SOMers - Stratomatic Baseball

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: The Devil is in the details...
1 2 3 4  >  Last»  | Page of 4  sorted by


VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Oct 27, 2015
The Devil is in the details...
Permalink  
 


Otherwise known as "Too much free time on my hands again"... wink

I have some questions for season replayers, regarding managerial tendencies.  This might actually come down to how true of a replay you want to try for -- as opposed to taking what you have and going off on a new tangent.

Knowing all the pertinent right-left split data before you even roll the game, how much do you let that info affect the moves you make within that game?

I just thought I'd ask, since the idea of knowing the data might logically lead to making different moves in key situations that can unbalance the game.

For instance, if you already know going in that so-and-so won't hit lefties, do you still try to use that player in the same manner he was utilized, hoping for better results?  Or, do you make a different choice?

Do you give that player the proper opportunity to fail?

It's easy to go to your bench and choose a guy who finished with better numbers.  But how much does that "sabotage" the game, considering that any alterations you make (such as cherry-picking appearances based on known final results) might be based on a false premise (assuming the manager at that time would know how a given player would perform)?

The whole premise of us being the managers also allows us to have information (the final stats/splits) that the manager in real life didn't have.

I have addressed much of this elsewhere, things like re-arranging lineups to take better advantage of the cards at hand, as opposed to trying to follow along, as a season progressed, and with the options a manager in the field actually had at that time.

If a team's primary pinch-hitting option that season was a guy who wound up batting .233, and you had another guy who finished the season hitting .285, who would you choose, fully aware that the manager at that time would not have known?

Conversely, do you ever "go with the flow," and let a .215 hitter bat in a clutch situation, because he is 5-12 in his last five games?

Do you ever manage against what the cards reflect, in order to achieve more of a sense of reality in the moment?



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



General Manager

Status: Online
Posts: 13508
Date: Oct 27, 2015
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:

Otherwise known as "Too much free time on my hands again"... wink

I have some questions for season replayers, regarding managerial tendencies.  This might actually come down to how true of a replay you want to try for -- as opposed to taking what you have and going off on a new tangent.

Knowing all the pertinent right-left split data before you even roll the game, how much do you let that info affect the moves you make within that game?

I just thought I'd ask, since the idea of knowing the data might logically lead to making different moves in key situations that can unbalance the game.

For instance, if you already know going in that so-and-so won't hit lefties, do you still try to use that player in the same manner he was utilized, hoping for better results?  Or, do you make a different choice?

Do you give that player the proper opportunity to fail?

It's easy to go to your bench and choose a guy who finished with better numbers.  But how much does that "sabotage" the game, considering that any alterations you make (such as cherry-picking appearances based on known final results) might be based on a false premise (assuming the manager at that time would know how a given player would perform)?

The whole premise of us being the managers also allows us to have information (the final stats/splits) that the manager in real life didn't have.

I have addressed much of this elsewhere, things like re-arranging lineups to take better advantage of the cards at hand, as opposed to trying to follow along, as a season progressed, and with the options a manager in the field actually had at that time.

If a team's primary pinch-hitting option that season was a guy who wound up batting .233, and you had another guy who finished the season hitting .285, who would you choose, fully aware that the manager at that time would not have known?

Conversely, do you ever "go with the flow," and let a .215 hitter bat in a clutch situation, because he is 5-12 in his last five games?

Do you ever manage against what the cards reflect, in order to achieve more of a sense of reality in the moment?


 All the time...........within the boundaries of my 110% usage rule.

If I have a hitter, say in mid June....hitting .287 when his card is .204, then he absolutely hits.



__________________

"NACSTER'S HISTORICAL REPLAY"

34 REPLAYS IN THE BOOKS!

1876-1883

1896-1900

1906

1916-1917

1921, 1929

1936-1937

1943, 1946

1956-1963

1976

1986

1991, 1996

37,117 regular season games through 34 replays!

 

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Oct 27, 2015
Permalink  
 

nacster wrote:
seajaw wrote:

Otherwise known as "Too much free time on my hands again"... wink

I have some questions for season replayers, regarding managerial tendencies.  This might actually come down to how true of a replay you want to try for -- as opposed to taking what you have and going off on a new tangent.

Knowing all the pertinent right-left split data before you even roll the game, how much do you let that info affect the moves you make within that game?

I just thought I'd ask, since the idea of knowing the data might logically lead to making different moves in key situations that can unbalance the game.

