This is the same exact game as 2009.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYDodgers

FM has changed even less than BM has. There's no BMO anymore, and I don't understand where his time is going.

---

You probably shouldn't. Just because you are buying (or not buying) his product doesn't mean you should be updated with his daily schedule.

Quote:

---

It's just that there is so much that he could've done for the new version that he didn't do,

---

Meaning, there is so much that you wanted him to do, that he didn't do.

Quote:

---

even for a one-man company for a text-based sim. And this is extremely frustrating for people who love the game and know that it could be so much better.

---

Yeah, it could be better. That's why so many people on these forums test the game and give feedback on what they think could be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

You probably shouldn't. Just because you are buying (or not buying) his product doesn't mean you should be updated with his daily schedule.

---

exactly, he nor any other business owner is entitled to details their time and hours of work....I don't. I don't have to show anyone when i work, or how hard (I like to work late nights, less distractions and I tend to get more done.) but clients wouldn't really understand that...they just know I do the work, that keeps earning me paychecks. I can tell pretty clearly that Clay does a good job...but what does it matter how hard he works....he created a product that a lot of us like...if a few people don't like it, that's fine...but you don't have to come on to this forum complaining that you don't like it....just buy it whenever you want, or wait a few years.

I agree with you fili

Exactly. Whenever you choose to work, that's fine. But the end result should be something satisfactory. He created a good, entertaining game years ago, but what I am saying is that he has done little to improve upon it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYDodgers

Exactly. Whenever you choose to work, that's fine. But the end result should be something satisfactory. He created a good, entertaining game years ago, but what I am saying is that he has done little to improve upon it.

---

Then you should be the happiest guy of us all.

if you think the 2K10 version is only a little better than the original version, then you have no reason to have spent $30 a year on it, like most of the rest of us have

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYDodgers

Exactly. Whenever you choose to work, that's fine. But the end result should be something satisfactory. He created a good, entertaining game years ago, but what I am saying is that he has done little to improve upon it.

---

And I think that that is verifiably false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

You just can't improve on a near prefect game engine, now can you ... lol

---

Definitely imperfect, and I'm not just talking about results. The fact that the whole engine is built on predicted stats is a big flaw in my opinion. But, it is by far the best engine on the market. Which is why I play it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

Definitely imperfect, and I'm not just talking about results. The fact that the whole engine is built on predicted stats is a big flaw in my opinion. But, it is by far the best engine on the market. Which is why I play it.

---

How else do you suggest generating statistics?

Okay, first I think 2010 is a great upgrade, especially for online leagues. A lot more improved than 2009 was over 2008. I have faith that the some of the lingering issues with player development will be fixed. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

Definitely imperfect, and I'm not just talking about results. The fact that the whole engine is built on predicted stats is a big flaw in my opinion. But, it is by far the best engine on the market. Which is why I play it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

How else do you suggest generating statistics?

---

I think an engine based more on general abilities rather than specific stats would be an improvement. Right now you can make a guy with 20 predicted triples and 60 speed and he'll get a ton of triples?

A better way to generate said player would be to have something like "gap power" + speed = more doubles/triples.

Somewhat related would be what type of hitter the player is in general. Example: a dead pull hitter who would accordingly get more HRs in a stadium with a short porch on the side he's pulling the ball to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

I think an engine based more on general abilities rather than specific stats would be an improvement. Right now you can make a guy with 20 predicted steals and 60 speed and he'll get a ton of triples?

---

He won't get a ton of triples if he isn't predicted too. And, also, he likely won't have a 60 speed with 20 predicted steals unless you predict him to ground into a ton of double plays, have terrible range, and get caught stealing a ton.

Quote:

---

A better way to generate said player would be to have something like "gap power" + speed = more doubles/triples.

---

I don't see how that's better than specifically allocating how good a player is at hitting doubles, how good he is at triples, how good he is at SB, etc.

Quote:

---

Somewhat related would be what type of hitter the player is in general. Example: a dead pull hitter who would accordingly get more HRs in a stadium with a short porch on the side he's pulling the ball to.

