Secret Formula 2006

[J-Pav]

[b:467b1466fc]Sac Yankees[/b:467b1466fc]:

Thx for the post!

[quote:467b1466fc="Sacramento Yankees"] I bet that if you take the top ranked 50 players they will play 80% of their games in specialty parks, and the rest of the pack will play consideredably fewer. What would be fun is to do a couple of 80 Million one park only leagues just to wash out the ballpark factor as a meaningful stat and test some of the other theories.[/quote:467b1466fc]

I don't know that I agree with this, my experience has been that the better managers know how to play in most any ballpark environment. The SOM Tour consists of many of the better managers in unique ballparks, and many of the leagues I used to pool data were tour leagues (which tend to lean slightly more pitcher friendly than neutral). Check out the Tour Championship thread to see all of the leagues. That some folks have their "favorite" places to play though, is true.

[quote:467b1466fc="Sacramento Yankees"] Also, while it is true that good players know how to use the park, it is equally true that bad players play worse at specialty parks. Bad players try it and make big mistakes and get killed, (like using threes at ss and 2nd with a 30 million dollar starting rotation) they find that they have a better shot of winning 70 games at more neutral parks.[/quote:467b1466fc]

Avoiding the "Big Mistakes" is what this thread is all about; however, you would never learn the ins and outs of the game without a certain amount of trial and error.

[quote:467b1466fc="Sacramento Yankees"] On MM I also think it is the best example of using the deck in your favor. There are many more opportunities to get RH hitters and pitchers than LHers. In the autodraft, what happens to me in Shea or PNC is you get three or four LH parks in your league and wham you miss most of the top draft picks.

I would argue that there is more room for error in RH parks, simply because there is less demand for good players, particularly starting pitchers.[/quote:467b1466fc]

The 2006 set is definitely more RH friendly. If you go LH, you just need to know how to set up your autodraft card priorities to be [i:467b1466fc]the guy who gets [/i:467b1466fc]those key players. Again, experience plays a big role in the online game. Generally, the more teams you manage, the better you get at it, especially if you are really learning to distinguish between "mistakes" and "bad breaks," which isn't always easy.

[CHARLESBELL]

On the point that DeanTSC brought up regarding finding undrafted bargains, I experimented with a team in which I got 23 of the 25 players I drafted because most of them would not routinely show up on a draft list. I went specifically after doubles hitters who were not already sought after players.

I supported that strategy with a pitcher's park, a good SP rotation, a good value closer, and a modest pen. Interestingly, my draft pitching cost was $30.99M. I kept the faith with 2's at 2b/ss, but violated it in cf with a 3. You'll note that there is very little SLG on this team other than those doubles, and it's one of the lower OBP teams I have put together. This team also committed a lot of errors, and was not exceptionally fast for a pitcher's park team. Everything hinged on those doubles.

The team did extremely poorly in the first part of the season. A couple of players did not work out: Javier Vazquez was a bad choice and was killing me as the #4 SP, and Geoff Jenkins, as one of my most expensive hitters, was totally out of place and unproductive. Through the FA pool those two became John Patterson and Shawn Green, and things improved after that.

I am in position to get a playoff spot, but it's certainly not gauranteed as this team has yo-yo-ed back and forth a number of times. Some things went my way - the other division parks suited my team makeup pretty well (Comerica, Busch, metro), and the league insisted on sending lots of RH pitching at my lineup. I don't know what the record is for doubles in a season, but the team has 395 with 9 games to play.

Probably a fluke, but at least it's against the grain. Here's the team:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=12289

[J-Pav]

[b:f28435a137]Charlie[/b:f28435a137]:

Good luck in your stretch run!

[b:f28435a137]Aray[/b:f28435a137]:

Our next auto league drafts tonite. I'm hoping this year's theory holds up to the test. 100 wins like last year might be asking a bit much, but I haven't broken 90 too many times this year, so I'll be shooting for that.

More to follow...

