OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - The Turn DP rating—does it do anything?

Furious · 02-21-2021, 07:22 PM

Someone brought up Bill James. In one of James’ books he discusses irrational skepticism.

There’s rational skepticism, where you doubt the veracity of something because it sounds false based on what you already know (or at least think you know), and then there’s irrational skepticism, where even in the face of overwhelming evidence you cling to excuses to disbelieve something because the truth is particularly unpalatable to you.

I’m not accusing anyone of anything; I don’t know what’s inside anyone’s head. I do think some of the objections that are being raised are starting to sound like irrational skepticism.

When Isryion told me about his Turn DP 1 second baseman who could turn DPs almost with the best of ’em, I was skeptical as hell. I thought of some of the same things some of you did: a) small sample size (he had, I think only a couple of seasons of data, and I believe they were only partial seasons); b) dissimilar DP opportunities when compared to the other 2Bs in the league (was it a pitching staff that allowed a lot of baserunners, or relatively few? Was it a ground ball staff or a fly ball staff? Was it a high-strikeout or a low-strikeout staff?)

One of the wonderful things about OOTP is you can use it to test things under conditions you could never replicate in real life. I can’t find six teams of exactly identical rosters in real life, but I can make them in OOTP. I can’t run those teams through ten seasons under identical conditions without all the players aging ten years in real life, but I can in OOTP. I can’t make sure none of the players get injured in real life, etc. OOTP allows us to conduct experiments that would be impossible to conduct in real life.

Such experiments may not be particularly useful for proving real-life hypotheses, but they’re great for testing how things work in OOTP.

Remember, I went into this experiment as a skeptic. I didnt think I was going to find strong evidence that the Turn DP rating has minimal effect on DPs, and I didn’t want to find evidence that the Turn DP rating has minimal effect on DPs. I found that evidence anyway, and I’m not interested in burying my head in the sand. I love OOTP, and I want it to be as realistic as they’re able to make it. When it looks like something’s wrong with it, I want them to fix it, not pretend the problem isn’t there.

Does anyone really think that a guy with a 30 Turn DP rating should be 90% as effective at turning DP’s as a guy with a 140 rating? Or do think that “just happened” because I didn’t set the study up exactly the way you think I should have? Are you sure you’re not just indulging in irrational skepticism?

02-21-2021, 07:22 PM	#37
Furious Major Leagues Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 306	Someone brought up Bill James. In one of James’ books he discusses irrational skepticism. There’s rational skepticism, where you doubt the veracity of something because it sounds false based on what you already know (or at least think you know), and then there’s irrational skepticism, where even in the face of overwhelming evidence you cling to excuses to disbelieve something because the truth is particularly unpalatable to you. I’m not accusing anyone of anything; I don’t know what’s inside anyone’s head. I do think some of the objections that are being raised are starting to sound like irrational skepticism. When Isryion told me about his Turn DP 1 second baseman who could turn DPs almost with the best of ’em, I was skeptical as hell. I thought of some of the same things some of you did: a) small sample size (he had, I think only a couple of seasons of data, and I believe they were only partial seasons); b) dissimilar DP opportunities when compared to the other 2Bs in the league (was it a pitching staff that allowed a lot of baserunners, or relatively few? Was it a ground ball staff or a fly ball staff? Was it a high-strikeout or a low-strikeout staff?) One of the wonderful things about OOTP is you can use it to test things under conditions you could never replicate in real life. I can’t find six teams of exactly identical rosters in real life, but I can make them in OOTP. I can’t run those teams through ten seasons under identical conditions without all the players aging ten years in real life, but I can in OOTP. I can’t make sure none of the players get injured in real life, etc. OOTP allows us to conduct experiments that would be impossible to conduct in real life. Such experiments may not be particularly useful for proving real-life hypotheses, but they’re great for testing how things work in OOTP. Remember, I went into this experiment as a skeptic. I didnt think I was going to find strong evidence that the Turn DP rating has minimal effect on DPs, and I didn’t want to find evidence that the Turn DP rating has minimal effect on DPs. I found that evidence anyway, and I’m not interested in burying my head in the sand. I love OOTP, and I want it to be as realistic as they’re able to make it. When it looks like something’s wrong with it, I want them to fix it, not pretend the problem isn’t there. Does anyone really think that a guy with a 30 Turn DP rating should be 90% as effective at turning DP’s as a guy with a 140 rating? Or do think that “just happened” because I didn’t set the study up exactly the way you think I should have? Are you sure you’re not just indulging in irrational skepticism?