The Equalizer aka rubberbanding
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
On a perfectly timed, perfectly squared up ball, how many stats does the programming have to take into consideration to produce an outcome? A batter’s power, a batter’s clutch factor? A pitcher’s h/9, their clutch factor, that particular pitch’s confidence level, the pitcher's overall confidence and energy. Are there other factors in play at the point of contact? How do all these variables work together? Does one or two override the others? I don’t think the game necessarily sets a narrative as to who is going to win or lose, but there is so much that occurs at the point of contact, I’m surprised the game doesn’t explode every time a ball is hit.
-
I think there is just too much randomness in the game. Couple that with the fact that we really don't know how any stats interact with each other and the fact that OF'ers especially that everyone uses are incredible and cut off the gaps like it's no one's business.
There are definitely things that make you scratch your head sometimes too. I've been hosed so many times with stuff like you mention happening and feel like I never get those breaks. Last night I won a game 7-3 against a person ranked higher. I did outhit him pretty significantly if I'm remembering the game right. I struck out more, which I have a tendency to do, but I had him swinging at a lot of bad pitches. I had the most incredibly crazy play happen though that made me keep a bigger lead when it could've been chipped down to a run in the 6th inning.
TwoLetters batting. Grandal lined to right for a single. Mancini pinch hit for Ryan. Davis in bullpen. Corbin in bullpen. McGee in bullpen. Mancini grounded to left for a single. Grandal advances to 2nd. Bregman substituted for Jones. Henderson lined into a triple play on a deflected hit (L1-6-4-3 TP). Mancini out. Grandal out.
Do I think this play won me the game? No. Have I ever had a ball deflect off a pitcher though into a DP and keep me from scoring? Numerous times. The game is what it is and the randomness of outcomes in a way is baseball. I would say I don't necessarily like it either and think there should be more consistency towards user input for sure.
My biggest gripe in random things happening though is as a pitcher I hit my spot and have a perfect release and my breaking pitch stays up and in the zone or my fastball out of the zone or on the black stays middle for an easy HR. Pitches where half the ball is in the zone called a ball that should've been strike three and the million check swings people do that should be called strikes. Those things drive me nuts. ha ha -
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@vagimon said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
On a perfectly timed, perfectly squared up ball, how many stats does the programming have to take into consideration to produce an outcome? A batter’s power, a batter’s clutch factor? A pitcher’s h/9, their clutch factor, that particular pitch’s confidence level, the pitcher's overall confidence and energy. Are there other factors in play at the point of contact? How do all these variables work together? Does one or two override the others? I don’t think the game necessarily sets a narrative as to who is going to win or lose, but there is so much that occurs at the point of contact, I’m surprised the game doesn’t explode every time a ball is hit.
That's probably at least partially what happens.
But it sounds weird to me that a good/squared contact would be so heavily affected by the pitcher's numbers and that a hit may not be a hit due pitcher confidence or what not. If that is indeed the case I can only say that I wish it wasn't.
It does however seem very convenient to me that when I play against someone better than me my 15/Ns no longer line out. It's almost as if the game knows or recognizes that I wont get as many 15s vs this guy so better help him out.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
-
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me. -
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
-
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
Well one thing could be how many 14 and 13 labeled hits there were compared. I dont really see the big difference, if any, in hits labeled 15, 14 and 13. In that area they all seem to have roughly the same exit velos. But yes, fielding, baserunning, just overall baseball decisions will mostly out weigh the hitting in almost any game.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
-
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
Well one thing could be how many 14 and 13 labeled hits there were compared. I dont really see the big difference, if any, in hits labeled 15, 14 and 13. In that area they all seem to have roughly the same exit velos. But yes, fielding, baserunning, just overall baseball decisions will mostly out weigh the hitting in almost any game.
A 14/N is good/good and is definitely good input.
However, I've never encountered a situation where a person would have 10+ 14s. I suppose with a high enough count of 14s it could be close to being fair and leave the window open for luck to play a factor. That being said, in my experience the amount of 15/Ns is generally a good indicator of a players input in a game and with a low count of 15s a player isnt likely to have a ton of 14s either.
With respect to baserunning and fielding, I disagree.
In comparison to hitting routerunning and baserunning are very easy and most average players are good enough at it that it just doesnt create any separation between players. I've also never seen someone who excels at hitting suck at routerunning or baserunning.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
How is a 15/N not the end all be all?
The only thing that can be argued to be as important as hitting in the game is pitching, but a 15/N already accounts for pitching. It shows that I've squared up your pitches and that I've timed it perfectly.
Seeing as how easy fielding and baserunning is a good/squared is the end all be all when it comes to user input.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
How is a 15/N not the end all be all?
The only thing that can be argued to be as important as hitting in the game is pitching, but a 15/N already accounts for pitching. It shows that I've squared up your pitches and that I've timed it perfectly.
Seeing as how easy fielding and baserunning is a good/squared is the end all be all when it comes to user input.
If it's the end all be all, does a person who gets 8 15's deserve to win over someone who gets 7 15's?
Because that's what end all be all means, that nothing else matters. What if that person who got 7 15's did it all in two innings to put together a rally and the person with 8 15's did so over the course of 8 different innings so there weren't people on base/rallies?
I'm not saying this applies to your situation, but it's defintely not the ONLY thing that matters. -
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
How is a 15/N not the end all be all?
The only thing that can be argued to be as important as hitting in the game is pitching, but a 15/N already accounts for pitching. It shows that I've squared up your pitches and that I've timed it perfectly.
Seeing as how easy fielding and baserunning is a good/squared is the end all be all when it comes to user input.
If it's the end all be all, does a person who gets 8 15's deserve to win over someone who gets 7 15's?
Because that's one end all be all means, that nothing else matters. What if that person who got 7 15's did it all in two innings to put together a rally and the person with 8 15's did so over the course of 8 different innings?
I'm not saying this applies to your situation, but it's defintely not the ONLY thing that matters.Fair enough, when the input is objectively that close, other factors may come into play. Which is why my example was what it was.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
How is a 15/N not the end all be all?
The only thing that can be argued to be as important as hitting in the game is pitching, but a 15/N already accounts for pitching. It shows that I've squared up your pitches and that I've timed it perfectly.
Seeing as how easy fielding and baserunning is a good/squared is the end all be all when it comes to user input.
If it's the end all be all, does a person who gets 8 15's deserve to win over someone who gets 7 15's?
Because that's one end all be all means, that nothing else matters. What if that person who got 7 15's did it all in two innings to put together a rally and the person with 8 15's did so over the course of 8 different innings?
I'm not saying this applies to your situation, but it's defintely not the ONLY thing that matters.Fair enough, when the input is objectively that close, other factors may come into play. Which is why my example was what it was.
Thank you, I wasn't arguing that your case is wrong, when there is that disparity, you should feel cheated, I def would. And while I don't think it's rubberbanding, it defintely is an issue that I hope gets dealt with in 20.
