HR #’s Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
It's really not a problem with homers. The problem lies with too many singles, not enough doubles.
1/20/2010 6:49 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Maybe they should make faster players.
1/20/2010 7:12 AM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by swamphawk22 on 1/20/2010
Admin agrees that they went to far and are making adjustments.

I thought they were just taking a look at the numbers to see if the engine's behaving as they intended – which was to increase the number of doubles at the expense of homers.
1/20/2010 7:18 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By nfet on 1/20/2010Maybe they should make faster players


Doubles seem to still be tied to splits more than anything.
1/20/2010 7:58 AM
cespencer
Posts: 39 (0)
Hall of Famer
43 1 61 16 26
Prospect
In case admin is paying attention, I vote to PLEASE leave the home run adjustment as is.
1/20/2010 8:31 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
If they're paying attention, they know it's not a HR problem. It's a doubles problem. That is, of course, if they're attempting to replicate MLB to a certain extent.
1/20/2010 8:33 AM
kahrtmen
Posts: 307 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 1 78
Prospect
If they are trying to replicate MLB then they can't really increase doubles without adjusting the other stats. Right now HBD is very close to MLB averages.
1/20/2010 5:24 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Less singles, more doubles. Problem solved. That's where the difference is.
1/20/2010 5:55 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By cespencer on 1/20/2010In case admin is paying attention, I vote to PLEASE leave the home run adjustment as is.
If they are listening to me and all the coaches who were impacted by the unusually broad update to HRs but do not take the time to post...

PLEASE PUT IT BACK!
1/21/2010 12:57 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5100 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 1/21/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By cespencer on 1/20/2010
In case admin is paying attention, I vote to PLEASE leave the home run adjustment as is.
If they are listening to me and all the coaches who were impacted by the unusually broad update to HRs but do not take the time to post...

PLEASE PUT IT BACK!

Then we'll have to listen to all the coaches that dumped those 20/90/50/50/80 hitters complain about how they changed the game.

LEAVE IT ALONE.
1/21/2010 12:59 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
1/21/2010 1:12 PM
domiisgod
Posts: 19 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 2 1 16 118
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By phillyfan009 on 1/17/2010I am all for the drop in Homers.......They should get rid of the parks like "what if sports field", etc.
Agreed. They wouldn't have neede the tweak to ALL players if they would have simply fixed the outrageous parks as they said they would do a long time ago. Colorado, Santa Fe, Hartford, Durham to name a few. Im not saying make everything a pitchers park or even to 0-0-0-0-0, but a tweak to these parks to a more realistic nature would have toned down the upper echelon and not affected all players.



Most of the crazy 65+ HR guys play in Coors or parks similar.
1/21/2010 2:00 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by kahrtmen on 1/20/2010If they are trying to replicate MLB then they can't really increase doubles without adjusting the other stats. Right now HBD is very close to MLB averages.

The goal should *not* be to replicate MLB stats.

The goal *should* be to develop an engine that would replicate MLB stats if HBD owners acted the same way MLB owners/managers do.

Quite simply, we don't, so developing an engine to re-create MLB stats under considerably different conditions actually takes us further from the realism many clamor for.
1/21/2010 3:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
How so?

Because, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, MLB players don't have little contact/power/eye ratings that dictate, more or less, how they'll perform.

Now there's no way WifS can get every WORLD to replicate MLB. But they can adjust the engine so that, overall, HBD closely resembles MLB.
1/21/2010 3:15 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2010How so?Because, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, MLB players don't have little contact/power/eye ratings that dictate, more or less, how they'll perform.Now there's no way WifS can get every WORLD to replicate MLB.  But they can adjust the engine so that, overall, HBD closely resembles MLB.

They absolutely *can*, I just don't think they should if they are really striving for realism.

You're right, of course, that there are no contact/power/eye ratings in RL, but GMs use surrogates for them (which are arguably more accurate) such as K (looking/swining), HR, RF/Zone factor, etc.

If you want true realism, the stats for MLB and HBD should match up --- when everything else is equal. That would be as realistic as possible.

Artificially making the stats match up while ignoring player usage takes us further from that.
1/21/2010 3:20 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
HR #’s 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.