Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new normal
I'm still trying to assess to what extent the new WAR calculations impact on actual performance.
Specifically, I'm in a new Ruthian autoleague and in looking at the free agent pool, the highest-rated WAR SP is George Uhie, who traditionally performs akin to a batting practice pitcher. Is he now a bonafide stud with a likelihood to outperform other available SPs ranked nearly twice as high as him?
I think the same question, to a certain extent, applies to batters, where a lot of WAR ratings are at odds with PC rankings.
Bottom line, i guess: Over time will a player's rankings change relative to the increase/decrease in their WAR numbers?
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
I don't think we're sure yet, but it's supposed to replace the FIRE stat. So it's not supposed to be the one stat for how good a pitcher or hitter is, but it is a significant part of their performance. How significant is not well known yet.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
I've been asking myself the same questions.
I just have no clue about my drafts anymore.
From stra-o-matic, ootp, I know what I am getting..
Now here , I have no clue !!!
I am not enjoying at all..
After more than a decade + on this site. I've started clearing my leagues today...
I feel like wasting my time.
All the leagues I have to renew... I am clearing.
It's been a fun ride.
Unfortunately., this site from a gem it was, it is slowly going down the drain. Seem like clueless sim people are more listened to than any users playing those games for 20-30-50 years !!!
Enjoy the BBall the Foot Ball or what ever the orientation this site is going.
I have spend enough time and money here. I am gone !
Trust me I,ve been one of the strongest advocate here. Unfortunately, it is going down south...
It is now shooting in all directions without a clear purposes.
I guess, something that is often never lsiten too was also ignored here : If it's not broken, don't fix it !
Why changing the core of this game when the obvious flaw was the running game baffles me !
I am slowly out of here !
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I'm personally looking forward to it. It's just a different Fire number that considers how many games the guy played and how they stacked up to the competition. The old Fire number seemed almost solely based on HR/AB and K/9.
Short season 2017 Matt Olson used to sim as a 1.003 OPS player who got a god boost (Fire) 31% of the time, now sims like a 1.003 OPS player who gets the god boost 2% of the time. That seems reasonable to me.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
If you’re wanting to leave the site over this I would say take a beat and understand what’s changing. This is only a change to the fire number.
So remember war represents how well that player did in that particular season and since these leagues consist of players who all did great in their individual years, it’s not going to be unusual to see players with similar war. But the ranking is determining the best of the best, so the high ranked players not only dominated their individual seasons, but they are the best of the bunch.
That’s why war is only being used for FIRE. Continue to use the real stats as you do for analysis.
So if someone’s WAR is 4.5 they have a 4.5 percent chance of being on fire. Fire works that exact same as it did, it’s just going to be a lower number for most players, hence I’m expecting less on fire games overall across the leagues.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I think what some people, myself included, kinda feel like they have no real idea what they are doing again, because there is no data to base decisions on.
I will take my lumps I guess, and figure it out, or maybe, my regular approach may be fine, time will tell.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Agree with many others that this should help a tiny fraction, but it's certainly not a big change in the grand scheme of things. You can actually still turn fire off if you don't like it at all.
Also, Guy said "if a guy has an oWar of 4.5 then he has a 4.5 percent chance of being on fire. That's true for lead-off hitters. The chances of a hitter being on fire actually lessen the further down the lineup he hits. If you're batting 9th, for example, and you have an oWar of 4.5, then you only have a 4.5 percent chance of being on fire if nobody else in the lineup ahead of you is on fire each game. So it's actually quite a bit less than 4.5 in reality.
So I don't think Fire counts for as much as some guys think it does, even less so now if your league is using oWar. As Guy says, the ranking and the actual stats are much more important for gauging how a player will perform. Just my two cents.
And PLPL, I know the Montreal Canadiens are missing the playoffs again this year and that sucks, but life will go on. Stick around and have some fun. Join a Gus league for goodness sake. They're good for the soul.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
So, will multiple hitters be able to be on fire now that the likelihood of individual hitters being on fire is roughly half what it was?
