How Exactly Does "Adjust Pitchers/Hitters with Fewer than X Innings/At Bats" Work?

[chucksabr]

I've been googling around like crazy trying to find the answer on my own and I am coming up dry, so I am going to ask here and hopefully I get an answer I can work with.

I am joining an online league where innings pitched under 25/100 (RP/SP) and at bats under 200 (which I understand are the defaults and can be changed by the league owner/commissioner) will be adjusted.

In the manual, where it discusses adding historical leagues, this is what is written about adjustments:

This setting forces the game to adjust the pitching ratings for players who did not play very much in the selected season. For example, this would prevent a player who pitched well, but in just 5 innings of play, from being rated very highly by making them closer to the league average. By default, players with fewer than 25 innings pitched will be adjusted. The game will multiply the entered IP by four when adjusting starting pitchers.

I understand the manual is talking about pitcher ratings here, but I would assume a pitcher who is rated at league average would have Stats+, like wRC+ and OPS+ as well as ERA- and FIP-, at the league average, which is 100, as well.

I would like to know how this adjustment is applied on a practical, technical basis. So, for example:

If Gary Peters' FIP- in real life for his first three seasons are 171, 24, 49, and his innings pitched for those three seasons are 1.0, 3.1, 10.1 — all well under the IP threshold for adjustment — does that mean his adjusted FIP- in the game for those three seasons get converted to league average, meaning 100, 100, 100?

Same with Gene Moore: his FIP- for his first three seasons are 180, 110, 134 with IP of 2.0, 17.1, 14.2. Does he also get adjusted back to a 100 FIP- for each of those three seasons?

IOW, are Gary Peters and Gene Moore considered to be equal in the eyes of the game for their first three seasons because they both had all three seasons under 25 IP, and are thus considered to be average pitchers against the league, and equal to one another?

I don't think I have to give any examples for hitters because in principle, the question is the same.

I am doing calculations based on this so I want to make sure I have the technical understanding of it correct.

[thehef]

I don't know if this helps with your particular questions, but here's some add'l explanation that Markus provided a while ago, that I have found useful:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

When a player is below the "adjust" limit, his ratings will be adjusted towards the league average, the less playing time he had the more the ratings get adjusted. If a player is below the "weaken" limit, the ratings will also be adjusted, but not towards league average but rather towards replacement level, so that these players end up with rather low ratings.

Also, from a several-years-ago discussion in the beta forums, a couple of veteran OOTPers were under the assumption that these settings not only are applied to those who put up great numbers in small numbers of AB's or IP's, but also are applied - to bring upwards - those who performed terribly in small #'s of appearances. For example, a guy who had 5 hitless AB's and struck out 4 times, might end up rated as a poor hitter, rather than one who simply cannot hit a all... But I don't know if that's been confirmed.

I have a vague recollection of some good discussion about this maybe a year or so ago. Not sure where it was, though. I'll try to find the link...

One thing, though, that I recall from that discussion - that may or may be important to you - is the following;

Let's say you are starting a historical game with the 1970 season, you choose 150 AB's for your Adjust settings, and you are doing 5-year recalc. OOTP will then take AB's from 1968 thru 1972, and only apply the Adjust operation if total AB's are under 750 total (150 ab's x 5 years). And then, if total AB's are, say 720, then the adjustment will only apply to those 30 AB's that are necessary to get to 750.

So along those same lines, if you are using 200 AB's for Adjust setting, and 1-year recalc, and a player has 198 AB's, he will barely be adjusted because only 2 adjusted AB's will be added to his actual stats (that will be used for his ratings).

At least that's my understanding... Outside of the dev team of course, Garlon, I believe, is the expert on this. Perhaps he'll weigh in to add more, and/or confirm or correct my above ramblings...

[Pelican]

I understand and support the notion of “normalizing” these very limited MLB stats, to better represent the contribution the player would make, with more innings or at-bats.

