Power ratings Topic

pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 12/31/2009I am seeing Home Runs down on all players over 70 not just the high end. Home Runs have been brought down to a more realistic level, I have no complaints about that. What does seem to be a bother to me is that players with high power ratings have been nerfed in comparison to players with low power ratings. Power should of dropped across the board, not make a 100 power hitter slightly better than a 80 power hitter and I think most of you are either not getting the point people are driving into you or ignoring that point
I agree with this 100%.
12/31/2009 4:33 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/31/2009 4:39 PM
mark3313
Posts: 1648 (0)
Hall of Famer
125 14 220
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/31/2009 5:11 PM
mark3313
Posts: 1648 (0)
Hall of Famer
125 14 220
Prospect
"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 All our data and formulas were based on a time period that is no longer valid in the MLB, so we brought the upper end down.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."


I think it's reasonable to assume, while tinkering to make HR totals less, they over punished the elite power hitters.
12/31/2009 5:21 PM
schedule1
Posts: 83 (0)
Hall of Famer
109 1 96
Prospect
i don't think simply comparing MLB totals to HBD totals tells the full story. as many here have pointed out in other threads, many owners choose to user players out of position, which is potentially a major factor in high offensive totals. some pitchers that i've faced at the ML level are also awful. focusing on the numerical comparison obscures usage issues.

the sim should produce true-to-life numbers assuming that it is being used as intended. you can't look at the first part without checking the assumption in the second.
12/31/2009 5:24 PM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
A league could still produce 70-80 HR hitters if it wanted. All the owners have to do is now value defensive ratings even less because they need to generate more power. Less defense = more hits, more power hitters = more HR.

I don't disagree that the power numbers were out of control to some extent, but I'm not sure they actually understand why. In fact, I'm convinced that they don't. Site staff (like always) took the easiest option to get the end result they wanted without considering any of the real issues or studying what was happening.
12/31/2009 5:37 PM
schedule1
Posts: 83 (0)
Hall of Famer
109 1 96
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by hartjh14 on 12/31/2009  Site staff ... took the easiest option to get the end result they wanted without considering any of the real issues or studying what was happening.

i think this is a possibility.
12/31/2009 5:38 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By mark3313 on 12/31/2009
Quote: Originally posted by jvford on 12/31/2009Doubles, triples, PA, and hits seem to be about the same. I guess that means the homeruns are becoming singles. [/QUOTE]HRs are becoming outs at an alarming rate.
The update only affected certain hitters (those with extreme power) and everyone else alone. If you have a rating system which rates every player on the same scale, then change the abilities of only a percentage of hitters, the ratings for those changed players are misleading. The scale of 1-100, 100 being best, doesn't work anymore if 80 is better than 90.

I'm not saying change every hitter's ratings, just change those hitters who were tinkered with in the update to reflect what kind of hitter they are now.



If you believe this, take my advice. Trade your 90s for 80s. I bet you won't have any problem at all in doing so.
12/31/2009 5:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 12/28/2009

The problem is that you're trying to use a very small sample size(a couple of your players) to prove a point. It doesn't work like that.

Top 10(Moonlight Graham-NL Only) in homers:
6199886585


6096454257


5992659273


9197876687


4686877563


4893968765


8497547486


8193717275


7299666464


8389546285


Notice anything? We've played 108 games. All under the new power engine. I picked one league only because, with that many games played, they should have faced similar pitchers. Now tell me what you notice about those players.

12/31/2009 5:51 PM
mark3313
Posts: 1648 (0)
Hall of Famer
125 14 220
Prospect
I'm using overall OPS for all worlds as my sample size. From 12/29/08 through 11/2/09 it was .780. Now it's .752 and the only change, they say, was the tweaking of the elite power hitter. That means a small group of hitters are making an awful lot more outs.

The players I used were merely to illustrate what I was saying (not, alone, as any sort of proof). Also if you have two players, with all except power equal, at 80 power and 90 , then reduce the production of the 90 power hitter by 20+ %, the 80 power hitter becomes more productive.
12/31/2009 6:02 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I thought your conclusion was that 80 was better than 90. Did it change?
12/31/2009 6:05 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Without a doubt this change has had a effect on more than the elite power hitters. All my 20+ home run hitters from last season have seen a noticeable drop in their homers. When I looked at the final home run numbers of my most recent league it looked close to real life. No complaints with the overall result, my problem is the results in comparison with the ratings. How you get to the results is as important as the results themselves.
12/31/2009 6:08 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
My 20+ home run hitters didn't have a noticeable drop. Guess that shoots your theory all to hell.
12/31/2009 6:11 PM
mark3313
Posts: 1648 (0)
Hall of Famer
125 14 220
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 12/31/2009I thought your conclusion was that 80 was better than 90.   Did it change?


It seems, because only the 90+ power hitters were penalized, the 80 power hitters (all else being equal ) are out producing them. Makes sense too; penalize the 90 guy 20+% and he won't/ shouldn't produce as well as his 80 counterpart.
12/31/2009 6:13 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 12/31/2009My 20+ home run hitters didn't have a noticeable drop.   Guess that shoots your theory all to hell.

No theory. My quote said all my 20+ home run hitters have seen a noticeable drop. I can post them later if you need a visual or you can just take my word and not question me.
12/31/2009 6:16 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6...14 Next ▸
Power ratings 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.