Out of curiosity

I have been sitting quietly by watching the historical draft take shape, and I'm fascinated by what's taking place. The SIM game was explained in another thread, but I guess I did not fully understand. How is it able to replicate performances from vastly different eras? I understood the modern player not being "a dead ball" player thing with "The Bull", but is there really any way to compare 19th century guys to mid-late 20th century players? Also, does the data base include American Association players?
I'm just curious; I'm not trying to stir up trouble.
Thanks,
Shannon

All leagues are used except the National Association from 1871-5. The way that they can have players from vastly differing era play against each other and be reasonably senaible is that they do a number of things to accomplish this.

1. They normalize the numbers for the player against the league average. What this does is make the hitting numbers from the 1930s less impressive because everyone was hitting .300 with 100 RBI or more. It makes pitching numbers from the mid 1960s less impressive because pitching was so dominant.

2. Park factor was used. This takes into effect the park that player played in. Hitting 30 HRs is generally impressive, unless you've done it Colorado and damn impressive if you've done it the Astrodome or other parks that are notorious for being tough HR parks.

3. All of this was mashed together to come up with that a player will do over a 162 game schedule

4. The sim uses minimum games played, AB and IP and few other criteria that basically works out to about a 10 year span. It uses the best peak span from a player. This means that someone like Dwight Gooden gets his first 10 years used while someone like Koufax has his last 10 years used.

With all this done, it sort of balances things out some. If you just used raw 19c numbers for fielding, you would get killed if you use a 19c player in the field. Normalizing numbers means that the top fielding players from 19c are not going to commit more errors than the top fielding players of today. Likewise, 19c players aren't going to steal as many bases since so many players stole 40+ bases a years and a hitter than batted .330+ is probably going to get his BA lowered to .295-.300

Any other questions, I'm more than happy to answer them.

Thanks for the clarification Jay. I'll now return to my wooden bleacher seat with my Sam Adams and enjoy the rest of the festivities. Play ball!
Shannon

PeteBrowningFan wrote:Thanks for the clarification Jay. I'll now return to my wooden bleacher seat with my Sam Adams and enjoy the rest of the festivities. Play ball!
Shannon

Hey Shannon, glad to hear you're enjoying keeping track of the draft. It has been fun so far, should be interesting to see the results of the sim. Also feel free to make comments on teams/players/strategies in the "draft discussion" thread.

Let us know if you'd like to participate in the next historical draft. It will probably take place several months from now. By then we'll have all the kinks worked out and we'll be very familiar with the intricacies of the sim. We'll be looking for 14-16 teams next time around.

Exactly what the comparison works out to be makes a potential difference to a participant selecting between Gehrig and Brouthers for first baseman, for example. Can you offer any such comparisons to improve the understanding of what is done by the sim?

Gwynn/Keeler

Here's the comparison that Gil asked for:

.................BA . OBP. SP ...G... AB.. H.. 2B .3B HR R ...RBI BB HBP SB CS
Gehrig ___.346 .443 .668 150 546 189 37 _8 _41 125 140 95 _4 __8 _8
Brouthers .333 .415 .532 150 558 186 39 _12 16 107 101 71 _10 _19 _7

They both rate the same defensively. Brouthers is significcantly better at bunting, running and stealing, rating Avg or better in all areas while Gehrig rates Fair to Poor in all of them

Jay

Here is Gwynn and Keeler


.................BA . OBP. SP ...G... AB.. H.. 2B .3B HR R ...RBI _BB HBP SB CS
Gwynn ___.347 .383 .473 150 603 209 39 _5 _9 _88 _80 _39 _1__14 _6
Keeler ___.343 .388 .460 150 598 205 22 _6 12 117 _55 __41 _6 _37 12

Presented below is the inclusion of the baseball reference 162 game schedule estimated values for these players

.................BA . OBP. SP ...G... AB.. H.. 2B .3B HR R ...RBI BB HBP SB CS
Gehrig ___.346 .443 .668 150 546 189 37 _8 _41 125 140 95 _4 __8 _8
basball ref .340 .447 .632 - ....599 204 40 12 ...37 141 149 113 - 8 8

Brouthers .333 .415 .532 150 558 186 39 _12 16 107 101 71 _10 _19 _7
basball ref .342 .423 .519 - ....650 222 45 20 10 147 125 81 - .......25 0

It appears that Gehrig's Slugging Average is misrepresented in the sim data. Perhaops this is a transpositional error, or perhaps I am incorrect. However, it is apparent that Brouthers loses batting average points - maybe because other 19th century hitters were also .340+ batters. As shown in the table below, there were six 19th century batters who achieved a lifetime average of .340 or more. In the teens three more joined this list: Cobb, Jackson and Speaker. And the twenties brought seven more into the .340 or better lifetime hitter ranks.