---

This is something I'd be interested in seeing, but I think that it can be implemented without abandoning predicted stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

This is something I'd be interested in seeing, but I think that it can be implemented without abandoning predicted stats.

---

I agree, a question was raised in the manager thread. I wish the animation would sometimes play out better, that you could put on the big Papi Bonds shift etc....And knowing if a hitter was a spray hitter etc...i tell ya, it's confusing if you have someone who you know in real life is a dead pull left handed hitter and he is getting half of his hits to the third base side

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

He won't get a ton of triples if he isn't predicted too. And, also, he likely won't have a 60 speed with 20 predicted steals unless you predict him to ground into a ton of double plays, have terrible range, and get caught stealing a ton.

---

Oh, I typo'd it...I mean 20 predicted triples not steals lol.. :)

Basically I'm saying the engine now will allow you to have a slow 1B type that hits a ton of triples, and that's not particularly realistic?

Gap power would indicate a guy who hits more doubles/triples, while HR power is a separate rating. How likely a hitter with high "gap power" gets those doubles and triples would be based largely on his base running speed and also the range of the opposing outfielders.

Prince Fielder might have a high gap power (in addition to HR power) but not leg out many triples, where the exact same player with higher speed gets accordingly more triples. I can't really explain why I think this is better, just seems more realistic. :)

One other random thought on predicted stats. I think that the "eye" rating should be split up somehow. Higher predicted Ks for a hitter lowers his eye rating, but striking out isn't really that bad for a batter. Yes he may fail to advance a runner, but a strikeout also can't lead to a double play. Eye should be a reflection of how many pitches a hitter sees on average in an at bat.

Plenty of great hitters walk a ton and strike out a ton as well, and usually they're damn good hitters. Three true outcomes and all that, ya know.

cfeedback = honorary member of the Rob Deer Fan Club

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

Then buy it every 3 years. Or 5 years. Whatever makes you happy. Why come on and hurl accusations and attitude?

---

I basically buy it every other year, though that's more of a budget thing than a complaint about the product. If I still had the same financial situation that I had back when I first discovered Baseball Mogul (1998, IIRC), I'd buy the new edition every year.

My biggest fear is always that they will change it too much, not that they won't change it enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

Basically I'm saying the engine now will allow you to have a slow 1B type that hits a ton of triples, and that's not particularly realistic?

---

That the game doesn't create such players on its own makes it not really a problem.

Quote:

---

Gap power would indicate a guy who hits more doubles/triples, while HR power is a separate rating. How likely a hitter with high "gap power" gets those doubles and triples would be based largely on his base running speed and also the range of the opposing outfielders.

Prince Fielder might have a high gap power (in addition to HR power) but not leg out many triples, where the exact same player with higher speed gets accordingly more triples. I can't really explain why I think this is better, just seems more realistic. :)

---

And given that the players Mogul generates generally DO follow these things you're talking about, I don't see why the current system is a problem. You can create unrealistic players, sure, but you could do that with any system that you come up with, so long as editing players is allowed (which it needs to be).

Quote:

---

One other random thought on predicted stats. I think that the "eye" rating should be split up somehow. Higher predicted Ks for a hitter lowers his eye rating, but striking out isn't really that bad for a batter. Yes he may fail to advance a runner, but a strikeout also can't lead to a double play. Eye should be a reflection of how many pitches a hitter sees on average in an at bat.

Plenty of great hitters walk a ton and strike out a ton as well, and usually they're damn good hitters. Three true outcomes and all that, ya know.

---

That's a disagreement with what the "Eye" rating stands for, then. You'll notice, though, that strikeouts are a minor factor. Adam Dunn still has a 90 eye. Anyway, just because it lowers the eye rating doesn't mean that the player will play worse. The predicted stats determine how he plays, not the ratings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYDodgers

Exactly. Whenever you choose to work, that's fine. But the end result should be something satisfactory. He created a good, entertaining game years ago, but what I am saying is that he has done little to improve upon it.

