Power ratings Topic

swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
So with a 15-20% drop across the board in HRs we ask ourselves the question...

Is this only impacting the upper echelon of hitters?
12/31/2009 9:56 PM
bfkfraser
Posts: 1197 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 120 168
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/31/2009
So with a 15-20% drop across the board in HRs we ask ourselves the question...

Is this only impacting the upper echelon of hitters?

It is not, Nor should it
12/31/2009 11:08 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by mark3313 on 12/31/2009

This is what they wrote to me.
"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 All our data and formulas were based on a time period that is no longer valid in the MLB, so we brought the upper end down.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."

Again, they "brought the upper end down".

Despite the assertion to you to the contrary, that would not "only impact the upper echelon of HR hitters", nor would it "only impact HR".
1/1/2010 2:28 AM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By jvford on 12/31/2009

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

Quote: Originally Posted By dedelman on 12/31/2009
Agree with jvford and tec.
Perhaps someone can explain then why overall hits have gone down, HR's have gone down, but Doubles & Triples are the same. Judging just off the stats, those HR's do appear to be turning into outs, unless HR's are turning into doubles and conversely some doubles are turning into outs (which does make sense, I'm just genuinely curious).

Edited: Somewhere along the line though, the fact that there are less hits overall should come into consideration, shouldn't it? Is it just because of the decrease in power? Is it an over-correction? Is it something else entirely?
I think you're misreading the data. Total hits have stayed about the same. With homeruns dropping significantly, and doubles and triples staying the same, it stands to reason that the homeruns are turning into singles. (Although that's more likely a net result - homeruns are probably turning into doubles and triples, while doubles and triples are turning into singles, but that's just my opinion)
Based on the page I linked in the Data Across Worlds thread, WiS' own data, there are less HR/G and H/G overall in the last 6-8 weeks. Moreso than any other time in the history kept on that very page. Significantly more, especially considering the sheer amount of data they have used. Until recently, both had been very stable numbers. I'm not misreading the data. It's there for everyone to see, if they chose to.
1/1/2010 2:43 AM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
If you are trying to cap the top-end homers then there has to be a trickle down effect. If I make 100-100-100-100-100 less productive then 30-90-40-40-30 is obviously going to be less productive as well. If not then Ive gone and diminished value of the best players and increased value of the below average balls of crap
1/1/2010 6:00 AM
dedelman
Posts: 2238 (0)
Hall of Famer
323 219
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By pstrnutbag44 on 1/01/2010Based on the page I linked in the Data Across Worlds thread, WiS' own data, there are less HR/G and H/G overall in the last 6-8 weeks. Moreso than any other time in the history kept on that very page. Significantly more, especially considering the sheer amount of data they have used. Until recently, both had been very stable numbers. I'm not misreading the data. It's there for everyone to see, if they chose to.
HR are down 0.6 per game, and hits are down 0.06 per game. The HR are 90% becoming singles, and 10% outs.
1/1/2010 6:49 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 12/31/2009
Small sample size in Mantle (50 games), but I'm seeing the same thing at least for my big power guys.

Perhaps home runs are turning into doubles for the top power guys, doubles are turning into singles for the lesser power guys.

Based on jvford's observation, that could fit. Doubles are netting out even, but overall less home runs and more singles.

1/1/2010 7:09 AM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dedelman on 1/01/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By pstrnutbag44 on 1/01/2010
Based on the page I linked in the Data Across Worlds thread, WiS' own data, there are less HR/G and H/G overall in the last 6-8 weeks. Moreso than any other time in the history kept on that very page. Significantly more, especially considering the sheer amount of data they have used. Until recently, both had been very stable numbers. I'm not misreading the data. It's there for everyone to see, if they chose to.
HR are down 0.6 per game, and hits are down 0.06 per game. The HR are 90% becoming singles, and 10% outs
Not sure where pstrnutbag is seeing the drop in H/G, it's just a normal fluctuation. 19.154 now, 19.215 on 11/9, and 19.150 on 9/28.
1/1/2010 7:48 AM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1565126

http://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1051149

An interesting (though small sample size) from one of my teams. Hitting ratings for both players are very similar. Christensen has better contact and Tejera has better vL, but otherwise they are pretty close across the board.