For instance, if you already know going in that so-and-so won't hit lefties, do you still try to use that player in the same manner he was utilized, hoping for better results?  Or, do you make a different choice?

Do you give that player the proper opportunity to fail?

It's easy to go to your bench and choose a guy who finished with better numbers.  But how much does that "sabotage" the game, considering that any alterations you make (such as cherry-picking appearances based on known final results) might be based on a false premise (assuming the manager at that time would know how a given player would perform)?

The whole premise of us being the managers also allows us to have information (the final stats/splits) that the manager in real life didn't have.

I have addressed much of this elsewhere, things like re-arranging lineups to take better advantage of the cards at hand, as opposed to trying to follow along, as a season progressed, and with the options a manager in the field actually had at that time.

If a team's primary pinch-hitting option that season was a guy who wound up batting .233, and you had another guy who finished the season hitting .285, who would you choose, fully aware that the manager at that time would not have known?

Conversely, do you ever "go with the flow," and let a .215 hitter bat in a clutch situation, because he is 5-12 in his last five games?

Do you ever manage against what the cards reflect, in order to achieve more of a sense of reality in the moment?


 All the time...........within the boundaries of my 110% usage rule.

If I have a hitter, say in mid June....hitting .287 when his card is .204, then he absolutely hits.


I try as hard as I can to stay true to the season as it unfolds.

Sometimes, it's tough.  I try to start each season with as-played rosters and lineups for at least the first 8-12 games, just to try to stay true how a club shaped up coming out of Spring Training.

Occasionally, the game itself will fight back, in that not all of the rostered players are carded.

And ups-and-downs during the course of a season are tough to work with.  Joe Shlabotnic may have run run very hot-and-cold to finish at a middle-of-the-road .250, which is almost impossible to recreate.  In a reply, he might level off, never reaching his real-life peaks and valleys.

In my replays, transactions are factored in at appropriate times.

I alluded to something new in a different thread that has come about in my '48 replay.  As we learn more about transactions, and have better access to game logs, we can chart out when players were out of the lineup for a given length of time, due to injury (even if we don't know how he got hurt).

I have found this to be important, because of the correlation to roster moves that accompany a trip to the DL.  That third catcher doesn't just appear for no reason at all.  Frequently, it's due to an injury.

Question: Would you plan out when a player gets injured, to accommodate the transaction?

I already do that for major injuries, when a player misses a month or more.  Now, I am using that idea more, to cover shorter periods of inactivity, (like 8-10 consecutive games missed) which also allows me to monitor playing time.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



First Base Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 2666
Date: Oct 27, 2015
Permalink  
 

For my 1911 replay I haven't used the lefty-righty match-up to determine starters much, the one exception for me was Davy Jones and Delos Drake. Jones & Drake appear to be used as a platoon. They basically have the same at-bats for the season, I don't know of any major injury to either, and when I look at as played line-ups it looks as if they were platooned. Does anyone know for sure?

When choosing pinch-hitters I do use the best available hitter and stay away from lefty vs. lefty match-ups. I do go with the hot hand at times (as long as they don't exceed my pro-rated numbers)

I have researched the transactions and have the players join and leave the team at roughly the equivalent time of the season (I play a 56-game replay, so early July would be about at the 28-game mark). I did the same for major injuries and suspensions.

I follow the as played line-ups, again for that equivalent time of the season. I then roll for random substitutions. I do pro-rate the at-bats and track that during the replay to not exceed 110% of at-bats and innings pitches, games started, etc. I also allow for random injuries (using Seajaw's pro-rated chart). I didn't do as good a job with my 1911 N.L. replay as I am with my 1911 A.L. replay (some of you may have noticed Dolly Stark's at bats).

I attempt to manage as they did in 1911 - lots of attempts to steal, bunt, hit & run.

Basically I research the season, pro-rate the numbers, and then try to play it as close to real season as possible. I do allow for some random events, but want to stay true to the big historical event as possible. For me it is as much fun learning about the ebbs and flows of the team during the season as it is rolling the games. I think it is history major in me coming out.

__________________

"The players are the same age always, but the man in the crowd is older every season."

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Oct 27, 2015
Permalink  
 

Regarding Drake and Jones, that is tough to tell, because baseref doesn't have the daily lineup or game log info.

I would suggest simply playing them as the AB percentages of their cards reflect.  If they platooned, their breakdowns should have enlarged ratios, respective to what side pitching they played against.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



First Base Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 2666
Date: Oct 27, 2015
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:

Regarding Drake and Jones, that is tough to tell, because baseref doesn't have the daily lineup or game log info.

