|
Post by johnnyboy on Sept 27, 2009 10:37:32 GMT -5
I noticed that the numbers of homeruns significally had a drop since we did the switch from 2K8 to 2k10.
The best TMBL batter last season in hr's was Tony Armas with 35, in MLB in '79 the 2 leaders in AL and NL was Gorman Thomas and Dave Kingman with 48 and 45 hr's.
The 10th TMBL homeruns batter in NL last season was Dave Parker with 21. In MLB in '79 the 22th homeruns batter in NL was 21.
Also, we already often saw that some players gets their attribute fade by the game when they don't produce at level they are suppose to do. It would be sad if that happens at large.
I don't know what you guys think about that but personnally I think that a light increase in the homeruns settings should be a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Sept 27, 2009 18:52:25 GMT -5
I would agree that we should move the setting from 95 back to the default 100 setting.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Sept 27, 2009 19:05:05 GMT -5
in most of my sims for next year...dawson is hitting 50 homers, and armas is mid forties...but i would be in favor of setting it back to 100
|
|
|
Post by sj on Sept 28, 2009 14:24:09 GMT -5
I'd also like to see homers set back to the 100 default value.
|
|
|
Post by TribeGM on Sept 28, 2009 14:38:17 GMT -5
The Indians like Homers!!!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 28, 2009 17:56:36 GMT -5
What do people think about doubles as well? I noticed they are set at 92, while HRs are set at 95 and everything else is set at 100.
Maybe move doubles back to 100 as well?
|
|
|
Post by TribeGM on Sept 28, 2009 18:27:59 GMT -5
Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Sept 28, 2009 18:31:16 GMT -5
I'm good with setting doubles and homers at 100
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Sept 28, 2009 19:00:23 GMT -5
^^^ same as above, im good with both going up
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Sept 28, 2009 19:02:57 GMT -5
I vote to set both at 100
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Sept 28, 2009 19:27:33 GMT -5
^^ Me too
|
|
|
Post by marmol on Sept 28, 2009 19:56:47 GMT -5
100 is fine with me. Same with Doubles.
|
|
|
Post by boffer on Sept 28, 2009 20:00:40 GMT -5
I agree also, 100 for both.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Sept 28, 2009 20:49:28 GMT -5
I'm fine with both to 100
|
|
|
Post by sj on Sept 29, 2009 11:20:24 GMT -5
/\ /\ Same
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 30, 2009 0:10:07 GMT -5
It is not that I disagree with re-setting doubles and homeruns to a higher figure, but it would need to be tested first, to see exactly what level plays out better.
If we move both settings back to 100 and start having players hit 100 doubles and 90 homeruns, it's not going to be a good solution!
Don't get me wrong: I agree that it should be raised! I found last year's offensive statistics (at least for the homeruns) to be kinda boring, in addition to be a little less realistic.
But if we don't test this out, we could run into troubles.
Those settings were lowered when we first made the switch from the 2k4 to the 2k8. Remember how much we tested and tested back then? Well, that's the key. Back then, with the HR settings at 100, players like Jerry Buchek hit 50 homeruns each sim.
We also need to test it out to see how it impacts the rest of the dynamics: will BAs explode, will ERAs climb too much? It's possible that it does not screw up anything, but we have to check it out first.
This said, I'm pretty glad we're going to get the HR levels higher.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Sept 30, 2009 0:21:30 GMT -5
my sims which total about ten show ba's will go up for guys like ernie whitt...high power but low contact. he was simming about as a .240-.250 guy before and then a .270-.280 after the bump in power. home runs dont go crazy, armas and dawson are the only two guys that come close to 50. era's raised a tiny bit...the only pitcher that had crazy different results on the twins was don sutton whose era before was 4.0-mid 4's to being a pitcher that would be mid 5's to low 6 era.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 30, 2009 1:07:18 GMT -5
my sims which total about ten show ba's will go up for guys like ernie whitt...high power but low contact. he was simming about as a .240-.250 guy before and then a .270-.280 after the bump in power. Of course, if the sims are run with so many players in the FA pool and the rosters screwed up almost everywhere, it can explain certain things, such as Ernie Whitt's BA raising.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Sept 30, 2009 12:09:40 GMT -5
Of course, if the sims are run with so many players in the FA pool and the rosters screwed up almost everywhere, it can explain certain things, such as Ernie Whitt's BA raising. The best way to test it would be to re-run the 1979 season 10 or 20 times each with current settings and set at 100. We won't have all opening day rosters for this year until the night before we're set to begin the season. I'd do it myself, but the earliest file I have is July, since that's when I returned.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Sept 30, 2009 13:49:52 GMT -5
well i mean i simmed it for next season with the same lineups...the only difference was some sims had the settings at 100,,,some had the original attributes. But i see your point about the FA pool.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Oct 1, 2009 16:50:05 GMT -5
home runs dont go crazy, armas and dawson are the only two guys that come close to 50. . Funny, but I simmed this only once so far, and Kevin Collins from the Indians was the closest to 50. We have to watch for batting averages too. The AL leader in my sim was batting .384 and the NL champ, a rookie, hit .392. We can't just watch homeruns; if we are to reset the settings to 100 on doubles and homeruns, it will impact much more than just doubles and homeruns. Something else from that same sim? Only one pitcher with a sub-three ERA. See what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 1, 2009 18:48:30 GMT -5
I will try to make an official test of this tomorrow evening or sometime Sunday.
I will also compare to actual numbers in 1979 in real life to see where we stand historically before coming to a conclusion.
It seems to me that hitters need a boost, but that is just an opinion and why I offered to bump the numbers up.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Oct 2, 2009 14:18:04 GMT -5
home runs dont go crazy, armas and dawson are the only two guys that come close to 50. . Funny, but I simmed this only once so far, and Kevin Collins from the Indians was the closest to 50. We have to watch for batting averages too. The AL leader in my sim was batting .384 and the NL champ, a rookie, hit .392. We can't just watch homeruns; if we are to reset the settings to 100 on doubles and homeruns, it will impact much more than just doubles and homeruns. Something else from that same sim? Only one pitcher with a sub-three ERA. See what I mean? I've tested several times using a file advanced from the beginning of the playoffs last season with all teams signing all walk year players. Wish I had the April 1979 file Anyway, I'm not seeing averages go that high. I'm seeing the top three home run guys hitting around 48, 44, 42 homers (different guy at the top most of the time), and top three in doubles all having between 48 and 55. More doubles shouldn't mean higher averages. More homers should, since more fly balls will land on the other side of the wall instead of in the OF's gloves, but not by that much. This style of testing gives an advantage to the hitters, since BBM sets all teams to 5 man rotations, and makes lineups full of good hitters playing out of position when players retire. That might help explain those high BAs you saw Terry: Pitchers will have around the same use since strategies are the same, but the overall fielding will be worse than normal from all the OOP guys.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Oct 2, 2009 17:31:42 GMT -5
A set of test results is posted here in the league articles section in case anyone is interested.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 2, 2009 21:28:00 GMT -5
After looking at the tests posted by Rand and myself, and also taking a look at the historical leaders in 1979 in the Baseball Almanac, this is what we are going to do:
Homeruns: 100
Doubles: 96
We can re-evaluate this from time to time, but I feel this is where we need to be right now.
|
|