From a pure power perspective, Tejera is basically the same as before the fix. His SLG is down, but so is his average. His 3B/HR are all about the same as last year and his 2B are down slightly.

Christensen however is having a very bad year by his standards. Some of that could be just a bad year, but what makes me think it isn't is that his ave is about where it was last season (slightly lower), but his HRs (and for some reason BB) are way down and his Ks are up.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1050474

Now this guy is actually hitting for a little more power, but not a statistically significant amount. He is doing about what I would expect someone with his ratings to do. He has been remarkably consistent in his last 5 years never having an OPS lower than 974 or higher than 1002.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1359305

The last player I wanted to show is similar to the first 2. His BA is actually up this season, and his HRs are behind last year's pace. He has 1/2 the 2B and no 3B this season. Oddly, his BB are down as well.

All these guys are on the same team and are playing in the same home park as last season. The league as a whole is pretty good and doesn't have major issues with people playing players out of position or anything like that. I always felt that the numbers were pretty legit in the league. The league average ERA has historically been around 4.5 - 4.6 and is around 4.2 this year. Clearly they wanted runs down and they got what they wanted. The question is did they go about doing it the right way?
1/1/2010 7:55 AM
mark3313
Posts: 1648 (0)
Hall of Famer
125 14 220
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by antonsirius on 1/01/2010
Quote: Originally posted by mark3313 on 12/31/2009
This is what they wrote to me.
"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."
Again, they "brought the upper end down".

Despite the assertion to you to the contrary, that would not "only impact the upper echelon of HR hitters", nor would it "only impact HR".


That would be true if they tweaked all hitters which they did not do. They selected the group that had hit an excess amount of hrs and "corrected" only them. That is why, in my opinion, you're seeing consistency in most players but huge, unusual drop offs in the performance by past , elite HR hitters.

I applaud the effort to bring HR totals down, but they should have "corrected" everyone, not just a select "steroid" group.
1/1/2010 11:59 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
They didn't tweak any hitters, mark. That isn't even a feasible change to the engine, really.

They tweaked HR frequency at one end of the scale. They "brought the upper end down". They changed their "formulas" -- they didn't introduce some search and destroy algorithm into the engine designed to only seek out players with a PWR rating in a certain range. Frankly, it's ridiculously naive to think that they would.
1/1/2010 12:06 PM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 1/01/2010They didn't tweak any hitters, mark. That isn't even a feasible change to the engine, really.

They tweaked HR frequency at one end of the scale. They "brought the upper end down". They changed their "formulas" -- they didn't introduce some search and destroy algorithm into the engine designed to only seek out players with a PWR rating in a certain range. Frankly, it's ridiculously naive to think that they would
If you read what they told him (and if you believe it), you guys are both arguing the same thing. Yes, they brought down the upper end, and it only affects the upper echelon of HR hitters. That is what they are claiming they did. So you're both right.

So instead of debating nothing, why not address whether they handled the situation properly or not? That is a much more interesting debate in my opinion.
1/1/2010 12:38 PM
snake_p
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 60 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dedelman on 1/01/2010HR are down 0.6 per game, and hits are down 0.06 per game. The HR are 90% becoming singles, and 10% outs.
Gee, do ya think it's possible that there are other explanations?
1/1/2010 12:50 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
But it wouldn't only affect those hitters, hart. That's nonsense. The tweak would hit them the hardest, sure, but it couldn't target a specific type of player. A player with 0 PWR still has some small chance to hit a home run; it's just much less of a chance than a player with 100 PWR.

All they did by "bringing the upper end down" is narrow the difference between the two to some degree.

If you believe that the change exclusively affects elite power hitters, then you believe they introduced new code into the engine specifically to target those players. And that's ridiculous.
1/1/2010 12:52 PM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
I know YOU think that. You've made it clear. Here is what they said:

"The change we put in place only impacts the upper echelon of HR hitters and only impacts HR."

I'm not sure how you can interpret that to mean that it affects every player.
1/1/2010 12:55 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...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.