Quote:
Originally Posted by thehef
OK so I've ID'd 6 guys from the 1930 PCL who all hit over .350. The AB's for each guy are 2, 12, 124, 239, 310, and 721.
I'm going to do 1-year recalc and I'm thinking of these combinations of Adj/Wkn for each test:
300/150
200/100
120/20
100/0
0/0
And then I'll see how ratings compare. I would think would give insight on if/how Adj/Wkn settings apply to minor leagues...
Anyone have any suggestions on how I might tweak this testing?
Thanks in advance.
|
Finally got around to completing these tests... Made a few changes in the guys (AB & H #'s) that I selected. They were:
AB's / Hits
721 / 257
310 / 139
239 / 84
124 / 46
13 / 5 (pitcher)
13 / 4
9 / 3
9 / 0
4 / 2 (pitcher)
The adjust/weaken test thresholds were the same ones I suggested earlier, now in bold above.
Initial observations:
1. Adj/Wkn settings are definitely applying to minor leagues, in addition to the majors.
2. There don't appear to be many differences - often none - in batting splits ratings... One one hand, I'm not surprised because minor league splits from "back in the day" (my test is for 1930) don't exist. That said, I had expected OOTP to apply a little randomization to this. I guess it's an either/or proposition, and since I chose Use Historical Splits, well there ya go (making a note for a future suggestion: allow OOTP to "Use Historical Splits when Available, else Randomize Realistic Settings.")
3. For the higher thresholds, the pitcher who was 5-for-13 had significantly lower ratings than the non-pitcher who was 4-for-13. Not until I tested the 100-0 and 0-0 (adjust-weaken) settings did the pitcher's ratings approach the non-pitcher's ratings. (Hindsight: I should have also selected two pitchers with 100+ AB's - one a good hitter and one not-so-good - to also test... maybe I will go back and do that at some point...)
Some details:
I started with 300-150. When I then went to 200-100, the only real difference was the guy with 124 AB's. His ratings were slightly higher compared to his 300-150 #'s. Made perfect sense.
I then went to 120-20. The 124-AB guy had higher ratings, especially contact & babip... The 13 AB non-pitcher had some changes in ratings; some higher, some lower... The 0-for-9 guy's #'s were slightly down, with avoid K's a bit more lower... The 3-for-9 guy's #'s were all slightly lower...
Next was 100-0. The higher-AB guys had lower power #'s. Initially I was wondering why this was but I quickly came to the conclusion that with fewer players adjusted overall, and no players weakened, this would mean higher power ratings all over the league; thus, the guys with higher AB's would need lower power ratings so the HR distribution across the league still works out... Other than that, the 124 AB guy had slightly higher #'s (except power), and all the under-20 AB guys had higher numbers, esp. contact, babip, and avoid k's...
Finally, 0-0 (no adjust, no weaken). This was a mixed bag. The 124, 239 and 721 AB guys saw no significant change from the 100-0 settings. The 310 AB guy saw his power go back up to match those of all other adj/wkn settings except for the 100-0 settings (IOW, his power numbers were the same with all settings, except for 100-0, where they were a bit lower)... The low-AB guys are where the mixed bag was, with some guys having both higher and lower numbers; way too many variances to list here but nothing shocking... My notes for those guys were:
- babip higher; avoid k's lower… (2-for-4 guy)
- slightly higher contact, higher babip, lower avoid k's, slightly higher power (5-13 pitcher)
- higher contact & babip, lower avoid k's & power (4-13)
- contact, babip, avoid k'slower, gap, power, eye = some up, some down, some same (0-9)
- some #'s higher, some lower (3-9)
Note that my higher and lower indications above are in comparison to the 100-0 adj/wkn ratings... And I should note that the ratings I tracked were Contact, BABIP, Avoid K's, Gap, Power, and Eye. For each of those I included current, potential, vs L, vs R...
So for a high-level look at the results, there you have it. If anybody wants to take a deeper dive, I'm happy to provide my really ugly spreadsheet (it's
orderly, but ugly from the perspective of just
all of the numbers...).