2015 - A Year of the Pitcher

[Al B]

The challenge of adjusting my strategy to the league's peculiarities are not at all the problem; I enjoy that aspect of it as well.

The thing is, the peculiarities are extreme, like beyond-anything-that's-ever-happened extreme. A pitcher's league is fine; I have no preference whatsoever whether the league is skewed towards pitchers or hitters, or power or speed, or whatever. But we could raise the league batting average in this league by ten, fifteen, even twenty points and it would still be a pitcher's league. I don't think raising the offense to a historically recognizable level would suddenly negate your strategic planning if you've been tailoring your decisions based on a run-starved environment; we have a long way to go before we get to "not run-starved".

As far as the stats, are you suggesting they don't "look pretty awful" now? I have a guy whose lifetime batting average is .227. He's a two-time All-Star. Stats are only "meaningless" when taken out of context. The sport changes, and the significance of the numbers changes with it. The power numbers in the 1910's "look awful." The WHIPs of the '30's "look awful". The batting averages of 1968 "look awful" (except in comparison with the GLBL). I don't see any problem with the 2015-2016 hitting stats "looking awful" out of context, just as I don't see any problem with the pitching stats for those years looking awesome out of context. If the game "corrects itself", as Mike believes it will, those numbers are eventually going to "look" out of place anyway; it's just a matter of when.

I don't have any issue with the league having its own character. I'd just prefer it to have a character I recognize. To take the discussion to a perhaps ridiculous extreme, is there a limit to how far from reality it can get before it starts to become a concern? What if the league were hitting .100? What if we averaged two strikeouts an inning? If that wouldn't be a problem for you, then okay; I give up. If it would be a problem, then you do understand what I'm saying; you're just drawing a line at a different place than I am.

[Alex (Hamilton)]

First, I do understand that context matters for stats, but that's much more applicable in the MLB where those changes are more natural and outside of any real control. In my experience, in OOTP, most leagues prefer stable situations. It's why a lot of leagues I know reset a couple years ago when the draft classes changed dramatically. I prefer that consistency if possible, where a player in season 1 and season 100 both have a similar chance of breaking league records, etc...

It's true that if the file corrects itself, those two seasons will be out of place anyway. I'd just prefer that every season that context remains the same -- or at least isn't altered purposefully, so players statistics are in a consistent perspective.

As for do I have a limit, sure. We're not at it yet (I mean, I am a Twins fan so the CBL teams still produce more offense than they do...). I don't know what my limit would be on that either, but I'm fine with it as is for now.

[Al B]

I prefer that consistency if possible, where a player in season 1 and season 100 both have a similar chance of breaking league records, etc...

I do hope that doesn't turn out to be the case. What you're describing is a game that never evolves, which is not only unrealistic, but in my opinion, damn boring as well. I don't embrace every change in the game over the years, but I'm sure glad the game does change. Part of the fun I get out of studying baseball history--or in just watching how the game has changed in my own lifetime--is the search to understand how and why the game has changed, and in doing so, understanding the context of some of those unbreakable records.

Or are they unbreakable? I just read an article that predicts a future of pitchers throwing 45 pitches, two or three times a week. If that were to happen, 30- or 40-win seasons could become a possibility, and Cy Young's "unbreakable" record for career wins could be reachable.

Just speculation, of course. But I'm glad baseball evolves enough that at least such speculation is possible.

[Alex (Hamilton)]

I think you're still missing the point about a difference in my preferences between OOTP and real life.

First off, it's not all that hard to track the history of the MLB. There's just one and its relatively easy and lasting if someone studies up on the history of the MLB. That isn't true of OOTP leagues. New GMs rotate in and the effort of figuring out the history of the league and putting stats into context just isn't as simple and most people, frankly, don't put in the effort.

Additionally, in OOTP, if we have unbreakable pitching records because we switched the file settings behind the curtain, that's completely artificial and I don't think that's very interesting. If someone makes a strategic decision to that causes some sort of change in the numbers (pitcher wins as in your example) that's very different. It still probably going to be missed by most GMs if they weren't around for it but it's at least "natural" and not the result of flipping a switch because we just wanting more/less of a stat.

[Al B]

if we have unbreakable pitching records because we switched the file settings behind the curtain, that's completely artificial and I don't think that's very interesting. If someone makes a strategic decision to that causes some sort of change in the numbers (pitcher wins as in your example) that's very different. It still probably going to be missed by most GMs if they weren't around for it but it's at least "natural" and not the result of flipping a switch because we just wanting more/less of a stat.

I think at the heart of this disagreement is that I trust OOTP less than you do. I believe the numbers we started with--that is, the defaults that OOTP gave us for league totals--were mistakes, and that correcting them would not be heavy-handed switch-flipping, but merely restoring the league to what it would have been if the program didn't screw the defaults up to begin with. Unless I'm misinterpreting what Mike said, he essentially admitted the defaults were off:

The issue I saw is that the 'defaults' in GLBL do NOT match the defaults a new league should start with, which is quite strange.

By saying that, but not advocating we change them, I guess his position was that the defaults were wrong, but not wrong enough to mess with. And if we were hitting ten points higher as a league I might agree with him. Right now we're outside a range in some stats (batting avg., strikeouts, runs scored) that I consider acceptable. It's just my opinion, but at least it's based on something (MLB history) other than "whatever OOTP does is fine." Don't get me wrong, I love OOTP; think it's a fantastic program--but I don't trust it not to screw up. I think it makes mistakes, and when it does, I like to fix them.

[Alex (Hamilton)]

I think the heart of the disagreement is less about the trust I have in OOTP and more about the fact that I'm fine with the fact that the numbers aren't within a historical range. That notion just doesn't bother me as long as it's interesting and internally consistent.

