Playoff Roster: Rookies With Abusrd Contact Ratings / AVG

[Ghosts]

So, as many of you don't know (and don't particularly care), the Bears lost 3b Bob Peterson for the rest of the season. Thankfully, he was having an off year, so the loss isn't horrible.

However, we now have to bring up a position player.

We've got options. We could stand pat with a light-hitting utility man Francis Hampton (who hits better when he plays every day) and pull up Angel Roman, a fringe major leaguer who is just going to be insurance, most likely. Or we could use Young as 1b (but his defense is pretty bad .... and can be counted on an error every 10 games or so and this is the post-season).

The upside on those things is that we don't screw with the 40 man roster, etc.

However, we've got a couple of those insane contact rated / absurd minor league average guys who we signed for free this year.

I'm talking about:

Spencer Burgess AA 3b/1b: He hit @.360 in A and AA. 60/70 defense at 1b/3b.

Earl Stokes AA 1b. Dude hit .449 in AA and .473 in A. 30s defense at 1b.

I'm asking because I've seen what these guys -- absurd contact rating and little else at this point -- seem to be doing: they're mashing.

Specifically, I'm wondering what San Antonio (Lara), Crystal Lake (Kehoe), Duluth (Wagner), New Orleans (Martinez), and Omaha (Jennings) have to say ... I see similar guys in AAA at all those organizations and we know what Lara has done in San Antonio. Of course, anyone else's thoughts are welcome (except Aurora!)

Are we CRAZY to consider pulling one of these guys up and starting the option year clock ticking? Especially because we will probably pull up a pitcher (50/50 we make the petition) at the end of this series (god willing we get that far). Was Lara a fluke?

I know this is ill-advised, but we need somebody to hit lefties and these guys have been monsters.

So the question is: HOW ill-advised is it?

(and, yes, Ronnie Ray at AAA, is a candidate, too, but he just doesn't seem to offer the HUGE upside that somebody hitting .300 would and his defense is a bit uneven still).

Thanks!

[Tyler]

I'm gonna semi-hijack the thread and ask how common these guys are in the majors. I can think of Ichiro, and then no-one. I hope the majority of these guys crash and burn or OOTP won't seem that realistic.

[Ghosts]

I'm gonna semi-hijack the thread and ask how common these guys are in the majors. I can think of Ichiro, and then no-one. I hope the majority of these guys crash and burn or OOTP won't seem that realistic.

no, this is exactly what i'm trying to gauge. the co-owner was the one who insisted on signing these guys -- i figured they'd be garbage. but i listed all the places where i saw them succeed.

the question is: is it a mirage or are these guys bona fide singles hitters?

[John]

I've actually been tracking this issue (I call it "Todd Hansen Syndrome"). It's something of a known bug; you don't see it being talked about a lot on the OOTP forums, but occasionally it will pop up. The problem is related to the internal BABIP ratings of these players being set way too high. On the flip side, they're usual dead awful in pretty much every other offensive area.

My preliminary research seems to indicate that this players like this don't seem to be created in OOTP 9. However, don't hold me to that; most of my work with OOTP 9 has revolved around testing financial settings and I haven't had time to really delve into this yet. It's definitely on my to-do list, though.

[Denny]

Well, hopefully their skills will rapidly plummet once 2009 rolls around, then

[Coqui]

I also have a guy like this (Steve Moylens) in AA right now. I would advise that you go for it. The return could be immense and the risk isn't that great as you have a replacement right there should the need arise.

[Ghosts]

I've actually been tracking this issue (I call it "Todd Hansen Syndrome"). It's something of a known bug; you don't see it being talked about a lot on the OOTP forums, but occasionally it will pop up. The problem is related to the internal BABIP ratings of these players being set way too high. On the flip side, they're usual dead awful in pretty much every other offensive area.

My preliminary research seems to indicate that this players like this don't seem to be created in OOTP 9. However, don't hold me to that; most of my work with OOTP 9 has revolved around testing financial settings and I haven't had time to really delve into this yet. It's definitely on my to-do list, though.

i was afraid you were going to say this...in other words, these guys' "value" are likely to drop immediately and irrevocably by the beginning of next year BUT they actually could do us some good this year.

in other words, they are "for real" (if only a limited time, so who cares about the 40 man roster) but we could mar any further victories -- should we be lucky enough to come by them -- by using them.

at least that's my ethical take on the situation.

sigh.

hmm.

glory. honor. glory. honor. glory. honor.

anyone have a coin?

[John]

I don't believe their value will disappear when we switch to OOTP 9 in that their "brokenness" will remain. What I believe will happen is that similarly broken players will no longer be generated. That's what I'm hoping at least. I share Tyler's concern about these kinds of players (especially now that I know why they perform the way they do). I actually released one of these guys from my organization once I learned about them.

[Denny]

In other news, I'll have you know that when I went in for my last physical my personal BABIP rating was off the charts

[Ghosts]

I don't believe their value will disappear when we switch to OOTP 9 in that their "brokenness" will remain. What I believe will happen is that similarly broken players will no longer be generated. That's what I'm hoping at least. I share Tyler's concern about these kinds of players (especially now that I know why they perform the way they do). I actually released one of these guys from my organization once I learned about them.

if that's the case, shouldn't we come to some sort of agreement generally about these guys? because we snagged 5 or 6 of them -- again, we figured they'd provide good depth and were utter fliers -- and we'd even be happy to follow suit in releasing them so long as everybody followed suit. though we're not so inclined to do so if somebody else is going to pick them up and use them against us.

i know the commish is not big on imposing rules, but if what he say is correct we could have 3/4 of an infield and a couple OF's making major league minimum and hitting over .300. i know they aren't supermen, but they sound quite capable -- see SA's 2b lara -- of doing very well in the majors.