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Cheers Gus. My decision is made.
I know this was a very difficult Habs season once again...
I stick around here because I believed this site was an hidden gem with a lack of visibility.
Unfortunately, newbies with no clues of what Sim games are all about were the one listened to...
They are going to be the ones vanishing from this site as soon as they came also. It is Just Human Nature.
I just can't approve this way of doing things.
Unfortunately., it is not shooting for par here. anymore.
It started with the pinch runners adjustment that are just terrible.
Turning everything upside down just makes no sense to me.
I personnaly saw Fire as the synonymous of having some pop !
No Hoskins,Olson,Carpenter drama... just having soem pop !!!!
And trust me I could careless about those guys, since I rarely play leagues where these guys are involved
There is a reason why Nolan Ryan could get hotter than a Bob Tewksbury.
I guess some people were whinning about it and were listen to !
I just prefer going where I am not waisting my time...
I will stick around here with a minimal amount of leagues until it does make sense to me.
I surely respect Guy, because this is his baby and he surely can be proud of it.
Unfortunately it just doesn't fit my expectations anymore..
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I always respect @PLPL and his opinions. I'd be surprised if this change eliminates Nolan's edge over Tewksbury, considering Nolan is still going to get the K's and the fewer hits - he produces about .50 better ERA and .10 better WHIP over Tewksbury in 1990s leagues, so we'll see if this FIRE change impacts that.... if it does, maybe it's worth revisiting.... you guys know I'm not stubborn about changing things or fixing things.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Hi Everyone,
I think I've lost the bubble here. The conversation was about using oWAR to replace a formula based on (HR/AB) to calculate Fire for batters.
Now, Pipl and Guy are talking about whether Bob Tewksbury will now perform better than Nolan Ryan in 1990s leagues due to the change. Tewksbury and Ryan are pitchers. The sim doesn't use batting stats for pitchers.
It sounds like we're saying that, in addition to the batting calculation, pitching fire was changed to be based on pitching WAR, rather than K/9. I didn't understand this previously, and probably would have voted differently on that topic, because of the issues with pitching WAR (a metric by which the best season ever was Pud Galvin 1884).
Also, Pipl didn't claim that Tewksbury would now outperform Ryan, or even that Ryan was the better pitcher, or had the better stats. He implied that Ryan "could get hotter" than Tewksbury, which is accurate. K/9 is probably a better measure of "proclivity to be in the zone" than pitching WAR.
But I still appreciate the effort to make the sim more realistic and I appreciate that Guy can monitor and change/tweak if needed, especially on the pitching side.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
It does also change pitchers from FIRE to WAR...
Looked up 1884 Pud Galvin and see he started 72 games that year, then I got to thinking, how about some 1800's only leagues??
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
@REVEJB That's a great idea. It would basically be the first half (chronologically) of the deadball seasons. It would also give a boost to guys who played in the (less highly regarded) American Association and have great stats, but have never been seriously considered for the HoF, for that reason.
I know there are lots of variables, but pitching WAR is heavily influenced by both BB/9 and K/9. All else equal, a guy who both walks and strikes out a lot of hitters (Ryan) will generally have a lower pitching WAR than a guy with good control but lower strikeout rates (Tewksbury). But the first type of pitcher is generally more prone to hot (and for that matter, cold) streaks.
In this case, Ryan is superior in run prevention (ERA), hit prevention (H/9), on-base prevention (WHIP), and strikeouts (K/9), but Tewksbury is given a higher WAR, presumably due to BB/9 and ancillary factors. But who is more likely to be "in the zone" in a particular game?
Still, it will be fun to see how this plays out!
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
A career 36-44, 4.77 ERA pitcher in that league, who now appears unstoppable. Sounds about right!
We've debated before about compilation vs. efficiency stats vs. a hybrid of the two. Galvin got that pitching WAR total by compilation (within a season), but it indicates a percentage of time that the pitcher is "on fire." In other words, it's a compilation stat being used as a rate stat.
