OK So maybe I am missing something, but this makes no sense to me.
I am going to use 2001 Bonds as an example:

His normalized numbers for each type of hit per 100AB are as follows:
1B: 10, 2B: 6, 3B: 0, HR: 11

Normalized batting average, .328 and slugging .853.

I have two issues/questions with this, that's only 27 hits per 100 AB, which would give him a .270 BA. Even if we arbitrarily decided that they were all .9 and that wasn't show, that only gets us to .316.

Slugging same thing, that's only 66 total bases per 100 AB, or .660, so where is this .853 coming from? It's not even close even if we added .9 to each, that only gets us to .750.

So what am I missing here, because these numbers just don't add up.

each category is normalized separately, so they're not necessarily going to add up

since a huge percentage of Bonds' hits were home runs, and he played in an extremely home run friendly era, the normalized home run number is way lower than the actual number. it would probably come closer to adding up for a slap hitter like 2001 Ichiro

My point was the data is inconsistent. It says his slugging is .853, and the total bases miss by almost 200 points.
Why even put a SLG# in the profile if it's so ridiculously inaccurate?

Even in years where the hitting was just bonkers, like 1894, I looked at a few of the better players, while they came up short, not nearly to the degree of Bonds or other modern sluggers.

It feels like they are being unfairly punished if this is the case. Having a guy in 1894 having a few singles per 100AB turned into outs isn't going to break him that bad, but having a modern slugger have 1/3 of their HRs per 100AB turned into outs is just crippling.
If that's how they want to play the game, then fine, but at least put accurate data in their profiles to reflect this without having to do a bunch of math.

You need to subtract his 26 BB/100 from his totals. That will get you closer to his stats.

Posted by mensu1954 on 11/15/2022 2:10:00 PM (view original):
You need to subtract his 26 BB/100 from his totals. That will get you closer to his stats.

My thoughts at first, but this doesn't hold up either.

1B,2B,3B,HR are listed as per 100AB, so they should, at least in theory, already have taken that out.
BB is listed as per 100PA, which makes a HUGE difference.

This is why I only discussed BA and SLG in my original post, walks should not affect this.
If I get 30 hits per 100AB, my batter average is .300, doesn't matter if I batted 10 times and walked a million times I'm still batting .300.

When the BB/100 PA are subtracted, that leaves the AB. The stats are based on AB, not PA.

I just looked at 1894 Billy Hamilton, he comes up way short as well, Hugh Duffy on the other hard is very close.

It seems like Hamilton is punished as a single hitter in 1894, where as Duffy gets a "bonus" in the HR column.

2001 Ichiro, who has almost no walks, also comes up short way short in slugging, although his batting average doesn't miss that badly.

It definitely is raising the question to me, are AVG#, OBP#, SLG#, and OPS# just window dressing?

Posted by mensu1954 on 11/15/2022 2:22:00 PM (view original):
When the BB/100 PA are subtracted, that leaves the AB. The stats are based on AB, not PA.

I know what you are saying, but take Bonds again:

Hits are: 10/6/0/11 each per 100AB. That is 27 hits per 100AB, which is .270, while his AVG# is .328.
Walks has zero to do with this.

You can take 1994 Matt Williams who has an extremely low walk rate and also come up way short on the number of hits and total bases you'd need to get to his posted normalized stats.

After looking over several players I'm drafting for a league, they all seem to be close to their normalized stats when adding across the line. Like you stated, there seems to be something screwed up about BB's line.

EDIT: Maybe that's why he almost always underperforms.

I think the issue is: For high power years, they are turning a sizable % of HRs into out rather than just other types of hits, which is devastating to someone like Bonds, McGwire, Judge, basically anyone with a high IsoP.
For high average years, guys like Billy Hamilton are getting singles turned into outs, which while that hurts, it's not nearly as big of a disaster as losing 1/3 of your HR.

Which begs the question, if such a large % of HRs are simple being turned into outs, why is this? Why aren't they just turned into other types of hits which would make a lot more sense? This basically just guts the effectiveness of any power hitter after the 1930s.

By comparison:

1894 Hamilton loses 3 singles per 100 and a triple, the rest minimal, or 6 total bases per 100

2001 Bonds loses 4 HRs per 100, or 16 total bases per 100! OUCH!!

Keep in mind, every player I've looked at suggests these hits that are getting normalized out are turning into outs, not other types of hits. Not a huge deal for a slap hitter like Hamilton, but for guys who have a large number of extra base hits, it's a killer.

So yeah, it's players with high IsoP that are getting killed here

Bonds' line isn't screwed up, it's because each type of hit and overall slugging percentage are normalized separately. 2001 Bonds is an extreme outlier in that 50% of his hits were home runs. And he did this in one of the most home run happy seasons in MLB history.

His raw home run rate is 15.3 per 100 AB. This gets normalized down to 11. Assuming the rounded normalized number is 10.5, that's 4.8 home runs lower per 100 ABs, which is 192 points of slugging percentage. 853 (normalized SLG)-660(sum of rounded normalized parts) = 193. That's the difference right there.

So in the case of a player like Bonds, the normalized SLG is going to be way off. A hypothetical player who hit .853 with all singles would be very close to the normalized slugging number.

Because slugging percentage is a component of four different types of hits, all of which are normalized independently, it's completely useless when normalized without context.

The hits are not being turned into outs. That is not how the sim works. The decision tree (after looking at walks and HBP) looks at batting average to determine hit or out. Then it looks at home run rate to determine home run or not home run. Then it looks at single, double and triple rate to determine single, double or triple.

I'll see if I can find the thread on how the decision tree works, it will help clarify your understanding. EDIT: Couldn't find it.

It's looking like SLG# (the way it's currently calculated) isn't very useful here at WIS. Take a look at 1898 Topsy Hartsel. He hit no doubles, no triples, no homeruns (every hit was a single). His AVG# is lower than his AVG, but his SLG# is higher than his SLG.

Posted by 06gsp on 11/15/2022 4:34:00 PM (view original):
The hits are not being turned into outs. That is not how the sim works. The decision tree (after looking at walks and HBP) looks at batting average to determine hit or out. Then it looks at home run rate to determine home run or not home run. Then it looks at single, double and triple rate to determine single, double or triple.

I'll see if I can find the thread on how the decision tree works, it will help clarify your understanding. EDIT: Couldn't find it.

Here is one: https://image.slideserve.com/41801/pa-decision-tree-steps-2-n.jpg

Here is another: https://image.slideserve.com/41801/pa-decision-tree-steps-3-n.jpg