The Secret Formula 2008

[J-Pav]

[size=24:9ce66eb922][b:9ce66eb922]The Secret Formula (tm) 2008[/b:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]

[i:9ce66eb922]"The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have in this world is to discover new truths; and the next is to shake off old prejudices."

- Frederick The Great[/i:9ce66eb922]



Welcome all to the fifth installment of The Secret Formula, version 2K8. There appear to be lots of frustrated posts on the boards, so hopefully this will get out to those who are new to the game, those taking a peek from their fantasy or rotisserie leagues or simply those who want to see SOM Online from a slightly different perspective. While there are some new names who are becoming regulars on the boards, we can never have enough new blood to fill both HAL's coffers with cash and the veterans' accounts with credits!

For those who are new to The Secret Formula, this post began five seasons ago, sprung from a thread about "creating your Dream Team." It has evolved from a simple [i:9ce66eb922]"How much salary should be spent on pitching?"[/i:9ce66eb922] argument into a more detailed look at what makes for a successful SOM Online team. Sun Tzu meets fifth grade math, if you will.

SOM Online is a very unique product, which I have enjoyed enormously over the past six or so years. It is deceptively difficult to master, frustratingly so because it appears to look so easy. Hopefully some of what follows will allow the newcomer to gather some basics, yet still allow the veteran a chance to capture a new insight or two.


[size=18:9ce66eb922][b:9ce66eb922]I. PITCHING[/b:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]


[i:9ce66eb922]"Our pitching staff is a conspiracy of ifs."

- Branch Rickey[/i:9ce66eb922]



Long ago we had already worn out the argument about how much salary should be allocated to pitching. I have always recommended the $30-32 mil figure, while others argued in favor of other numbers. Because it was sort of confrontational to say [b:9ce66eb922]"THIS IS THE NUMBER,"[/b:9ce66eb922] we had many lively and opinionated forum discussions. While it's fun to argue sometimes, this year I'm just reporting what I have noticed, without most of the additional blather. Feel free to voice a counterpoint, just be prepared to back it up with some fifth grade math. Please, no "Peavy has a 5.30 ERA for me in my first Strat-O league, this game sucks" posts.

In 2008, I found there are basically two camps with regard to pitching: those who spend about $20 mil on pitching and those who spend about $30 mil on pitching. After surveying 20 of the best records teams this year (ten autoleague teams and ten tour teams), three successful styles of starting pitching emerged for study: [i:9ce66eb922]The Low Budget Staff[/i:9ce66eb922], [i:9ce66eb922]The Three Stud Starters Staff[/i:9ce66eb922] and [i:9ce66eb922]The Secret Formula Salary Construction Staff[/i:9ce66eb922].

[b:9ce66eb922]The Low Budget Staff[/b:9ce66eb922]

This staff consists of starting pitchers (SPs) costing generally no more than $3.99, but usually utilizing those players in the $2.00 range. One-fourth of successful managers chose this option, with total starting pitching salary budgets at or near $10.00 mil total. Often times you will see this staff in the big hitter's parks, teams loaded up with Fielder, Ortiz, Pena and the like. A-Rod is held in high regard on these teams.

[b:9ce66eb922]The Three Stud Starters Staff[/b:9ce66eb922]

Another one-fourth of successful managers utilized this option, which usually resulted in total starting pitching budgets of $20-25 mil. As the name suggests, three stud starters would be SPs in the high $5.00 range all the way up to Jake Peavy, with a low budget fourth and/or fifth starter mixed in. This staff haunts the pitcher's parks, teams built around OBP, extra base hits and defense.

[b:9ce66eb922]The Secret Formula Salary Construction Staff[/b:9ce66eb922]

One-half (a strong majority) of successful managers used this option, which looks something like this:

1. $6.00
2. $4.73
3. $3.72
4. $2.38
5. $1.42

and sometimes adding a sixth starter at around a buck ($19-20 mil total SP).

