 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Game & Site Questions » Need Your Input; No Time for Serious Research
tworoosters
March 17, 2015 at 10:32PM View BBCode
Not denying that Rose put himself ahead of the game near the end but the difference between Rose and Frick is that Rose was already a Hall of Famer before he tacked on the extra years, Frick was never a Hall of Fame player but by making it to a few "magic" numbers created some buzz.
tworoosters
I don't know if "hard & fast" career ERA/WHIP numbers are that important, particularly with relievers.
In the Sim young relievers are often abused to get major league improvement chances, this can create situations where they spend 2-3 years at the beginning of their career pitching 100 appearances and 120+ innings and getting rocked before they become fully developed, or they are left in the closer's role at the end of their career when they shouldn't be because their team may not be as concerned with winning as an MLB team might.
This can create a falsely skewed WHIP & ERA that they never fully recover from. I tend to look at the numbers during their dominant phase rather than total numbers. [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=4024201]Montoya[/url] is an example, his first 4 years weren't pretty and his last 2 years were ugly but he had an 11 year span in the middle where he was absolutely dominant with 11 straight AS appearances while averaging just under 100 innings annually with a WHIP of 1.05 and ERA of 3.05 while picking up 438 saves at an 86% save rate. He took four ballots to make it into the Hall but I have no doubt he deserved to be there.
March 17, 2015 at 10:55PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ballmark
So, coming back to Relief Pitchers, let me attempt to sum up. A Hall of Fame Relief Pitcher should:
? Maintain a good ERA and WHIP while doing so (under 3.25 and 1.25).
I don't know if "hard & fast" career ERA/WHIP numbers are that important, particularly with relievers.
In the Sim young relievers are often abused to get major league improvement chances, this can create situations where they spend 2-3 years at the beginning of their career pitching 100 appearances and 120+ innings and getting rocked before they become fully developed, or they are left in the closer's role at the end of their career when they shouldn't be because their team may not be as concerned with winning as an MLB team might.
This can create a falsely skewed WHIP & ERA that they never fully recover from. I tend to look at the numbers during their dominant phase rather than total numbers. [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=4024201]Montoya[/url] is an example, his first 4 years weren't pretty and his last 2 years were ugly but he had an 11 year span in the middle where he was absolutely dominant with 11 straight AS appearances while averaging just under 100 innings annually with a WHIP of 1.05 and ERA of 3.05 while picking up 438 saves at an 86% save rate. He took four ballots to make it into the Hall but I have no doubt he deserved to be there.
causey
We should dig up this guy's gravesite and save him. Despite being dead, he's apparently in pretty good health...like most of the other dead guys.
He must be one of the players who routinely advances from first to third on singles to left field, despite the geographical improbability.
March 18, 2015 at 02:39AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=5154768]Shawn Minor[/url] was another 3,000 hit guy who didn't make the BHL Hall of Fame, again his owner protested loudly but the voters prevailed, because 3,000 hits with a career OPS of .749 is just a bunch of hits you never should have had the chance to collect .
We should dig up this guy's gravesite and save him. Despite being dead, he's apparently in pretty good health...like most of the other dead guys.
He must be one of the players who routinely advances from first to third on singles to left field, despite the geographical improbability.
Bonnie_Brae
March 19, 2015 at 06:16AM View BBCode
Inherited runners scored/holds/saves are the only things that matter. They summarize the point of bringing in a reliever.
ballmark
March 19, 2015 at 06:30AM View BBCode
...and as soon as SimD starts tracking IRS and Holds, I shall include those in my spreadsheet. But your point is well taken, Ezra.
Bonnie_Brae
Of course.
I asked for IRS a few times, but it hasn't stuck as a suggestion in support.
The issue with saves is that *lots* of experienced players don't use a closer. Instead, they bring in their best reliever 1st as often as possible, and then utilize relievers in descending order based on quality. (I am sure someone made this point, but I'm just chiming in without reading). The saves get dumped all over the pen.
In SD terms, my vote is pretty much always a yes for a HOF ballot if the guy made 10 all star teams. I rarely will vote yes for any player with less.
That typically means that a player pitched at star level for the peak use years of say 24/25 to 34/35. That allows for people to develop properly until OS 23/24 and then call a player up. In order to make 10 all star teams, they dominated most of their career.
Maybe there are garbage arms that picked up cheap saves for 10 seasons, but it's not common enough to ignore the all star appearances as an early filter.
After that, I tend to look at hits vs IP for a career, and if it's clear it was far less than a 1:1 ratio, they should be in the hall.
[Edited on 3-19-2015 by Bonnie_Brae]
March 19, 2015 at 07:59AM View BBCode
Originally posted by ballmark
...and as soon as SimD starts tracking IRS and Holds, I shall include those in my spreadsheet. But your point is well taken, Ezra.
Of course.
