Back to Boards

Question on sim results

Question on sim results

How do people generally feel sim results are for baseball? Too much offense, too little? Just right? (Try to leave dwar out of the equation since that's a bit of a different topic that has already gotten a lot of feedback...)

Re: Question on sim results

In my opinion, it seems pretty good and realistic at the moment, 19-15 shootouts are fun to see but a 4 hit shutout with a 99 rank pitcher is always satisfying.

Re: Question on sim results

Batting averages have always been a hair low, but always chalked that up to great pitching vs. great hitting. The SIM does an excellent job of always finding it's way to the desired run environment. The additional stat level controls are beneficial.

The addition of Rank definitely improved realism, guys like '72 Nolan Ryan were no longer MONSTERS, and guys like '94-'98 Maddux improved thanks to increased emphasis on the BB or lack thereof. Its a pretty good tool for ranking pitchers on the fly.

I will say that even with these improvements, the emphasis on BB's, I still pay very little attention to OBP for hitters. Ill look at SLG, Fire, AVG, Speed, AB (for Progressions in Customs), Age/Prog.Letter for same reasons, see if they have a low K/AB (increased contact means increased chances of times on base!), then dWAR, perhaps RBI for his Sac Fly potential... But in all honesty, I don't give a rats tush about OBP/BB because it seems like the Teddy Ballgames, Bambinos, and BALCO bobble heads are the only ones who even come close to their mark.
I've learned "he'll draw walks" should never enter a PC owner's thought process. Lol

Re: Question on sim results

I am very satisfied with the sim performance, The one thing I do notice is that the sim produces very streaky results when it comes down to wins and losses. You can be winning at a .667 clip and then find yourself in the middle of an 8 game losing streak. This is more more common than what I would expect.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

I almost exclusively play custom leagues where the player pool is so different across each league that they're all different. But in general I think they are very good.

One thing though that I noticed recently is plenty of SP that have high ranks can struggle and guys around the 50-60 RK can succeed. Didn't seem like it used to be that way.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

I agree. My team will win 112 games one year and the next year they’ll stink. Same team, odd results. This happens rarely, but the win loss comment is somewhat accurate.


Re: Question on sim results

I agree with Jay about the Batting Averages being a hair low. I wouldn't want to mess up overall runs scored because that seems just right, but I notice that it seems easier for HR hitters to get close to their mark, even against the best pitching, than it is for good average guys like Carew and Gwynn to get anywhere close to their Batting Averages (at least as close as the HR hitters get to achieving their marks)..

Having said that, it's pretty awesome as is. Certainly wouldn't do anything major to change what's working.

Thanks Guy!

Re: Re: Question on sim results

yeah, on the note of the batting averages, not sure if this is just a coincidence and happens in the leagues I'm in, but it seems about 50-75% of the time there's a .300+ hitter with a low OPS/not that many HRs, their average isn't typically anywhere near their real one

like I said, this could be just in the few leagues I am in, just a coincidence, but just something I notice....

This site is amazing and thank you Guy for all the great things you do!


Re: Question on sim results

I think the results are the best they've ever been. I had it in my mind that averages are a little low and that lefty hitters get a little too much advantage - but when I did a quick check (I always go to ATG leagues) the data didn't support what I had in my mind. In fact, I did a quick and simple look at ATG hitters (about 50 players) and found that the real vs sim average is about 100 points different on average. The difference seems to get higher as the average gets higher and that is likely because of slump buster. So presumably a .420 hitter is rarely on slump buster and typically compiles an average that is about 120 points lower. While a .320 hitter in that pool compiles an average that is maybe 80 points lower because they likely spend more time on slump buster. Might explain why it feels like guys like Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew don't sim that well.

Re: Question on sim results

I primarily play All Time Greats in Auto Leagues. I think the sim is pretty good. It is not like any of us know how Babe Ruth or Willie Mays would perform against only the best pitchers of all times. Likewise, how Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson would do against a lineup of the hall of famers.

I sometimes wonder how some of the players got into the ATG pool though. There are a lot of players in the pool that are probably largely unknown and maybe just had a single season that by some fluke makes them high ranked in the sim. I sometimes think it would be better without those players.

On the same note, my one complaint about ATG is all of the great players that are so lowly ranked that you cannot justify playing them. So if there were some subtle change that made Lefty Grove, Bob Feller, Warren Spahn, Jim Palmer, Steve Carlton etc. more valuable then I think that would be worth it.

