@JonPgh Using 2025 numbers, where the wOBA of a BB is .691, and wOBA of BIP is ~.364, you get:
Group 1 wOBA: .3056
Group 2 wOBA: .3074
So group 1 is better without controlling for anything like QoC
@tangotiger Am I misunderstanding or are the #s off for batters in this thread? Total challenges are different in 2nd tweet, and success rate of 3rd tweet doesn't like up w 54% given in the 2nd.
@XZombieSniperX@Flope1997@perishable___ Time, yes, effort, idk I guess so. Same could be said for the time and effort it takes to get to late game in Null where the pokemon available become much stronger. I've said what I wanted to say and I hope you see why some people like these games, but if not thats also fine
@XZombieSniperX@Flope1997@perishable___ It's fine if that removes the most appealing part of pokemon for you, what matters is that you can see how and why other people would find it fun. Also main series pokemon games just stay ridiculously easy the entire time, so idk if i agree that they have a stronger progression
@XZombieSniperX@Flope1997@perishable___ 1. There is progression, both your team and opposing teams get substantially stronger over time. 2. Progression isn't even the point, the point is to have a series of difficult and interesting puzzles to solve.
@XZombieSniperX@Flope1997@perishable___ Are the kaizo hacks not just taking the puzzle aspect and dialing it up to 11? Like what's the fundamental difference between this and an emerald nuzlocke other than the difficulty
@XZombieSniperX@Flope1997@perishable___ Nuzlocking is essentially converting a pokemon game into a puzzle game, where the tools available are different every time you play, which is an interesting concept. If you want to play an RPG, don't nuzlocke, but to me it's not surprising at all that many people like nuzlocking
@tangotiger The one thing I'm certain from, is that if I was making it from scratch and I chose a 3D zone, there is absolutely no way I would ever make it a *pentagonal* prism. I have no idea what that accomplishes
@tangotiger I see pros and cons to each. The 2D zone is more intuitive, making it easier for players, umpires and fans to determine what is a ball or strike. 3D zone I think raises the skill ceiling by enabling pitchers to throw breaking balls that just barely clip the zone.
@ErikN_NJEdition@tangotiger The strike zone used in ABS is planar, which differs from the strike zone in the rule book which is a volume as you said. Not sure exactly why they are different but guessing it is a technological constraint?
@StatsMan@tangotiger This makes it harder for merely good teams to win championships, but also easier for the great teams to win championships. In hockey, it's easier for good teams to win championships but harder for great teams. In the end it washes out to 1/N chance
@YankeesStats@coryjsettoon@tangotiger Player B has .250 ISO vs Player A with .195, so not necessarily homers but that would in theory be the simplest explanation. The point I was trying to make is that it's not just singles vs walks, player B has more XBH.