I would suggest simply playing them as the AB percentages of their cards reflect.  If they platooned, their breakdowns should have enlarged ratios, respective to what side pitching they played against.


 I actually found a source with the daily line-ups, it appears they were a platoon.  It's not baseref, so I'm not sure how official it is, but it looks right.  I'm way too far into it now to switch.  It's working out right in terms of pro-rated at-bats with them platooning.  



__________________

"The players are the same age always, but the man in the crowd is older every season."

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

If I have a hitter, say in mid June....hitting .287 when his card is .204, then he absolutely hits.

I have a follow-up question, regarding this situation.

What if the hitter in question who batted .204 for the season actually is hitting around .210 in your replay, but you know he was still a guy that the manager of that club normally counted on?  And he's just had a crappy start?



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



VIP Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 414
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:

Regarding Drake and Jones, that is tough to tell, because baseref doesn't have the daily lineup or game log info.

I would suggest simply playing them as the AB percentages of their cards reflect.  If they platooned, their breakdowns should have enlarged ratios, respective to what side pitching they played against.


 gl,

  Like Seaj pointed out - You should be able to make a pretty good determination on the platooning based upon the xx% AGAINST LEFT-HANDED PITCHERS (and right) found on the top of the card (same column as the split Power rating). If you have starting lineups and opposing pitchers, it should also give you a good idea, but with a bit of work. At this point, like you say it is just more out of curiosity, since you treated them as being platooned already. Interestingly, Jones batted left and threw right, while Drake batted right and threw left. 

  I would most likely play the percentages in lefty/righty situations. I would go by the better numbers, even though I would be using information that is really not available to a real manager. I might consider a "hot" player, but would still probably go by the numbers. Including looking at the reverse split pitchers/batters and picking the best results from that.

  In thinking about these split decisions, I am wondering what HAL might do. Of course, I am told by the computer users that trying to make any HAL logic determination is just an exercise in frustration, but I believe that HAL does take the numbers into consideration - as well as (if applicable) usage and rest. But if usage and rest were not high considerations, I am thinking that the percentages would be highly used by HAL. The computer program would need something to base it's decisions upon and it only makes sense that the logic would more frequently (using some random number generation) use the best split choice.



__________________


VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

Grey Eagle wrote:
seajaw wrote:

Regarding Drake and Jones, that is tough to tell, because baseref doesn't have the daily lineup or game log info.

I would suggest simply playing them as the AB percentages of their cards reflect.  If they platooned, their breakdowns should have enlarged ratios, respective to what side pitching they played against.


 gl,

  Like Seaj pointed out - You should be able to make a pretty good determination on the platooning based upon the xx% AGAINST LEFT-HANDED PITCHERS (and right) found on the top of the card (same column as the split Power rating). If you have starting lineups and opposing pitchers, it should also give you a good idea, but with a bit of work. At this point, like you say it is just more out of curiosity, since you treated them as being platooned already. Interestingly, Jones batted left and threw right, while Drake batted right and threw left. 

  I would most likely play the percentages in lefty/righty situations. I would go by the better numbers, even though I would be using information that is really not available to a real manager. I might consider a "hot" player, but would still probably go by the numbers. Including looking at the reverse split pitchers/batters and picking the best results from that.

  In thinking about these split decisions, I am wondering what HAL might do. Of course, I am told by the computer users that trying to make any HAL logic determination is just an exercise in frustration, but I believe that HAL does take the numbers into consideration - as well as (if applicable) usage and rest. But if usage and rest were not high considerations, I am thinking that the percentages would be highly used by HAL. The computer program would need something to base it's decisions upon and it only makes sense that the logic would more frequently (using some random number generation) use the best split choice.


We have had many long and interesting discussions in various threads, concerning what HAL "thinks." hmm

I have never been all that convinced that HAL can deliver a comprehensive replay, using anything close to realistic thinking.  I'm not sure I would trust the computer to run a league I was involved in playing, on a game-to-game basis.

Overall, the situational split parameters might be met, as far as programming is concerned, but I see too many highly-questionable individual in-game moves to ever be satisfied.  In other words, there are a lot of wrong choices that will still add up to meeting overall goals for usage.

You can only go so deep, when it comes to pre-programming which hitters/fielders/pitchers in which situations for each team in a large scale project.

Also, if you look at the game design, it definitely leans on the modern era, particularly when it comes to rules regarding pitchers' stamina.  You have to do a lot of tweaking when you play the earliest seasons (particularly Deadball years).

This is to be expected, I guess.