---

He's done a lot to improve it. Unhappily, however, the game has become worse in at least one key area -- player development. Having given up on BM 2009 and reverted to BM 2006, I miss a LOT of things from 2K9. And there are several improvements in 2K10 I'd like to have. But I'm not paying for a version I won't enjoy playing, and I did not enjoy 2K9.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

How else do you suggest generating statistics?

---

Sorry, I forgot about my post. The way I think baseball players actually work, simplistically, is that they have two components: raw ability, and approach. A quick example: say you have average power. If you swing for the fences all the time, you might hit 15-20 homers and 20 doubles and strike out often. If you shorten your swing and hit line drives, maybe you'll hit 45 doubles and 10 homers, and strike out much less. I would much rather see an engine based on this than predicted stats. You'd get much more organic results. As in, player A swings at a pitch. They have X chance of making solid contact. If they make solid contact, depending on their approach, they have d e and f chances of hitting a grounder, a line drive, and a fly ball. It goes a certain distance based on power and luck. The fielder gets a good or bad jump depending on how good he is at reading the ball, he covers as much ground as his speed allows, he has a chance to misplay the ball depending on how good his glovework is, etc. With an engine like this, if a player hits a fly ball 310 feet, depending on what direction it goes and where the fences are, it will simply clear or not clear the fence. So, to conclude, that is how else I would suggest generating statistics. Obviously, I don't know the details of Mogul's code, and I'm not going to come up with a flawless baseball simulation engine in a three minute forum post. But the insight into Mogul's architecture that Edit Player grants - that predicted stats drive the ratings and not the other way around - reveals a flaw in the design, in my opinion. It still works, and works pretty well, and is way too entrenched to change now, but it has problems.

My favorite example is contact rating and strikeouts. In the real world, low strikeout totals are a great predictor of future success because putting the ball in play at all, even if it's hit badly or awkwardly, gives the player a chance at a base hit. A groundout isn't better than a strikeout, and is often worse, but a groundball is better than a strikeout. However, in Mogul, if you lower predicted strikeouts, contact rating will go up, and you end up with players who hit .270 with a 95 contact rating. They strike out 50 times a season, but they're apparently hitting into an ungodly number of outs. While there are players with naturally suppressed BABIP (also known as bad hitters), the predicted stats engine doesn't care what the ball in play is. It rolls the dice, and strikeouts and hits are both relatively unlikely after everything else has been factored in, so hey, a pop up. If you had an organic engine, the ball in play would go to a place and sometimes in that place it finds a fielder and sometimes it doesn't.

EDIT: My last objection to the current engine is that it's just unrealistic. In real life, a hitter gets a hit depending on how good he is. His power and contact skills are not derived from his production. This may seem like a technicality, but it's really not. A truly good engine would simulate the process as well as the result. It's like the cognition problem: would you consider a computer (or robot) sentient if it literally had been programmed with every possible situation, and could therefore respond naturally and "sentiently" in any situation? I mean, if we're just looking at season stats, as a simplification, I could create a simulation engine pretty easily that took predicted stats for the first year, randomized them a little bit, and spat them out as "end of year stats". There's no way to tell me that it's unrealistic, because the results fall within believable parameters. But it's clearly not a perfect simulation, or even a simulation at all. If you extrapolate that up, I think you can see why I don't like the argument that "well, it works, and it's pretty complex as it is, so it's probably good".

I don't have much to say regarding the predicted stats think except that I'm perfectly fine with the way the game is now and don't see how "your way" would be any different. The game bases its simulation on the predicted stats, not the ratings. The ratings are just for evaluation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

My favorite example is contact rating and strikeouts. In the real world, low strikeout totals are a great predictor of future success because putting the ball in play at all, even if it's hit badly or awkwardly, gives the player a chance at a base hit. A groundout isn't better than a strikeout, and is often worse, but a groundball is better than a strikeout.

---

I disagree with the part I bolded. I've seen no evidence regarding that. I don't believe strikeout rate is a good indicator one way or the other of future success or failure.

Quote:

---

However, in Mogul, if you lower predicted strikeouts, contact rating will go up, and you end up with players who hit .270 with a 95 contact rating. They strike out 50 times a season, but they're apparently hitting into an ungodly number of outs.