Fun fact: Galvin is also the first known player to use PEDs, and everyone was quite proud of him for doing so!
@Shiek: Galvin's rating/rank is 56 in that league. Do you happen to know what it was before the change? Does the change in how "fire" is calculated change the pitcher's rank?
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I don't believe WAR is part of the RANK calculation - just as FIRE wasn't.
And he only gets this "Boost" when on fire - approximately 1 in every 5 starts on average (20%)
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
I can understand where edge cases like this may need to be dealt with. If that’s the biggest issue then I’m not too concerned. I’m interested to see how offensive numbers overall hold up with less guys on fire, assuming there truly are less guys on fire.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
To be fair Guy, I think it's the only way Galvin comes close to pitching up to his real life numbers - he had a 1.99 ERA the season in question and gave up 8.0 H/9 with a .99 WHIP !! If he starts 32 games he should, theoretically, get 6 or 7 WAR/FIRE starts of which not all of them will be lights out.
As a side note, those of us who started on this site near the beginning remember that the algorithm at that time was slanted towards the players who played the most. The best pitchers in those early days were the "Deadball" pitchers. Full circle I guess....
- The Sheik
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
When I had to pick the Supp Draft SP in a best of 1980's.
Instead of well known sabermetrics king season of Pascual Perez, Jose Deleon, John Candelaria.
The pitchers most suceptible to be hot were poor garbagemen's sabermetrics Marc Gubickza, Oil Can Boyd, Doyle Alexander, Bert Blyleven,Chris Bosio, Greg Swindell ...
Yeah Yeah.... Oil FKN Can Boyd !!!!
Oil Can Boyd ! Oil Can Boyd !
Are you kidding me ?
How ridiculous it can be ???
Instead of looking that bad I would cancel the whole fire factor.
Are we trying to reinvent the wheel here ?
I can't even believe I have to argue about this...
WTF !!!
This as no common sense what so ever...
This is the whole reason why I am slowly out of here...
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Looking at 80's SP WAR ratings, Oil Can is a WAR of 6...Perez like 4.48. Over the course of a 30 start season that means Boyd would be on fire twice and Perez maybe twice or once. I don't see how those numbers would change their overall outcomes much at all.
Maybe you will be right, but we haven't even seen a season play out with WAR yet, results are inconclusive at best.I hate to say it, but I think your reaction is way over the top on this.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I just helped bury my kids's grandmother yesterday, Patrick, and as such had to make do without my daily PC fix. It was part of this thing called 'having a life' and having this thing called 'perspective'.
Unless you're a commissioner, if this game has begun to unduly offend your arbitrary notions of how things should be, it seems you have the option to leave quickly rather than slowly. My guess would be you actually aren't leaving any time soon because, for all its exasperations, this is your chosen pastime.
Take a step back and a deep breath and then regroup so that when you come back you can accept that this is only a game. It's not life-or-death, and. c'mon, how can anybody do anything but smile at the notion of a guy named Oil Can Boyd...
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
@Nuroc, appreciate you always bringing some balanced perspective. And sorry to hear about your loss.
Although I will say, I've been shocked by the number of times people who have been here for almost a decade suddenly leave over something small. While it's rare, it does happen. There was the infamous Warrior departure in late 2020 because a couple owners had colluded and it took me a couple days to reverse the trade and kick them out of the league, there was a user named Lester who quit when we moved Auto Leagues from three divisions to two because he said it ruined his rivalries in leagues. One guy was in a custom league I was running and I think I allowed a team to re-draft a skipped pick or something and he complained, and I got annoyed that he was complaining, and then he said a few choice words back to me and never returned.
I guess the point is, small things mean a lot to some people. It's challenging with Auto Leagues to appease everyone. I suspect most people don't care much about On Fire, but a few people do like it.