This is the salary construction chart (arithmetic averages) of each starting pitcher position across all 20 best records teams. Half used * SPs and half used (no *) SPs, so that mattered very little in the overall scheme of things. In fact, several teams used two or three * SPs mixed in among either one-sided, match-up specialists or low budget value starters. You probably see this type of staff more often because (A.) this strategy works well in both types of parks, and (B.) it's more easy to patch this together from the free agent pool, because the best pitchers from the other two strategies have often already been selected in the autodraft.

So there are quite a few different options available to the online manager looking for a pitching edge.

With regard to relief pitching, the salary construction chart looks like this:

1. $4.34
2. $2.67
3. $1.71
4. $0.94
5. $0.50

Virtually all 20 teams were right around this particular model, resulting in a relief pitching budget consistently near $10.00. Sometimes teams would spend up for the $6.00 closer, they would subsequently just lower the other four or five relief spots accordingly.

The end result is that we are still seeing $28.88 spent overall on pitching (36.1% of $80 mil) on balance, the exact figure we would expect to see based on the statistics of the [url=http://andrew-stevens.tripod.com/index/stratfield.html][color=darkred:9ce66eb922][u:9ce66eb922]cards[/u:9ce66eb922][/color:9ce66eb922][/url]. My survey of these 20 best records teams revealed that the tour teams averaged three dollars more spent on total pitching, about a dollar more for starters and two dollars more for relievers. I don't know if this was a big enough sample to mean anything or not, I'm just reporting that the tour teams I looked at tended to look like $31.00 total ($19 SP/$12 RP), while autoleague managers used $28.00 total ($18 SP/$10 RP), all on their way to having the best record in their particular league.


[size=18:9ce66eb922][b:9ce66eb922]II. HITTING[/b:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]


Those familiar with this post already understand what I mean by salary construction. For those that do not understand, I simply rank order all the salaries from high to low and average them out across the board to see "[i:9ce66eb922]How much salary is spent on the highest salary player? The second highest? The third?[/i:9ce66eb922]" and so on.

The Secret Formula Salary Construction Hitting Chart for 2008 looks like this:

1. $9.08
2. $7.63
3. $6.78
4. $5.90
5. $5.03
6. $4.15
7. $3.47
8. $2.73
9. $1.69
10. $1.11

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on hitting here, because I'll talk more about this in the next section as well. But if you looked at the 20 teams I looked at this year, you'd see that only one team in four had a guy at the $10 mil or more salary range.

How are you building your offense?

Once the offense is set, newer managers sometimes over-obsess on how they should set their line-ups. If you google "baseball line-up analysis" (and related topics) and research through it a little, you soon discover that line-up analysis is basically irrelevant (with an asterisk). The Old Guard might remember [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXbboC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=web&ots=JAt5Yi3Hb4&sig=fcRSw-50dA01tpOpKFq9y6bcIis&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result][color=darkred:9ce66eb922][u:9ce66eb922]Billy Martin[/u:9ce66eb922][/color:9ce66eb922][/url] once drawing names out of a hat to break a Tiger slump (in 1972).

The asterisk is because, although it's basically irrelevant, it's not totally irrelevant. It assumes you are not being completely careless. Setting a batting order with low OBP leading off and ascending to the highest OBP batting last is self-destructive. Batting A-Rod ninth is self-destructive.

So here's the [url=http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py][color=darkred:9ce66eb922][u:9ce66eb922]Baseball Musings Line-Up Analyzer[/u:9ce66eb922][/color:9ce66eb922][/url].

This is how I use it, demonstrated with my [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=149581&stats=sim][color=darkred:9ce66eb922][u:9ce66eb922]Secret Formula Theory in Action team[/u:9ce66eb922][/color:9ce66eb922][/url]:

Go to the SOM Ratings Book.

Jot down your "versus RHP" line-up, and write down the corresponding ratings for OB and TB for each player (of course, do the lefty line-up too, but for now...)

