Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

Back in August I started a thread called [i:b57cf7530f]The Secret Formula[/i:b57cf7530f]. I thought this might be a good way to show both veterans and newbs what goes in to building a CHAMPS team, filtered by the lenses I'm looking through.

Here's what I came up with last month, with the added insights of reviewing the nine teams who have currently posted the best records (these may or may not be CHAMPS teams, but they certainly had a fair shot at it):

The [b:b57cf7530f]CHAMPS[/b:b57cf7530f] Secret Formula:

[i:b57cf7530f]1. $32 million on pitching, $48 million on hitting (or thereabouts).[/i:b57cf7530f]

Like the CHAMPS teams, the Best Records Teams (BRTs) spent $31 million on pitching, $49 million on hitting (on average). On average, the BRTs spent just over $18 million on starters, and just under $13 million on relievers.

[i:b57cf7530f]2. Spend for "1s" and "2s" at SS, CF and 2B.[/i:b57cf7530f]

Like the CHAMPS teams, the BRTs had 1s and 2s exclusively at SS (1.89 avg); 1s and 2s exclusively in CF (1.67 avg) and 1s, 2s and one 3 at 2B (1.44 avg).


[i:b57cf7530f]3. To win in '05, you must get the most mileage out of your pitching.[/i:b57cf7530f]

Okay, it's a generalized statement, but what I'm trying to say is that you should generally try to finish in the top three in pitching (yes, this can be somewhat relative).

[i:b57cf7530f]3A. Low WHIP (leaning towards lower total bases, I argue).[/i:b57cf7530f]

Like the CHAMPS teams, the BRTs had an average WHIP of 1.30, and an average hits surrendered per inning pitched of 0.956.

[i:b57cf7530f]3B. Low ERA (you must finish well in runs allowed)[/i:b57cf7530f]

Like the CHAMPS teams, the BRTs had an average ERA of 4.00.

[i:b57cf7530f]4. Players suited to your park (there is a tendency for Shea and Minute Maid to be the CHAMPS' park of choice).[/i:b57cf7530f]

Of the nine teams with the best records, three played in Shea and one in Wrigley. In addition, there were also two hitters parks, two pitchers parks, and one neutral park. (Just make sure your roster suits your park!)

:idea:

[b:b57cf7530f][u:b57cf7530f]New Insights[/u:b57cf7530f][/b:b57cf7530f]

In the other thread I argued that pitching and defense appeared to take priority over offense; however, from the BRTs it looks like the [i:b57cf7530f]Beane Count[/i:b57cf7530f] is back! These nine teams had a whopping [b:b57cf7530f]+235[/b:b57cf7530f] average Beane Count (i.e., Walks and Homers For minus Walks and Homers Allowed).

These teams were definitely not short on offense, with an average of 956 runs scored, with .274 BA, .469 SLG and .358 OBP.

So I guess that the conclusion is, if you want to win your league, you better focus on pitching ($31-$32 million) and defense (1s and 2s at 2B, SS, and CF) first. But if you want to put up over 100 wins, you better get the most mileage out of your $48-$49 million in hitting as well!

so in the end you need to be lucky in all aspects....player performance, division makeup and so on.

[quote:2ceaccc668]3. To win in '05, you must get the most mileage out of your pitching.
[/quote:2ceaccc668]

3. To win in '05, you must get the most mileage out of your [i:2ceaccc668] best pitchers[/i:2ceaccc668], be it relievers or SPs.

BTW, from the Al-Leiter lover, isn't there a shift of paradigm from going for low-hit-high-walks pitchers to selecting low-whip pitchers?

He's got a team by this name beating my brains out with like a 50-12 record, so I guess he might be on to something... :shock:

[b:67a7cac569]Penn:[/b:67a7cac569]

I'm a "luck follows preparation" guy. I recognize several of the best records teams managers (of the ones who used their screen names), and I know for sure they're not newbs. I would argue that first you have to know what you're doing, [i:67a7cac569]then[/i:67a7cac569] you have to catch a bunch of breaks going your way (HAL, opposing fields, division opponents, etc). I doubt a newb could win 100+ games just because he found himself on a long right tail of a bell curve in a large enough sample. HAL loves no one that much.