Maybe a new auto league with just Hall of Famers and borderline Hall of Famers would be fun to try? I assume the latter is needed to have enough players but I do not know how you would define it. Maybe anyone that ever got 30% of the vote?


Re: Re: Question on sim results

I actually think that would be a great idea. If I recall correctly, one user put together a league of Japan All-Stars, and that player pool got imported into Auto Leagues. So I think if one willing user created this pool of HOFs and borderline HOFs, it could be done.

Re: Question on sim results

I have noticed runs per game is fairly realistic in some leagues even while league BA is somewhat low... and this is chalked up to exactly what Gus mentioned - lots of power in the lineups. So it makes sense a lower league average results in realistic runs per game when all lineups have 30+ homerun hitters... it's been mentioned before that integrating pitcher's homers allowed could help bring homers down while potentially helping the likes of the Gwynn's and Carew's be a bit more valuable. The question would be would that be a desirable change or not?

Re: Re: Question on sim results

I think that would be a welcome change gbacci. It may also prevent the likes of 2017 Matt Olsen from continuing to be a borderline god.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

If am not mistaken... offense took a jump in auto.

If am taking a auto best of 1980'S as an example here, these used to be dominated by good pitching.

Rarely would I see that kind of stats in a 1980's league halfway through the season....

Normally, there would be a handfull of players being succesfull offensively in a 80's league... league example brought below is after 82 games...

Matt Nokes is hitting for .300 ....

in this one attached, their will be about 25 hitters on pace to hit 30 hrs...

+ I also feel that the gap between great pitchers and good pitchers, and bad pitching as also narrowed.

In some of my rotations I've seen usually sure lock Aces perform badly and being outperformed by my 4th or even 5th starter in my rotation.

As far as pitching... I can show here as an example

Mark Eicchorn, who used to probably be the best reliever in the best of 80's, performing way under is usual standards...

Is ERA would normally be below 3,00.... now it his across the leagues at global 3,98 ERA ( a whole run) (if you go and observe is accross leagues stats)

I brought in a season history stats vs a compare accross league stats... with eichorns stats.

I also feel that results of players being used are more random and less predictable...

Normally in this team John Tudor should be my stud pitcher.. for some reason he is outpitched by other guys in my rotation...

This is only a feeling, and not an exhaustive study...

But it seems the case accross many various auto league types...

is it good, is it bad .... I don't know....

Just the feeling that I have, is that results are less predictable, and way more random...

Re: Question on sim results

I didn’t read all the responses but agree on batting average. Runs scored ends up ok the problem is it’s very power based with super low averages. High average/OBP no power players are generally useless unless they have extremely high speed.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

MarkPhip - interesting idea on a hall of famers league. It still wouldn't make some guys good in comparison - Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, guys like that just won't stack up statistically. That's why the decade leagues exist, so you can see how they stacked up in their era.
What I think would be amazing, is to account for their era. I've tinkered with the idea before but I'm not enough of a statistician to know how to normalize. Like what do you do with 1920 Babe Ruth - who hit 54 of the 600 total homers that year?

Also interesting idea about using pitching homers allowed. I love the idea - it might balance out pitching a bit in terms of the era the pitchers come from. Right now, seems like modern day pitchers have an advantage in the sim because of their strikeout rates and this might give more value to older pitchers, who didn't give up as many homers (but also didn't strikeout as many).

Re: Question on sim results

Just want to point out one thing, since Hubbell and Grove were mentioned specifically...

Just take a moment to consider this, what era did they play their entire careers in? Grove made his debut with the Athletics in 1925, while Hubbell made his in 1928

The fact that they could be as good as they were at the height of the hitters' era should at least give them some leeway, since their careers don't exactly match the numbers put up like pitchers like Christy Mathewson or Cy Young did... In fact, their rather unspectacular numbers could probably even be ATTRIBUTED to the era in which they played. Imagine how much better their numbers could have been if they debuted 20 years earlier each... Just some food for thought 🤷‍♂️

Re: Re: Question on sim results


I’d love the pitcher HR allowed

One note on effect- Deadball pitchers will be amazing and modern pitchers will take a hit

But I’m fine with that

Re: Question on sim results

Everyone seems to be making really good points here so I'll try giving my input.

It seems like the largest deviations tend to occur in leagues that cover the longest time periods like ATG. I have no idea how easy it would be to implement, but it seems like ERA+ and OPS+ would be nice stats to work into the sim.