And I don't think PLPL's points are invalid. Oli Can Boyd is ranked a 2 yet has a decent WAR. So pitching WAR is obviously a little weird, but the question is will that really ruin anything? If Oil Can has a 3% higher chance of being On Fire than say 95-ranked Jose DeLeon, that could mean one 1 or 2 starts all season. I don't think anyone is going to draft 2-ranked Oil Can over DeLeon for one more On Fire start.
On the other hand, guys like Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton who really did dominate their time but may not have the stats to be elite in PC leagues get an intriguing boost that might give them slightly more value.
I would say let's just see how it plays out and adjust as needed, I'm not married to anything on this topic.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I think the biggest impact from this will be to reduce some of the hitting outliers that benefited from a very high fire rate and if placed at the beginning of the order created some big power seasons. Olsen, McGwire, Freese are a few that come to mind. I don't think they lose a ton of value (maybe Olson will) but their stats should come down as they won't be on fire as much. I just drafted in an ATG and I'm playing around with changing years on some guys to see if some of their other seasons will be improved now but ultimately I don't think there will be a huge impact.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
I find it weird to critique WAR as “ant sabermetric”
I dont think people should draft high H/9, low K/9 pitchers because they have high WAR. Fire is important, but it doesn’t outweigh the key components of keeping guys off base and getting on base.
That said- because this site uses raw unadjusted numbers measuring those components (whip, h/9, OBP, SLG, etc) it undervalues hitters from low scoring eras and/or who played in pitchers parks, and pitchers from high scoring eras, who played in hitters parks, and who gave up runners, but didn’t allow them to score.
WAR adjusts for context and pitcher WAR is based on runs allowed, not base runners.
Oil Can Boyd in 1985 had an ERA+ of 116 (16% better than league average). He gave up 3.87 runs per 9 vs opponents who scored 4.65. He’s saving 0.78 per 9. BUT, he also played in a hitters park and if we adjust his opponents by the rate of run inflation typical of the park, they score 4.85. Boston’s D took away .04, so remove that and we are at 4.81. Being a starter is harder than RP in 1985 and that’s worth 0.15 runs. Add that and we get 4.96 per 9 expected from his opponents. Now he’s saving 1.09 runs per 9. Over Oil Can’s 272.1 IP that’s 33 runs saved above average and 59 over replacement. In 1985 it took 9.67 runs per win, so 59 runs above replacement = 6.1 WAR
That is more sabermetric.
So, this is a slight tweak that balances a bit between adjusted stats and raw. The raw still matter more, but undervalued guys now get a boost. That’s cool to me.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
@Rogue sorry I missed your question - I did not change the multi-hitter on fire rule. Again, I'm willing to consider once we see it in action, but for those who were on PC at the very beginning many moons ago, the games were ridiculous when more than one person was on fire. The other team was at such a disadvantage it just wasn't fair or fun. So while the odds might be small, I'd rather never see games with two+ batters on fire.
Now I know Nuroc will point out that multi pitchers can be on fire, but, pitchers don't get 162 opportunities to be on fire like hitters do, so I think it's a little different. Also, a RP who is "on fire" may never enter the game. That said, we should now see less games with multiple pitchers on fire as well.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
My feeling about multiple pitchers being on FIRE was that, in those admittedly rare times when every pitcher on a team wound up juiced, it meant that every single at-bat was slanted in their favor wheras a juiced batter has only 4-5 times at the plate per game with a built-in edge. It just seemed to me that batters were being disproportionately disadvantaged. But, yeah, maybe allowing multiple batters to be in the zone would take us back to those days when baseball scores were too much like football scores.
I started this thread with the misconception that the new WAR stat was possibly something more impactful than just dialing down the frequency and potency of Fire. It seems now that it's really just a small adjustment that will skew things more towards a sense of balance and realism. I'm all for that and likewise all for being patient enough to see how it plays out. I think we all tend to resist change and overact when forced to make adjustments to what we're more comfortable and used to. Da human condition...
As for that sabremetric analysis of Oil Can Boyd: oy, my brain hurts trying to process all that. I think my new excuse when my teams are struggling will be, '"Must be the other team was dosing on sabremetrics...'