Sizemore (41.8, 33.1)
Ramirez, H (40.8, 50.7)
Mauer (42.0, 42.5)
Holliday (46.4, 60.4)
Loney (35.4, 51.0)
Guzman (43.6, 52.9) <= (you noticed that, eh?)
Salazar (35.3, 40.1)
Castillo (40.0, 30.9)
Iwamura (37.1, 39.3)

Convert these into decimals by dividing the ratings numbers into 108. It's an inexact science in that it fails to take into account the 108 on the pitcher's side; however, whatever number would go on the pitcher's side is the same for all hitters, so it just cancels itself out of the equation. All the hitter's are just overestimated by some unknown (but equal) amount.

You end up with this (OB - TB):

Sizemore (.387 - .306)
Ramirez, H (.378 - .469)
Mauer (.389 - .394)
Holliday (.430 - .559)
Loney (.328 - .472)
Guzman (.404 - .490) <= (you noticed that, eh?)
Salazar (.327 - .371)
Castillo (.370 - .286)
Iwamura (.344 - .364)

Plugging this into our magic analyzer:

It says a lineup of...

1. Mauer
2. Holliday
3. Sizemore
4. Ramirez, H.
5. Guzman
6. Loney
7. Iwamura
8. Salazar
9. Castillo

...should be good for 5.637 runs per game (over 900 runs per season). Yes, it's somewhat optimistically inflated, but consistently so.

Also, don't get too over-excited about these numbers because (A.) you should only use the analyzer as your starting point, and (B.) as long as your best hitters bat one thru five, generally with the top OBP guy leading off and the top slugger batting fourth or fifth, none of the rest really even matters anyway. It's something akin to deciding between the dark blue socks and the navy blue socks with regard to the rest of the line-up.

I'll throw [url=http://actasports.com/sow.php?id=110][color=darkred:9ce66eb922][u:9ce66eb922]this[/u:9ce66eb922][/color:9ce66eb922][/url] in again, from last year's post.

All I'm really looking for from the analyzer is to make sure my line-up is over five and change, just to reassure myself that I didn't make some huge blunder in selecting my offensive players, which is usually symptomatic of low OBP.

So stop agonizing over where to put Kicky Nobats in the order. If he sucks, bat him in the bottom half. If he's good, bat him in the top half.

End of story.


[size=18:9ce66eb922][b:9ce66eb922]III. MIDDLE DEFENSE[/b:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]


To say that strong middle defense in SOM Online continues to be a cliche would be a vast understatement (Wait! You can't start a sentence with a preposition!)

Best record team practice continues to demonstrate the preference for strong-range, low-error middle fielders:

2B: [b:9ce66eb922]2e7 avg[/b:9ce66eb922] (Best to worst range is 1e12 thru 3e12 -hey, that's [i:9ce66eb922]me[/i:9ce66eb922]!)
SS: [b:9ce66eb922]2e18 avg[/b:9ce66eb922] (Best to worst range is 1e10 thru 3e31 - that's me, [i:9ce66eb922]again[/i:9ce66eb922]!)
CF: [b:9ce66eb922]2e4 avg[/b:9ce66eb922] (Best to worst range is 1e1 thru 3e9 - what do ya know, [i:9ce66eb922]mine too[/i:9ce66eb922]!)

These are the defensive averages over all 20 teams! That's pretty low, my friends, especially given my personal penchant to categorically ignore these suggestions.

Over the 20 secondbasemen, two managers chose 1s, 16 managers chose 2s and two managers chose 3s (one of those 3s was mine!)

Over the 20 shortstops, seven managers selected 1s, eight chose 2s and five chose 3s (three of those 3s were mine!)

Over the 20 centerfielders, twelve managers selected 1s, two chose 2s and six utilized 3s (only one of those 3s was mine!)

What would the averages be if I [i:9ce66eb922]hadn't[/i:9ce66eb922] included some of my own teams??