I think these simple era adjusted stats would help us get realistic performances from some of the all time greats that are almost impossible to build around now. I also think it would allow for a lot more variety in team building strategy.

The end result of this sim seems to be very realistic, but a few more pathways to reach those results wouldn't hurt.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

Here is one that doesn't look too nice...

in auto mid-century league...

Despite having the second best defense in the league, the best record in the league...

Sandy Koufax numbers as rocketed to a 5,02 ERA, all this after 140 games in.... he usually dominates... and now... not anymore, pretty much never seen before for me... and all this keeping a winning record of 14-7...

but is overall numbers: whip - h per 9 are as good as Jerry Koosman
is era is higher than jerry Koosman... doesn't make a lot of sense...

this should really never happen...but now it does happen more often than none...

Koufax use to be a 3,19 ERA over this league history...and mainly always having a era under 3,00 every season... except in the last 2/3 years wich made it jumped well over 3,00

Now when looking at compare accross leagues.... is global / average era jumped to 3,76... with only one single season with an era under 3,00 , at 2,91...

Koufax should be performing way better...

I see this scenario repeating itself quite often...

Re: Question on sim results

I built an all defense team in ATG once:

C Pudge Rodriguez
1B Albert Pujols
2B Frankie Frisch
3B Brooks Robinson (switched to his 4+ dWAR 1968)
SS Ozzie Smith
LF I forget- maybe Hank Greenberg... a good hitter
CF Darin Erstad (switched to 4+ dWAR season)
RF Mike Trout
DH Albert Belle

The rotation was:

Walter Johnson
Sandy Koufax
Bob Gibson
Mike Scott
Cy Young

I put this team in a big disadvantage park.

We won 99 and easily lead in runs allowed. Most the SP were candidates for the Cy Younf award (including Cy himself)

But Sandy Koufax lost 20 games and had over a 4.5 era!

Just to add to the above post.

Re: Question on sim results

I do think power plays into this. An era can skyrocket with home runs alone. Koufax has given up 30 homers already in that mid century league, by far on pace for more homers than any of his prior seasons, and 7 teams in that league have boosted their parks.

It’s really easy in ATG to see an era get bloated because there is so much power. And I think far more people have gotten wise to boosting parks.

This is all good and interesting feedback.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

Just thinking out loud, but could there be some merit in decreasing the difference between big boost and big disadvantage to avoid the crazy numbers on both sides? There’d still be strategy in choosing dimensions but perhaps it wouldn’t be so drastic, and you wouldn’t see the weirdness that some are seeing with Koufax, and 100 HRs per season by some guys, etc.

Re: Question on sim results

I think the pitcher HR allowed should help a little bit in terms of avoiding one pitcher randomly giving up a bunch.

I have to say I love the park effects. So many different strategies because of those.

Re: Question on sim results

Like I specified and brought by bringing clear numbers... clearly somehow Koufax as drop drastically in performance...

This is mid century... not ATG

park adjustment as always been there...

+ the gap has narrowed between all star pitchers and middle of the pack pitchers....

Absolutely Not normal that Koosman can come even close to Sandy Koufax performance and even surpass them...

Koosman is a well below average in these leagues.... no way is whip and h per 9 should even be close to Koufax....

That kind of non sense is all over the place now... 4th and 5th starters outperforming Aces is now very frequent...

Re: Question on sim results

I agree with Gus, there is no way I want my pitchers starting 81 games in a big boost park, its simply not worth it, guys who hit 8 home runs over 560 at bats can hit 25 or more hr's.

the problem is the guy who hit 8 homers may have played in a homer happy park and still only hit 8 homers, the sim does not consider that.

also there is an emphasis on power and speed is discounted, you put a speedster on first and the pitcher has to pay attention to him, sim doesn't care.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

I think we are overstating the park effect a little. 8 of my 16 Cy Young winners had home parks that were Big Boost for both LH and RH, including 3 in Big Boost Parks in ATG.

Defense matters a lot.

Same with Koosman types out pitching Koufax. I’m in a 70s keeper league where Ed Haliki got drafted in like the 4th or 5th round because he won 20 for me the year before. But he won 20 for me because I had great dwar. I just drafted Vida Blue. The previous three years in the league Blue had bad D behind him and had ERAs above 4. Once again I have great D- I guarantee Blue has an era 3 or below.

Defense matters a lot.

