adam
08-15-2001, 06:57 PM
I'd like to bring up a concern that is a bit different than what other people have brought up.
If you look at baseball history versus the seasons that come out of this database, several issues come up.
1) This league is not realistic because the database is tilted toward hitters, even more than the already-inflated major leagues now are. Let's go back about 15 years. League leading stats might be .335 for average, 40 home runs, and 110 rbi's. The stats I've seen come out look like beer-league softball stats. Even now, only about six teams in 2001 have an ERA over 5.00. A cursory look at some leagues show that to be rare here.
2) Players do not seem to be aging accurately. Throughout baseball history, players have peaked (the majority) at age 27 or 28, and the majority dropped out of the league in their early 30's. With the exception of the star player, people did not keep their skills as long as on here. Perhaps a quicker decline schedule, based on skill level, would be more accurate.
3) Rookies are coming out too unevenly and a bit strong, imho. I shouldn't have a rookie SS hitting .390 with 28 home runs in 79 games. That's just not how baseball works. Look at A-Rod's first couple of years, or Jeter's. I would suggest perhaps more improvement after 2 years as a major league player? Also, look at the rookies this year, other than Ichiro. None of them have stats anywhere near what the rookies on this have.
4) I don't think stadium influences are accurate in the BM sim engine. I know you can set altitude...but it just isn't practical for Colorado or Houston to lead the league in ERA.
You've got a better chance of winning the lottery than that. Current research shows that Coors Field balls travel 9-10% further than at sea level, and not only the home runs (which you might have factored for), but also for the area of the outfield.
5) Attendance and winning don't seem to have a strong enough correlation. Also, could there be a toggle for promotional expenses? That could give small market temas a chance..look at Bill Veeck's life if you want an example :)
Right now, I wouldn't pay for this. It's a great simulation of something that isn't major league baseball. I'd be more than glad to join the BM team as a database editor, as I'm a stats junkie who understands the game.
If it's real, people will pay.
This isn't real yet.
sandon (adam) [aritchin@hotmail.com]
If you look at baseball history versus the seasons that come out of this database, several issues come up.
1) This league is not realistic because the database is tilted toward hitters, even more than the already-inflated major leagues now are. Let's go back about 15 years. League leading stats might be .335 for average, 40 home runs, and 110 rbi's. The stats I've seen come out look like beer-league softball stats. Even now, only about six teams in 2001 have an ERA over 5.00. A cursory look at some leagues show that to be rare here.
2) Players do not seem to be aging accurately. Throughout baseball history, players have peaked (the majority) at age 27 or 28, and the majority dropped out of the league in their early 30's. With the exception of the star player, people did not keep their skills as long as on here. Perhaps a quicker decline schedule, based on skill level, would be more accurate.
3) Rookies are coming out too unevenly and a bit strong, imho. I shouldn't have a rookie SS hitting .390 with 28 home runs in 79 games. That's just not how baseball works. Look at A-Rod's first couple of years, or Jeter's. I would suggest perhaps more improvement after 2 years as a major league player? Also, look at the rookies this year, other than Ichiro. None of them have stats anywhere near what the rookies on this have.
4) I don't think stadium influences are accurate in the BM sim engine. I know you can set altitude...but it just isn't practical for Colorado or Houston to lead the league in ERA.
You've got a better chance of winning the lottery than that. Current research shows that Coors Field balls travel 9-10% further than at sea level, and not only the home runs (which you might have factored for), but also for the area of the outfield.
5) Attendance and winning don't seem to have a strong enough correlation. Also, could there be a toggle for promotional expenses? That could give small market temas a chance..look at Bill Veeck's life if you want an example :)
Right now, I wouldn't pay for this. It's a great simulation of something that isn't major league baseball. I'd be more than glad to join the BM team as a database editor, as I'm a stats junkie who understands the game.
If it's real, people will pay.
This isn't real yet.
sandon (adam) [aritchin@hotmail.com]