Because the defense appeared so strong and stood out so acutely, I did a drive-by on 3B, 1B and C to see if the strong D thing spilled over to there as well.

3B: 2 or 3 (e17) avg
1B: 2 or 3 (e9) avg
C: 2 or 3 (e3) avg

The majority of managers chose 3s at these positions, with bell curve-like selections dropping around either side of 2.5 mixed in from there. So no big thing outside the middle fielders. Whew.

I routinely eschew the strong middle defense thing for error-prone 3s. All I can tell you is that it works for me.

This leads me to present the following section:


[b:9ce66eb922][size=18:9ce66eb922][color=blue:9ce66eb922]The Curious Case of Cristian Guzman[/color:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922][/b:9ce66eb922]


[i:9ce66eb922]"Attack is the best form of defense."

- Proverbs[/i:9ce66eb922]



One or two formula posts ago, I think it was [b:9ce66eb922]helium[/b:9ce66eb922] who talked about "turning over the batting order." I was never sold on those wacky "all 4s" teams, but over time I've come to appreciate the idea of having nine batters who are threats to produce runs. Like most of the Old Guard, I used to like having seven bangers and a low budget 1e10 in two of the three middle fielder positions. Over time, it became apparent to me that it was more important to have lesser quality defenders who could score some runs, than cling too hard to the old strong defense theory, because for a long time my teams were simply not producing enough net runs to win games.

Last year when I switched from 1s and 2s to 3s at the middle infield positions, my winning pct shot upward. This year it's more of the same. I use Utley, Easley, Young and Guzman all the time now, although I mix it up out of boredom once in a while. That's not how these other best records teams do it, but for some reason it works for my teams. Just goes to show you that one small wrinkle can change the entire dynamic for you. Why not try something a little different?

How good is Cristian Guzman ($2.78 3e31 SS)?

I took six seasons (not all mine) from Guzman and found he averaged a .314 batting avg, .381 obp, and a .454 slg pct (that's [b:9ce66eb922].835 OPS[/b:9ce66eb922], gentle readers).

To contrast, Derek Jeter averaged .292/.359/.403 (.762 OPS) over six seasons.

One more perspective (for the Old Guard), shows Omar Vizquel with a mind numbing .205/.257/.257 (.514 OPS) over six seasons (actually though, it's not that bad overall as you will soon see).

Who is the better buy?

If you set all three SS to 600 at bats, Guzman will get you roughly 92 runs (and 78 RBI), Jeter 94 runs (and 64 RBI) and Vizquel 54 runs (and 49 RBI). Subtract out the defense (Guzman minus 32 runs, Jeter minus 18 and Vizquel minus 6) and you see that Guzman will usually get you 60 net runs (after defense is factored in), Jeter gets you 76 and Vizquel about 48. But Guzman also drives in an awful lot of runs when runners are on base in front of him, as you would expect from his batting stats.

Now we have to factor in that 5 injury thing.

Typically, Guzman will get you about 2/3 of Jeter's at bats. But for 2/3 of the season, you get a mini-Jeter for 39% of the asking price. Mix in Eckstein, Uribe, Furcal, Theriot or Ryan and you get over 100 runs scored from a sub-$4.00 SS platoon.

I do recognize there's a value argument to be made for Vizquel's $1.90 gold glove, but how many rallies is he going to kill for you while hitting under the Mendoza line? And just how many games exactly does that glove actually win for you? My suggestion would be to mix him in only when you already have a strong hitting team. If he's the third or fourth all glove-no bat guy in your lineup, he's probably hurting you much more than he's helping you. Me, I'll take that .314/.381/.454 line every time, defense be damned. Like Frederick The Great says, [i:9ce66eb922]"He who defends everything defends nothing."[/i:9ce66eb922]

In addition, I also do pay attention to Guzman's errors, and I know the 3 range hurts as well. But sometimes you can dance thru the dice minefield (one manager got over 500 at bats and 90 runs scored out of Guzman. I saw him commit only 15 errors once while making it through more than 2/3 of a season for me). What I like is that I get a guy who scores runs, but more importantly [i:9ce66eb922]drives in runs and keeps you moving through the batting order 4-5 times per game[/i:9ce66eb922] at that low dollar price you need as part of your overall salary construction. If I can get Jeter, I typically take him. If I can't, I like Cristian Guzman.