Re: Question on sim results


Appreciate a chance to share thoughts, thanks for the topic. The only bugaboo I have with the sim (and perhaps it is the same as the previously described “Koufax dilemma”) is that LHP (LH starting P, more specifically) are weighed down slightly by virtue of facing 65-70% RH batters across a season.

Whatever miniature “bump” you give to a batter facing his opposite hand counterpart, while interesting, tends to lead to slight underperforming LH starting pitchers as a group.

I do not have specific leagues to show you, and may have become overly cautious (read: paranoid) about this, but when I’m drafting, “tie goes to the righty” for pitchers and “tie goes to the lefty” for batters.

Of course I won’t take a 71 rank RHP over a 92 rank LHP, but if they are both 82, give me the RHP.

It is something I think would be worth looking into, if you’re looking into things.

Suggestions: If it’s a 10% boost vs opposite hand: Maybe 5% will do?

If it’s 5% now, maybe It only would be applied on a virtual coin flip? (This would aggregate to occurring 50% of the time in the long run, but any individual outcome would be random, and the net effect would be a ~50% reduction in the potency)

Something to think about. Thanks again.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

It's an interesting point KingDude and I've thought the same thing for a while but have seen improvement since Rank. I was gonna say that it shouldn't be a blanket per cent for splits but the numbers from 2019 actually support that it is a blanket split of about 7% in real life.
2019 MLB
RH vs RHP 73,131 AB .247/.312/.423 = .735 OPS
LH vs RHP 61,636 AB .254/.331/.444 = .775 OPS
RH vs LHP 37,006 AB .262/.332/.455 = .787 OPS
LH vs LHP 14,744 AB .247/.316/.404 = .720 OPS

Re: Question on sim results

Sorry to flood the topic or thread ... pretty much because I find it very interesting.

Here is another one, where I feel results are so random...

Best of 90's
i still have the 2nd best defense in the league...

My rotation is upside down.... My 5th starter is outpitching everybody in my rotation, it's not even close... should I really consider Jack McDowell to start game 1 of my playoffs ???? That guy is normally a filler in a rotation , now he is performing better than usual kingpins Kevin Brown or David Cone...

Here is another one where John Tudor, who used to be a stud in best of 80's league....
He is litteraly outpitched by everybody in my rotation... not even close. again here... my 5th starter, usual filler Jack Morris is almost my best pitcher... What is very funny, is that Tudor who has exceptional control, a great 1,6 W per 9... he should be way better than every body else....
but no ! he is the 4th worst of my rotation in w per 9 .... only Jack Morris is worst in that stats...
I know, these look anecdotical, but if you pile them up over and over... and on top of each other, it is getting way less than anecdotical, and way more recurrent.... I can bring many other example like these out of my various leagues, but I will stop here.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

Is it not true that all players can perform anywhere from up to 20% better than their real Stats to as low as 20% BELOW their Real Stats?

Just like in real Life some guys have big years and others have bad years and I think the same is true in Pennant Chase.

A while ago about 20 games into a Season my #2 Starter got hurt for 15 games, he had been struggling at the time but because he was being hit so hard hadn't compiled the requisite 25 IP to go on Slump Buster -So off to Free Agency I went.

The best I could find was a 57 or 59 ranked Ricky Nolasco - I grabbed him and thought I have to make due for 3 starts. He Never left my rotation, proceeded to win 7 straight with 3 shutouts to start, ended the Season 16-3 with a 2.21 Era and ridiculous 1.12 Whip

There is no explanation except that I got the injury and got lucky enough to find the diamond in the rough, someone who was set to have a monster year and way out preform, I ended up dumping the 83 ranked guy, someone else picked him up, someone with a good team too, he stunk the entire season

Is it real? I don't know, but it's happened more than a few times for me that certain guys shine and play way better than their stats and some stink all year - It's patience is it a slump? or is it simply not his year?

With bad hitters I generally start DH'ing them an see if they snap out of it, sometimes they just don't though.

And YES high speed, low power guys, even with high averages are pretty lame in PC - they just don't produce and show their real life value

Re: Question on sim results


Thanks for sharing that info. I think it will support my point on why we should decrease the effect of the "opposite hand boost" from the sim.

These were the first 2 "very similar pitchers" I ran across in ATG, where 1 was RHP and 1 was LHP:

2004 Randy Johnson LHP 82 Rank - .90 whip, 6.5 h/9, 1.6 bb/9, 10.7 k/9
1968 Denny McLain RHP 78 Rank - .90 whip, 6.5 h/9, 1.7 bb/9, 7.5 k/9

We could say these guys “should” perform the same- if anything, Randy should do a bit better because he has a tiny bit less walks and significantly more strikeouts.

