screwing power teams! Topic

98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread or not, because I haven't been reading all the pages

HBD-wide, HR/G are down about 16% since the update ... the were very steady at 2.83 per game through 11/2 ... they have ticked down every week and right now they are at 2.366 per game

I find it very interesting that the rates have been ticking down every week, rather than as a big one-time hit ... I assume it is just evidence that people had caught on to the "value" of the empty-rating slugger, and it is taking people time to replace them with non-power alternatives ... and maybe the double-whammy with the tweaks to defensive penalties
12/21/2009 3:36 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009
Well lets examine that point. The original update notes were fairly long. One line stated...

Reduced upper end of home run frequency. The steroid era is over.

This is all that is mentioned about HRs. I remember thinking that in one of my leagues there is a Baltimore team that has a guy that always hits a ton of homers, and bad luck for them.

There is at least anecdotal evidence that the actual game difference is larger and applies across all power hitters. There is also anecdotal evidence that HRs have decreased by a large amount.

How can you get the results that are being reported out of that note?

OK, let's try this tack then...taking the update at its word, the guy of yours that hit 60 HR IS IN the upper end of HR frequecy. And given also what everyone has said about the 60 HR guys should be those tip top hitters that are Albert Pujols-like....how can you possibly think that your guy fits into that category?

12/21/2009 5:51 PM
snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009
The original update notes were fairly long. One line stated...
Reduced upper end of home run frequency. The steroid era is over.

This is all that is mentioned about HRs.

Exaxctly! That is all! You cannot know the impact that will have. You can GUESS, as you have, but to rail at WIS because your guess appears to have been wrong is just your usual foolishness.

Or you can wait a few seasons and see what the changes bring, adjusting your team composition accordingly, like an intelligent person. If you know that is far beyond your reach as you seem to acknowledge, it is okay not to even try, but it is still utter foolishness to whine in a 20 page thread about how the change may not work like you guessed it would. Especially before anyone knows what effect the change will ultimately have.

Damn, swamp, I didn't think you could make stupider arguments than some of your lulu's, but you're getting there with this one.
12/21/2009 6:56 PM
snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/20/2009swamp, the thread is 19 pages long and he's the only guy that sounds like you. Doesn't that tell you something? Are you really that obtuse, or do you endlessly bring abuse down on yourself because you are a pathological masochist and you can't control yourself?
It's 20 pages now. Care to answer my question?
12/21/2009 7:02 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/20/2009
swamp, the thread is 19 pages long and he's the only guy that sounds like you. Doesn't that tell you something? Are you really that obtuse, or do you endlessly bring abuse down on yourself because you are a pathological masochist and you can't control yourself?
It's 20 pages now. Care to answer my question
I think it is you that is ignoring the point. Most people here, except you and Tropicana, seem to think there either is or may be a problem.

12/21/2009 7:49 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009
The original update notes were fairly long. One line stated...
Reduced upper end of home run frequency. The steroid era is over.

This is all that is mentioned about HRs.

Exaxctly! That is all! You cannot know the impact that will have. You can GUESS, as you have, but to rail at WIS because your guess appears to have been wrong is just your usual foolishness.

Or you can wait a few seasons and see what the changes bring, adjusting your team composition accordingly, like an intelligent person. If you know that is far beyond your reach as you seem to acknowledge, it is okay not to even try, but it is still utter foolishness to whine in a 20 page thread about how the change may not work like you guessed it would. Especially before anyone knows what effect the change will ultimately have.

Damn, swamp, I didn't think you could make stupider arguments than some of your lulu's, but you're getting there with this one.

Upper end of Home Run Frequency implies that some of the HRs that are being hit, the top end, are a problem so it was reduced.

My 60 HR guy may be impacted, but can you honestly say that the statement they made should create a 16% reduction in overall homers?
12/21/2009 7:51 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Well, I would say that it stands to reason if the upper end is going to be scaled back -- a premise you granted -- then everyone else takes a step back too.

Because otherwise you've just got 20-25 guys hitting 50 HRs. And that's not good either.
12/21/2009 8:23 PM
robproc
Posts: 3 (0)
Pro
16
Prospect
I contacted WIS about this. The only players who are supposed to be affected are guys with the highest power ratings. No one else is supposed to be affected. So no, not everyone else is supposed to take a step back.
12/21/2009 8:32 PM
bfkfraser
Posts: 1197 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 120 168
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/20/2009
swamp, the thread is 19 pages long and he's the only guy that sounds like you. Doesn't that tell you something? Are you really that obtuse, or do you endlessly bring abuse down on yourself because you are a pathological masochist and you can't control yourself?
It's 20 pages now. Care to answer my question?
I think it is you that is ignoring the point. Most people here, except you and Tropicana, seem to think there either is or may be a problem.



Incorrect
12/21/2009 8:35 PM
shobob
Posts: 3403 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 8:52 PM
smoelheim
Posts: 406 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 38 79
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 9:20 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By robproc on 12/21/2009I contacted WIS about this. The only players who are supposed to be affected are guys with the highest power ratings. No one else is supposed to be affected. So no, not everyone else is supposed to take a step back
Care to post that ticket?
12/21/2009 10:21 PM
snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009
The original update notes were fairly long. One line stated...
Reduced upper end of home run frequency. The steroid era is over.

This is all that is mentioned about HRs.

Exaxctly! That is all! You cannot know the impact that will have. You can GUESS, as you have, but to rail at WIS because your guess appears to have been wrong is just your usual foolishness.

Or you can wait a few seasons and see what the changes bring, adjusting your team composition accordingly, like an intelligent person. If you know that is far beyond your reach as you seem to acknowledge, it is okay not to even try, but it is still utter foolishness to whine in a 20 page thread about how the change may not work like you guessed it would. Especially before anyone knows what effect the change will ultimately have.

Damn, swamp, I didn't think you could make stupider arguments than some of your lulu's, but you're getting there with this one.

Upper end of Home Run Frequency implies that some of the HRs that are being hit, the top end, are a problem so it was reduced.

My 60 HR guy may be impacted, but can you honestly say that the statement they made should create a 16% reduction in overall homers
swamp, the light's on but nobody's home, is there? See if this sounds familiar ... You cannot know the impact that will have. You can GUESS, as you have, but to rail at WIS because your guess appears to have been wrong is just your usual foolishness.

Are you really that obtuse, or do you endlessly bring abuse down on yourself because you are a pathological masochist and you can't control yourself?
12/22/2009 12:45 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/22/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009
The original update notes were fairly long. One line stated...
Reduced upper end of home run frequency. The steroid era is over.

This is all that is mentioned about HRs.

Exaxctly! That is all! You cannot know the impact that will have. You can GUESS, as you have, but to rail at WIS because your guess appears to have been wrong is just your usual foolishness.

Or you can wait a few seasons and see what the changes bring, adjusting your team composition accordingly, like an intelligent person. If you know that is far beyond your reach as you seem to acknowledge, it is okay not to even try, but it is still utter foolishness to whine in a 20 page thread about how the change may not work like you guessed it would. Especially before anyone knows what effect the change will ultimately have.

Damn, swamp, I didn't think you could make stupider arguments than some of your lulu's, but you're getting there with this one.

Upper end of Home Run Frequency implies that some of the HRs that are being hit, the top end, are a problem so it was reduced.

My 60 HR guy may be impacted, but can you honestly say that the statement they made should create a 16% reduction in overall homers?

swamp, the light's on but nobody's home, is there? See if this sounds familiar ... You cannot know the impact that will have. You can GUESS, as you have, but to rail at WIS because your guess appears to have been wrong is just your usual foolishness.

Are you really that obtuse, or do you endlessly bring abuse down on yourself because you are a pathological masochist and you can't control yourself?

Is English your second language?

Anyone who is actually looking at the words of the update in a non-biased and impartial way can see that they were talking about high end homer rates, not homers as a whole.

Words actually have meanings!
12/22/2009 1:30 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/21/2009
I think it is you that is ignoring the point. Most people here, except you and Tropicana, seem to think there either is or may be a problem.





I think you have very liberal definitions of "most" and "problem".
12/22/2009 5:55 AM
◂ Prev 1...25|26|27|28|29...44 Next ▸
screwing power teams! 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.