This is the same exact game as 2009.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

[BINGLEBOP]

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

[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.

[boomboom]

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.

[Cards]

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.

[cfeedback]

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.

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?

[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?

[Cards]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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?

[BINGLEBOP]

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

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

[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?

[HoustonGM]

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.

[Cards]

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.

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.

[Cards]

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!

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.

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?

[HoustonGM]

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