The steroid era is over Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't read your posts. Looked long-winded. Seemed like 6.
11/4/2009 1:29 PM
dgtrache
Posts: 109 (0)
Hall of Famer
62 11 2 2 62 151
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/04/2009My guess is they toned down 99 by 9%, 95 by 7%, 90 by 5% and so on down the line until it reached a certain point. I'd expect 70 power still has 70 power. They weren't the "problem". It was the 90+ guys hitting 80
If they did do this, and depending upon the methodology, you might have a situation where an 85 power was actually more powerful than an 86 power.
11/4/2009 1:33 PM
spudpicker
Posts: 66 (0)
All Star
4 36
Prospect
"Lowering the ceiling is essentially dumbing it down so guys that don't understand pitching won't get rocked."

Or maybe they are "nerfing" upper-end power because it produced unintended results.

It appears they might not hvae thought the advantage given to 99 power guys combined with the fact you can play terrible defenders with little consequence in LF/RF was good for creating strategy in the game.

Now maybe they expect people will pay more attention to the other ratings and dampen the value of 90+ power.

11/4/2009 1:41 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dgtrache on 11/04/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/04/2009
My guess is they toned down 99 by 9%, 95 by 7%, 90 by 5% and so on down the line until it reached a certain point. I'd expect 70 power still has 70 power. They weren't the "problem". It was the 90+ guys hitting 80.
If they did do this, and depending upon the methodology, you might have a situation where an 85 power was actually more powerful than an 86 power.


The "certain point" would be where the higher number crossed into the same expected results of the lower number.
11/4/2009 2:15 PM
snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/04/2009I don't read your posts.
That's only fair.
11/4/2009 2:21 PM
disaacs
Posts: 223 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 88 94
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/04/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/03/2009
Tons of homers are still largely a by-product of shoddy pitching. We've never had a 70 homer guy in Cooperstown.


I agree. I have a guy with 76 Con, 98 Power, 63 vsR, and 84 BE, who only got over 70 HRs 1 time (in a hitter's park). He generally just gets about 50-60. That's more of a result of facing good pitching.
11/4/2009 4:30 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By disaacs on 11/04/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/04/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 11/03/2009
Tons of homers are still largely a by-product of shoddy pitching. We've never had a 70 homer guy in Cooperstown.



I agree. I have a guy with 76 Con, 98 Power, 63 vsR, and 84 BE, who only got over 70 HRs 1 time (in a hitter's park). He generally just gets about 50-60. That's more of a result of facing good pitching.
I dont necessarily agree. There have probably been close to 2000 seasons of HBD played to date and WIS has more than an ample collection of stats to compare with real life numbers. yes there are tarded up worlds out there (i.e. Foxx) that are going to skew the numbers, but for every world that gets called out in the forums there are probably 15-20 or more worlds that either someone gloats about (such as Cooperstown -- not that I have anything against Coop, it probably is one of the top 5 worlds out there imho) or that simply dont get any mention at all. I find it hard to believe that anything other then a small proportion of the worlds out there are completely skewed in their numbers that 10 or so seasons in them would throw off WIS's numbers.

I also think that pinting to just one world and saying "hey, we went 8 or 9 seasons without a 70 HR guy" is way too smal a sample size. In Moneyball, which I think few would doubt is also one of the "top worlds" out there, we have already had 3 70+ HR seasons. I have no problem with WIS making this adjustment. Just because one world didnt take steroids doesnt mean 99 other solid to great worlds didnt either.
11/5/2009 9:47 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't necessarily disagree with you either. I was simply pointing out that, in my experience, better quality worlds(and you can use whatever guideline you want for quality but we probably end up at the same place) don't produce stat-skewering numbers. Using Moneyball as an example, you've had 3 players in 7+ seasons reach MLB-record numbers. Nothing insane about that. But, if you had 22 with 70+ homers in 7+ seasons, I'd raise an eyebrow about the quality of pitchers that are being used. Or maybe the parks.

I think we're on the same page but you seem to have a stick up your butt about it.
11/5/2009 10:00 AM
◂ Prev 12345
The steroid era is over 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.