So please, when you're in a league with me, take someone else and leave Guzman off your waiver picks. He's mine.

FWIW, among the 20 best record teams, Guzman and Reyes were selected three times each, Jeter, Cabrera, McDonald and Vizquel two times each, and the rest had Rollins, Young, Furcal, Tejeda, Betancourt and Greene. Not much of a consensus. So if it really doesn't matter all that much anyway, why not experiment a little?


[size=18:9ce66eb922][b:9ce66eb922]IV. SCORE RUNS AND DO NOT ALLOW RUNS[/b:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]


Okay, it's a cheesy section, but I'll lob in another opinion piece here.

Salary construction is extremely important in SOM Online (not necessarily as I write about it, just referring to the overall allocation of salary dollars to your players). I think the reason is this: you need to average scoring about five runs a game while only allowing four runs per game to be successful. In effect, you are buying net runs per game. Can you do it with nine $5 guys? Three $10 guys and six $3 guys? You decide.

I think for some less experienced managers, it becomes something of a siren call to think that "If I need to score five runs, trying to get six would make my team better, so I'll just [i:9ce66eb922]buy more offense[/i:9ce66eb922]." It's a siren call because to try and score six runs a game by spending $64 mil on hitters, in my opinion, just does not get you where you need to be (and while we're at it, assuming you're going to score six runs a game in the first place is probably being overly generous, because even at $60+ mil it's very hard to score that much more than five or so runs per game anyway). And, I believe that a $16 mil staff is simply too risky of a proposition (statistically speaking). It's quite hard to keep your ERA around four with so little salary allocated to pitching. So your offensive six runs per game becomes a five, your pitching four becomes a five, and you end up at .500 if you're lucky, and [i:9ce66eb922]usually[/i:9ce66eb922] much, much worse.

What you end up with is a "throwing away salary" problem, because too much of a good thing usually leads to a corresponding too little of the other thing. Remember the Guzman stuff in the last chapter? I'll tell you now, he's not the only underpriced card out there. Don't be afraid to take a calculated chance on a low budget player. Mix in those guys on the low end of the salary construction spectrum. Most $3.00 cards get you $3.00 stats. But if you spend some time, you can find a $2 vs RHP/$1 vs LHP platoon that can get you $6.00 card stats. Same with an injury card guy. Work harder at selecting your low dollar players. I've never used him and I'm not advocating using him here (because I don't like his card), but I saw one manager squeeze 100 runs scored from Johnny Damon. That's working the low end.

Purchase the [url=http://www.strat-o-matic.com/sphere/rb2004.htm][color=darkred:9ce66eb922][u:9ce66eb922]Strat-O-Matic Baseball Ratings Book[/u:9ce66eb922][/color:9ce66eb922][/url]. I buy it every year and stare at the pages on planes, trains and in automobiles and bathrooms long before the new season starts. This is where you find the hidden gem player's cards, especially among the low season at-bats guys.

Use $50 mil to find a way to score five runs. Use $30 mil to surrender less than four. Build your offensive WHIP - get those walks and hits that when divided by your innings pitched get you a [b:9ce66eb922]1.50[/b:9ce66eb922] rating. Keep your own pitching WHIP at [b:9ce66eb922]1.35[/b:9ce66eb922] or better. If you do this, you will consistently win 90 games and get a butt load of playoff opportunities.


[size=18:9ce66eb922][b:9ce66eb922]V. BALLPARKS AND PLAYERS SUITED TO THOSE PARKS[/b:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]


[i:9ce66eb922]"Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack."