What would you argue was the reason for the success of the Canucks? I didn't really intend for this post to be a monologue, I was hoping some folks would pipe in with some more food for thought.

[b:67a7cac569]lucky:[/b:67a7cac569]

Why wouldn't you want good mileage out of your non-best pitchers too? I thought in the other thread you mentioned something about the success of a guy like Jerome Williams being key to the more successful record?

Also, regarding paradigm shifts...

I don't really select my teams with an eye on [i:67a7cac569]absolutes.[/i:67a7cac569] I hoped to express an opinion as to [i:67a7cac569]tendency[/i:67a7cac569]. That is, I still argue that a common factor I'm seeing in winning teams (however you might define that, I used CHAMPS teams I've played against) is the tendency for their pitchers to give up less hits, often much less, than the other teams in their league.

If I were forced to construct a Pitching Paradigm, the priorities might go something like this:

1. Low WHIP
2. Low Beane Count (fewer walks and homers surrendered)
3. Low total bases

However, how much better is RJ's WHIP over Odalis Perez'? Is it $10 million better? There's a value question that needs to be asked and answered.

With very few exceptions, the distribution of pitchers' salaries on winning teams is [i:67a7cac569]extremely[/i:67a7cac569] tight around that $31-32 million mark. Look at the home run records' teams. You'll see lots of taterage yielding 80 some wins. The $15-20 million (or less) pitching staff just doesn't hold up this time around like it did last year, at least in terms of [i:67a7cac569]winning[/i:67a7cac569].

So, to our Pitchers Paradigm, we have to add "pitchers who can win." Let's say you have Shea, two others in your division have Shea, and the other guy has Safeco. You know you can crush them with Villone, Haren, Mussina, Hampton, etc. The low WHIP, low Beane Count, low total bases thing is a lot less important in this situation.

Since you can expect the league to be somewhat more balanced, you have to make concessions in some areas to exploit others. I'll take Lowry and Haren whenever I can get them, even though they give up too many hits and too many walks to the weak side. But usually there's two or three teams that I can start a decent reverse against with better than average success (HAL permitting). None of this means I don't think that WHIP is important (even [b:67a7cac569]very[/b:67a7cac569] important).

So in absolute terms, yes, I think WHIP is a key statistic. But in a less black and white world, you still have to evaluate value (RJ for $12 or Leiter for $5?), divisional opponents' strengths and weaknesses, your home field advantage, and on and on. The goal is to win the most number of games, not discover a catch-all recipe for identifying and selecting pitchers. That's why I don't use a "ratings system" for choosing players, there are just too many variables to consider in any one leagues' set of particular circumstances, although I do agree that they can be very helpful if used correctly.

But I [b:67a7cac569]am[/b:67a7cac569] trying to argue for [i:67a7cac569]considerations[/i:67a7cac569], or tendencies, or anomalies, or whatever you want to call the less than precisely specific observations I've suggested looking at in 2005.

Lucky, you should have some insights to throw in the mix. What are you seeing this year, now that we're about half way to the new cards?

how abut with respect to such a card as johnson;s?/for that 13 whatever mill do you take him and work around your money parameters or pass???how many teams had rj?of the 10?

[b:b835ebb96d]Yomayoma:[/b:b835ebb96d]

Of the nine teams with the best records (you can see them in the Record Book section under "Team" in the Community tab), two had RJ, the Bombers and the Brawlers. So yes, you can still take RJ and fit your pitching salary in that $31-32 range. But you better be able to select those low dollar pitchers to match up well against your opponents! You don't want to bring too many Josh Beckett's to too many Shea gunfights!

[b:9961e8effd]PBTR:[/b:9961e8effd]

And thanks for ending my consecutive series streak too! :wink:

J-Pav,

I entirely agree that the recipe you provide is ONE great recipe to have a succesful team. I agree evenmore now that you accept low whip as an important feature.

