Writing the HBD Handbook Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/21/2009

How effective is he? Please read my initial answer.

Plus no one has asked how many innings player x can throw. I generally don't answer those because A) I don't know the quality of his competition B) I don't know the quality of his defense C) I don't know the quality of his owner.

Sometimes, and this applies to you here, it's best just to STFU rather than add a pointless point.




Way to waffle. Are you running for office in November?

Perhaps a more accurate answer might have been:

There's no limit on IP for pitchers. There is an implied limit on number of pitches thrown for pitchers based on their durability, stamina and effectiveness. The amount of IP that result are a factor of the pitcher's effectiveness, quality of opposition, defense, etc.

Better? More accurate perhaps?


Except there is a limit. Because, as previously mentioned, an 18/62 pitcher cannot pitch indefinitely. In other words, he cannot throw 27 pitches every day, record an out with every pitch and finish the season 162-0 with 1450 innings pitched. He cannot pitch that many innings in a season.

So, if he cannot pitch every inning of every game, wouldn't you agree that there is a limit?
9/21/2009 10:27 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
OK. The limit is every inning of the regular and post season. I'll agree to that.

If a given pitcher is less than the perfect pitcher showcased in your example above, then I'll stick to my definition . . . how many innings a given pitcher will throw in a given season is determined by durability, stamina and his usage pattern.
9/21/2009 10:51 AM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
The limit for an 18/62 is probably about 2400 pitches in a season.
9/21/2009 10:52 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So there is a limit? Your initial definition implied that there wasn't. I see you've modified it to match my definition.

Again, why did you post in the first place?
9/21/2009 10:53 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/21/2009

Pitchers have a max IP based on pitches thrown. A 18/62 that's effective will get a lot more innings than an ineffective 18/62.


Misleading, as Mike has worded it here. There is no hidden hard limit for max IP that a pitcher can throw in a season. It's all based on usage.
9/21/2009 10:55 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/21/2009The problem around here, eayepert,is that some users, like my buddy tecwrg, will add something that doesn't need to be added. At some point today, someone will undoubtedly post a player who got 608 PA at 85 durability. And they'll say "You can get more than 600 PA from an 85 durability! MikeT is wrong."
9/21/2009 10:58 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
There's no hard limit short of every inning of every regular and post season game. Below that, there is no predefined limit. It's all based on durability, stamina and usage.

Your post implied that there was. My post responded that your statement that there was was misleading.

Go back and read. Let me know which part you don't understand.
9/21/2009 11:01 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
A) I thought you didn't want to answer questions. You've spent two pages arguing a point that cannot be argued.

B) There is a predefined limit. The limit comes from his durability and stamina ratings as well as his effectiveness. The most pitches I've seen thrown in a season is 5,753. Had he recorded an out with each pitch, he could have thrown 210+ games.
9/21/2009 11:10 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
A) I didn't. That's why I advised the poster of the question to take it to a different thread. Then you hijacked the thread by answering anyway with a very misleading answer. To which I fell into the trap and corrected your answer.

B) Exactly how does your showing off the fact that you know how to use the divide key on a calculator answer the original question?
9/21/2009 11:15 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
A) You've agreed to my original premise. How in the hell is it "misleading" unless you're doing the same thing?

B) The original question asked if there was a max IP limit that could be determined by DUR/STM ratings. My response was "No, it depends on his effectiveness. But you can get a rough pitch count from DUR/STM ratings." You went off on a dumbass tangent, amended your response to agree with mine and now won't STFU because you're either too stupid, stubborn or both to admit you'd have looked less stupid by not replying.
9/21/2009 11:26 AM
snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/21/2009Pitchers have a max IP based on pitches thrown. [not a hard limit] A 18/62 that's effective will get a lot more innings than an ineffective 18/62
The second sentence is correct.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/21/2009
There is no hidden hard limit for max IP that a pitcher can throw in a season. It's all based on usage.
That is also correct.

All newb's will find that some veterans will argue just for the sake of arguing. You will need to take them with a grain of salt. The above argument over trivial semantics is a perfect example.

You will also find that when a veteran's argument is discredited, he will commonly just change the subject and attempt to attack someone. You will soon learn to completely ignore them.

Hope that helps.
9/21/2009 11:54 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/21/2009
Pitchers have a max IP based on pitches thrown. A 18/62 that's effective will get a lot more innings than an ineffective 18/62.

Appearently, based on the the content of your subsequent posts, what you meant by this statement, was that (for example) if a pitcher threw 2400 pitches in a season, and every one of those pitches resulted in an out, then he has a max IP of 800.

Which is (almost) true.

But I'm guessing that very few people (i.e. nobody but you) would read that statement as it is written and know with absolute certainty that's what you meant. Instead, a n00b might read that and conclude that what you are saying is that, for example, you should be able to predict how many IP an 18/62 pitcher should produce with a normal pattern of usage.

Which, as I pointed out, is misleading. You cannot.

I will agree that one of us has been extremely stubborn in this thread. I know you're not stupid, unless you suffered some brain damage over the weekend.

And, since you're just like my wife and NEED to have the last word and have YOUR WAY be the RIGHT WAY, it's all yours for the final word.
9/21/2009 12:08 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/21/2009

Pitchers have a max IP based on pitches thrown. A 18/62 that's effective will get a lot more innings than an ineffective 18/62.


Appearently, based on the the content of your subsequent posts, what you meant by this statement, was that (for example) if a pitcher threw 2400 pitches in a season, and every one of those pitches resulted in an out, then he has a max IP of 800.

Which is (almost) true.

But I'm guessing that very few people (i.e. nobody but you) would read that statement as it is written and know with absolute certainty that's what you meant. Instead, a n00b might read that and conclude that what you are saying is that, for example, you should be able to predict how many IP an 18/62 pitcher should produce with a normal pattern of usage.

Which, as I pointed out, is misleading. You cannot.

I will agree that one of us has been extremely stubborn in this thread. I know you're not stupid, unless you suffered some brain damage over the weekend.

And, since you're just like my wife and NEED to have the last word and have YOUR WAY be the RIGHT WAY, it's all yours for the final word.

My wife too. I think it's just the way that women (and MikeT) are.
9/21/2009 12:11 PM
soxfan121
Posts: 82 (0)
Hall of Famer
61
Prospect
Excellent demonstration of topics that fall into the DEBATES section of the Handbook. Bravo Gentlemen! Back on topic, please.

Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 9/20/2009Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts thus far. This is already going much better than I thought it could.

I'd like to see three sections: Facts (provable beyond a reasonable doubt), Debates (the PC catcher stuff is just the tip of the iceberg there, fellas) and Theories (everything else - TheJester's work comes to mind here, as well as stuff like maddiesdad's spreadsheet programs).

I'm certainly not an authority on this game and any project like this needs MANY viewpoints and contributors. I look forward to the help offered by sitemail and already received in this thread. If you want to help - please. The Mentors will be (I hope) a big help because they hear "new" questions more often than do the denizens of the forums.

Please answer the following questions, either in this thread or by sitemail. Thanks for your help!!

***What are topics that the Handbook should address?***

***What are topics the Handbook should not address?***

***What three things would you tell a new HBD owner, if asked for advice?***


9/21/2009 12:15 PM
schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
9/21/2009 12:37 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7 Next ▸
Writing the HBD Handbook 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.