- Sun Tzu[/i:9ce66eb922]



After reviewing the 20 best records teams, it is abundantly clear that the best choice in ballpark is the extreme ballpark. RFK (extreme pitcher's parks) or Citizen's Bank (extreme hitter's parks) then are a route to consider. The lopsided choices of yesteryear were the best choices then, and the lopsided choices of today (well, it's pretty much just PNC) are the best choices now. Stick to the ends of the spectrum, give yourself some sort of home-field advantage and avoid being in the indecisive middle.

Although the best records teams favor pitchers parks still (over the years they almost always have), there's still a case to be made for Citizen's Bank and Great American. Just make sure that if you're in a hitters park, you're pursuing ballpark homer players and guys who draw the base on balls. The [url=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/beanecount][color=darkred:9ce66eb922][u:9ce66eb922]Beane Count[/u:9ce66eb922][/color:9ce66eb922][/url] strategy (finishing high in BBs plus HRs for minus BBs and HRs allowed) is still viable here.

While winning pitcher's park teams typically require five runs scored to four runs allowed, hitter's parks teams are still quite near with 5.24 runs scored versus 4.30 runs allowed. However, they usually do it via the longball, with hitter's parks teams typically throwing out 240 or more bombs versus a league average of 150-175 homers per team. Since homers typically come at the expense of base hits, make sure your bangers can draw a walk every now and then to keep up the OBP.

Oh, and keep those # signs off your pitchers' cards.


[size=18:9ce66eb922][b:9ce66eb922]VI. WORSHIP HAL[/b:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]


To paraphrase Sri Guru Granth Sahib:

[i:9ce66eb922]"Through all the months and the seasons, the minutes and the hours, I dwell upon You, Oh HAL. No one has attained You by clever calculations, O True, Unseen and Infinite HAL."[/i:9ce66eb922]

When I wrote last year's [url=http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=295022&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50#comments][color=darkred:9ce66eb922][u:9ce66eb922]Formula[/u:9ce66eb922][/color:9ce66eb922][/url] post, my [b:9ce66eb922][i:9ce66eb922]It's All Luck[/i:9ce66eb922][/b:9ce66eb922] thing may have been a little confusing. What I was trying to say, was that one run games (and maybe even add in extra-inning games) are simply a good proxy for the luck factor in a season. So consider the game to be 75% skill and 25% luck. If your pythagorean wins are not reflected in the boxscores, don't over-analyze it, just move on to another team. Some teams, for simply no good reason, will not do as well as it says they should on paper. That same team might win you 95 games in the next go-around. Hang in there and burn some incense to HAL.


[size=18:9ce66eb922][b:9ce66eb922]VII. WIN YOUR DIVISION[/b:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]


I'm in my 40s so I watch a lot of History Channel. We started with Frederick The Great and now we end with Frederick The Great:

[i:9ce66eb922]"Always presume that the enemy has dangerous designs and always be forehanded with the remedy. But do not let these calculations make you timid."[/i:9ce66eb922]

If you were paying attention, you now have the tools at your disposal to win 90 games. Go forth my friends, and may HAL bestow upon you bountiful credits.
[size=12:9ce66eb922][/size:9ce66eb922]

[drew6013]

Awesome- Thanks for your hard work

[drew6013]

"Build your offensive WHIP - get those walks and hits that when divided by your innings pitched get you a 1.50 rating. Keep your own pitching WHIP at 1.35 or better"
~ I would think there would be a better correlation between OPS than a whip number for your offensive productivity. WHIP doesn't tell the difference between a homerun and a single.
"FWIW, among the 20 best record teams, Guzman and Reyes were selected three times each"
~ Were all three of the guzman teams yours?