Ease of play is important.  But I also want to know that the computer made proper in-game decisions, based on realism, rather than meeting programmed statistical goals.

As a means of "bookkeeping," I have no problem there.  My binders full of game sheets from all of my replays are a nice keepsake, but they are hard to sort through when searching for specific data.

In the future, though, it might be fun for a team of SOMSabr historians to pour over my binders and find any mistakes I may have made, then make appropriate corrections to my historical records.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Manager

Status: Offline
Posts: 9769
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

To answer your first question seajaw, I always try to play my replays in the moment. The deeper I go into a replay my stats will overrule whatever the cards say. This also applies to pitchers.

__________________

I wanted to play more SOM so I retired.

 



General Manager

Status: Online
Posts: 13508
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:

If I have a hitter, say in mid June....hitting .287 when his card is .204, then he absolutely hits.

I have a follow-up question, regarding this situation.

What if the hitter in question who batted .204 for the season actually is hitting around .210 in your replay, but you know he was still a guy that the manager of that club normally counted on?  And he's just had a crappy start?


 Depends.....if it is 1991 Mark McGwire (who hit .201 but walked a ton and obviously had HR power), then he hits.

If it is some middle infielder, sorry bub, grab some pine..........

I do NOT use the "a guy that the manager of that club normally counted on" theory......

I use their real life stats for about the first couple weeks.  Then it is TOTALLY up to their replay numbers, as well as the "manager" for each replay team.

Now there are OBVIOUS exceptions, depending on the time of year.

Let's say......it is July 4th, the 1956 Yankees are playing a DH'er.  Mickey Mantle, for some "bad dice God" reason, is hitting .216, with only 8 homers.  There are 2 men on in a 3-2 game where they trail in the 9th, none out.  I PROBABLY will pinch hit for him, using perhaps a very good bunter to bunt the runners along (say, if Mantle is rated a "C" bunter for example, which is probably isn't, but for grins let's say he is).

Now generally, these type of examples....due to Strat's fairly good math/dice probability......don't happen in that much of an extreme.  And of course you have to remember the 110% usage (say for example Mariano Rivera, same date, has an ERA of 8.27, and has blown up like Brad Lidge)...if I HAVE to use him, I'll use him in low leverage spots, and hope the other relievers can come through until Rivera can sort himself out.



__________________

"NACSTER'S HISTORICAL REPLAY"

34 REPLAYS IN THE BOOKS!

1876-1883

1896-1900

1906

1916-1917

1921, 1929

1936-1937

1943, 1946

1956-1963

1976

1986

1991, 1996

37,117 regular season games through 34 replays!

 

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

Next question: When a pitcher reaches POW, how quick are you remove him?  Automatic?  Or, do you move ahead, with reservations?

Again, this gets back to the thought of allowing a player to fail, rather than taking it out of their hands.  I had a game earlier this year, in my '48 replay, in which Bob Feller was nursing a lead going into the bottom of the ninth.

He reached his point of weakness with two outs, but still had the lead.

Do you relieve him?  Or, do you say "He's Bob Feller, so he finishes"?

The POW is based on a negative...that the pitcher in questions tires and "serves it up" once he reaches that point.  In real life, sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't.

How often to you challenge the dice gods?



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



General Manager

Status: Online
Posts: 13508
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:

Next question: When a pitcher reaches POW, how quick are you remove him?  Automatic?  Or, do you move ahead, with reservations?

Again, this gets back to the thought of allowing a player to fail, rather than taking it out of their hands.  I had a game earlier this year, in my '48 replay, in which Bob Feller was nursing a lead going into the bottom of the ninth.

He reached his point of weakness with two outs, but still had the lead.

Do you relieve him?  Or, do you say "He's Bob Feller, so he finishes"?

The POW is based on a negative...that the pitcher in questions tires and "serves it up" once he reaches that point.  In real life, sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't.

How often to you challenge the dice gods?


I am VERY old school when it comes to my starters.

In the comp game, not only is there "POW", but it actually is broken down so far as a "pitch count POW".  Say you have Bob Feller 1948....let's say, without checking, he completed 28 of 41 starts.  If he is fully rested, chances are his "pitch count POW" is something like 132.  Now this number is RARELY higher then 135.....even in deadball seasons when guys like Will White pitched every inning of every game his team played.