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Before this thread I never even considered Fire that significant. I feel like I play close attention to my box scores and it never jumped out at me as being a huge effect. Even since this thread started, I had a Pitcher be on Fire ... and only last 1 inning because he was shelled.
Just not seeing how any of this warrants the reaction.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I dunno - I kinda like that I don't feel bad about drafting Rod Carew anymore !! And who doesn't like the "Oil Can" 🤔🤔🤔😉😉😉
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
August 3, 1985 my family went to see the Red Sox and Royals in KC. As kids we wanted to see the sensation known as the Oil Can. We left disappointed because some youngster named Clemens started that day.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
So instead of Oil Can, Juice Can ? 🤔🤔😉😉😎😎
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
In best of 1980's
Toby Harrah has 20% more chance of getting hot than 1987 Stellar Mark McGwire !
What more can I add ? It is Self explanatory...
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
In 1982 Toby Harrah had an .888 ops in a league with an average ops of .730, this was good for 123 runs created and a 143 ops+. He also stole 17 bases at 85% and took an extra base on balls in play 60% of the time (think 1st to 3rd, or scoring from second on a single). This baserunning was worth 4 runs more than an average runner and his bat 39 runs above average. Since it is hard to find a SS who can hit, his positional scarcity also provided 3 runs above average of value. That 46 runs above average on offense.
1987 McGwire had a 987 ops in a league that had an average of 759. This produced a 164 ops+ and 47 runs above average. McGwire was a bad baserunner though, stealing just one base, getting caught once, and advancing extra on balls in play just 40% of the time. His base running cost his team a run compared to average. It is also easy to find a 1B who can hit, so he loses 8 runs of value leaving him worth 38 runs above average.
HR records are exciting, but a good hitting SS who is an excellent base runner is actually more valuable than a one dimensional slugging 1B, even if he’s a great slugger.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I surely understand all of this Josh...
In 1982 Harrah was an aging SS who now played 3B
But positional adjustment or baserunning should not bring Harrah to have a hotter bat than McGwire...
And for me, if you want to pick a Harrah season, it should be the 1985 season where he draw a massive 113 BB in 396 AB - 521 PA...
For a 2nd Base in the 1980's, a .432 OBP, this is quite the year !!!
I would surely use 1987 McGwire to hit after 1985 Harrah to clean the bases without having to run to any bags...
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I created the original FIRE formula so I'm glad it had some logic to it, but I think what some people would argue is why does McGwire in this example need the extra boost when his only real advantage over Harrah was homeruns?
In fact I see McGwire sitting on the bench in a lot of 1980s leagues, including teams owned by people on this thread.:)
So in the old formula, if you put McGwire and Harrah in the lead off spot for all 162 games, McGwire would have been On Fire 23 times and Harrah 17 times. In the new formula, it's Harrah 12, and McGwire 10. Just because McGwire was going to be a great player and Harrah was old, doesn't mean Harrah's single season (in this case 1982) doesn't stack up to McGwire's 1987 season. I think despite the new On Fire we'd all draft McGwire first because of the 49 homeruns, so it hasn't really tanked his value.
Again, these are all rhetorical questions as we don't yet know how this is going to play out.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
And every post about this acts as if being on fire means Harrah will go 5 for 5 with 2 HR's. This is one of the oddest threads and complaints I have seen on here.
Why shouldn't Harrah be hot more than McGwire? The impact of Harrah being hot is going to be less than McGwire in most cases and in general I fail to see that impact being on fire even has. I see players on fire all the time that are 0-for or pitchers that get shelled. It is just a slight change in what might happen not sure surety.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
We’ve beaten this thing to death.
The change was logical, whether you agree with its precise application or not. We all knew that the old way HEAVILY favored strikeout pitchers and power hitters. Nobody benefited from the understanding of that more than me.
But it was flawed. So let’s try something else.
