The problem is the formula for making the cards and their charts, because without those, you got nothing.

Now, this is based off memory of a formula created by a user on Showdowncards.com's forums before they killed it. I do not know the user's name, but whoever you are out there, thank you. This is for the 2000 and 2001 sets, since I like them best.

__On-Base:__OBP of .470+ = 11 (yes, there are players this good...)

OBP of .390-.469 = 10

OBP of .360-.389 = 9

OBP of .340-.359 = 8

OBP of .315-.339 = 7

OBP of .290-.314 = 6

OBP of .260-.280 = 5

OBP of .240-.259 = 4

OBP <.239 = 3 (yes, there are players this bad...)

These stats can easily be found at websites like Baseball-Reference or Fangraphs, so you don't have to try and calculate them by hand.

Now, the number of outs a batter has on his chart is up to you; if they are on the lower end of the scale, say, with a .342 OBP, they can get 5 outs. Likewise, if they're on the high end, say, with a .359 OBP, I'd give them 3 outs.

__Walk (BB) Results:__Take the Batter's Average (BA) and subtract it from the OBP. For every twenty, they get one BB result.

So, for example, Mark Reynolds of the Baltimore Orioles had a .221 BA and a .323 OBP.

323-221 = 102, so he'll get 5 BB results.

You will have to round up or down to the nearest 20.

__Triple (3B) results:__If they got 6-7 triples in a season, they get one 3B result. Double that, get 2 3B results, etc.

__Doubles (2B) and Home Run (HR) results:__Take the number of doubles or home runs the batter has hit, divide by the b=number of at-bats (AB), then multiply by 600. For every ten, they get one 2B or HR result.

So, using Mark Reynolds again, he had 27 doubles in 534 at bats.

(27/534) x 600 = 30.34, so he'd get 3 double results.

__Single+ results:__This is up to you. They steal more than a dozen bases? Give 'em one Single+ result. They steal a lot of bases? Maybe more like three or more.

__Singles:__Whatever space you have left between BB and Single+ results are just plain old Singles.

__On-base adjustments:__If the player has an On-Base of 8 or higher, you just use the results from above. If they have a lower On-Base than that, they get an adjustment.

On-Base 7: +1 for Doubles and Home Runs

On-Base 6: +1/2 for Doubles and Home Runs, maybe +1 for Triples

On-Base 5: Provided the actually hit some, +2 for doubles and Home runs

On-Base 4 & 3: You get the idea.

Now, this is part art, part science. Don't let that get you down.

__Speed:__Did they steal a lot of bases? A

A Few? B

Were they tortoises? C

__Defense:__**This is mostly subjective as well, except for catchers. Remember, there are no defenders with a negative, if they are that bad it stops at +0.**

For catchers, we only need their caught stealing percentage (CS%), and divide by 5. For each 5 (rounded), they get +1.

So a catcher who only catches 25% of his base stealers gets a 'C+5', while a catcher who gets 44% of his base stealers gets a 'C+9'

First baseman have a default +0, so if they actually play good defense they get a +1 (Maximum)

Second baseman default at +2 (for an average defender), up or down depending on how good they are, minimum of +0, maximum of +5

Shortstops default at +2/3, ranging from +0 to +6

Third baseman default at +1/2, range from +0 to +3

Outfielders default at +1, LR types range from +0 to +2 and CF types from +0 to +3

**Point costs:**This is the point you've been waiting for, and...

I don't know it. I honestly compare them with similar players and adjust the cost accordingly.

Well, I hope somebody can use that, and I will approach pitchers later.

I commented on your gameboardgeek.com thread as well, but soon after the game died, I made a similar effort. I'm starting to create some batter cards, but there are steps missing.

ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you'd rather I post there or here, but here are a few players, until I finish more stuff:

Matt Wieters - Orioles

OB 8, Speed C, Catcher

1-2 SO, 3-4 GB, 5-10 BB, 11-15 1B, 16-17 2B, 18-20 HR

Adam Jones - Orioles

OB 8, Speed B, CF+2

1 SO, 2-4 FB, 5-6 BB, 7-14 1B, 15-16 2B, 17-20 HR

I'm interesting in your methodology, because it widely differs from mine it appears. Will post over there.

ReplyDelete