Latest News: OOTP 13 Announced with Screenshots & Feature List! Pre-Order Now! - OOTP Baseball 12 Available! - iOOTP Baseball 2011 Available! - Title Bout Championship Boxing 2.5 released! - Inside the Park Baseball Patch 1.03 released, DEMO now available

Pre-Order OOTP 13, Save & Win! | OOTP 12 Off-Season Special, just $19.99!

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Earlier versions of Out of the Park Baseball > Earlier versions of OOTP: General Discussions

Earlier versions of OOTP: General Discussions General chat about the game...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2004, 11:47 PM   #61 (permalink)
All Star Reserve
 
rwd59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 705
Thanked 3x in 3 posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Henry
Back to your game one of the posters suggested turning off all the various options in the game setup screens and trying it. It worked for him - which makes it sounds like a game issue... just need to find out which option, or combination of options is causing it.
Henry, I've tried everything anyone has suggested without any luck. The thing that gets me is that when trying to play a game, you never know how long you can go before you get an error. You just know it's coming soon. Hell, I'd sit on the computer like an old laying chicken trying to hatch it if I thought it would help. No suggestion goes untested. As I said in my original thread, I bought Puresim last night and it pales in comparison, especially for a historical simmer. Maybe I can learn to like it a little cause it's all I got right now. I know you have tried to help and I appreciate it. Maybe after the patch I'll hear from Marcus one way or another.
rwd59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2004, 02:25 AM   #62 (permalink)
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: California
Posts: 3,494
Quote:
Originally posted by Henry
Here's a ton of stuff. I know it's not exactly fair to dump you to a ton of links, but I've explained DIPS so many times I'm a bit burned out LOL. You can also follow the two previous threads on the subject (enter "DIPS" and "Henry" in the search engine).

What it comes down to is the proof is all there, no matter how you twist it, it comes up to the same answer.

I started off not wanting to believe it - and doing everything I could to fins a hole in the thesis, but eventually I had to admit it worked

http://www.futilityinfielder.com/dips03.html
On the other hand, the more I read and here it "explained", the less I believe in it. To me it seems more useful when looking at pitchers as a whole rather than the individual. I find the arguments similar to the old runs created arguments. They used to say that runs created was accurate on a league wide level, somewhat accurate on a team level, and only moderately accurate on a player by player level. But its not worth arguing over, what is done is done. I understand what your trying to say Henry, I just don't buy into it totally. As for Carlton's arguments, I'll stay away since they never seem to make any sense at all.
__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a Ride!"

Chicago(N) - Boys of Summer
Oakland - 20th Century League
Bakersfield - Wild Things
Brooklyn - QBA
Dodge City - NBSL
California - ABC

Dodger's Senioriest fan on the OOTP Boards
IatricSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2004, 02:49 AM   #63 (permalink)
gmo
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 2,788
Thanked 78x in 46 posts
Quote:
Originally posted by IatricSB
On the other hand, the more I read and here it "explained", the less I believe in it.
Out of curiosity, to what extent do those of you not very much behind DIPS believe in it? Is it just a matter of thinking there needs to be a modifier, another variable to explain the variability among pitchers? Or do you feel that the flaws or shortcomings are enough to make the whole system "broken"?
gmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2004, 04:33 PM   #64 (permalink)
All Star Starter
 
Spielman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipaway
Tippet did not consider park/defense profile vs. pitcher profile. Sharing the same defense/park does not prove anything, since different pitching profile would benefit from the same defense/park in different ways.

Without that part figured out, adding a BABIP rating would only reduce the significance of parks and defense.

The ideal system would be much closer to the work MGL did than what Tippet did.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/..._2004-02-29_0/
Great link there, Skipaway.

-Spielman
Spielman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2004, 06:22 PM   #65 (permalink)
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Train
I also found the same type of walk/strikeout ratios with pitchers who to my knowledge weren't knuckleballers:

Tom Zachary 1920-1936 [season average] 225.3 IP 258H 65 BB 51K 3.73 ERA

Hugh McQuillan [9 years] 219.7 IP 239H 68BB 62K 3.83

Slim Hariss [8 years] 206IP 231H 74K 75BB 4.25

I don't feel like listing them all but nearly every pitcher from this year has a 2 rating for strikeout
[Betts,Vangilder, Dixie Davis and Rip Collins are some others you can look up]. It's not only knuckleballers though.

None of these were great pitchers but remember the 20s and 30s was a great hitters era so their numbers are probalbly a little inflated.
Actually, I have a spreadsheet covering league-average BB, K, and HR per 9 IP for the entire live-ball era-- which means I also have K/BB ratios, and the lines you give above aren't uncommon for the era. In fact, they're pretty close to league average. The NL's K/BB ratio didn't climb above 1 to stay until 1930, and the AL's K/BB ratio varied around .9 (more or less) in the years you mention above. So I'm not sure what you were saying there, but then again I'm easily confused.
DAL 9000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2004, 07:22 PM   #66 (permalink)
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: , "
Posts: 3,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by IatricSB
On the other hand, the more I read and here it "explained", the less I believe in it. To me it seems more useful when looking at pitchers as a whole rather than the individual.
Yes, Iantric, that is precisely true. But, read the quote from MGL's article that Skipaway posted above (and which, iirc, an OotP poster responded). I will reproduce what is for me the important part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MGL
As I explained before, no matter how small the sample correlation is for x number of BIP, as long as there is any true correlation at all, given a large enough sample size, the correlation will eventually be 1 (assuming that whatever talent a pitcher does have for preventing hits is fairly constant over time). However, given a true correlation of .036 for 500 BIP samples, it would take more than a 13,000 BIP sample (4,200 innings or around 20 years of pitching) to have a correlation of .500. In other words, of you wanted to estimate a pitcher?s true $H from a year?s worth of his sample data (~500 BIP), you would regress his sample $H over 96% towards the league average; if you wanted to estimate a pitcher?s true $H from his 20-year history (~13,000 BIP), you would regress his sample $H only 50% toward the mean (the regression amount always equals 1-r).
So, as been pointed out before, if you agree DIPS works wholesale, then you agree that DIPS means you get 95%+ there individually. Afterall, what OotP really is doing is esimating -- or stating -- the pitcher's "true H$" -- his actual talent. What Rob and others want is to go that extra 5%. But, that sounds good to me, but just remember it is that extra 5%, not a wholesale revision.
__________________
Brookline Maccabees. RIP
Joshv02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2004, 01:43 AM   #67 (permalink)
Minors (Triple A)
 
rcbuss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mauston, WI
Posts: 226
Thanked 2x in 2 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshv02
So, as been pointed out before, if you agree DIPS works wholesale, then you agree that DIPS means you get 95%+ there individually. Afterall, what OotP really is doing is esimating -- or stating -- the pitcher's "true H$" -- his actual talent. What Rob and others want is to go that extra 5%. But, that sounds good to me, but just remember it is that extra 5%, not a wholesale revision.
Great post, Josh. I couldn't have said this better, or more succinctly, myself.
__________________
Robert C Buss
FOBL Mauston Mad Cows
rcbuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright © 2009 Out of the Park Developments