---

Since this thing is purely user-initiated and doesn't exist on its own (because Mogul, for the most part, creates realistic players), I don't think it's that big of a deal...at least not something that warrants a complete rewrite of the rating system.

Quote:

---

If you had an organic engine, the ball in play would go to a place and sometimes in that place it finds a fielder and sometimes it doesn't.

---

I'm pretty sure that the game does do something like this, although only Clay can confirm.

Well, I added a last paragraph, probably while you were replying, so tell me what you think about that. As for strikeout rate, I don't know what to tell you. When I say predictor of future success, I'm talking about in the minor leagues, which obviously doesn't apply in Mogul. And obviously editing players doesn't come up in normal play, but it does reveal things about the engine. The game will happily produce 90+ contact, .270 or lower batting average, low K players on its own.

Finally, I'm not sure why you're even arguing. I mean, I think we agree. I already said that I think the engine is the best on the market, just that it's not perfect. I think you might be needlessly defensive on this one. I'm glad you're fine with the current system, and I am too. I don't think that should cut off debate on its flaws, though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

The game will happily produce 90+ contact, .270 or lower batting average, low K players on its own.

---

I've never seen such players.

Quote:

---

Finally, I'm not sure why you're even arguing. I mean, I think we agree. I already said that I think the engine is the best on the market, just that it's not perfect. I think you might be needlessly defensive on this one. I'm glad you're fine with the current system, and I am too. I don't think that should cut off debate on its flaws, though...

---

A couple of things.

a) I'm not arguing. Sorry if you felt like I was. Just discussing this because I'm trying to better understand where you're coming from.
b) I don't want to cut-off debate on its flaws.
c) I see what you're saying. I don't think an overhaul of the system is needed though. What could be done is add another level of "sanity checks" to the batters, to "force" the predicted BABIP to be realistic. The corresponding check for pitchers is not without its issues, but I think that the linked issue could be fixed and ported over to the batter side as well and take care of the issue you're mentioning (which, I agree, is a legitimate flaw).

Well, all I'm arguing with is the idea that it's perfect. I don't disagree that it's good. I just don't like the predicted-stats premise.

Also, here's two players I pulled off a random file:

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...ow/players.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

Well, all I'm arguing with is the idea that it's perfect. I don't disagree that it's good.

---

Alright, well, I agree on that. It's not perfect. Nothing is.

Quote:

---

Also, here's two players I pulled off a random file:

---

Weird. The 'sanity check' solution I mentioned above would work to prevent that, though.

What were those players' predicted statistics? And the Park Effects for each of their team's stadiums?

I don't have commish access on that file, but Ilderton played in Detroit, which was 116 for home runs, 107 for average, 93 for doubles, 95 for double plays, and 100s the rest of the way, including Ks. The Orioles have strikeouts at 100 and are above 100 in every offensive category. So no help there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYDodgers

So you agree that the game has much to improve, but say that Clay has changed enough since 2008(heck, 2007) to warrant paying money for a new version?

FM has changed even less than BM has. There's no BMO anymore, and I don't understand where his time is going.

It's just that there is so much that he could've done for the new version that he didn't do, even for a one-man company for a text-based sim. And this is extremely frustrating for people who love the game and know that it could be so much better.

..you're actually the epitome of that person.

---

You also have to realize for BM1-BM2k9, Clay had Ian, he doesn't have Ian anymore. There publisher last year disappeared. Sure there website is up, but hasn't been updated in about a year.

Ian is now a part owner of BMO (Baseball Manager Online that is). He is only used for Contract work on BM. Which is probably never now because Ian is busy at Work. Also for a person who buys the game at Best Buy or GameStop, Clay probably only brings in $2 for a game that retails for $30. It is just the way the publishing business works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

Definitely imperfect, and I'm not just talking about results. The fact that the whole engine is built on predicted stats is a big flaw in my opinion. But, it is by far the best engine on the market. Which is why I play it.