However, if you look at both via "compare across leagues"

Randy Johnson: 323 starts, 4.54 ERA, .311 OOBP, 1.33 WHIP, 3.99 DICE
Denny McLain: 315 starts, 4.45 ERA, .315 OOBP, 1.36 WHIP, 4.59 DICE

So, despite being better than McLain at keeping guys off base (OOBP), allowing fewer walks + hits per inning pitched (WHIP), and controlling his share of the outcomes (DICE), across 10 leagues, Johnson still somehow allows more runs than McLain.

Your post about the real world stats did a good job pointing out that:
LHB beat RHP more than LHB beat LHP, and RHB beat LHP more than RHB beat RHB.

Those numbers are true…. But that was already accounted for by using the real stats.

2004 Randy Johnson: 802 PA vs RHB in 964 total PA = 83% vs RHB
1968 Denny McLain: 657 PA vs :HB in 1288 total PA = 51% vs LHB

So, for those 2 to arrive at those “equal” stats at the end of their respective seasons, 2004 Johnson arrived there by facing 83% RHB in real life. And 1968 McLain arrived at his stats by only facing 51% LHB in real life. So, Johnson arrived at his “equal” stats through a more difficult set of circumstances.

To me, it feels like the sim might be double counting what is a naturally occurring phenomenon, where those results were already baked in once, and now are happening again artificially in the sim through the opposite hand boost.

Those outcomes aren’t extreme, so this isn’t the end of the world. But the guy who “should” be slightly better ends up being slightly worse in the long run. Because occasionally, some random RHB will hit a HR off Johnson that was a fly out vs McLain, because Johnson faces the opportunity for that to happen ~60% of the time, and McLain maybe only faces the opportunity for that to happen ~40% of the time.

Across a whole season, that is significant, and it’s why I think the sim is flawed, and why left-handed pitchers consistently underperform in the sim.

And, since Guy asked, I think it’s worth having the sim tackle that in a more random way. Having the “opposite hand boost” applied randomly (through a virtual coin flip before the AB happens) or another way (apply it only when the other guy is “on fire” or something similar) would help even this out.

Thanks for reading!

Re: Re: Question on sim results

Good point bringing the LHP vs RH hitters and vice versa point.

I think this would affect more the middle of the pack lefthanded pitchers...

As for another type of analysis... I guess I have to much free time today....

CY Youngs awards in mid Century leagues in 2020

Luis Tiant = 26
Bob Gibson = 11
Sandy koufax = 16

These are the best 3 pitchers of this mid century era league ( best one season stats at least) so this is fairly easy to have a global look at...

they almost have carbon copy real stats...

Gibson : whip 0,86 / Hper9 5,9 / BB per9 1,8 / kper9 7,9
Tiant : whip 0,87 / Hper9 5,3 / BB per9 2,5 / kper9 9,2
Koufax : whip 0,86 / Hper9 5,8 / BB per9 1,9 / kper9 10,3

I do think that these results reflects fairly these pitchers as far as stats is concerned... They almost share the same whip in real stats, but Tiant does allow way less contacts with 5.3 hits per 9... Koufax is able to top Gibson because of his higher K per 9 rate.

Despite being lefthanded, Koufax is still out pitching Gibson a bit... So this is not much of a factor...

Re: Question on sim results

Jay: What did you mean by this?

"The addition of Rank definitely improved realism, guys like '72 Nolan Ryan were no longer MONSTERS, and guys like '94-'98 Maddux improved thanks to increased emphasis on the BB or lack thereof. Its a pretty good tool for ranking pitchers on the fly."

I understand Rank maybe wasn't included before. But the addition of rank... hurt performance of some guys? Does rank have an effect on game play?

Re: Re: Question on sim results

I've asked gbacci directly and am awaiting his response, because if i remember correctly it doesn't its just a tool to help you decide who to pick. it doesn't figure in the batter/pitcher matchup , only the stats do. but i could be wrong so am awaiting gbaccis reply.

Re: Question on sim results

Ritz and Bubbles... this is a fairly complex answer, I've posted it before, but I should probably save a version somewhere...