I think the concern about who is gonna get hot 2 or 3 more times a year than someone else is silly and misguided. The super-hero dial was slightly recalibrated and turned down for EVERYONE, hitters and pitchers. The variations that this is gonna create in the sim is gonna be fun to see, but it’s not gonna turn Rey Ordonez into Barry Bonds, or Pedro Martinez into Rick Ankiel.
I expect the good users will adjust, hopefully have some fun doing it, and remain at the top of the leaderboards. That’s my plan.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
As the knucklehead who started this 'make-a-mountain-out-of-a-molehill' thread, I concur with the above post as well as Guy's repeated assertion that he's amenable to another change if the the way things play out merits it.
I think that just as it's somewhat true that 'You are what you eat', it might also be fair to say 'You are how you play PC'.
Complainers, like me, are going to find reason to complain no matter what because that's who they are. With a little self-awareness, however, there's always the hope for evolving into a Complainer in Recovery rather than remaining a Complainer In Denial.
Play Ball... with the emphasis on 'play'.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
I posted something in the wrong group yesterday, so I'll say it here. If the 100th best player in your league is not that different for your best player (ATG, Best of ), then oWAR matters. Every little edge counts. If you're in a league where the average guys get to play, then that edge isn't really there. Check the box scores. Weak players have good days and Mike Trout goes 0 for 5. That's baseball.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Folks
I would not let this go, without one final reply to defend myself!
I hope I will get a chance to do so, to preserve bits and pieces of my reputation !
My favorite song is : I won't back down ! from Tom Petty !
Put me on a public trial if you wan't or put me under a bus !!!
The main broken part of this site is the running game.
And absolutely not the fire system.
How can a early 1980's Andre Dawson, a perennial 5 tool player, can't even not get 1 single stolen base attempt over 11 season ???
I repeat and repeat again !
Andre Dawson a fixture as a 5 tool player can't get a single steal attempt in 11 season ?
https://www.pennantchase.com/lgPlay..
But people were crying about a supposed broken fire system ???
Put me under the bus for whatever a moral lesson it is... this is just a fact !
My reaction are often abrasive to create reactions, but never, ever intended to a direct individual.
Kudos to yo you NurXXXXX or BubbleXXXXXX
As I never, ever ,ever made it personal with anybody on this site over 12 years +...
People have often trashed me around here for my second language efforts!
Cheers to all, but I will surely wont stay here, as I shut my comments down for couple of days here to eat the fecal comments directed towards me in silence.
Here are as usal facts that I will bring up here to try to improve the game, and absolutely not insulting arguments directed directly towards people ! (Unless it is a direct reply to me !)
I can also forward you guys some of my personal inbox garbage , where people are insulting me ! (If you guys are interesting to see IT I will show it here !)
I wish you all good, including Guy who have created a gem here.
cheers to all enjoying baseball, and arguing about baseball statistics intricates without making it personal !
After all this new era of Advanced Stats are going to open a lot of debates.
This will be my last interaction on this board, as getting trashed personnaly like I was recently about a game I passionately like, would not make feel anybody really good...
Unfortunately, some people prefer to put dissident people under the bus !!!
To anybody who told me to get a life a part of PC and would clap about it.
I am more of a cynical personal than an acrimonious person...
Unfotunately my speech will not fit couple of sensitive people aroud here...
''Well, I won't back down
No I won't back down
You could stand me up at the gates of Hell
But I won't back down
No I'll stand my ground
Won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground
And I won't back down...''
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
That’s a lot of Tom Petty.
You just can’t argue with that.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
And my teams are all around .500 since the change, so the adjustment period is universal.
You might say I’m in danger of “Free Fallin” down the leaderboard.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
I will miss PLPL and there is certainly no reason to personally attack him. I also agree with the running game rant and I did spend some time starting to rethink it and rearchitect it but I paused the effort because it was getting really messy. With guys who have low SBs you really need some solid logic as to WHEN they are actually going to attempt a base. Because if you’re only going to get a few steals out of them in a season you’d really want those to be in valuable times. As I started working on it I thought it would end up a very confusing messy system (and you think FIRE has been bad!). I’m not entirely giving up, it’s something I’d like to fix eventually. But I also suspect people like having control over the running game so I don’t want to lose that aspect either.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
In terms of seeing how the new changes will have impact over a longer test period, I know that 'Waiting Is The Hardest Part' but I still don't think it's right to be 'Runnin' Down A Dream' when PC is just that: a dream come true for fantasy sport junkies.
