but that last for a given season?

I'd strongly call that a form of Gambler's Fallacy... you're seeing a perfectly acceptable set of results, but since they're not optimal, you're wondering if they're caused by "something else."

I asked that in a dev chat early on, they denied it.

Posted by opie100 on 3/11/2019 3:47:00 PM (view original):
Is there any credence to the possibility that players have ratings variations that are not published but that last for a given season?

I would bet they do. Look at even the most consistent non power hiiting position player that's been in the bigs for ten plus seasons and you will see that he will have one season where he is 100-125 OPS higher than his career. He'll also have a season where his OPS is 100-125 lower than his career.

If you start to introduce the position player's power into the discussion, the variance gets larger.

Same can be said for pitchers, but the major rating for pitchers that has high variance is control.

I didn't do any major deep dive into empirical data. I just noticed a trend and started to look further into it by looking biasly at more player cards.

Almost every real life player has a career season with an OPS 100 points higher, and one with 100 points lower. If we have that happening here with fake players, it's evidence that the programmers did their work properly, and that such results are entirely within the range of acceptable results.

Sorry, but when it comes to explanations, I'm someone who tries not to imagine things that aren't there. And I'm a conspiracy theorist.

I see it like this. Let’s say you roll a die 100 times. Sometimes it’ll land heads 60 times, sometimes it’ll land 40 times, but the more you roll the die, the more the die averages 50 heads per 100 rolls.

As someone once said something like, Vegas ain't there because lots of people won big.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

I also wonder if players have an opportunity to get a temporary spike or penalty on a game-by-game basis. So long as the odds are the same for either.

Another question: If a game is in the 8th inning, and both the LRA and SUA are available and the LRA is better, will the SUA still always come in anyway?

Posted by damag on 3/12/2019 8:10:00 AM (view original):
Almost every real life player has a career season with an OPS 100 points higher, and one with 100 points lower. If we have that happening here with fake players, it's evidence that the programmers did their work properly, and that such results are entirely within the range of acceptable results.

Sorry, but when it comes to explanations, I'm someone who tries not to imagine things that aren't there. And I'm a conspiracy theorist.

I'm with Damag on this one. Based off of the other logic that players sometimes get a spike we would know because someone would come on here crowing about how their NL pitcher had a season where they hit .300+ or had 10-20 homeruns. Considering there has never been an outlier that extreme I'd say everything is just SSS. More to what Sportsbulls said, sometimes you flip a coin and it comes up 9 heads and 1 tails. It doesn't mean after 1000 flips that its going to come up 900 heads, its just what it is for such a small sample.

Opie - I'm honestly not sure. I've heard that a bench coach with higher IQ will pick the pitcher best suited for the job (control, splits, pitches) but my coaches always seem to pick wrong so I'm not the best person to ask.......... I'm not bitter, you're bitter.

I've never seen it written anywhere, just observation. It has always looked to me like the game's internal logic says LRA/SUA if you're tied or leading; LRB/SUB if you're trailing. And SUA/B take over from LRA/B from the 7th inning on. Then of course you modify that with your individual pitcher settings.

Just got a Position Player Report from my LowA coach. My guy is flat out raking. "And he's getting to more balls than most guys at this level, but his play in the field could use some fine tuning."
He's been my DH the entire season.