Let's get the Champions League Off the Ground-check in here
by MARCPELLETIER » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:52 am
C'mon Woods, don't put gas on the fire.
I mention uncleny by mistake---for one sec, I wasn`t sure if he or teepack was the commish.
I mention uncleny by mistake---for one sec, I wasn`t sure if he or teepack was the commish.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by RiggoDrill » Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:52 am
So far your theory is working [b:0f096f92d9]Woods [/b:0f096f92d9]- nice start! I agree about Percival and M.M. is definitely the right park for Pujols & Beltre. ...only 141 games to go. :P
- RiggoDrill
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by uncle ny » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:16 am
[quote:7fcf63fd98="Woods007"]Hey Wock, Uncle needs your help, he spillled his water on his foot and he...is....melting.....oh, my.....prettty, oh, my.....pretty....i am melting!
oops, wrong movie! lol!
Go Jedi Knights![/quote:7fcf63fd98]
woods once again proves my point so well himself that i don't need to elaborate and similarly make an a$$ of myself.
As for the 200 IP rule, it was never mentioned and no one brought it up. And the official penalty for reliever abuse in the "regular season tour" is loss of 10 tour points, obviously not relevant. I don't think we can impose the restriction at this point (after 21 games). Just my $0.02.
oops, wrong movie! lol!
Go Jedi Knights![/quote:7fcf63fd98]
woods once again proves my point so well himself that i don't need to elaborate and similarly make an a$$ of myself.
As for the 200 IP rule, it was never mentioned and no one brought it up. And the official penalty for reliever abuse in the "regular season tour" is loss of 10 tour points, obviously not relevant. I don't think we can impose the restriction at this point (after 21 games). Just my $0.02.
- uncle ny
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:33 pm
on riggo's comment, regarding platoons and ck team:
I definitively think that it usually pays to have platoons, but you have to find very good platoons, and they are not so easy to find. In ck22 case, Nixon + Giambi is absolutely great, one of the best, especially if the injuries can be managed intelligently. Mohr + Bocachicca appears quite costly for what will be expected from them; could be a good platoon if Mohr and Bocachica have more playing time than what a platoon usually provides. Mueller + Chipper is a bit in the same situation: quite costly (5M) for the production limited to a platoon. Given that only one of the two last platoons should get higher expected time, the conclusion is that at least one of them is too costly. Finally, Hollandsworth+ Hammonds : bad platoon, because Hollandswoth is not worth the price, and Hammonds will face too many rhp relievers.
Also, having 4 platoons is probably too many. In a non-dh league, of course, my judgment would be completely different. The increased number of pinch-hitting provides a strong case for having several platoons. But not in dh-leagues.
Thus, overall in ck22 case, I think that the positive and negative values in his platoon will cancel each other, and will probably not explain on its own the losing record that cristano is heading for.
Personally, there a few points that I don't like about this team, after reflections.
First, I'm not a fan of Schmidt in Coors during the regular season. I just don't think it's worth having a 9M in coors. There is simply too many men on bases to prevent Schmidt from being hooked early in too many games. In my opinion, if you can't get 300 innings from your 8-9M SP, it's not worth having him. Further, it's much easier in Coors to maximize innings from your relievers than from your SP, so I believe it makes more sense to build on relievers, a bit in the way spicki did, but for a more extreme stadium that the one he was forced to rely on.
Also, I am not sure if four relievers will be sufficient for ck. That was precisely the reason behind my "Coors experiment" in league 7. I tried 4 relievers all season long, precisely to estimate the number of games lost by lack of fresh relievers. The reason I did this was that I am still not sure how the new implemented "fatigue system" works out. So I wanted to have a clear idea of the numbers of relievers I would need in case I would go with an extreme offensive park this season. The experiment was cristal-clear. My whip for my bullpen was at least 0.25 higher than expected; numbers of hrs allowed were much higher too. And I could pointed out at least 10 games in which the lack of fresh quality bullpen prevented my team from a winning comeback.
That bullpen got me some wins too, given its quality, but I believe it explained the relative poor record 84-78 despite a strong offensive performance. I finished last in era, whereas, in days before the new "fatigue-system" was implemented, I used to finish fifth or sixth in league's era with a similar composition. The 150 runs allowed between my last place era and my usual 6th position of the past represents a 15 win margin, just like my record (84-78, compared to my usual 100 wins of the past for Coors teams).
That being said, there are some differences between the pitching staff of ck and my "experiment" team. In the case of ck, he has Schmidt, whereas I only had cheap SPs, so the overall impact of a lack of fresh arms from the bullpen will be reduced.
