I have had some success in this game, but not as much as I would like to have. I almost never pick a hitter whose #stats are lower than his RL stats, especially his BA, 1b/100AB, and whatever extra base ratios I am drafting for. I do notice many managers, far more successful than I, selecting players whose normalization ratios are not good. Hitters from the 20's and 30's, for example, have ugly # numbers (compared to RL) for their BA and 1b/100ABs. So, my question is: who is likely to do better, a hitter with a .300 RL BA/ .310 #BA, or a hitter with a .320 RL BA, .310 #BA? Or are they both equal?

FWIW...  I think it depends on the park.  An extreme hitters park can yield awesome numbers for a 1930 hitter for example but if you are in a neutral to negative hitters park normalization better be a major consideration. I have been playing since 2002 and I like the game the way it is now a lot but IMO park effects are a major flaw...  they are way overstated.

The .320/.310# guy is probably better. Check performance histories.

Given equal avg#, I'd look at avg+ assuming they both bat from the same side. If that fails, do what Boog says-- unless he is being sarcastic; then do the opposite.

The last time we had this discussion there was a lot of stats that showed .310# means .310#....what the RL or + stats were, were not statistically relevant.

Thats what I always thought.  #.310 is #.310, whether he was a .320 hitter or a .300 hitter.

The .320 guy will likely do better against the deadballers that populate open leagues so densely.

sounds to me like you're over-correcting for normalization. I would take the .320 hitter every time.

Thank you for responding. As always there is a bit of disagreement, but I think it is safe to say that staying away from seasons that do not appear to normalize well has cost me.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 11/27/2011 1:03:00 PM (view original):
The last time we had this discussion there was a lot of stats that showed .310# means .310#....what the RL or + stats were, were not statistically relevant.

I'm not sure about hitters, but I have studied pitchers enough to write that the + stats do make a difference for guys on the far ends of the normalization spectrum.  But in general # stats are the way to go.

I thought skunk was posting about which Pa hate group to join was normal.....?

I weigh the # stats and the + stats equally. Performance histories seem to also...

Just don't join cresten's pa...he's likely to make you squeal like a pig