The short answer, it has minimal impact, but there is some. Rank is used for a lot of things such as how the CPU drafts or determines team strength when setting Supplemental Draft order, etc. But Rank is also used in the Adjust Stat Levels function. The purpose of "Adjust Stat Levels" in commissioner tools is to allow commissioners to globally boost offense or pitching based on player pool. The reason for this is because player pools in PC are not realistic, and if you didn't have a modifier, the results would be unrealistic. Now, if you're simming a replay of a real season, with all 30 teams, you don't need to modify anything because the pool is realistic, and the sim results come out realistic as well.

At any rate, Rank creates tiers of players, and when it does the global boost, it adds a single percentage per tier. In most leagues Rank creates about 10 tiers, but keep in mind usually only 5 tiers worth of players start on each team. So technically the top-tier SPs are getting 4-5% more juice than 5th-starter types. But, as many folks on here have mentioned, that doesn't mean a lot, since 4th or 5th starters have been known to outperform an ace or a #2. Your ace is only getting 1% more juice than your #2, so the difference is negligible. It's still best to focus on actual stats.

Where it becomes problematic is in some custom leagues where all players have very close stats. Someone did a March Madness league last March since COVID canceled the tourney, and the format was that each team was given identical rosters. In that case, the 1-5% difference is suddenly significant since all players are supposed to be the same. In that scenario, you really want to set your Adjust Stat Level ranks to either be zero or 100 so that there are technically no tiers of players created.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

Gotcha. I'm in one long-running league where the stats have hit the extremes.... 100 batters have an OBP of 0.490 or above. Meanwhile, 100 starting pitchers have an oOBP of 0.188 or below.

Nearly every at bat is a .500 OBP vs a .175 oOBP. Something has to give.

And that's where this global boost comes in? So the regular, un-tampered sim might have that league be very pitching or hitting heavy... not sure which is favored. But then the Commish can boost the league league to get the stats closer to realistic levels?

And when that boost is applied... the default would be the 90-100 pitchers getting the biggest boost, with the 80-90 getting next biggest boost... but those "classes" and boosts can be adjusted?

Re: Question on sim results

Right that’s basically it. So if you enlarge the top tier of hitters, for example, you’re telling the sim you need more offense, so the boost across the board grows, and the max boost is applied to a wider number of hitters hence the offense in the league goes up. Likewise for pitchers if you adjust that number.

To put a finer point on it, most leagues have that number set somewhere around 90, let’s say you wanted A LOT more offense, you could set it to 50. That would be telling the sim I need about 40% more offense and I want to apply that to two tiers of players: the ones ranked over 50 and the ones ranked under 50 (since the ranks are 1 to 100). Everyone gets boosted, but the guys over 50 get boosted just slightly more (one percent) than the guys under 50.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

when it comes to rectifying low averages while keeping run scoring where it is:

could the formula for fire be tweaked? It seems fire is basically determined by HR rate right now. What if it was a combo of batting average and HR rate? So, the highest fire would be a high average HR hitter like Ruth, Bonds, Foxx, but a high average/low power guy like Joe Jackson would have similar fire as a low avg/high HR guy like McGwire,

Re: Re: Question on sim results

for that, would it be possible to incorporate stats that take stadium into account, think WOBA.

Re: Question on sim results

I know there was some discussion of using HR allowed in the sim. Would using something like groundball to flyball ratio be more effective? HR allowed is pretty dependent on the park, and the time period. Since groundball pitchers tend to have lower K rates, maybe this would help balance out some of the dominance of dominant pitchers.

I don't know if this is a stat that has been kept throughout baseball history, but I thought it was an interesting idea.

Re: Re: Question on sim results

I really like the GB to FB rate idea and that was actually my first thought but I don’t have those stats in the PC database. I happened to already have the HR allowed stat for a lot of players so it was easy to import it for everyone.

But I am definitely going to keep the Gb ratio idea in my back pocket. I don’t know if that’s available for all players in history I would have to check BBref.

Re: Question on sim results

I am pretty much satisfied with how the games sim the results on here. I like the fact that once in a blue moon you can have a game go 17 or 18 extra innings or an actual pitcher's duel where the score is 1 - 0 and either side only got 1 or 2 hits. I was wondering if down the road you plan to add any more stats. I know in recent years, the MLB has decided to use the "hold" stat for example for relief pitchers. Is that something you might consider incorporating into the sims on here or not so much?

Re: Question on sim results

So baseball reference does have groundball to flyball ratio as well as ground outs to air outs. Unfortunately, it says they only have complete data from 1988 to present. I don't know if any other sites have these stats for a longer time period.