So I thought I had it licked, because I had developed a formula that put the first 2 sets in the right order, BUT when applied to these two new sets it is now off a bit, so back to the drawing board...

What stands out to me here in the new set are two guys in particular. 

Pitcher 4 from the first set of 5 has his best pitch as an 85 and it is a P3. In fact his P1 is a mediocre 74 and it's only his third best pitch. That goes directly against what I had been thinking WRT pitch weights.

The other guy is pitcher 4 from the second set of 5. He has a 13 as a 5th pitch yet still ranks that highly? Also notice his P3 is a 90 and his best pitch.

Those two guys threw my formula out the window altogether.

Posted by hockey1984 on 11/21/2014 9:13:00 AM (view original):
I've often wondered this myself.  I have a guy who's 5 pitches are

85-72-47-79-47

I often wonder if he would be better if he were

85-72-79-47-47

or even

85-79-72-47-47.

Seems to me like his pitch selection and amount he would use each pitch ranks 1-5 (use the 1st pitch 50% 2nd pitch 30% then 10%, 5%, 5% respectivly)

I dunno.

Similarly I have a guy who's 3 pitches are

87-72-45

Is he better then my pitcher who's pitches are

84-66-63-43

Right now the stats would say otherwise.

Returning to this, because clearly I've been operating under a mistaken assumption.

I thought I'd read somewhere that WifS had said the order of pitches didn't matter, so that 85-72-47-79 was the same as 85-79-72-47. This ongoing thread suggests otherwise. Does anyone know for certain how that works?

1	90	86	58	58	0
2	96	79	47	0	0
3	90	76	58	63	0
4	74	79	85	48	0
5	93	75	60	55	44
Not Ranked	92	79	71	57	0

So even though I finally have a formula that will rank all 4 sets in the right order, I went back to the world where the new learning sets came from and found a guy who would be ranked #2 if my formula was applied world wide.

I have included him in the above set with the guys who were all ranked ahead of him. There is NOTHING about his pitches that would seem to make him not ranked above #5 at least.

I wonder what sort of criteria they use to determine who they rank.

Obviously they don't rank any two pitch guys, but I can't see anything that would make sense as to why he wouldn't be included in the ranking.

Here are links to all 6 pitchers from that set:

1) Brady O'Connor
2) Gaylord Enright
3) Ham Joyce
4) Quilvio Cerda
5) Alan McCorley
NR) Matthew Tenbrink

Anything stand out as to why Tenbrink wouldn't qualify for this ranking and the others would?

I know right off it looks like all of them are SP and Tenbrink is LRA, HOWEVER the guy ranked #2 in the other set from the 23rd is a LRA also...

Fernando Velazquez

Posted by mchales_army on 4/26/2015 8:10:00 PM (view original):

1	90	86	58	58	0
2	96	79	47	0	0
3	90	76	58	63	0
4	74	79	85	48	0
5	93	75	60	55	44
Not Ranked	92	79	71	57	0

So even though I finally have a formula that will rank all 4 sets in the right order, I went back to the world where the new learning sets came from and found a guy who would be ranked #2 if my formula was applied world wide.

I have included him in the above set with the guys who were all ranked ahead of him. There is NOTHING about his pitches that would seem to make him not ranked above #5 at least.

I wonder what sort of criteria they use to determine who they rank.

Obviously they don't rank any two pitch guys, but I can't see anything that would make sense as to why he wouldn't be included in the ranking.

Here are links to all 6 pitchers from that set:

1) Brady O'Connor
2) Gaylord Enright
3) Ham Joyce
4) Quilvio Cerda
5) Alan McCorley
NR) Matthew Tenbrink

Anything stand out as to why Tenbrink wouldn't qualify for this ranking and the others would?

1-82 vel	90	86	58	58	0
2-91 vel	96	79	47	0	0
3-81 vel	90	76	58	63	0
4-39 vel	74	79	85	48	0
5-84 vel	93	75	60	55	44
Not Ranked-46 vel	92	79	71	57	0

Posted by begonias on 4/23/2015 11:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hockey1984 on 11/21/2014 9:13:00 AM (view original):
I've often wondered this myself.  I have a guy who's 5 pitches are

85-72-47-79-47

I often wonder if he would be better if he were

85-72-79-47-47

or even

85-79-72-47-47.

Seems to me like his pitch selection and amount he would use each pitch ranks 1-5 (use the 1st pitch 50% 2nd pitch 30% then 10%, 5%, 5% respectivly)

I dunno.

Similarly I have a guy who's 3 pitches are

87-72-45

Is he better then my pitcher who's pitches are

84-66-63-43

Right now the stats would say otherwise.

Returning to this, because clearly I've been operating under a mistaken assumption.

I thought I'd read somewhere that WifS had said the order of pitches didn't matter, so that 85-72-47-79 was the same as 85-79-72-47. This ongoing thread suggests otherwise. Does anyone know for certain how that works?

WIS has said in a Developer Chat that the order of the pitches DO matter.

From the 1/7/2009 HBD Dev Chat:

In a theoretically identical situation (catchers, fielders etc..) would a pitcher with pitches of 90-80-70 be expected to perform identically as a pitcher with pitches of 70-80-90? Or does the pitch order matter? (sickchangeup - Hall of Famer - 1:29 PM)

The pitch order matters, but not that much. The first pitch is his out pitch.

@ evegoe:

Yeah, there's nothing that I can see.

NO WAY Tenbrink doesn't have better pitches than McCorley., (Also better than Cerda and Joyce for that matter). I don't care how you slice it, there's no way.
It HAS to be that for some reason he just wasn't "eligible".

My original formula ranks set 5 correctly, and the updated one reverses 3 and 4 although they are super close.

Set 6 throws it way off, as #3 would be ranked #1 in both formulas...

Also finding other pitchers in the world that would be ranked higher than some in the top 5.

Best two examples are:

Cambridge -  86-88-86-59-0  and  Gonzalez - 92-85-81-82-27


Compare Gonzalez to # 2 of set 5:

Gonzalez - 92-85-81-82-27
Fox          -  92-71-73-78-28

NO WAY Fox is better than Gonzalez.

Compare Cambridge to #4 of set 6:

Cambridge - 86-88-86-59-0
Lowery         - 87-77-61-64-0

There cannot be a formula that returns these results.

just curious, what are the velocity ratings of gonzalez and fox

Posted by tecwrg on 4/27/2015 11:52:00 AM (view original):

From the 1/7/2009 HBD Dev Chat:

In a theoretically identical situation (catchers, fielders etc..) would a pitcher with pitches of 90-80-70 be expected to perform identically as a pitcher with pitches of 70-80-90? Or does the pitch order matter? (sickchangeup - Hall of Famer - 1:29 PM)

The pitch order matters, but not that much. The first pitch is his out pitch.

Yeah I believe that to be true. This guy -

Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Donn Clark

Has pitched well for me. I thought he'd get squashed but it seems that the combo of velocity and 1st pitch - which are near elite - along with high GB and control seem to compensate well.

Posted by kevintam90 on 5/13/2015 12:55:00 AM (view original):
just curious, what are the velocity ratings of gonzalez and fox

Gonzalez - 80

Fox - 94

Posted by mchales_army on 5/13/2015 7:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevintam90 on 5/13/2015 12:55:00 AM (view original):
just curious, what are the velocity ratings of gonzalez and fox

Gonzalez - 80

Fox - 94

Pretty sure VEL cannot be a factor as Quilvio Cerda has a 37, and he was ranked #4 from set 3.