OOTP 2006 League History -Screenies

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by f.montoya

Yes.

Some OOTP 7 news

Good memory!!

[Malleus Dei]

Well, then let's start a thread to bug Markus about making sure that the import function is fully functional, because if it isn't then none of this will work.

[canadiancreed]

I wonder if it will be compatible with multiple DB's. I know that access is, at least IMO, a f-in PITA to work with. Shoudl be very intrestign to hear back on this :d

[theview]

Originally Posted by flubug31

It should be possible to create something on the scale of UZR with the information known by the game engine. I assume the fielding ratings correspond to percentages of balls converted into outs, so it would just be a matter of translating those percentages to a total number of plays above/below average, and multiplying the result by the run value of a play made in the field (roughly .8 across all positions).


For example, let's say a centerfielder with an 80 range rating converts 6% more balls into outs than a player with a 50 rating in the same number of opportunities. He makes 318 putouts over the course of a season, or 18 plays above average, which you then multiply by the run value of a play made in centerfield, .83, for a total of 15 runs above average.

Yeah, and I think based on some old rough tests that people ran in prior version, this has been what people have roughly done.

The problem is that it doesn't work backwards. So, while a 80 in range for a CFer may equal a +15 UZR on average, we can't tell what actually happened in any particular season (and, so, 80 in range would be considered the same as 89, but would be different in kind than 79).

But, we don't know if the fielder was actually a +15 that season or if their ratings just showed them to be likely to be a +15 that season. (Or, put in other terms, the player was a True Talent +15, while the combination of luck and park factors [and variance] caused a +7 or + 21.) Because defensive UZR numbers are more variable than, for example, OPS on a season-to-season basis, any specific season may be a good deal away from what their rating projected.

(I write all the above really for others; I assume you knew all that.0

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Well, then let's start a thread to bug Markus about making sure that the import function is fully functional, because if it isn't then none of this will work.

Wow MD! I'm going to miss your A-team avatar. The new one looks like a picture from Napolean Dynamite's T-shirt

[Cras]

Originally Posted by silvam14

Wow MD! I'm going to miss your A-team avatar. The new one looks like a picture from Napolean Dynamite's T-shirt

You bo-daggit!

[treedom]

Originally Posted by silvam14

Wow MD! I'm going to miss your A-team avatar. The new one looks like a picture from Napolean Dynamite's T-shirt

Oh man...you are soooo going on his ignore list with that quip.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by silvam14

Wow MD! I'm going to miss your A-team avatar. The new one looks like a picture from Napolean Dynamite's T-shirt

now that's just low :d

[andymac]

Originally Posted by silvam14

Wow MD! I'm going to miss your A-team avatar. The new one looks like a picture from Napolean Dynamite's T-shirt

I don't think he like the OT hooligans copying it (I wouldn't either, :randy

[Cras]

Originally Posted by treedom

Oh man...you are soooo going on his ignore list with that quip.

Then he can join nearly the rest of the board there. I wonder what MD's view is. With only three or four people making seemingly random comments because everyone else is blocked.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Cras

Then he can join nearly the rest of the board there. I wonder what MD's view is. With only three or four people making seemingly random comments because everyone else is blocked.

must be intresting, if distracting

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by andymac

I don't think he like the OT hooligans copying it (I wouldn't either, :randy

but he doesn't go to OT?

[flubug31]

Originally Posted by theview

Yeah, and I think based on some old rough tests that people ran in prior version, this has been what people have roughly done.

The problem is that it doesn't work backwards. So, while a 80 in range for a CFer may equal a +15 UZR on average, we can't tell what actually happened in any particular season (and, so, 80 in range would be considered the same as 89, but would be different in kind than 79).

But, we don't know if the fielder was actually a +15 that season or if their ratings just showed them to be likely to be a +15 that season. (Or, put in other terms, the player was a True Talent +15, while the combination of luck and park factors [and variance] caused a +7 or + 21.) Because defensive UZR numbers are more variable than, for example, OPS on a season-to-season basis, any specific season may be a good deal away from what their rating projected.

(I write all the above really for others; I assume you knew all that.0

Well, thanks for the benefit of the doubt, I guess...

My thinking was that if you can't track balls precisely, and the best you can do is some kind of estimate in the vein of Fielding Runs Above Average or Win Shares, you're better served working backward from perfect information about true talent than introducing another layer of error with all the assumptions you have to make to estimate ball distribution. That +15 in any given year may be a bit sketchy, but your confidence grows with the sample, and you never end up whiffing on Chipper Jones to the tune of 15 or 20 runs every year for a decade because the Braves have an odd distribution of ground balls.

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by treedom

Oh man...you are soooo going on his ignore list with that quip.

I think he's got a good enough sense of humor to realize I wasn't dissing him too badly. I just preferred the A-team avatar, that's all.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by silvam14

I think he's got a good enough sense of humor

MD? That's quite a gamble .