Do you remember the game in my 1986 replay, where Roger Clemens....on the EXACT day he fanned 20 Seattle Mariners.....whiffed 21 of them in the replay game I played (starting Clemens actually on an extra day rest because I knew of the historic date; just so happened Clemens went nuts).  Clemens didn't whiff 21 in regulation....took him FOURTEEN and ONE THIRD INNINGS......throw in 8 walks, and according to the "pitch count" factor, he threw 220 PITCHES!!!

Obviously, even in 1986 (man that sounds weird, like from another time period, but it is in fact almost 30 years ago, a whole generation actually), NO pitcher would be left in to absorb that abuse (unless Billy Martin was your skipper).  But he was rolling along, so why take him out?  Because "in real life" that wouldn't happen?  That is the great thing about doing these replays.  Guys take on a life of their own....within the boundaries of rules one makes.  Could I have used 1957 Bob Hazle in more then his allotted 147 at bats (134 plus 10% = 147), yes....MANY guys who do their own replays fudge at bats, innings pitched, etc.



__________________

"NACSTER'S HISTORICAL REPLAY"

34 REPLAYS IN THE BOOKS!

1876-1883

1896-1900

1906

1916-1917

1921, 1929

1936-1937

1943, 1946

1956-1963

1976

1986

1991, 1996

37,117 regular season games through 34 replays!

 

 



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

nacster wrote:
seajaw wrote:

Next question: When a pitcher reaches POW, how quick are you remove him?  Automatic?  Or, do you move ahead, with reservations?

Again, this gets back to the thought of allowing a player to fail, rather than taking it out of their hands.  I had a game earlier this year, in my '48 replay, in which Bob Feller was nursing a lead going into the bottom of the ninth.

He reached his point of weakness with two outs, but still had the lead.

Do you relieve him?  Or, do you say "He's Bob Feller, so he finishes"?

The POW is based on a negative...that the pitcher in questions tires and "serves it up" once he reaches that point.  In real life, sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't.

How often to you challenge the dice gods?


I am VERY old school when it comes to my starters.

In the comp game, not only is there "POW", but it actually is broken down so far as a "pitch count POW".  Say you have Bob Feller 1948....let's say, without checking, he completed 28 of 41 starts.  If he is fully rested, chances are his "pitch count POW" is something like 132.  Now this number is RARELY higher then 135.....even in deadball seasons when guys like Will White pitched every inning of every game his team played.

Do you remember the game in my 1986 replay, where Roger Clemens....on the EXACT day he fanned 20 Seattle Mariners.....whiffed 21 of them in the replay game I played (starting Clemens actually on an extra day rest because I knew of the historic date; just so happened Clemens went nuts).  Clemens didn't whiff 21 in regulation....took him FOURTEEN and ONE THIRD INNINGS......throw in 8 walks, and according to the "pitch count" factor, he threw 220 PITCHES!!!

Obviously, even in 1986 (man that sounds weird, like from another time period, but it is in fact almost 30 years ago, a whole generation actually), NO pitcher would be left in to absorb that abuse (unless Billy Martin was your skipper).  But he was rolling along, so why take him out?  Because "in real life" that wouldn't happen?  That is the great thing about doing these replays.  Guys take on a life of their own....within the boundaries of rules one makes.  Could I have used 1957 Bob Hazle in more then his allotted 147 at bats (134 plus 10% = 147), yes....MANY guys who do their own replays fudge at bats, innings pitched, etc.


I sure wish we knew more about the old pitch counts.

The 220 you had Clemens throw was a crazy number -- in my opinion (sorry) -- especially given the era.

We know Ryan threw as many as 250 on one occasion in the mid-'70's, and we have some other spotty data from that era (talk about sounding weird: "spotty data from that era," referring to the 1970s!!!).

But Ryan threw 222 complete games in his career.  In 773 career starts, he pitched into extra innings 21 times.  Given the huge numbers of walks and strikeouts, his pitch counts must have been sky high, particularly in his Angels' years.  I'd guess 140-150 was not unusual, and might even be lowballing him.

In 1989, at age 42, in eight innings against Kansas City, he threw 164 pitches.  The only time I was lucky enough to see him pitch in-person -- in 1990 -- he threw 114 pitches in just five innings against the Mariners (the start right after he no-hit Oakland).

Clemens was different, and usually never came close to finishing his starts (pitched into the ninth just 127 times in 707 career starts, with 118 CGs, only 29 of which were thrown after 1992), let alone going into extra frames (once in his entire career, gave up two runs in the 10th and lost, 4-2, to the Angels).

baseref doesn't have pitch counts for Clemens' '86 season, so I don't know, for sure, how many pitches he threw.  But he allowed just three hits and no walks, and faced just 30 batters in the game.