[bomp helium]

Hello gentlemen:

I enjoyed this discussion, and of course you guys are probably right..."conventional wisdom" becomes just that because it works over a long period of time...mostly I'm just playing the devil's advocate and stirring the pot...just for fun, to throw a log on the fire and watch the sparks fly...but there does seem to be some evidence that indeed there is a SECRET FORMULA (tm) and that it may indeed be different at different parks and under different conditions...

some very interesting numbers have been produced by the Crunchers, each of whom i admire and would rather have as Giants' GM than Brian Sabean...I was to lazy and/or busy to do the homework myself, so thanks to those that did...but the point I really wanted to make was about the seductive qualities of numbers and statistics...they can be intoxicating, and intoxication does not always lead to truth...

Perhaps this TEAM game is about more than the raw accumulated numbers...to me (as a coach, player and SOM player), there's always been a mystery about baseball, some combination of factors that can make the whole definately better than the parts...I used to be a stats nut as a kid (thanks, SOM), but as i have aged and learned about life I've become decidely more mystical about things...nothing is ever simple in life...everything is layered, deep, and interconnected...

I would suggest that one of the more mystical aspects of baseball is "the lineup"...it seems to help a lineup greatly to have solid bats at the bottom of the order who will "turn the lineup over", allowing the top of the order to hit with men on base...but there is no statistic for "rallies extended"...I won't count up big rallies or provide any evidence for you (no time right now) but it is my humble impression that in 2005 I had Larkin in the middle of quite a few 4,5 and 6 run innings...my conjecture is that whatever offensive advantage he had over his compliment, Adam Everitt, may have been more than "the numbers" indicated...

of course, as I also mentioned, his poor defense could also extend a big inning as well (for the opposition)...

so i know my theories are ridiculous and absurd (Plato: "study the impossible"), but I'm only following the trail experience is paving for me...You should hear some of my other theories...Hollow Earth, anyone?...guess that's why I'm a novelist and not a science teacher...

Of course, Abner Doubleday (remember him?), was another mystical nutcase...he was on the board of directors of the Theosohphical Society and was a major force in the publication of H.P. Blavatsky's "Isis Unveiled" and "Secret Doctrine"...so indeed, baseball seems to have had a mystical side from its very inception...

enjoyed the discussion...good luck to all, and wishing you a mystical 2007 full of credits...

george

[MARCPELLETIER]

Okay, I read the whole thread, and I don't have much to add on my last post. I'm surprised that so many people buy this 32M-spent-on-pitching theory. Just for fun, I browsed a little, and here are some counter-examples to the 32M theory (the examples provided in this thread were incorporated):

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=1147

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=11597

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=11086

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=12205

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=1485

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=9423 (remeber that R.Johnson was part of this team until game 144)

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/playoffs/team_other.html?user_id=2702&stats=sim

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=8871

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=5005

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/playoffs/team_other.html?user_id=1930&stats=sim

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/playoffs/team_other.html?user_id=1844&stats=sim

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/playoffs/team_other.html?user_id=2090&stats=sim

ALL these examples either spend way over 32M on pitching (at least over 36M) AND played in a pitcher park OR spend way under 32M (at least under 26M) and played in a hitter park (I consider MM a hitter park considering that coaches adopt a line-up full of right-handed bats in that stadium, which is hitter-friendly for rh). While I browsed, I only saw ONE example of the contrary pattern (that is, spending 36M+ on pitching in an offensive park and spending 26M- on pitching in a pitcher ballpark) that was succesful enough to grab 90 wins.

To me, these examples are clear indicators that fitting your stadium with the right players---with offensive players in offensive stadiums, and with high-quality pitchers in a pitching stadium---is much more important than fixing a budget at a pre-required amount of money.

Of course, these examples do NOT show that you can't win in an extreme park by spending 32M on pitching (many examples of 32M teams could also be provided). The key, I should emphasize, is to grab the right players in the right stadium. Winning with a 32M team in an extreme park is possible if you can draft players that fit your stadium as well as a 36M+ team in Petco or a 25M- in an offensive stadium. But, as a general rule, it will be easier to find players that fit your stadium if you spend on pitching in a pitching-oriented stadium and offensive talent on an offense-oriented stadium.

(I emphasize: this is a general rule. When applied to particular cases, other things must be considered. For example, I believe that spending on 4 high-quality *SP in a pitching park is more efficient than spending on 5 high-quality non-* SPs. Blown saves are killers in pitching parks, and considerations must be taken to not accumulate blown saves, etc).