The only two changes I would made to this PARTICULAR recipe is that it's not necessary to spend most of the 32M of your starters (not saying you said this, but it wasn't mentioned). That's why I provided the addenda :"get the most mileage from your best pitchers, be it SPs or relievers". The idea is that you have to get the most innings from your best pitchers. If your best pitchers are your relievers, then set up so your rotation so that all top relievers have close to 200 innings, and all SPs have less innings than usual. If on the other hand, your best pitchers are your *SPs, then try to have 300 innings out of your *SPs, and limit the number of innings from your cheap (and not good) relievers. If you have only one top-priced reliever, make sure that THIS reliever gets the load of the work in the bullpen.

The second change is that I am still not conviced you need def-2 or better in the middle part of the field, particularly in cf. I have personnally never hesitated to play with a cf-3. But I definitely agree that players with a range of 4 should not player anywhere except 3rd base and 1st base.

Now, while I generally agree with everything you wrote for ONE recipe, I still have to be convinced that it's the ONLY one recipe to have success. To give one example, it's highly counter-intuitive to ask a Coors team to have success AND to finish among the top three teams in eras and whips. Highly highly counter-intuitive as well that a Coors team should spend 32M on pitching. IMO, a Coors team that tries to do this is bound to have a miserable season---actually I know some did, and performed poorly.

For Coors team, the logic is to build a very strong offensive line-up, while maintaining decent pitching from 1st inning to 9th inning. This usually calls for increasing the bullpen, to make sure you have sufficient good relievers throughout the game. Given that you can have decent relievers for relative cheap price, I believe it's possible to have a decent pitching set-up for Coors at around 25M.

You will notice that the best team ever played the 2005 season (at least in terms of record) played in US cellular (a highly offensive field), finished with a 109-53 record, and spent only 27M on pitching. There is also a Coors team among the winningest team, and again 27M was spent on pitching. To me, I regard 27M as a upper bound. For the record, the US cellular team did finish second in the league in terms of era, but the league's era was exceptionally high. The Coors team finished seventh in era, above the league's average era.

For Petco teams and similarly low-offensive stadiums, one way to build a succesful team is the exact opposite: build the best starting rotation. There has been in the past teams playing in PacBell who had been able to draft the four best *SPs in the set. As a result, these teams would spend 37-39M on pitching (33-34M on *SPs, 3M on a decent closer, and 0.5M on all other pitchers). These teams ended up with very weak offense (around 40M), which had the paradoxical advantage that owners could maximize the bunt and hit-and-run strategies without worrying losing offensive power. These teams ended up with great success (over 95 wins every time I saw it in application). I didn't see this year in application this year, though, as it is harder to pick-up 4 top-notch *SPs.

[b:9f8d80e043]luckyman:[/b:9f8d80e043]

Yes! You have many excellent points.

Two short rebuttal notes...

1. I always thought WHIP was important, this wasn't a change from what I was saying earlier. I was simply saying that in order to achieve a low WHIP, this year you might be better served by minimizing the hits and especially the big hits at the expense of adding some walks. I never intended to imply that I was specifically looking for higher WHIP pitchers.

2. I never said there was only one recipe for success. In fact, I would concede that there are many, many strategies to pursue in SOM.

That being said, I'm looking at all the posts that request to "help my team." If someone wants help, here are the generalities to consider before the community builds you a team for you, which to me is missing the fun entirely.

As to the recipe, per se, I think that if you're hanging around the common tendencies we're pointing out, then you stand a dramatically improved chance of being successful. I played 3s and 4s last year all over the place, especially at SS and 2B. But this year, it's pretty hard to argue with twenty some teams all doing the same thing (and all winning championships). I'm not saying that you can't compensate for weaknesses on defense, just that if you do, you're doing something that winning teams aren't currently doing. So the battle may be a little more uphill.

Again, though, all excellent points, well made.