I spot-checked Clemens from '86 (no numbers) through 1992, his prime.  He threw in excess of 160 pitches (164, to be exact) once.



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



General Manager

Status: Online
Posts: 13508
Date: Oct 28, 2015
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:
nacster wrote:
seajaw wrote:

Next question: When a pitcher reaches POW, how quick are you remove him?  Automatic?  Or, do you move ahead, with reservations?

Again, this gets back to the thought of allowing a player to fail, rather than taking it out of their hands.  I had a game earlier this year, in my '48 replay, in which Bob Feller was nursing a lead going into the bottom of the ninth.

He reached his point of weakness with two outs, but still had the lead.

Do you relieve him?  Or, do you say "He's Bob Feller, so he finishes"?

The POW is based on a negative...that the pitcher in questions tires and "serves it up" once he reaches that point.  In real life, sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't.

How often to you challenge the dice gods?


I am VERY old school when it comes to my starters.

In the comp game, not only is there "POW", but it actually is broken down so far as a "pitch count POW".  Say you have Bob Feller 1948....let's say, without checking, he completed 28 of 41 starts.  If he is fully rested, chances are his "pitch count POW" is something like 132.  Now this number is RARELY higher then 135.....even in deadball seasons when guys like Will White pitched every inning of every game his team played.

Do you remember the game in my 1986 replay, where Roger Clemens....on the EXACT day he fanned 20 Seattle Mariners.....whiffed 21 of them in the replay game I played (starting Clemens actually on an extra day rest because I knew of the historic date; just so happened Clemens went nuts).  Clemens didn't whiff 21 in regulation....took him FOURTEEN and ONE THIRD INNINGS......throw in 8 walks, and according to the "pitch count" factor, he threw 220 PITCHES!!!

Obviously, even in 1986 (man that sounds weird, like from another time period, but it is in fact almost 30 years ago, a whole generation actually), NO pitcher would be left in to absorb that abuse (unless Billy Martin was your skipper).  But he was rolling along, so why take him out?  Because "in real life" that wouldn't happen?  That is the great thing about doing these replays.  Guys take on a life of their own....within the boundaries of rules one makes.  Could I have used 1957 Bob Hazle in more then his allotted 147 at bats (134 plus 10% = 147), yes....MANY guys who do their own replays fudge at bats, innings pitched, etc.


I sure wish we knew more about the old pitch counts.

The 220 you had Clemens throw was a crazy number -- in my opinion (sorry) -- especially given the era.

We know Ryan threw as many as 250 on one occasion in the mid-'70's, and we have some other spotty data from that era (talk about sounding weird: "spotty data from that era," referring to the 1970s!!!).

But Ryan threw 222 complete games in his career.  In 773 career starts, he pitched into extra innings 21 times.  Given the huge numbers of walks and strikeouts, his pitch counts must have been sky high, particularly in his Angels' years.  I'd guess 140-150 was not unusual, and might even be lowballing him.

In 1989, at age 42, in eight innings against Kansas City, he threw 164 pitches.  The only time I was lucky enough to see him pitch in-person -- in 1990 -- he threw 114 pitches in just five innings against the Mariners (the start right after he no-hit Oakland).

Clemens was different, and usually never came close to finishing his starts (pitched into the ninth just 127 times in 707 career starts, with 118 CGs, only 29 of which were thrown after 1992), let alone going into extra frames (once in his entire career, gave up two runs in the 10th and lost, 4-2, to the Angels).

baseref doesn't have pitch counts for Clemens' '86 season, so I don't know, for sure, how many pitches he threw.  But he allowed just three hits and no walks, and faced just 30 batters in the game.

I spot-checked Clemens from '86 (no numbers) through 1992, his prime.  He threw in excess of 160 pitches (164, to be exact) once.


That is the point....I didn't have Clemens throw any sort of number.....the GAME did.  Just because we are talking 1986 baseball doesn't automatically mean he comes out after 100 pitches , or some other arbitrary "magic number".  I don't play the games saying "well Connie Mack would let a guy pitch 17 innings in relief, then start him the next day, so I will too".



__________________

"NACSTER'S HISTORICAL REPLAY"

34 REPLAYS IN THE BOOKS!

1876-1883

1896-1900

1906

1916-1917

1921, 1929

1936-1937

1943, 1946

1956-1963

1976

1986

1991, 1996

37,117 regular season games through 34 replays!

 

 

1 2 3 4  >  Last»  | Page of 4  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard