OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

OldFatGuy · 08-25-2008, 04:16 AM

OK, now at least I do understand why changing league totals is "counter-intuitive", or I guess I should say now I see exactly why lowering the HR amount in league totals actually increases Home Runs.

But I'm still at a complete loss over the big picture.

I mean, what I'm seeing is there must be, I dunno, 100 different forumulas for the 100 different possible outcomes? I mean, I admit, I don't know how many possible outcomes there are, but there must be many.

So, there's a formula similar to what you just decscribed to give the "odds" of a home run for Manny, then there's another formula that gives the "odds" of a strikeout for Manny, then one for a single to right, a single to left, a groundball to short. Is this the way its working?

Ok, if so, then you're left with about a hundred different forumalas giving a hundred different "odds" on the 100 different possible outcomes of each at bat.

Then what?

A new "Superformula" adds up all of these "odds"; and then compares them to what?

I.E. let's say Manny's final HR/AB # vs the Unit is something like 0.0532.

Ok, then a similar foruma comes up with the odds of a double? a Triple? A strikeout?

OK, so now I'm left with lots of different odds of a particular outcome per AB of Manny vs Randy.

That still doesn't answer whether A particular outcome is derived totally random based off of those odds, or whether something else is calculated at some point in the process too. Some sort of mathematical "counter-weight" that tries to ensure that the season's final count of outcomes (let's say Home Runs) is close to what the "expected" number of home runs should be.

Or, is it entirely random based on the ratings, and the results of all of those formulas that the ratings of the batter and pitcher produce?

I mean, I've always expected it was this way. But when I see what I've seen now on more than one occasion, it caused me to post. Then I read responses to my posts indicating others are seeing it. Don't you understand how it then becomes inevitable to then wonder? I'm as aware of anyone of the fallacy of judging things on too small of a sample size. But when you see the size begin to increase, well you begin to wonder.

Imagine just ONE case IRL of a manager bunting the 8 hole hitter to get to a weak hitting pitcher and having him succeed. I think we could at least agree we could imagine it, though we'd certainly question the viability of the manager in question remaining a manager.

But if you saw it three times wouldn't you at least wonder? And then after I saw it at least three times and posted, others responded saying they had seen it. Doesn't the repetition of these 100-1 long shots at least stir your curiosity just a bit as to whether there might be something else going on?

08-25-2008, 04:16 AM	#22 (permalink)
OldFatGuy All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Northern Va., Loudoun County Posts: 1,321 Thanked 60x in 40 posts	OK, now at least I do understand why changing league totals is "counter-intuitive", or I guess I should say now I see exactly why lowering the HR amount in league totals actually increases Home Runs. But I'm still at a complete loss over the big picture. I mean, what I'm seeing is there must be, I dunno, 100 different forumulas for the 100 different possible outcomes? I mean, I admit, I don't know how many possible outcomes there are, but there must be many. So, there's a formula similar to what you just decscribed to give the "odds" of a home run for Manny, then there's another formula that gives the "odds" of a strikeout for Manny, then one for a single to right, a single to left, a groundball to short. Is this the way its working? Ok, if so, then you're left with about a hundred different forumalas giving a hundred different "odds" on the 100 different possible outcomes of each at bat. Then what? A new "Superformula" adds up all of these "odds"; and then compares them to what? I.E. let's say Manny's final HR/AB # vs the Unit is something like 0.0532. Ok, then a similar foruma comes up with the odds of a double? a Triple? A strikeout? OK, so now I'm left with lots of different odds of a particular outcome per AB of Manny vs Randy. That still doesn't answer whether A particular outcome is derived totally random based off of those odds, or whether something else is calculated at some point in the process too. Some sort of mathematical "counter-weight" that tries to ensure that the season's final count of outcomes (let's say Home Runs) is close to what the "expected" number of home runs should be. Or, is it entirely random based on the ratings, and the results of all of those formulas that the ratings of the batter and pitcher produce? I mean, I've always expected it was this way. But when I see what I've seen now on more than one occasion, it caused me to post. Then I read responses to my posts indicating others are seeing it. Don't you understand how it then becomes inevitable to then wonder? I'm as aware of anyone of the fallacy of judging things on too small of a sample size. But when you see the size begin to increase, well you begin to wonder. Imagine just ONE case IRL of a manager bunting the 8 hole hitter to get to a weak hitting pitcher and having him succeed. I think we could at least agree we could imagine it, though we'd certainly question the viability of the manager in question remaining a manager. But if you saw it three times wouldn't you at least wonder? And then after I saw it at least three times and posted, others responded saying they had seen it. Doesn't the repetition of these 100-1 long shots at least stir your curiosity just a bit as to whether there might be something else going on?