What I don’t understand if why some attention is not then paid to the player’s stats, that same year, in the minor leagues? It’s fine to project regression to the mean based on MLB average, or replacement level. But that erroneously assumes these players with limited stats are generic. They aren’t. They have prior stats, albeit at a lower level, that same year. I mean, a guy with five AB or five IP in MLB would have had many AB and IP in the minors. What’s more, he would have OOTP ratings and potential based on his historical performance. Why not factor those stats and that history into his ratings, incorporating (but giving scant weight to) his limited MLB experience.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by thehef

I don't know if this helps with your particular questions, but here's some add'l explanation that Markus provided a while ago, that I have found useful:



Also, from a several-years-ago discussion in the beta forums, a couple of veteran OOTPers were under the assumption that these settings not only are applied to those who put up great numbers in small numbers of AB's or IP's, but also are applied - to bring upwards - those who performed terribly in small #'s of appearances. For example, a guy who had 5 hitless AB's and struck out 4 times, might end up rated as a poor hitter, rather than one who simply cannot hit a all... But I don't know if that's been confirmed.

I have a vague recollection of some good discussion about this maybe a year or so ago. Not sure where it was, though. I'll try to find the link...

One thing, though, that I recall from that discussion - that may or may be important to you - is the following;

Let's say you are starting a historical game with the 1970 season, you choose 150 AB's for your Adjust settings, and you are doing 5-year recalc. OOTP will then take AB's from 1968 thru 1972, and only apply the Adjust operation if total AB's are under 750 total (150 ab's x 5 years). And then, if total AB's are, say 720, then the adjustment will only apply to those 30 AB's that are necessary to get to 750.

So along those same lines, if you are using 200 AB's for Adjust setting, and 1-year recalc, and a player has 198 AB's, he will barely be adjusted because only 2 adjusted AB's will be added to his actual stats (that will be used for his ratings).

At least that's my understanding... Outside of the dev team of course, Garlon, I believe, is the expert on this. Perhaps he'll weigh in to add more, and/or confirm or correct my above ramblings...

Solid explanation, man. Thanks!

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I understand and support the notion of “normalizing” these very limited MLB stats, to better represent the contribution the player would make, with more innings or at-bats.

What I don’t understand if why some attention is not then paid to the player’s stats, that same year, in the minor leagues? It’s fine to project regression to the mean based on MLB average, or replacement level. But that erroneously assumes these players with limited stats are generic. They aren’t. They have prior stats, albeit at a lower level, that same year. I mean, a guy with five AB or five IP in MLB would have had many AB and IP in the minors. What’s more, he would have OOTP ratings and potential based on his historical performance. Why not factor those stats and that history into his ratings, incorporating (but giving scant weight to) his limited MLB experience.

I believe what you are suggesting occurs when you are playing with historical minors enabled. But I see what you are saying... Almost positive this does not occur if you don't have minors enabled; would be cool if it did...

[thehef]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Solid explanation, man. Thanks!

You're very welcome!

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by thehef

You're very welcome!

I also tried googling through to figure out the problem of what to do about guys like Alex George (career: 1-for-10, 1 BB, 7 K) and how to rank them, so if you can find what they said about cipher players who simply couldn't hit or pitch, let alone at replacement level, that would be super cool of you. Thanks again!

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by thehef

I believe what you are suggesting occurs when you are playing with historical minors enabled. But I see what you are saying... Almost positive this does not occur if you don't have minors enabled; would be cool if it did...

I previously tested this. You are correct.

[Rain King]

The "historical" database and he "historical minors" databases are separate. So, if you aren't using historical minors then those seasons/stats don't get loaded at all which is why they aren't factored into the ratings.

I agree it would be cool if it did so that you could play without the entire minor league system, but still see the fringe guys perform more like their real life counterparts instead of the generic 20 players they become.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I previously tested this. You are correct.

Yeah, and I am normally playing with historical minors enabled, so I don’t see the issue the OP raised. Sorry to sidetrack the discussion.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Yeah, and I am normally playing with historical minors enabled, so I don’t see the issue the OP raised. Sorry to sidetrack the discussion.

I thought it was a great question and learned a lot from the answers from Rain King, thehef, and Brad K. I'm glad you asked. I only dabble in historical for nostalgia and found this whole thread very informative.

Thanks guys.