[J-Pav]

[quote:587817dec1="drew6013"]
~ I would think there would be a better correlation between OPS than a whip number for your offensive productivity. WHIP doesn't tell the difference between a homerun and a single.[/quote:587817dec1]

No it doesn't, but it is an at-a-glance way of assessing a "ballpark neutral" view of your offensive productivity. I'm simply saying to out-hit and out-walk your opponents. It should be obvious, you would think, but how many teams in a league are being out-hit and out-walked? A bunch. The remedy? More hits and more walks. Make sure they are reflected in [i:587817dec1]the cards[/i:587817dec1] in your line-up.

OPS is ballpark dependent. A Citizen's Bank team will almost always have a higher OPS than an RFK team. The RFK team can still be more proficient at scoring runs, however.

[quote:587817dec1="drew6013"]~ Were all three of the guzman teams yours?[/quote:587817dec1]

No. Two were autoleague teams of mine, the other was a tour team managed by [b:587817dec1]Detroit-Tigers[/b:587817dec1].

Incidentally, here's a shout-out to the veteran managers whose teams were included in my study:

[b:587817dec1]Deelyo[/b:587817dec1], [b:587817dec1]stevep107[/b:587817dec1], [b:587817dec1]Roscodog[/b:587817dec1], [b:587817dec1]Detroit-Tigers[/b:587817dec1], [b:587817dec1]Woods[/b:587817dec1], [b:587817dec1]Jerlins[/b:587817dec1] and [b:587817dec1]durantjerry[/b:587817dec1]. While there were also names of managers I didn't recognize, it's good to see the Old Guard represent.

[J-Pav]

Here's a [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=81948&stats=sim][color=red:22fbd83fef][u:22fbd83fef]team[/u:22fbd83fef][/color:22fbd83fef][/url] of mine that played in a pitcher's park, with seven opposing hitter's parks.

This team finished second in runs scored, outpacing six of the seven hitter's park teams and all of the other pitcher's parks teams. I did it by looking for lots of hits, finishing 140+ hits above the league average, while remaining just above the league average in walks. I was 7th in home runs (i.e., just below the middle of the pack in both homers and SLG pct).

WHIP doesn't tell the difference between a homerun and a single. But it does signal a ballpark neutral difference in productivity.

[J-Pav]

High scoring pitcher's parks teams are a strategy I borrowed from the [b:dff9ec01a7]Riggodrill[/b:dff9ec01a7] playbook.

How's that for [i:dff9ec01a7]Old Guard[/i:dff9ec01a7] name-dropping!

[AeroDave10]

I would like to know how you're supposed to strategically design a team to compete not only in your home park (which you obviously know), but also to be able to compete against the teams/ballparks in your division (about which you do not know until after the draft).

I'm assuming I should design my team for me and my stadium first, and then use the pre-season to fine-tune for my divisional opponents. Any more specific advice??

[J-Pav]

All I can tell you is that I spend a majority of my time working on my team performing in my park. Having said that, I have a natural tendency to lean towards balance that a lot of managers seem to ignore. How often do you see the eight banger Citizen's Park team finish 70-92? I see it a lot.

This, I think, is because the newer manager runs amok with the "building to your park" concept; however, they have no clue what an eight "homer guy" type of banger team plays like in RFK.

Hint - it's [b:26eafff135]A LOT[/b:26eafff135] worse than they could ever believe.

Most leagues, if you add up all the BP singles and homers, come out right around 1-10. The trick then, is figuring out how to build a team that scores well in all ballparks, while maintaining some sort of home field advantage. I do realize I'm saying that you should build a neutral ballpark team that does [u:26eafff135]not[/u:26eafff135] play in a neutral ballpark.

I could tell you how I try to do just that, but then if I gave away [i:26eafff135]all[/i:26eafff135] the secrets, you wouldn't have the pleasure of discovering it on your own!

:wink:

[TomSiebert]

Thanks for this. Interesting and informative. Makes me wonder about my penchant for a bunch o' sluggers + Viquel/AJones....

tw

[the splinter]

Excellent stuff!! J-Pav hits a grand slam once again.

I would like to see the super reliever element explored a bit further....Betancourt and Bell have lead many a team to the finals in 08 while compiling 180+ innings