---

Those predicted stats are also extremely dependent on the player's health and therefore how many games he plays. It's one thing (and hard enough) to get the percentages correct or even close. It's even more difficult to figure out how many games he will play, how injured he gets during a season (re: Pujols in '06 and '08 on the DL) and if he plays somewhat injured (or only tired) that also decreases his production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

What were those players' predicted statistics? And the Park Effects for each of their team's stadiums?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

I don't have commish access on that file, but Ilderton played in Detroit, which was 116 for home runs, 107 for average, 93 for doubles, 95 for double plays, and 100s the rest of the way, including Ks. The Orioles have strikeouts at 100 and are above 100 in every offensive category. So no help there.

---

ILDERTON! An arch nemesis of mine. I'll help out with the predicted stats just for the hell of it. Ratings are overall/peak then contact/power/eye.

Ilderton: 91/100 93/98/86
G: 155
AB: 583
H: 176
2B: 40
3B: 3
HR: 50
R: 102
RBI: 165
BB: 67
K: 56
SB: 2
CS: 2
GIDP 23
HBP: 7
SAC: 0
SF: 6


White: 90/90 89/86/88
G: 162
AB: 684
H: 196
2B: 51
3B: 5
HR: 30
R: 125
RBI: 135
BB: 86
K: 76
SB: 33
CS: 7
GIDP: 18
HBP: 4
SAC: 0
SF: 3


So while we're talking about "predicted stats", what the hell is the purpose of predicted stats on runs/RBIs (for hitters) or wins, losses, runs, and earned runs (for pitchers). Shouldn't those be solely based on a player's ability plus the team (spot in the lineup, defense behind the pitcher, etc) he plays for?

I've always wondered if predicted statistics are for a base level. For example, let's say a hitter is predicted to hit .300 with 30 home runs. If he plays in San Diego, a pitcher's park, obviously those numbers will go down, while they'd go up in Coors Field.

So is that taken into account?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

How else do you suggest generating statistics?

---

If he is yngr. than 32, he almost automatically gets better than his previous year, with a random factor thrown in that may make him worse for a year.

If 32 or older, he may plateau for another year or so, and then slowly decline.
Exception: players who keep themselves in better shape and take care of their body more than the average. Example: Albert Pujols may play exceptionally well until he is 37 or so instead of only 34-35.
Musial played until 42 (he hit .330 at 41 in '62 his second-to-last year as a final hurrah before his .255 in '63 when he quit), so I expect Pujols to be close to that at 40 but probably retire a couple of years earlier, such as at 39 or maybe 38.

A couple of other players who keep in great shape and love the game may also play longer and better than the average player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

So while we're talking about "predicted stats", what the hell is the purpose of predicted stats on runs/RBIs (for hitters) or wins, losses, runs, and earned runs (for pitchers). Shouldn't those be solely based on a player's ability plus the team (spot in the lineup, defense behind the pitcher, etc) he plays for?

---

They are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

I've always wondered if predicted statistics are for a base level. For example, let's say a hitter is predicted to hit .300 with 30 home runs. If he plays in San Diego, a pitcher's park, obviously those numbers will go down, while they'd go up in Coors Field.

So is that taken into account?

---

The predicted stats are supposed to be for a neutral environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cards

If he is yngr. than 32, he almost automatically gets better than his previous year, with a random factor thrown in that may make him worse for a year.

If 32 or older, he may plateau for another year or so, and then slowly decline.
Exception: players who keep themselves in better shape and take care of their body more than the average. Example: Albert Pujols may play exceptionally well until he is 37 or so instead of only 34-35.
Musial played until 42 (he hit .330 at 41 in '62 his second-to-last year as a final hurrah before his .255 in '63 when he quit), so I expect Pujols to be close to that at 40 but probably retire a couple of years earlier, such as at 39 or maybe 38.

A couple of other players who keep in great shape and love the game may also play longer and better than the average player.

---

What does that have to do with the question I posed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The predicted stats are supposed to be for a neutral environment.

---

Good, that was my hope. Thanks for the reply.

So just to be clear: ratings are merely the reflection of predicted stats and are not used in any way in generating actual results?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

So just to be clear: ratings are merely the reflection of predicted stats and are not used in any way in generating actual results?

