Spring Training Improvement Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/20/2010
Jeez. It's like talking to a brick wall. Or a canuck.

Let's just use me, you and tec for examples.

I have a loaded team. tec's team is pretty good. Your team sucks. I'll be playing against tec and you. I have two players and I can't decide. I have to make sure they play only against tec because your team is AA equivalent. And maybe tec has 3 good SP and two sucky ones. Now I have to make sure my 2 players get playing time against the same pitchers. But, maybe, tec has decided he wants his best LoA SS(who has LF ratings right now) to get some playing time. Now I have to make sure both players play against the same pitchers and check to make sure tec is using a legit SS.

Or, I can play my two players against my BL SP1, SP2 and SP3.

See the difference?



Correct, on both counts!!!
5/20/2010 11:37 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
I get it.

You are making assumptions that each inter squad game is going have the same set of parameters each game ie. SP1, SP2 and SP3 are going to perform equally as well in each game.

Which isn't going to happen. Thus, since I'm not going to have apples to apples comparison anyway, give me other teams, ESPECIALLY other teams that are better than I could possibly put out against myself.

Now, I know your ego is such that you think there isn't a better team out there than you, but try to imagine the concept.
5/20/2010 11:38 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/20/2010

tec's team is pretty good.

Oxymoron.

As opposed to tec, which is just a moron
5/20/2010 11:39 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I've already said it's small sample size. A season is small sample size.

But I can play my entire BL club, using SP1/2/3, against the two players in question. I can give them 50 AB each against those 3. Maybe it makes a difference, maybe it doesn't. But, under the current system, I don't care if one hit .109 and the other hits .437 because one may have gotten 50 AB against BL pitchers and the other got his against training camp pitchers.

The quality of the competition, as long as it's BL-level, doesn't matter. What matters is that they're facing identical competition.
5/20/2010 11:44 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
We want the same thing. We disagree with how to get there.

As long as something is done, and I can live with either approach, then bully for us.
5/20/2010 11:47 AM
badhame7
Posts: 1 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 2 13 62
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/20/2010
I've already said it's small sample size. A season is small sample size.

But I can play my entire BL club, using SP1/2/3, against the two players in question. I can give them 50 AB each against those 3. Maybe it makes a difference, maybe it doesn't. But, under the current system, I don't care if one hit .109 and the other hits .437 because one may have gotten 50 AB against BL pitchers and the other got his against training camp pitchers.

The quality of the competition, as long as it's BL-level, doesn't matter. What matters is that they're facing identical competition.

Look, this argument with death has gotten us off on a tangent. Let's get back to the core topic: whether or not your AAA team in Coop can beat your ML team.
5/20/2010 11:50 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm not sure we want the same thing. I want spring training RESULTS to mean something. I think you want spring training PLAYING TIME to mean something. That's not the same thing.

If you're playing your best prospects and tec is playing his best prospects for development purposes, that isn't telling me anything about how my two players can perform against BL pitching. Because your best prospects aren't BL-ready. Nor are they the same as tec's.

We can both get what we want with my suggestion. We can't with your suggestion.
5/20/2010 11:55 AM
saintonan
Posts: 107 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 106
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/20/2010What matters is that they're facing identical competition.

It still won't matter. This is a game of ratings, not statistics. Any two players close enough for you to seriously compare will produce within the margin of error over 18 games regardless of competition.

The point of spring training is training, not competition. Otherwise we'd call it "spring competition". It's a chance to get your players conditioning and development time. The statistics that come out of there won't ever be meaningful in any comparison that isn't already self-evident.
5/20/2010 11:58 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
No, I think you get both either way.

Not to belabour the point too much, but, if ST means something, it means not playing a player in ST means something as bad to a player as not playing them during the regular season.

Think of the engine working like real life. Would you sit your 50HR power hitter out all ST because you're scared of injury? No, because then he'd probably hit .100 for the whole month of April.

So, if the engine is working correctly, you'd have to slot in your ML players as well as your prospects else they would "degrade".

Which means you probably tighten up your ST squad to accomodate.

Which means better competition.

Which means you get both playing time and results meaning something. Meaning almost as much and a collection of regular season games.
5/20/2010 12:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm sure you don't know what I'd seriously compare.
5/20/2010 12:01 PM
schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
Small sample sizes for Spring Training...

it doesn't matter how it is done, against other teams or pitting your squad against your own you'll still have sample sizes that are far too small to be making roster decisions...

i like the old fashioned idea of looking at ratings, which are the only thing that matter
5/20/2010 12:42 PM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by saintonan on 5/20/2010
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/20/2010What matters is that they're facing identical competition.
It still won't matter. This is a game of ratings, not statistics. Any two players close enough for you to seriously compare will produce within the margin of error over 18 games regardless of competition.

The point of spring training is training, not competition. Otherwise we'd call it "spring competition". It's a chance to get your players conditioning and development time. The statistics that come out of there won't ever be meaningful in any comparison that isn't already self-evident.

If after 60 games, 1 guy is hitting .135 and the other is hitting .340. Who do you keep in the lineup, the .135 guy with better ratings.

Statistics are important to many of us.
5/20/2010 12:43 PM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
Nonetheless I like Mike's idea.
5/20/2010 12:53 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By mitchrapp on 5/20/2010Nonetheless I like Mike's idea.
There must be a hidden flaw if mitch is on board with it.
5/20/2010 1:33 PM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
Lol. Well it's more do I side with Mike or do I side with DIAH. Kind of a lose-lose here. Death being a Canuck tipped the scale in Mike's favor
5/20/2010 1:36 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...8 Next ▸
Spring Training Improvement Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.