I apologize, PLP for those times when I pushed back against your rants to the point where you felt "Don't Do Me Like That'. I think we all, from time to time, 'Breakdown' and play the 'Rebel Without A Clue'.
Stick around, buddy. We're all 'Learning To Fly' anew, but however shaky the takeoff, there will still be those days when our boys are firing on all cylinders and we can feel like 'King For A Day.' And when we're slumping and get clobbered even by bot teams, well, 'Even The Losers Get Lucky Sometime'.
Please, consider a 'Change of Heart'. It would be our loss as well as yours if you 'Don't Come Around Here No More.'
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
People sending you private messages attacking you is not cool, and possibly not acceptable at all depending what is being said.
I will say though that you are not exactly owning how "hot" you are coming in with your comments about this feature. I feel confident Guy will adjust the feature if it is leading to outcomes we do not want in the sim but it deserves a chance to be used for a while. To many of us, it seems like you are dramatically overstating the impact.
I think running game is just hard. I pretty much stay away from it. Aside from the sim itself being hard to get right, for me it is more the auto manager. I just do not trust the manager to make good decisions on when to run. I also do not allow pinch hitting for the same reason. I also laugh whenever I see a box score from someone that allows R/L matchups in pitching because that is another thing the sim does really poorly.
So what?
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Yeah, the running and pinch running game got overly complicated,exhausting and not working as well than previously... Exactly, so what ? I just don't care if everything gets random around here !!!
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I still think Fire has very small impact overall and this change only reduced how often most players will have it. Last 2 games with one of my teams. Nap Lajoie has fire and goes 0-4 with 1BB. Al Simmons has it and goes 1-3 with a single in a game I was shutout.
Just not understanding why this is the change that makes you want to leave. Especially since there are so few games built up to start to see what effect, if any, it is having. It seems like the main goal was to just tamp down the stats of a few outliers.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
Good thread. Learning a lot. This new deal is going to be worth a wait and see approach I believe.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
Just want to compliment Nuroc on his post. Great use of song titles.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I did spend a little time trying to create a custom value, but I wasn't happy with how anything came out. So we're gonna try it with WAR, and we can always adjust if we find it necessary.
I think I'll be able to roll out the introductory auto leagues very soon, maybe even by end of the day Friday.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Please up that RP threshold. I am finding crazy split season RP’s with 20-21 ip’s…several with under 4 H/9 and like 12-13 K/9 going for sub 1 WAR.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
"Rebel without a Clue" is not a Tom Petty song though, its a lyric from
" Into the great wide open"
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
@Guy Just brainstorming here:
Could you make the salary/price dependent upon WAR/AB or WAR/IP instead of total WAR in a season (as well as raising the minima)? That would discount guys who did it for a whole year, and raise the price of split-season guys, who would have relatively smaller denominators and therefore higher salaries.
In other words, if the sim is based almost entirely on rate stats, and player prices will be based on WAR, then we could at least convert WAR into a rate stat.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new norm
Sorry forgot to mention I already upped the pitching minimums.
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
WHIP so far of 1.18 vs. career complied of 1.47
Re: Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
I have to admit that I over reacted a bit at first when drafting teams in the new WAR format. I found that I was overlooking dWAR initially and going for high oWAR players. And yeah, dWAR, still important !! Still accumulating data from my teams regarding how low AB/IP players are being affected and if high WAR/oWAR is differentiating other players.
Re: Gauging WAR vs. Rnk in the new
Are you in any that have started playing ? Justcurious to see the results. I'm in one that kicks off tomorrow