teens Ty Cobb+* .3664 L
20s. Rogers Hornsby+ .3585 R
teens Joe Jackson* .3558 L
20s. Lefty O'Doul* .3493 L
19th. Ed Delahanty+ .3459 R
teens. Tris Speaker+* .3447 L
40s. Ted Williams+* .3444 L
19th. Billy Hamilton+* .3443 L
19th. Dan Brouthers+* .3421 L
20s Babe Ruth+* .3421 L
19th. Dave Orr .3420 R
20s. Harry Heilmann+ .3416 R
19th. Pete Browning .3415 R
19th. Willie Keeler+* .3413 L
20s. Bill Terry+* .3412 L
20s. George Sisler+* .3402 L
20s. Lou Gehrig+* .3401


As a matter of fact, except for Ichiro, all of the batters who achieved 250 or more hits in a season, did so between 1920-1930.



2. George Sisler+* 257 1920 L
3. Lefty O'Doul* 254 1929 L
4. Bill Terry+* 254 1930 L
5. Al Simmons+ 253 1925 R
6. Rogers Hornsby+ 250 1922 R
Chuck Klein+* 250 1930 L

So, downgrading these players batting averages appears justifiable. But the rational which results in Gehrig's average going up six points, while Brouthers is reduced by nine is not clear.
Maybe Gehrig's increase is attributable to the fact that he was the last player to ever achieve a .340 lifetime BA (with the one exception of Williams).
However, increasing his slugging percentage, in light of the fact that all .600+ sluggers played in roughly the same time frame as Gehrig, does not appear to follow the pattern.

1914-1935. Babe Ruth+* .6898 L
1939-1960. Ted Williams+* .6338 L
1923-1939 Lou Gehrig+* .6324 L
1925-1945. Jimmie Foxx+ .6093 R
1930-1947 Hank Greenberg+ .6050 R

Please do not consider these statements as a criticism, they are intended as an attempt to understand the game. But really, twelve homeruns for Keeler? He once was able to do that as his total output for 3 consecutive seasons (he only has 33 hrs in 19 seasons) 12 =
|
{ }

The thing to remember is that the numbers used are based on the best 10 year span of that player. Players with high peak value can see increases, even in eras where numbers are inflated. Warren Spahn is the antithisis of the peak player like Koufax. Spahn was steadily great for almost his whole career. You can take just about any 10 year segment and come up with roughly the same numbers. You cannot do this with someone like Koufax or Dizzy Dean.

I was also mistaken about 162 games. It's based on 154 games.

As for Keeler's HRs jumping, that is due to his era. Few people hit HR and they are adjusted accordingly so that the numbers are comparable to modern players. You'll also notice his triples and SBs have cut.

Jay

Thank you.

But don't quit just yet, Jay -

We all want to see it



Ruth vs. Bonds, on the sim !!


1920 25 NYY AL 54 .376 .849
1921 26 NYY AL 59 .378 .846
1922 27 NYY AL 35 .315 .672
1923 28 NYY AL 41 .393 .764
1924 29 NYY AL 46 .378 .739


2000 35 SFG NL 49 .306 .688
2001 36 SFG NL 73 .328 .863
2002 37 SFG NL 46 .370 .799
2003 38 SFG NL 45 .341 .749
2004 39 SFG NL 45 .362 .812

.................BA . OBP. SP ...G... AB.. H.. 2B .3B HR .R ...RBI __BB HBP SB CS
Bonds ___.315 .447 .664 150 518 163 29 _4 _49 128 _117 _112 _5_20 _5
Ruth_____.335 .466 .744 150 516 173 33 _5 56 _137 135 __127 _3 _9 _9

And therein lies the mystery.

Ruth's batting average is decreased by 7 points,
while Gehrig's is increased by six points.

What did Gehrig do that yields him this 13 point advantage?

Guessing from what they would have used for Ruth and Gehrig's peak times it looks like the league BA was actually higher during Ruth's peak.

If the league BA .290 and Ruth hits .340 and the league BA is .285 and Gehrig hits .340, Gehrig's .340 is going to translate into a higher BA once it's normalized. The park factor is going to be different too. about half of Ruth peak is not in Yankee Stadium, but Highland Park. Vastly different park factors that will affect the numbers.

Jay

Out of curiosity -

Does the sim recognize that some players are particularly good in clutch situations?

I have two players who I am considering adding to the squad primarilly on that basis, if the sim accounts for this attribute.

since there's never been a stat that has been recognized by the 'experts' I doubt that it is figured intot he game

Jay

Very true. Good observation. Thanks again. I may pick Oliva anyway, and Adcock (because I will know).

- but it looks like I won't pick them.