---

Yes. 99% sure on that, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

He won't get a ton of triples if he isn't predicted too. And, also, he likely won't have a 60 speed with 20 predicted steals unless you predict him to ground into a ton of double plays, have terrible range, and get caught stealing a ton.


I don't see how that's better than specifically allocating how good a player is at hitting doubles, how good he is at triples, how good he is at SB, etc.

---

There are those rare (great) players who aren't necessarily fast, but can pick their spots in SB and have a decent SB %. You wouldn't guess that a big guy like Pujols could steal as many as 16 in a year (2005), but he did. And he had only 2 CS that year for an outstanding 87%. He's averaged 6 SB/yr., which is very good for a man who doesn't usually try to steal on a regular basis, but he always has a knack for "reading the play" in front of him and knows when he can and can't steal (when the situation calls for it as he did with that superb SB last Fri. night to let him score the winning run later that inn.), or take that critical extra base, and score a huge run for the team. How do you program *that* characteristic into BM for either his speed or judgment on the base paths? His career for SB/CS is 48/26 (65%) which isn't Carlos Beltran-88%, but above the average or slow runner.

Obviously, he is great at hitting Doubles, rare for him to have a Triple now, but he does have 13 for his career. His Run% is .77/G and approaching 1,000 (presently 967).

I just wanted to show that running speed isn't everything in figuring a direct correlation of SB%, or using good judgement on the base paths.

Quote:

---

This is something I'd be interested in seeing, but I think that it can be implemented without abandoning predicted stats.

---

There has to be some way to make an accurate, numerical interpretation on how well a player will do the next year, but speed/SB is something that is sometimes difficult to quantify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfeedback

One other random thought on predicted stats. I think that the "eye" rating should be split up somehow. Higher predicted Ks for a hitter lowers his eye rating, but striking out isn't really that bad for a batter. Yes he may fail to advance a runner, but a strikeout also can't lead to a double play.

---

I always hear this defense of the K on a batter, but the fact is there isn't that often in a game where a situational GIDP can happen, ignoring for the moment the possibility of the LDP. How many times does a player hit into a GIDP and you say to the tv (or radio), "I wish he would have K'd?"
Come on! Most of the time a batter isn't in the GDP situation so a K *is* worse than hitting a grounder: 1. a fielder can gopher it, or throw it away after fielding it well (see Khalil Greene the other night) 2. The batter could beat it out if it is hit deep in the hole.

Why is this mania about GIDP when K's occur far more often per game and the situation for a GIDP is *always* limited to 0-1 outs while a runner needs to be on 1b. If that specific combination doesn't occur with him at bat, chances are excellent the hitter isn't going to hit into a GDP and a K is then almost always worse than hitting the ball. Even if it is little dribbler the catcher/P has to field. I've seen more than one catcher/P throw it away leading to a big inning or just that one key run.
Enough of this GDP-nonsense compared to the K!

Quote:

---

Eye should be a reflection of how many pitches a hitter sees on average in an at bat.

---

No, that isn't necessarily related. If he sees a fat pitch on the first one, he may swing at it. If he doesn't see one he likes until later in the count, say 2-1, he may hit that just as well as he does on a 0-0 count.

Quote:

---

Plenty of great hitters walk a ton and strike out a ton as well, and usually they're damn good hitters. Three true outcomes and all that, ya know.

---

If they K too much, they aren't much use to the team. I'd rather have a high-contact hitter who hits for a higher average but less power than the strikeout artist who occasionally hits a HR.

Of course, it's ideal to have both qualities, but how many Albert Pujols are there in the majors? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cards

If they K too much, they aren't much use to the team. I'd rather have a high-contact hitter who hits for a higher average but less power than the strikeout artist who occasionally hits a HR.

---

Once again, the K-rate tells you nothing.

Adam Dunn and Ryan Howard and Jack Cust are all much better hitters than Placido Polanco, Juan Pierre, and Yadier Molina.