I asked for IRS a few times, but it hasn't stuck as a suggestion in support.
The issue with saves is that *lots* of experienced players don't use a closer. Instead, they bring in their best reliever 1st as often as possible, and then utilize relievers in descending order based on quality. (I am sure someone made this point, but I'm just chiming in without reading). The saves get dumped all over the pen.
In SD terms, my vote is pretty much always a yes for a HOF ballot if the guy made 10 all star teams. I rarely will vote yes for any player with less.
That typically means that a player pitched at star level for the peak use years of say 24/25 to 34/35. That allows for people to develop properly until OS 23/24 and then call a player up. In order to make 10 all star teams, they dominated most of their career.
Maybe there are garbage arms that picked up cheap saves for 10 seasons, but it's not common enough to ignore the all star appearances as an early filter.
After that, I tend to look at hits vs IP for a career, and if it's clear it was far less than a 1:1 ratio, they should be in the hall.
[Edited on 3-19-2015 by Bonnie_Brae]
Descent54
Dominate rate: Strikeout X 9 / innings; 7.0 or higher.
Control rate: Walks X 9 / innings; 2.8 or lower.
March 19, 2015 at 12:00PM View BBCode
Command Ratio: Strikeout/Walks ; 2.5 or better.Dominate rate: Strikeout X 9 / innings; 7.0 or higher.
Control rate: Walks X 9 / innings; 2.8 or lower.
tm4559
saves are a dumb metric. but a big saves reliever with low innings, if the rate is great, should be HOF. to be realistic, the real HOF puts them in. in real life, it is probably true the later innings are tougher. maybe. we can grant it.
but this is a simulation.
all the innings are the same. the first, the last, and all the ones in between.
a good pitcher, if it has any endurance all (more than say, d or whatever) should, first, give a team innings. for a reliever that never starts, obviously it isn't going to be as many as a starter that plays the same number of years.
a great pitcher (HOF worthy) will give those innings at great rate, with the K/bb ratio that is nice and all that. the wins and saves will just follow from that. they are the result of the process. they action that makes up the process is the performance, quantified by the batting average against, the era, the whip, the K/bb ratio, whatever.
playoff stuff is icing on the cake, players that play for dopey owners shouldn't really be penalized. a good indication of a really good pitcher is that it performs rate wise in the playoffs very close to what it did in the regular seasons.
most leagues do their HOF with no too many candidates at one time, and it truly is not difficult to grade a few pitchers. the ones that are HOF worthy, even if they only had 500, 1000 or 1500 innings, its usually pretty obvious. its only when folks start out with a bias against relievers they make it difficult.
a great pitcher is a great pitcher. great pitchers should be HOF (all this goes for hitters too). recognizing good, but not great, and rejecting it as not great enough is the first part of the process. and then being able to reject big count (from relievers, from starters, hitters, whatever) that just come from playing too long (without ever really being very good) is the second part. being able to recognize greatness at the peak years (including a few years to either side of the peak) and saying, "this thing was dominant for long enough to be in, it was that good" that's the final piece of the puzzle.
March 19, 2015 at 06:14PM View BBCode
it's easy, once folks get past the notion that starting pitchers are automatically more valuable than relievers.saves are a dumb metric. but a big saves reliever with low innings, if the rate is great, should be HOF. to be realistic, the real HOF puts them in. in real life, it is probably true the later innings are tougher. maybe. we can grant it.
but this is a simulation.
all the innings are the same. the first, the last, and all the ones in between.
a good pitcher, if it has any endurance all (more than say, d or whatever) should, first, give a team innings. for a reliever that never starts, obviously it isn't going to be as many as a starter that plays the same number of years.
a great pitcher (HOF worthy) will give those innings at great rate, with the K/bb ratio that is nice and all that. the wins and saves will just follow from that. they are the result of the process. they action that makes up the process is the performance, quantified by the batting average against, the era, the whip, the K/bb ratio, whatever.
playoff stuff is icing on the cake, players that play for dopey owners shouldn't really be penalized. a good indication of a really good pitcher is that it performs rate wise in the playoffs very close to what it did in the regular seasons.
most leagues do their HOF with no too many candidates at one time, and it truly is not difficult to grade a few pitchers. the ones that are HOF worthy, even if they only had 500, 1000 or 1500 innings, its usually pretty obvious. its only when folks start out with a bias against relievers they make it difficult.
a great pitcher is a great pitcher. great pitchers should be HOF (all this goes for hitters too). recognizing good, but not great, and rejecting it as not great enough is the first part of the process. and then being able to reject big count (from relievers, from starters, hitters, whatever) that just come from playing too long (without ever really being very good) is the second part. being able to recognize greatness at the peak years (including a few years to either side of the peak) and saying, "this thing was dominant for long enough to be in, it was that good" that's the final piece of the puzzle.
Pages: 1 2