The question then becomes: will ck be able to get over 300++ innings from Schmidt AND manage such that his razor-thin bullpen never (or rarely ) needs to pitch on tired arms, or will he miss innings from a fresh bullpen due to a shortage of SPs innings including from Schmidt?
I definitively think that it usually pays to have platoons, but you have to find very good platoons, and they are not so easy to find. In ck22 case, Nixon + Giambi is absolutely great, one of the best, especially if the injuries can be managed intelligently. Mohr + Bocachicca appears quite costly for what will be expected from them; could be a good platoon if Mohr and Bocachica have more playing time than what a platoon usually provides. Mueller + Chipper is a bit in the same situation: quite costly (5M) for the production limited to a platoon. Given that only one of the two last platoons should get higher expected time, the conclusion is that at least one of them is too costly. Finally, Hollandsworth+ Hammonds : bad platoon, because Hollandswoth is not worth the price, and Hammonds will face too many rhp relievers.
Also, having 4 platoons is probably too many. In a non-dh league, of course, my judgment would be completely different. The increased number of pinch-hitting provides a strong case for having several platoons. But not in dh-leagues.
Thus, overall in ck22 case, I think that the positive and negative values in his platoon will cancel each other, and will probably not explain on its own the losing record that cristano is heading for.
Personally, there a few points that I don't like about this team, after reflections.
First, I'm not a fan of Schmidt in Coors during the regular season. I just don't think it's worth having a 9M in coors. There is simply too many men on bases to prevent Schmidt from being hooked early in too many games. In my opinion, if you can't get 300 innings from your 8-9M SP, it's not worth having him. Further, it's much easier in Coors to maximize innings from your relievers than from your SP, so I believe it makes more sense to build on relievers, a bit in the way spicki did, but for a more extreme stadium that the one he was forced to rely on.
Also, I am not sure if four relievers will be sufficient for ck. That was precisely the reason behind my "Coors experiment" in league 7. I tried 4 relievers all season long, precisely to estimate the number of games lost by lack of fresh relievers. The reason I did this was that I am still not sure how the new implemented "fatigue system" works out. So I wanted to have a clear idea of the numbers of relievers I would need in case I would go with an extreme offensive park this season. The experiment was cristal-clear. My whip for my bullpen was at least 0.25 higher than expected; numbers of hrs allowed were much higher too. And I could pointed out at least 10 games in which the lack of fresh quality bullpen prevented my team from a winning comeback.
That bullpen got me some wins too, given its quality, but I believe it explained the relative poor record 84-78 despite a strong offensive performance. I finished last in era, whereas, in days before the new "fatigue-system" was implemented, I used to finish fifth or sixth in league's era with a similar composition. The 150 runs allowed between my last place era and my usual 6th position of the past represents a 15 win margin, just like my record (84-78, compared to my usual 100 wins of the past for Coors teams).
That being said, there are some differences between the pitching staff of ck and my "experiment" team. In the case of ck, he has Schmidt, whereas I only had cheap SPs, so the overall impact of a lack of fresh arms from the bullpen will be reduced.
The question then becomes: will ck be able to get over 300++ innings from Schmidt AND manage such that his razor-thin bullpen never (or rarely ) needs to pitch on tired arms, or will he miss innings from a fresh bullpen due to a shortage of SPs innings including from Schmidt?
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:26 pm
I'm glad that everybody loves my team, but the team has underperformed so far. What I dislike about my record is that it came in a period where my team stayed away from injuries. I wish I had been 14-7 in such a free-injury period.
My record is due to one single outlier stat: homeruns allowed.
41 allowed in 21 games, despite playing 12 at my place. Prior giving 7 in 10 innings. Santana leading the league in hr allowed.
I just hope that this trend will slow down, because otherwise, I don't see my team having a winning record with a 1:3 hr ratio vs my colleagues.
My record is due to one single outlier stat: homeruns allowed.
41 allowed in 21 games, despite playing 12 at my place. Prior giving 7 in 10 innings. Santana leading the league in hr allowed.
I just hope that this trend will slow down, because otherwise, I don't see my team having a winning record with a 1:3 hr ratio vs my colleagues.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by mesquiton » Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:04 pm
Guys, since there seems to be some lack of consensus, I've sent teepack an IM requesting an official opinion on the 200 IP rule (or not), but don't know if he'll see it. If anybody is in touch with him, seems like it might be a good idea to get this settled sooner than later....
- mesquiton
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to --- Player's Championship
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests