The Secret Formula

[J-Pav]

By the by, did you catch that Bonderman line from the fourth team down (Random Variations). How is stuff like that even statistically possible (2-11 record, 3.34 ERA, 1.13 WHIP)??? :? Can HAL really hate one guy this much? (Answer: [i:d2aed06e90]Yes[/i:d2aed06e90]).

In addition, I'm not really saying to chase pitchers who walk a lot of guys. I'm saying to chase pitchers who don't give up A. [i:d2aed06e90]Hits[/i:d2aed06e90] and/or B. [i:d2aed06e90]Big Hits[/i:d2aed06e90]. The walks are often just a compromise to get that kind of pitcher at the right price. Otherwise, they would all be RJ!

Ironically, guys like Leiter and H. Ramirez always seem to give me a pretty decent line, while the Clemens' and Santanas of the world often give me nothing but buyer's remorse!!

As to philosophy, just because I see a tendency doesn't mean that every pitcher on my team has to fit a certain profile. I like good values at a reasonable price and have no trouble taking a lot of guys in that 1.50 - 2.00 range if they fit the puzzle in other ways (guys like Beckett and Villone destroy unbalanced teams).

Lucky, can you post some teams where you were successful with the high hits/low walks pitchers?

And does anybody else have some teams, thoughts or observations to post on this?

[Valen]

[quote:a29533787c]Westbrook, Webb, Hudson, Lowe and Drese, all of whom have a groundball to flyball ratio over 2.20. [/quote:a29533787c]Actually there is no such thing in strat as a groundball or flyball pitcher. Look at the cards at the rolls where the fielding chard is used. EVERY pitcher has the exact same number of chances for EVERY position, IF, OF, P, and C. So a great fielding IF does not help Westbrook any more than anyone else. A great fielding SS is only important because EVERY pitcher has 6 chances to SS. So combining Everett with Dreese or Lowe gives you no more advantage than combining Everett with a pitcher who was a flyball pitcher in real life. Flyball/groundball ratios is not a stat which Stratomatic makes any effort to reproduce or even pay lip service to.

[J-Pav]

Valen:

I saw your post about this somewhere else in another thread.

Just to check, I gave a quick once over [b:6d150a6db7]Brandon Webb[/b:6d150a6db7]'s card (groundball pitcher) and counted up 61 or so points of grounders. On[b:6d150a6db7] Eric Milton[/b:6d150a6db7] (flyball pitcher), I counted up 44.

I understand what you're saying about the groundball x's, and how that relates to defense, but there are differences in how many double play rolls there are on individual cards. They're even listed in the SOM Ratings book.

Whether it's something statistically worth pursuing is entirely another matter; however, most of the cards I mentioned I think are pretty free of ballpark homers, too. So in a hitters park, [b:6d150a6db7]Westbrook[/b:6d150a6db7] doesn't give up the long ball and has 12 clean double play rolls (against righties). Pick up the x's with a 1 at SS and 2B (3B too) and [i:6d150a6db7]maybe[/i:6d150a6db7] it's something viable. :idea:

Of course, I've seen the results of guys who had the misfortune of playing [b:6d150a6db7]Derek Lowe[/b:6d150a6db7] and it isn't pretty.

Still, I'm gonna try it one day to just shake the urge out.

(Also, the 2.20 groundball/flyball ratio I mentioned is real life, not determined from an analysis of the cards themselves, so it [i:6d150a6db7]may[/i:6d150a6db7] be somewhat overstated).

[MARCPELLETIER]

Valen, you just spoke like a sophomore :lol:

In addition to differences in gbA, there are differences in flyB/ flyC ratio.

Having a pitcher with no dinger, lots of on-base, and lots of gbA, with stellar defense behind, is definitively one way to improve the efficiency of your team.

[Valen]

marcus, you spoke like a freshman. Being a sophomore I feel compelled to cut the freshman some slack and provide some tutoring.

Yes, Brandons card has multiple gb(A) on it and more than Milton does. But consider for example if you roll a 6-2 against a RH batter the double play results whether you have Everett, Ozzie Smith, or Bob Uecker playing SS. It simply does not matter who your SS is. Brandon gets no more help from a 1 SS than Milton does and Milton is harmed no more by a 4 at SS then Brandon is.

So if you consider how strat actually works you realize that having a 1 at SS has the same impact on your team if your pitcher is Milton as it does if your pitcher is Webb. You will get just as many great fielding plays from a 1 fielder with Milton as with Webb because there are the same EXACT number of x chances for each position on EVERY card. Likewise since thos gb(A) rolls on Webbs card are totally independent from the fielding chart they will deliver just as many double plays with Justin Leone at SS as you would get with Cesar Izturis.

So matching Arod, Rolen, etc with Webb etc. does nothing except give you a warm feeling inside. That is fine if you like warm feelings inside. I do. But in strat terms it simply does not matter.

[J-Pav]

Here are two equally priced pitchers:

Ryan Drese, Bal: E, $2.94 (Groundball Pitcher, 2.20 G/F)*
Kelvim Escobar, Bal: 1L, $3.03 (Flyball Pitcher, 1.14 G/F)*

* From 2004 MLB Statistics (not from analysis of the cards)

[i:98942826e7]Drese's line against RH batters:[/i:98942826e7]**
K-0, BB-2, HIT-25.5, OB-27.5, TB-32.7, HR-0, BP-0, [b:98942826e7]DP-10[/b:98942826e7]

[i:98942826e7]Escobar's line against RH batters:[/i:98942826e7]**
K-29, BB-2, HIT-11.7, OB-18.7, TB-27.8, HR-2.8, BP-5, [b:98942826e7]DP-3[/b:98942826e7]

** From the S.O.M. Ratings Book

[b:98942826e7]Valen[/b:98942826e7]:

Your point is well made. I'm not a sabermetrician, so I can't tell you specifically what is the value of a gb(A). Drese has over three times the double-play opportunities of Escobar, but it looks like he has a lot to overcome to be priced equally (my opinion, maybe the math bears it out...those homers and BP homers may have more of an impact in a hitters park than I'm now evaluating at a glance).

It appears I might incorrectly have assumed that you paid less for giving up more baserunners, so the value of a "1" on defense meaning more to a lower priced pitcher (i.e., adding value because the gb(x)s result in a higher payoff) might also be incorrect. If it's all priced efficiently, then there may be no statistical advantage to pursuing "groundball pitchers (w/ good defense behind them)."

The opposite strategy would be pairing RJ w/ "3s" or "4s" in the infield to see if you could get away with less defense in order to improve your offense. You don't really need all "1s" with RJ striking out one point something batters per inning. Unfortunately for me, it's gonna all come down to the math, so I'm curious to see how luckyman responds. I know one of his core arguments in the past has been the insufficiently priced value of the SOM double-play.

[MARCPELLETIER]

Valen, I see your point, but you get the wrong conclusion. What you have shown is that Everett will have the same number of gb(A), regardless of playing behind Webb or Milton. But you have NOT shown that Everett will turn the same number of double-plays. Thus, I entirely agree with J-Pav's opinion: situational pitching can make Everett more valuable in one set rather than in another. Because, like J-Pav says, the value of a gb(A) will depend on whether the double-play opportunities.

Simply to illustrate, imagine that I have Everett playing behind RJ+Santana+Schmidt+Zambrano. For the sake of the argument, we'll say that Everett turns 60 double-plays.

If Everett turns 60 dps in this environment, how much double-plays do you think Everett will turn if he plays behind Hennessey+Sturtze+Estes+Meche+Harang? At least 100 double-plays, as these pitchers have three times the on-base found on the other rotation.

Conclusion: Everett's value will be ihigher by playing behind Hennessey+al rather than by playing behind RJ+al.

That's why a golden rule is to opt for the better offensive player if your rotation is very strong, and to opt for the better defensive player is your rotation has lots of on-base.

[kptnfmrs]

Wow!! What a cool thread.

Let me throw some numbers out and you guys tell me what you think.

The SS X result occurs 6 times on the pitchers card (6 out of 108). On any given plate appearance there are six chances in 216 for the SS defense to become a factor. 6/216 =.028 or 2.8%. Given an average of 40 PA per game, on average the SS X result will occur once per game (1.1108 times to be exact). Multiply by 162 and you have about 180 x results for your shortstop over the course of a season.

So your saying that with the RJ+Santana+Schmidt+Zambrano rotation Everett might turn 60 DP's (out of 180 X results) whereas with Hennessey+Sturtze+Estes+Meche+Harang HE will turn 100 (out of 180 X results).

Simply stated, my opponent needs baserunners if my SS is going to turn DP's.

So the debate comes down to spending the $$ on pitchers to keep the baserunners to a minimum or spend it on the SS and erase the runners with DP's... but don't do both. If you spend the $$ on the SS who turns the DP's, but your SP's aren't allowing base-runners, then you've wasted your money (on one or the other), right?

[CHARLESBELL]

I get it that from a team perspective more DPs will be made with pitchers who have more gb(A)s on their card.

But I don't get your argument, marcus, about Everett being any more valuable than any other SS based solely on those gb(A)s. In your example Everett gets 60 DPs from low gb pitching threesome and estimate 100 (40 more) if from the high gb pitchers. So? If Uecker gets only 20 DPs with that first threesome, he would STILL get another 40 from the high gb threesome - because gb(A)s don't care what the SS's fielding rating is. The difference is only in the x chart, and the x-chart has the same chances on every pitchers card. Valen is right about this.

[J-Pav]

kptnfmrs:

Cristano sometimes played "3s" and "4s" (last year) in the infield when using the Stud Starters Strategy, and he was very successful with it. I haven't seen it done this year yet on any of the CHAMPS teams I've come across. I touched on this earlier in the thread. A Larkin/Matsui platoon at ss in a hitters park with stud starters ([b:8187b7df07]IF[/b:8187b7df07] you can get any!) would be a worthwhile experiment.

To answer your question, yes, I think there's a balance you have to strike, and likely only a hard core sabermetrician can explain with any degree of statistical accuracy where that line is drawn. [i:8187b7df07]Wasted[/i:8187b7df07] is a strong word, but I do agree with luckyman that the $$$ could be more [i:8187b7df07]efficiently[/i:8187b7df07] spent depending on the make-up (strengths and weaknesses) of your roster.

Charlie:

The difference is in the [i:8187b7df07]opportunities[/i:8187b7df07] to make a double-play, that is, how many times your lower dollar pitcher has a guy on first base. Also, there is the opponent's [i:8187b7df07]lost opportunity factor [/i:8187b7df07] as a result of a double-play. An inning ending double-play takes away the chance to create more runs for your opponent.

I understand what you're saying about the ratios being equal, but it has more to do with the number of opposing hitters reaching first base, that is why the better defender helps the lower priced pitcher more than a stud starter. RJ might go gb(x)-single, fly out, K, K. Webb goes K, BB, BB, BB, gb(x) double-play. A "4" at ss for Webb equals disaster, while in this situation, to RJ it is almost meaningless, yet they both had one fielding chart opportunity. So how do you put a dollar value on that? With Webb's lower price, I can afford A-Rod at ss. With RJ, maybe I've got a two or three dollar ss who doesn't hit for obp or power. For $12 I get A-Rod and Webb, or I get RJ and Crosby for $14. Which is more appealing is more a matter of personal opinion. That's why there are so many unique ways you can win in SOM.