[Al B]

I think the heart of the disagreement is less about the trust I have in OOTP and more about the fact that I'm fine with the fact that the numbers aren't within a historical range. That notion just doesn't bother me as long as it's interesting and internally consistent.

What I meant by "trust" is that you either don't believe the game made a mistake, or you don't care that it did. The former would indicate a level of trust that I don't share.

But if the latter is more in line with your thinking, then trust is indeed not what this is about for you, and I can't see that there's much I could say that would sway you.

No one else has weighed in on the subject this time around, and since the league is set to start running tomorrow, we're probably looking at another season of mid- to low-.230s with gusty winds (the result of much swinging and missing). I suppose I'll be living with that, as I have the last two seasons. Before I climb down off the pulpit, though, I'd like to get in one last thought:

Knowing what the strikeouts and batting averages are in this league, you either have to believe

1. The game intentionally creates defaults that are outside of the range of anything that has ever happened before, or
2. faulty programming or an accidental user miscue caused the anomaly.

To accept point number one, you need to believe that OOTP doesn't make programming mistakes, they just make mistakes in their manual. The manual states:

OOTP generates a league total for each category, noted in the left column. The league total acts as the basis for the calculation engine. In historical leagues, these are the real league totals from the imported year. In fictional leagues it's the major league totals from the most recently completed season.

Clearly our league totals were not based on the "most recently completed major league season" (or for that matter, any other completed major league season).

So who screwed up, the programmers or the manual writers? And if it's the programmers, why are we so willing to live with their mistake?

[commish]

The default settings are central to this conversation. As a point of understanding I'd like to note that aside from ticking the 2015 box I recall no other changes that were made to create a 'pitchers league type environment', if not for the simple reason that I wouldn't have even understood how to manipulate those settings, other than development.

In some ways the discussion is academic in that it's not going to be possible to get 13 enthusiasts on the same page on this issue as illustrated by the past several comments between two of our GM's. I'm in no rush to change a setting at this point because for everything you change there is usually some fallout. Fallout can be reason enough to cause a GM to completely lose interest in their league.

With just two years in the books we're looking at a very small data sample. And, as Bill pointed out sometime back, one of the easiest ways to change offense is to make some ball park modification which is in the hands of each GM (within defined limits).

As much as I'd prefer more offense we'll continue with the settings that we have. That doesn't mean the subject is closed for good because all leagues change and evolve over time and paying attention to the detail and having conversations (such as this one) help us to understand what is important and valued.

Thanks, guys, for sharing your thoughts and ideas regarding the evolution of GLBL.

[commish]

BATTING AVG.
1968 MLB: .237
2015 USA: .228
2016 USA: .234


2015 CAN: .235
2016 CAN: .236

RUNS PER GAME (per team)
1968 MLB: 3.42
2015 USA: 3.11
2016 USA: 3.52

2015 CAN: 3.39
2016 CAN: 3.36

STRIKEOUTS
1968 MLB: 19,433 in 3,250 G (5.98 per game)
2015 USA: 7487 in 840 G (8.9 per game)
2016 USA: 7347 in 840 G (8.7 per game)

2015 CAN: 6670 in 840 G (7.9 per game)
2016 CAN: 6673 in 840 G (7.9 per game)


stats updated 7-28-16 to show MLB 'pitchers year stats' comparison

[Al B]

I'm not sure what your motivation for updating that chart was, Steve, but if it's to re-open the discussion...

Batting averages and runs per game for our current campaign...

2017 USA avg.: .226 (down 8 pts. from last year)
2017 CAN avg.: .226 (down 10 pts. from last year)

2017 USA rpg: 3.4 (down .12 runs since last year)
2017 CAN rpg: 3.1 (down .26 runs from last year)

The strikeouts have decreased slightly in Canada this year and increased slightly in the USA. Very odd that there's already a whole K per 9 innings difference between the two leagues and the margin is widening. In any event, the K rate in the Canadian League is still historically very high, just not through the roof like the USA League's is.

As a point of understanding I'd like to note that aside from ticking the 2015 box I recall no other changes that were made to create a 'pitchers league type environment', if not for the simple reason that I wouldn't have even understood how to manipulate those settings, other than development.

I know from experience that the Commissioner's input is not required for OOTP to screw up league modifiers, it can do that adequately on its own.

In some ways the discussion is academic in that it's not going to be possible to get 13 enthusiasts on the same page on this issue as illustrated by the past several comments between two of our GM's.

If unanimous agreement is required, I'll stop right now.

I'm in no rush to change a setting at this point because for everything you change there is usually some fallout. Fallout can be reason enough to cause a GM to completely lose interest in their league.

I'm not sure what is meant by "fallout". There have been disagreements but the discussions have been respectful. If you were to make a change I'm sure there are some people who would disagree with it and others who would applaud it, just as the decision to not make a change is being both lauded and critiqued. Ultimately it's what you think is best for the league, not what some cranky old bastard like me thinks is best for the league.

With just two years in the books we're looking at a very small data sample.

Not that small in my opinion. And the fact that this year's half-season shows a sharp decline in batting average is worrisome.

And, as Bill pointed out sometime back, one of the easiest ways to change offense is to make some ball park modification which is in the hands of each GM (within defined limits).

I'm guessing the "defined limits" would curtail the effectiveness of this approach, and anyway, I don't think it's the GMs' responsibility to fix what OOTP screwed up; that's up to the Commissioner. The problem isn't "there's not enough offense in my ballpark," it's "there's not enough offense in anyone's ballpark."

I get that some people don't really care what the levels of offense are, and I get that some people actually think it's a good thing that we have levels that are from outer space. I will readily admit that the anemic offense in this league has a decidedly negative effect on my enjoyment of it; not quite enough to make me take my ball and go home, but enough to make me lobby somewhat strenuously to change it.