[John]

Well, actually getting rid of these players would be pretty impossibly problematic. I mean, who's going to tell Paul he has to dump Todd Hansen? Or Matt that he has to get rid of beloved 10th rounder Lara? I view this as another one of these little problems that pop up every now and then that aren't game-breakers but rather the kind of thing you need to be aware of and do what you can to eradicate (or at least minimize).

What helps is that these players are basically terrible in most every other aspect of the game other than hitting singles. So as irritatingly unrealistic as they are, they aren't necessarily difference makers. Those crazy-high averages look pretty but aren't really as valuable as a "true" player who hits .300 along with a healthy dose of XBHs (not to mention they don't strike out a gazillion times like the broken ones do).

One thing I may do is delete these players at the feeder level so that they never get to PEBA in the first place. And I may only have to do this once, since again I think this problem has been addressed in OOTP 9. As far as the ones that have already made it into the league, I'll leave it to each owner to individually decide whether to keep or discard them.

For further reading on this issue (along with a brief explanation of the cause of the bug by OOTP developer Markus), see this thread over at the OOTP forums.

[Sandgnats (Bill)]

I can only comment on a player like this I have in CF Dustin Kehoe (AAA).

He's exactly as advertised. We needed help in the minors with a solid average hitter and he was the guy. I thought he could hold his own, but I didn't think he would be able to move up so quickly. We just drafted him this year and he hit .342 at AAA after hitting through Hi-A & AA. He plays great defense, so that's a plus.

As far as advice, if Patterson was hitting below .250, I can't see either Stokes or Burgess disappointing you in that respect. I cannot guarantee anything as Kehoe(our player) never reached the majors. But if a guy has a 60 + contact, why shouldn't that carry over into the majors? Since we're used to evaluating real life players, I would tend to think that the older/more experienced player of the two might adjust better to being thrown into the playoffs. Stokes isn't a teenager, so if I were you-I would promote him (of the two). Unfortunately Burgess has the better defense of the two.

So, you have to evaluate what you need at this point. Does a good average hitter at this point outweigh the benefits of a more well-rounded player? If you need that average whiile sacrificing a little, then go for it!

As mentioned before and as with Dustin Kehoe, these players offer nothing else. If I started Kehoe full-time in the majors in 2009, he would probably hit over .300-which would be great! But, he would probably strikeout 180 times and accumulate a whopping 10 doubles or so and have an OBP about 30 points above his average. So, long-term Kehoe is not a good solution for us. We believe in keeping strikeouts to a minimum(for hitters ).

As far as these players being a 'problem'. I completely disagree with that entirely. If these guys are a problem, then are hitters that only have power going to be the next problem. Then, only the doubles hitters, etc. You get what you pay for so to speak. If you want to fill you ML team with all of these type of players, then go ahead. But I would strongly recommend not doing so! Lacking all of that XBH power and ability to walk and the ridiculous amount of K's they will rack up will hurt you more than help you with that above average AVG. Overall, these type of players are below average in my mind. They do serve a purpose and that's that.

Sorry, I typed too much again.

In Conclusion:
If it were my team, I would use Hampton to fill in. He has great defense and has played at the PEBA level. You would then need a good IF backup on the Bears. It looks like Angel Roman (AAA) would be your best bet.
Just ask yourself what you need in the remainder of this series. Do you want defense or an average hitter?
It entirely depends on your managing preference. Your team is a PEBA powerhouse, so I'm sure you'll make the right decision for the Bears.

[John]

They're only a "problem" in that they're not supposed to be generated (and that's not coming from me; that's coming from the game's developer). It's an issue where their internal BABIP has rolled over past max, which isn't supposed to happen. So yeah, it's a "problem", but fortunately not a "crisis" since they are such one-dimensional players. They're ultimately statistical oddities rather than difference-makers. I'd still like them gone, of course.

I took a look at my latest OOTP 9 test league. From what I can see, these players do still get generated but at a much reduced rate (there's clearly way less of them than there are currently). Since I know Markus was interested in getting rid of these kinds of players I may bring up the subject again on the OOTP forums as a reminder that it's still present.

[Sandgnats (Bill)]

They're only a "problem" in that they're not supposed to be generated (and that's not coming from me; that's coming from the game's developer). It's an issue where their internal BABIP has rolled over past max, which isn't supposed to happen. So yeah, it's a "problem", but fortunately not a "crisis" since they are such one-dimensional players. They're ultimately statistical oddities rather than difference-makers. I'd still like them gone, of course.

I took a look at my latest OOTP 9 test league. From what I can see, these players do still get generated but at a much reduced rate (there's clearly way less of them than there are currently). Since I know Markus was interested in getting rid of these kinds of players I may bring up the subject again on the OOTP forums as a reminder that it's still present.

I didn't realize they weren't supposed to be generated. I thought they were generated on purpose as a way of forcing GM's to make decisions. To me, it adds a cool twist to the game. But, if they were not intended to be generated, then I withdraw my objection. I sound like a lawyer. Any good lawyer jokes anyone?

[Coqui]

I'll take a slightly different tack here than the one of our esteemed commissioner. I actually like to see these guys generated in rare circumstances because of the problems it creates for the manager. I love Moylens but I know that he will never really create much offense. This year he managed 19 XBH in 489 AB's, he can't really run and he doesn't walk alot. As an anamoly, he's a ton of fun. As a baseball player, he's David Eckstein (only ten times more cool). It just creates interesting things for me, the GM, to consider. Sure, he never should have existed, but my life would be so empty without Steve Moylens.