2008, highest 5 in K% - Jack Cust, Mark Reynolds, Carlos Pena, Ryan Howard Dan Uggla
2008, lowest 5 in K% - Bengie Molina, Placido Polanco, Casey Kotchman, Yuniesky Betancourt, Dustin Pedroia

2007, highest - Jack Cust, Ryan Howard, B.J. Upton, Adam Dunn, Jim Thome
2007, lowest - Placido Polanco, Juan Pierre, Dustin Pedroia, Luis Castillo, Kenji Johjima

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow

Well, all I'm arguing with is the idea that it's perfect. I don't disagree that it's good. I just don't like the predicted-stats premise.

Also, here's two players I pulled off a random file:

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...ow/players.jpg

---

related to

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=194058

?


This game has obviously been simmed will into the future. With the ratings rise this forces above average players to have average stats

Yes, it's probably not good to draw any conclusions from future fictional players created with BM 2010 (and even 2009). Too many issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Once again, the K-rate tells you nothing.

Adam Dunn and Ryan Howard and Jack Cust are all much better hitters than Placido Polanco, Juan Pierre, and Yadier Molina.

---

You haven't been paying attention to Yadi lately, have you?
He's getting better at the plate with every AB. One of the hardest men in all of baseball to K and he gets many key hits now. Matter of fact, he had the lone RBI in tonight's loss. He couldn't do that if he K'd as Howard frequently does. He is no Ryan Howard or Adam Dunn slugger/K artist, nor does he pretend to be or want to be. He will make good contact and your team needs a good combination of BA and SLG, not just pure SLG, SLG, SLG, SLG, SLG because the player is usually susceptible to a good K pitcher. Those pitchers will make mincemeat and a fool of the Dunn/Howard players more often than they will hurt him because they are lower-BA (although Howard hits .280-.300 compared to real-low BA .250-.275 Dunn) most years.

Maybe you better pay more attention to Yadi's great development as a hitter? :D

Quote:

---

2008, highest 5 in K% - Jack Cust, Mark Reynolds, Carlos Pena, Ryan Howard Dan Uggla
2008, lowest 5 in K% - Bengie Molina, Placido Polanco, Casey Kotchman, Yuniesky Betancourt, Dustin Pedroia

2007, highest - Jack Cust, Ryan Howard, B.J. Upton, Adam Dunn, Jim Thome
2007, lowest - Placido Polanco, Juan Pierre, Dustin Pedroia, Luis Castillo, Kenji Johjima

---

So, what's your point, if any?
Something wrong with having Juan Pierre or Dustin Pedroia on your team instead of high-K, low-BA Adam Dunn who can be pitched around if 1b is open?

Something wrong with having B. Molina as your catcher; how about Y. Molina, who is even better than his 2 brothers both defensively and now probably offensively. You do realize Yadi and Benjie are CATCHERS and that is a totally different animal than a 1b-man, with defense much more important (same for 2b/SS) than mere SLG, SLG, SLG ability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cards

Maybe you better pay more attention to Yadi's great development as a hitter? :D

---

I never said Molina isn't a good hitter. He's not as good as Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, Grady Sizemore, Dan Uggla, Carlos Pena, etc., though.

Quote:

---

So, what's your point, if any?

---

My point is that K-rate is not related to how valuable of a hitter you are.

Quote:

---

Something wrong with having Juan Pierre or Dustin Pedroia on your team instead of high-K, low-BA Adam Dunn who can be pitched around if 1b is open?

---

Well, if your goal is to win, then yes, there's something wrong with having Juan Pierre in your lineup if you have the option of using Adam Dunn.

Quote:

---

Something wrong with having B. Molina as your catcher; how about Y. Molina, who is even better than his 2 brothers both defensively and now probably offensively. You do realize Yadi and Benjie are CATCHERS and that is a totally different animal than a 1b-man, with defense much more important (same for 2b/SS) than mere SLG, SLG, SLG ability?

---

I'm talking about them as hitters, not as overall players.

For hitters, what categories are most important in determining the better hitter?

I consider OBA a significant category, if that's the case that would make Dunn a better hitter than Pierre.