Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/17/2010

I assumed that's what you meant as I assumed you understood how modifiers worked.

So, back to my example, which guy do you think he helped more?

"Modifiers" can work in many different ways.

1) If PC essentially divides the # of hits by a %, then it helps bad pitchers (who give up more hits to begin with) more than good.

2) If PC essentially multiplies a pitcher's ratings, then good pitchers (who have higher ratings to begin with) will be helped more than bad pitchers.

3) If PC is essentially an add-on effect and not a multiplying/dividing effect, then it should reduce the % of AB that result in a hit on a striaght-line basis, with good and bad pitchers seeing their OAV go down by a similar # of points over a large enough sample size.

All 3 are plausible and really equally logical ways to implement PC. Barring any statistical data one way or the other, I choose to assume (3) because if I'm wrong, I will be wrong by a smaller amount than if I choose (1) and (2) turns out to be true, or vice versa.

I'm going to say you're wrong by the largest margin possible. I'd put my money on 1.

I don't think it makes a big difference which one an owner assumes. But modifiers can easily work in all 3 ways. Not all modifiers are multipliers. Some are add-ons. I have no idea which one is true for PC. You may well have a much better idea than I do and be 100% correct.

Additionally, I'd suggest that lowering an OAV from .290 to .280 probably helps more than lowering from .220 to .210, because the higher OAV guy will allow more of those additional runners to score than the low OAV guy. He'll also face more men-in-scoring-position ABs than the low OAV guy. This will show up in ERA. Thus, even if it is a straght line cut in OAV, it probably helps the high OAV guy more (up to the point where his OAV is so high that he's not useful regardless of PC).

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 2/17/2010I'm going to say you're wrong by the largest margin possible.   I'd put my money on 1. 

The largest margin possible would be if he chose 2 and the actual answer was 1, or vice versa.

I still haven't seen anything to me that indicates why you feel so strongly that the correct answer is the first option. Something in a development chat? Advanced statistical analysis? Communication with site staff? A hunch? Faith?

Call me strange but I don't take things on faith, or because they sound right, or because they are "common sense". Often things that are "common sense" are anything but.

OAV is percentage based. It's silly to believe that "reducing OAV" is a straight line reduction. Actually, the entire game is percentage based.

It's silly to think anything would be an off-the-top change.

Quote: Originally posted by jwelsh1023 on 2/16/2010What the hell is a padna?

partner, pardner, padner, padna.

Two catchers throwing to the same pitchers over most of three seasons: http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1809485 and http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1899158. Francona's pitch count has improved from 55 to 59 over that time, and Duran's is 74. Removing season 3 stats (when the staff was still bad) to account for Francona's not being on the team, and you get Francona with a career cERA of 3.95 and Duran with a cERA of 3.82. If someone wanted to get data like that from several teams, it would probably give a very accurate picture of exactly how much PC affects ERA.

Unfortunately, the fact that PC is not a static number for very many years of most catching careers would make it a little fuzzy. Hard to find many teams with 2 catchers in their primes playing together for many seasons.