That said, I appreciate the 2006 upgrade of the 32M-spent-on-pitching formulated by J-Pav. The upgrade is that you have to spend more on your key players, that is those who will pitch the most innings or those who will be at the heart of your line-up. I believe in this insight. I have seen a few teams that spend 38M on pitching but had just spent too many dollars on the bullpen (that is, on their 7th and 8th pitcher in the structure proposed by J-Pav). Similarly, while this has a lesser impact, I do believe that you are betting to spend your doughs on the first 5 or 6 hitters, and spend only cents on the bottom third of your line-up (and concentrate those cents on defense). Spending your bottom third on a trio like Taveras, Hudson, and Everett is probably the best way to help your pitching AND free money to spend on those 140 RBIs producers.

I will take a few moments to explain why many coaches like J-Pav feel that (to quote him) "Nothing's more fun than our $20 million Ameriquest staff, but as you will later see, there is no surer route to mediocrity in 2006". As I said in an earlier post, I don't re-invent the wheel by saying you should spend your doughs on offense in a team that plays in a offense-oriented ballpark. That has been the strategy from the good whole days of TSN-STRAT, when we were stacking offensive lineups in Coors field and getting seasons over 110 wins (http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2001/team/team_other.html?user_id=17807). Why then this strategy is now percieved as detrimental? In these times, if you remember correctly, there were many extremely advantageous bargains in the pitching, but relievers were way too expensive. As a result, the strategy for those Coors teams was to pick-up the most pitching bargains and pack the rest of the team with 0.50M pitchers and relievers. When a few years later, TSN eliminated the bargains, but reduced too abrutly the prices of relievers, the strategy for Coors team was then to spend as little as possible on starters and rely on super-relievers. But again TSN made a change, this time by introducing a code that would precipitate relievers in becoming fatigued. These changes have produced an important change. You will lose if you adopt the pitching strategies of these good ol' days. You will lose if you rely on one or two super-relievers (due to the fatigue rule, unless of course you are deep in quality SPs) or if you rely on 0.5M starters (because they are waaaay too baaaaad). To be succesful today in an offensive-oriented park, you have much more cautious in getting enough pitching quality, at least three strong relievers and SPs in the 1.5-2M range, or maybe two strong relievers with better quality SPs (a R3 is then particularly useful). As a result, succesful teams in offensive-oriented teams probably must probably spend a minimum of 20M on pitching. So I suspect that many coaches that tried the old strategies have come up with empty hands. In fact, I have no doubt that a 32M pitching squad will probably have more success (all things considered) than a 10M squad in USCellular because of these new demanding weight on pitching. But if you can find the fine balance for pitching, somewhere between 20M and 25M, and spend wisely on offensive players, then I believe that this strategy will still be the most succesful in offensive-oriented ballparks.

[Coffeeholic]

[quote:108efa242b="J-Pav"][b:108efa242b] THE SECRET FORMULA[/b:108efa242b] (tm) [b:108efa242b]2006[/b:108efa242b]

Subtitle: [b:108efa242b]Coffeeholic[/b:108efa242b]...This One's For You

[/quote:108efa242b]

LOL! :lol:

J-Pav, is my pain that obvious?

Wish I had something constructive to add, but I've been scratching my head since March.

When you get a thread going on how to put together a .500% team, I'll be happy to chime in! :oops:

[Terry101]

Luckman,

Good links. The 32/48 is a good starting point. You probably should not vary from that too much, but, -and this is why this game is so interesting- there is no one way to win a chess game or a war or win the woman you want (although there are certain rules you do not want to break in war, in love and in Strat.) It would be interesting to hear how the war was won by using totally different strategies. For instance, I have spent as much as 40 mil on pitching (actually that was the most successful team for me)

And it is so much fun experimenting- 40 mil pitching in cell, a 4 SS or CF. Poor catching, great arms in the OF, endless BP strategies, and so forth.

Any examples of successful strategies that varied even more from the secret formula?

[MARCPELLETIER]

Hey Terry, that would a great team to observe.

(that said, it's always easier to analyze a season and a strategy AFTER the season than BEFORE the season, isn't it?)

[Terry101]

Exactly. You tend to concentrate on the successes and overlook similar teams that did not do so well. Here are two examples of 39-40 mil pitching teams:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=10294

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=4641