Secret Formula 2006

[kukomon]

Is there anyone that had a over 40 mil or under 20 mil pitching teams that won over 90?

[MARCPELLETIER]

Well, thx you very much Terry. You just put in garbage my argument that teams in USCellular will not win with teams packed of pitching!!! :evil:

One thing funny: The few teams that I see succeed with your strategy ( I saw two others) all had Clemens.

I consider Fenway as a pitching stadium, so at least, the fact that you had a better record goes in the direction of my argument!! :wink: :D

[kukomon]

I had more fun with this team than any other team. 19.8 in pitching
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/playoffs/team.html?stats=sim

[CHARLESBELL]

[quote:f200e4e798="Tpassalac"]Is there anyone that had a over 40 mil or under 20 mil pitching teams that won over 90?[/quote:f200e4e798]

Not in 2006 for me, but here's a 2005 team with a $13.94M pitching staff and no pitcher over $2M in cost that went 92-70 and won the Championship.

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2005/team/team_other.html?user_id=14346

[MARCPELLETIER]

Tpassalac,

your link didn't work. Go at the stat page of your league, then click on your team, and then copy and paste the link here.

Charlie, these 13-2, 7.77 stats of Jones are quite something!!!

[kukomon]

sorry about that
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/playoffs/team_other.html?user_id=7088

[J-Pav]

[b:180024e8d2]Coffee[/b:180024e8d2]:

My subtitle had a double meaning. That you had posted some frustration with the 2006 cards and were seeking some answers (that I relate to, also) was part of it, but mostly I was raising a glass to the great dialogues of old, particularly the one about our "dream teams" that you started years back, which led to the first edition of the secret formula.

P.S. The dream team thread was second only to the one about how you almost burned the house down making dinner while you were working on your "computer baseball" team. To this day, still my favorite SOM story!

[b:180024e8d2]Luckyman[/b:180024e8d2]:

Here's your team:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=9423

Here's mine:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=9409


This matchup was decided in Game 7 of the Finals, where you prevailed. If you look at the teams, I think you can agree we both got to the same heaven in different ways.

We were both in pitcher's parks (my Petco to your Kaufmann), where I spent only $31.08 on pitching to your $40+ (w/ RJ). I was first in runs allowed with 9 less mil in pitching, although I was only 20 runs to the better (you were 2nd); however, offensively we were completely reversed, with your team outscoring mine by 106 runs with the lower salary allocated to hitters. In this instance, your low-slugging, low-dollar offense was way more productive than my more conventional set-up (but it's worth it to mention that I had to overcome a [i:180024e8d2]lot[/i:180024e8d2] of hate from HAL on Edmonds, Ordonez, Grudzielanek, Anderson and Everett).

What would a team look like if it had [i:180024e8d2]my pitching[/i:180024e8d2] and [i:180024e8d2]your hitting[/i:180024e8d2] with nine mil in the bank still to add to the line-up???

So round and round we go...

I think it's a bit misinterpreted that somehow I'm advocating that you MUST spend 32 mil on pitching. I'm only saying that when you add up all the numbers and divide, the number is 32. I totally concede that other amounts can win. The unanswered questions are how often? under what opposing ballpark conditions?

I tend to add up and divide all the opposing ballpark homers in any league I play. In 2006, the opposing ballparks were often something like lefty 1-9, righty 1-10. [b:180024e8d2]Worrier[/b:180024e8d2] posted leagues that were more offense oriented, and his averages bear out your argument for lower pitching salaries in that environment. But on balance, when you average everything out, you get $32 mil in an overall neutral environment. Any number you choose away from 32, you're putting yourself at additional risk which can only offset by the skill of the manager.

So any time you enter a league, you have to be prepared to be the only Petco with three Minute Maids and four US Cellulars. I would bet, more often than not, that those teams are never heard from again, no matter how clever the manager (of course, not saying it [i:180024e8d2]can't[/i:180024e8d2] be done). If you don't want to be at the mercy of the unknown ballparks, then neutral is the safer way to go (though admittedly not necessarily better).

[b:180024e8d2]Terry101[/b:180024e8d2]'s US Cellular team with the big pitching salary total is interesting. He had the only offensive ballpark in the whole league, but he created a pitcher's park team perfectly suited to the league environment and went 51-30 on the road. Most teams would love to win 50 at home (which he also [i:180024e8d2]almost[/i:180024e8d2] did)!

I think [b:180024e8d2]Spicki[/b:180024e8d2] and [b:180024e8d2]Worrier[/b:180024e8d2] and others, including me, agree with you that the pitching/offense salary split depends on the situation at hand (your ballpark and drafted players versus all the other ballparks and their drafted players). But, if we're creating a universal "formula" (even a not so secret one), it should work in the widest set of circumstances. I think $32 mil on pitching is the most [i:180024e8d2]forgiving[/i:180024e8d2] number, not a be all and end all magic number.

[b:180024e8d2]Tpassalac[/b:180024e8d2]:

Those numbers look like [b:180024e8d2]SOM 2003[/b:180024e8d2]! You didn't post your team from the statistics page, so I can't see the opposing teams from your link, but that was quite an outlier! Nice job!

* * * * **

Thanks to all who have visited and posted, the conversation's been a lot of fun. I recently drafted a Secret Formula 2006 team, called of course, [i:180024e8d2]Secret Formula[/i:180024e8d2]. [b:180024e8d2]Aray[/b:180024e8d2] and [b:180024e8d2]Altec1969[/b:180024e8d2] are in there as witnesses, so it'll be great to see how the theory holds up to the execution. After the league starts on Monday night, I'll post some more thoughts and a link to the team, so it can be observed and critiqued in real time. Hopefully I can beat last year's semi-final loss finish.

[CHARLESBELL]

[quote:1f9fdbd950="marcus wilby"]Tpassalac,

your link didn't work. Go at the stat page of your league, then click on your team, and then copy and paste the link here.

Charlie, these 13-2, 7.77 stats of Jones are quite something!!![/quote:1f9fdbd950]

Jones has always been a "load the bases with no outs and turn a 10-5 game into a 10-9 game before getting the final out" kind of closer. Pepto bismal, anyone? Only on this team he turned games we were losing 8-4 into 14-12 wins. :wink:

Edmond also went down with a 15 game injury around the 140 game mark and still hit 58 homers and drove in 180. Might have broken the 200 RBI mark if he hadn't gotten hurt (missed 23 games total).

PS - I was very lucky to beat Coffee in the Finals - he was up 3-1 with RJ on the mound for game #5. Sunny Kim beat RJ 2-0 and I swept the rest of the way.

[MARCPELLETIER]

J-Pav,

I understand your argument, and your caution that you can still win outstide that framework. I also say that you can win outside the framework I propose. But this basic idea, that you reiterated in your last post that:

[quote:8a87953f44]Any number you choose away from 32, you're putting yourself at additional risk which can only offset by the skill of the manager.
[/quote:8a87953f44]

is precisely against which I oppose. I say the opposite: if you play at Petco, any number away from 36M puts you at risk, and in USCellualar, any number away from 26M puts you at risk.

Thus, in comparing your Petco team to my Kauffman team, I claim that your team was at greater risk to not succed compared to mine. The fact that I outscored your team by about 120 runs while allowing only 40 more, I would advocate, support my point.

[J-Pav]

[quote:2b8365b3f3="marcus wilby"] Thus, in comparing your Petco team to my Kauffman team, I claim that your team was at greater risk to not succed compared to mine. The fact that I outscored your team by about 120 runs while allowing only 40 more, I would advocate, support my point.[/quote:2b8365b3f3]

I understand your point, but this example supports exactly the [i:2b8365b3f3]opposite[/i:2b8365b3f3] of what you're saying. I spent 9 mil less in pitching salary than you did, but had the fewer runs allowed.

Theoretically, my team should have been more productive in runs scored than yours, because I had the 9 mil dollar surplus to allocate to hitting. That I wasn't more productive in the overall offensive category (runs scored) when we look only at my team versus your team probably had more to do with our divisional alignments. Your division had three teams under .500, my division had three teams over .500.

Regardless, both of our teams made the playoffs, so in the end all is well that ends well.