The Secret Formula
Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:20 pm[b:50702609d7]How It All Started[/b:50702609d7]
I set out to build an experimental team that would take advantage of groundball pitchers. I went after A-Rod, Hudson and Rolen (or something like that) and followed that up on the autodraft card with Westbrook, Webb, Hudson, Lowe and Drese, all of whom have a groundball to flyball ratio over 2.20. This is a project that I wanted to pursue for two seasons now, and as it turns out, I still need to pursue to get it out of my system.
The autodraft came back perfectly and I got all five pitchers. The problem was, virtually every single opponent (especially in my division) was set up to kill hard righties, and looked very vulnerable to the reverses. So I completely scrapped my project, grabbed three stud relievers and Trachsel, Lowry and Haren, and coasted to 98 wins. I played in The Cell, but finished second in pitching with 32 million spent on pitchers (more than half of that on the three studs).
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2005/team/team_other.html?user_id=10796
I noticed I walked a ton of guys, very much against my Strat-O religion. But I had solid defense, hit my share of dingers and led the league by a decent margin in hits allowed.
[b:50702609d7]The Insight[/b:50702609d7]
:idea: Now it was time to review the CHAMPS teams from my 13 completed $80 million salary leagues. I went in with last years bias, half expecting to see net walks/homers paving the road to greatness again, and was completely baffled to discover the net walks/homers at a paltry +22 (as an aside, last years CHAMPS teams averaged WELL over +100).
The ranks of the CHAMPS teams in offense were entirely all over the map, but averaged out just below middle of the pack (6.53 out of twelve); however, in pitching (earned runs), the CHAMPS teams finished with a whopping 3.23 out of twelve (adjusted to 2.50 if you take away one single team that won with big offense and was last in pitching, just edging the best pitching team in a hard fought finals!)
Time to check the defense. Not some, not most, but ALL 13 teams had either a "1" or a "2" at SS and CF. At second base, again 1s and 2s, but a third of the teams played 3s successfully.
Pitching and defense win baseball games?
Hmmmmm.
[b:50702609d7]The Next Level[/b:50702609d7]
The average record of the CHAMPS teams is 90-72. They spent on average $21 million on starting pitching and $11 million on relievers, for a grand total of $32 million. This is interesting because this figure has popped up in a few other threads as something of an "ideal" ratio (ie, 60% hitting, 40% pitching).
The CHAMPS teams, in pitching, sported an average 4.05 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP (again it's all relative, but they usually finished in the top three in pitching regardless of the ERA and WHIP numbers). [i:50702609d7]But they are not getting it from net walks/homers.[/i:50702609d7] It appears that there is a bias toward giving up less hits at the expense of surrendering more walks.
[b:50702609d7]The Secret Formula[/b:50702609d7]
Last year, Jamie399 and I had a few back and forths about my net walks/homers philosophy (which was very successful for me last year). He seemed a little skeptical about it, because he was a successful pitchers park guy who focused on low on base, low total bases.
It looks like this year, that philosophy might be the more exploitable one. Nine of the 13 teams sampled allowed fewer hits than total innings pitched. Find pitchers who give up less than average hits, but who may or may not walk a few extra batters. Back them up with a tight middle infield defense to turn a few extra double plays from the surplus runners reaching first base.
Don't overspend in any one category...the CHAMPS teams rarely had more than "One Stud Starter" (and the invincible RJ was on only two of the 13 teams!)
My guess is, whoever best spends his $32 million on pitching stands the best chance to win the race. Luckyman mentioned this earlier in one of his posts, and what I see appears to agree entirely with his findings.
He said, "most of the added value was in pitching, not in offense. In other words, these teams had superior value for the money they spend on pitching, giving them lots of money to build good offenses."
[i:50702609d7]The offense appears to be much less relevant this year, largely because of a deeper pool of efficiently priced players. The secret lies somewhere with the pitching.[/i:50702609d7]
I would offer up to focus your attention not only on low on base, but more so on LOW total bases (backed up with sufficient defense). Maybe we should begin sifting the low ERA column before we zip right over to the WHIP column to sort through our pitchers.
