Secret Formula 2006

[nhsteven]

1. The DP is almost as important as the extra base.
2. I know having a better arm in RF over LF is true in RL, but how is that true in Strat? If anything, in Strat the LF arm may be more important since there are more RH hitters, hence more balls hit to LF.

[cummings2]

Steve, if memory serves me well in the Super Advanced Rules when running from 1B to 3B you increase the baserunner's rating by two if the throw comes from RF and if the throw comes from LF you decrease the baserunner's rating by 2. If I am correct about this then having a stronger arm in RF would make sense.

[nhsteven]

I didn't know that rule, but I still have the same opinion. Ij fact, one could argue that a -5 arm in LF, combined with a decrease of 2 in a runner's chances, would be quite a weapon.

[nhsteven]

When I see the name of this board I can't help but think of the PLANKTON character in SpongeBobSquarePants.

[cummings2]

J,

Sorry for the perhaps idiotic question but would you mind explaining me the "Beane count" -I believe that's how you have refered to it- I know its in relation to walks and HRs, I understand enough from the contextual references in which I've read it but I'm interested in the logic behind it.

C2

[J-Pav]

[b:e7d5abac52]C2[/b:e7d5abac52]:

If I remember correctly, the Beane Count is attributed to Rob Neyer (a sports columnist) who reported that net walks plus homers equals success.

Officially, the way to calculate it is to rank order the teams by offensive homers, offensive walks, homers allowed, and walks allowed (say one through 12, one being best). Then you add all four scores, so a score of four is the best you can get (first in each category). I have often reported a "shorthand" version, which is simply ranking the teams by net walks plus homers (that is, [b:e7d5abac52]not[/b:e7d5abac52] first ranking each individual team in all four categories to get the Beane Count score).

It is a frightening predictor of success. If you google [i:e7d5abac52]Rob Neyer[/i:e7d5abac52] and [i:e7d5abac52]Beane Count[/i:e7d5abac52], you'll get all kinds of information which indicates that the lower Beane Counts correlate extremely highly with winning (although of course, not perfectly), whether it be the pros, college, etc.

In past versions of SOM, the Beane Count used to be a great formula for highly successful team building; however, the stadium slants and efficient player pricing have made it not obsolete, but just less effective. Winning Petco teams rarely have strong Beane Counts (although some do). It works better with US Cell/Coors type teams (always has), but even then the shifting league stadium makeups blur things, and the value of walks (OBP) has been better priced into the game, so it's not the bargain it was in say 2004, when you could go wild with inexpensive, bargain priced players.

I still think about these things, I just usually think of it now in terms of an offensive WHIP (adding more hits as well as walks), instead of just adding more walks and homers to my team building strategeries.

[cummings2]

Thanks J,

I get it now, I've always felt that I am very low on "Beane Counts"

-I am almost sure of it now, without looking into the tour team I am sure I am dead last in all 4 catergories. I'll look into it and come back with some thoughts.

Thanks again.

[J-Pav]

[b:397e62aa12]C2[/b:397e62aa12]:

Don't read too much into it.

Here's the official Beane Count reading from my Secret Formula league (teams ordered by Beane Count, playoff teams in green):

1. Bombers 15.5 (77-85 record)
2. Wallbangers 18 (77-85)
3. Thrashers II 18.5 (79-83)
4. [color=green:397e62aa12]Formula 22 (88-74)[/color:397e62aa12]
5. [color=green:397e62aa12]SluGGerS 24 (78-84)[/color:397e62aa12]
6. Eastern 24 (83-79)
7. Globetrotters 28 (77-85)
8. [color=green:397e62aa12]Baseball Club31 29 (89-73)[/color:397e62aa12]
9. Fools 30 (83-79)
10. Dodgers 34 (73-89)
11. Mashers 34.5 (72-90)
12. [color=green:397e62aa12]Red 34.5 (96-66)[/color:397e62aa12]

As you can see, in this particular league, there was no method to the Beane Count madness, it's almost perfectly correlated around the [i:397e62aa12]opposite[/i:397e62aa12] expectation. Having said that, I have looked at other leagues which I have been in where the top four records were the four lowest Beane Counts with the CHAMP being the best/lowest of the four (ie, a perfect correlation).

I didn't plan on revisiting this thread (trying to mentally gear up for 2007), but since we're here, this is a shout out to [b:397e62aa12]Code Red[/b:397e62aa12] who won the Secret Formula league. While I managed a semi-finals appearance and loss (again), [b:397e62aa12]patreek[/b:397e62aa12] out-formulaed me with his 96 win RFK team (1-1-2 up the middle, best pitching in the league, $34 mil on top five offensive players with a salary construction very close to the winning profile which I've described).

In hindsight, I should've added a slanted stadium to increase my edge, but I did what I did. My pitching was top three all year until a week long horrible slump, but the slump is to be expected, so I guess it shouldn't have mattered.

In the Secret Formula vs. Anti-Secret Formula battle, I managed one more win than [b:397e62aa12]Doug[/b:397e62aa12] and a semi-finals loss. I can't tell who won the tiebreakers, so I don't know if he beat out [b:397e62aa12]Bigmahon[/b:397e62aa12] for the wildcard and a playoff appearance or not.

Thanks again to all who chimed in. This thread had a lot of good information and lots of longevity (although my community rating actually dropped some over the course of the dialogue!! So much for that. I guess I need to start more threads, not simply add more to one big one).

Thx All!

:D :D :D

[J-Pav]

Looking over the stats from the secret formula league, has anyone ever seen a league where [b:6ef44111e9]all nine non-division winners[/b:6ef44111e9] were within six games of the wildcard at the end of the season??? This has to be one of the most competitive leagues I've ever been a part of.

This may be the one key issue skewing the beane count, as the parity in the league erased a discernible edge in winning the net walks plus net homers game. The teams were simply too close statistically to see any visible difference between them. In the "thanks Bernie, now you tell me" column, the two Finals teams were lefty slanted by six in stadiums (1-9, 1-3 and 1-10, 1-4), while me and Baseball Club31 were neutral (1-10, 1-10 and 1-2, 1-2), which speaks to the inherent home field advantages posted by Bernie. With those edges gone in 2007, we will probably have an even more difficult time sorting out the skill from the chance next season! :wink: