Quote: Originally Posted By mark3313 on 12/31/2009"When we developed the original power formula in HBD, Bonds was hitting 73 HR / season. All our data and formulas were based on a time period that is no longer valid in the MLB, so we brought the upper end down. The change we put in place only impacts the upper echelon of HR hitters and only impacts HR. We, and many users, did not like seeing players blast 70,80,90 HR in a season."

If you're changing a player's ability, you need to change their ratings to reflect that, in my opinion.

No, you don't.

You just need to understand that the curve at the upper end of the power rating is now more linear than exponential with respect to HR's.

You don't need to change the rating. You just need to change your understanding of the rating.

99 should still mean 99, it should just be more rare.

Changing the ratings would mean changing the engine (again) to handle changed ratings. Which is a non-productive change.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 12/31/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By mark3313 on 12/31/2009
"When we developed the original power formula in HBD, Bonds was hitting 73 HR / season. All our data and formulas were based on a time period that is no longer valid in the MLB, so we brought the upper end down. The change we put in place only impacts the upper echelon of HR hitters and only impacts HR. We, and many users, did not like seeing players blast 70,80,90 HR in a season."

If you're changing a player's ability, you need to change their ratings to reflect that, in my opinion.

No, you don't.

You just need to understand that the curve at the upper end of the power rating is now more linear than exponential with respect to HR's.

You don't need to change the rating. You just need to change your understanding of the rating.

I can follow that, but shouldn't all the ratings be consistent? That specific rating's curve is now more linear than exponential? Have they all been adjusted in the same manner, or just ONE rating?

(Edited for clarity)

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

Quote: Originally posted by mark3313 on 12/31/2009totally agree but 99 power should still mean 99, yes ?

yeah but whats 99 mean? it's all relative

Quote: Originally posted by mark3313 on 12/31/2009tecwrg, I don't think that's true anymore. In the three leagues I play in, pretty much across the board with very few exceptions, the 60-80-70-70-70 type hitter still performs very well while the 60-90-70-70-70 hitter has struggles to slug .400.

this is just stupid

Quote: Originally Posted By pstrnutbag44 on 12/31/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 12/31/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By mark3313 on 12/31/2009
"When we developed the original power formula in HBD, Bonds was hitting 73 HR / season. All our data and formulas were based on a time period that is no longer valid in the MLB, so we brought the upper end down. The change we put in place only impacts the upper echelon of HR hitters and only impacts HR. We, and many users, did not like seeing players blast 70,80,90 HR in a season."

If you're changing a player's ability, you need to change their ratings to reflect that, in my opinion.

No, you don't.

You just need to understand that the curve at the upper end of the power rating is now more linear than exponential with respect to HR's.

You don't need to change the rating. You just need to change your understanding of the rating.

I can follow that, but shouldn't all the ratings be consistent? That specific rating's curve is now more linear than exponential? Have they all been adjusted in the same manner, or just ONE rating?

(Edited for clarity)

My casual observations over the years have suggested to me that extreme power always worked on a much more exponential curve than did the other ratings. A power rating of 99 made up for a lot more sins in the other categories than it reasonably should have.

My assumption (if this was true) is that it now works more linearly, like the other offensive ratings have always appeared to work.

IOW (from your observation, of course), it's fallen back in line with the rest to actually make it more consistent with the rest of the offensive ratings. That's an angle I could somewhat understand.

Fwiw, HR/G decline by level, since the update:

ML: -22.3%

AAA: -19.8%

AA: -22.3%

A+: -21.0%

A-: -18.3%

RL: -16.9%

So this supports the notion that there's at least somewhat more decline in HR for players with higher power, some flattening of the power-HR curve. It certainly doesn't prove that.

Shouldn't the stat to look at be slugging percentage and not HRs? If they wanted the raw rating to be "home run potential" they'd have called it that, not "power" which can mean homers and those doubles hit out to the warning track, for example.

A good question would be: what have those missing home runs turned into? Are they now outs, or are they now doubles?

Doubles, triples, PA, and hits seem to be about the same. I guess that means the homeruns are becoming singles.

I'm seeing more of an up-tick in doubles for my 80+ power guys (as the HR numbers decrease) but need a larger sample size before I can say if that's a real trend or not.

According to the "Data Across Worlds", doubles have stayed the same since before the update averaging about 2.97/G. Overall Hits/G has decreased.