Unfortunately, nothing visionary or profound, but for all those newbies out there trying to learn the game...
my two cents. 8)
I set out to build an experimental team that would take advantage of groundball pitchers. I went after A-Rod, Hudson and Rolen (or something like that) and followed that up on the autodraft card with Westbrook, Webb, Hudson, Lowe and Drese, all of whom have a groundball to flyball ratio over 2.20. This is a project that I wanted to pursue for two seasons now, and as it turns out, I still need to pursue to get it out of my system.
The autodraft came back perfectly and I got all five pitchers. The problem was, virtually every single opponent (especially in my division) was set up to kill hard righties, and looked very vulnerable to the reverses. So I completely scrapped my project, grabbed three stud relievers and Trachsel, Lowry and Haren, and coasted to 98 wins. I played in The Cell, but finished second in pitching with 32 million spent on pitchers (more than half of that on the three studs).
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2005/team/team_other.html?user_id=10796
I noticed I walked a ton of guys, very much against my Strat-O religion. But I had solid defense, hit my share of dingers and led the league by a decent margin in hits allowed.
[b:50702609d7]The Insight[/b:50702609d7]
:idea: Now it was time to review the CHAMPS teams from my 13 completed $80 million salary leagues. I went in with last years bias, half expecting to see net walks/homers paving the road to greatness again, and was completely baffled to discover the net walks/homers at a paltry +22 (as an aside, last years CHAMPS teams averaged WELL over +100).
The ranks of the CHAMPS teams in offense were entirely all over the map, but averaged out just below middle of the pack (6.53 out of twelve); however, in pitching (earned runs), the CHAMPS teams finished with a whopping 3.23 out of twelve (adjusted to 2.50 if you take away one single team that won with big offense and was last in pitching, just edging the best pitching team in a hard fought finals!)
Time to check the defense. Not some, not most, but ALL 13 teams had either a "1" or a "2" at SS and CF. At second base, again 1s and 2s, but a third of the teams played 3s successfully.
Pitching and defense win baseball games?
Hmmmmm.
[b:50702609d7]The Next Level[/b:50702609d7]
The average record of the CHAMPS teams is 90-72. They spent on average $21 million on starting pitching and $11 million on relievers, for a grand total of $32 million. This is interesting because this figure has popped up in a few other threads as something of an "ideal" ratio (ie, 60% hitting, 40% pitching).
The CHAMPS teams, in pitching, sported an average 4.05 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP (again it's all relative, but they usually finished in the top three in pitching regardless of the ERA and WHIP numbers). [i:50702609d7]But they are not getting it from net walks/homers.[/i:50702609d7] It appears that there is a bias toward giving up less hits at the expense of surrendering more walks.
[b:50702609d7]The Secret Formula[/b:50702609d7]
Last year, Jamie399 and I had a few back and forths about my net walks/homers philosophy (which was very successful for me last year). He seemed a little skeptical about it, because he was a successful pitchers park guy who focused on low on base, low total bases.
It looks like this year, that philosophy might be the more exploitable one. Nine of the 13 teams sampled allowed fewer hits than total innings pitched. Find pitchers who give up less than average hits, but who may or may not walk a few extra batters. Back them up with a tight middle infield defense to turn a few extra double plays from the surplus runners reaching first base.
Don't overspend in any one category...the CHAMPS teams rarely had more than "One Stud Starter" (and the invincible RJ was on only two of the 13 teams!)
My guess is, whoever best spends his $32 million on pitching stands the best chance to win the race. Luckyman mentioned this earlier in one of his posts, and what I see appears to agree entirely with his findings.
He said, "most of the added value was in pitching, not in offense. In other words, these teams had superior value for the money they spend on pitching, giving them lots of money to build good offenses."
[i:50702609d7]The offense appears to be much less relevant this year, largely because of a deeper pool of efficiently priced players. The secret lies somewhere with the pitching.[/i:50702609d7]
I would offer up to focus your attention not only on low on base, but more so on LOW total bases (backed up with sufficient defense). Maybe we should begin sifting the low ERA column before we zip right over to the WHIP column to sort through our pitchers.
Unfortunately, nothing visionary or profound, but for all those newbies out there trying to learn the game...
my two cents. 8)