NLD 27 - The legend continues!

[joethejet]

Silver,

I think it's funny that you think a +11 one run record is "earned". That's just silly. I don't know how much you've played the board game, but I can tell you from years of experience it's *when* you get the good die rolls, not if you get the good die rolls. To win that many one runners is some really good timing. Look, your team may be suited to have a decent one run record, but +11? Please.

So, let's put the ratings aside as you make a good point that this NLD is throwing the ratings off because they assume a 70/30 ratio and this league is closer to 58/42.

Just take a look at our pitching staff. Do you really think it's far and away the worst staff in the league? That has been my complaint. We just get shelled every single night (pretty much). I don't think my pitchers are poor fits for the park They aren't high HR pitchers. If we were getting closer to middle of the road pitching, we'd be right in the thick of things.

Let's take my four best pitchers (please!) Halladay, Myers, Hensely and Zumaya. All but Hensley are sitting at .290 or more BA v LHB. For Halladay, if you assume an even distribution of die rolls and taking into consideration our defense too, it means that hitters are rolling .338 on their own cards. It's worse for Zum and Myers. Myers is at .393 and zum at .469!!!! :shock: Hensley is at 399. That's not bad luck? Really? If you look at all my pitchers with the exception of Sanchez, I think all of them are worse that you'd expect. Look I know that not all of your guys are goign to pitch well, and every team (except yours) have pitchers who don't give you your money's worth, but when your whole staff is in the tank... Do you really think that's expected?

As for your team, you've gotten great pitching, way over the dollar for dollar expectation vis-a-vis the other teams, and middle of the road hitting. The reason you have the best record is that you've won a lot of close games and really none of your pitchers has sucked. Yeah, you've gotten good usage, but you'd *still* expect a few more guys to be below average. That's just the nature of a dice game.

I dont' think I said your team was neutralor bad, I said other teams are better or even. And, I'd bet you have a good record in hitter's parks too.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to pick on your team, just saying that you're living a best case scenario for your team. Winning lots of close games, getting all your platoon guys to have good years in a pitchers park, all your pitchers are at or above where they should be (excepting maybe Narveson). To me, that's doing it with mirrors.

Jet

[qksilver69]

Well Joe I guess when you say "mirrors" it means to me something that's not real or maybe in this case, not replicable, and that's where I might beg to differ.

I agree I'm getting some ideal outcomes this time around (though the pen numbers are normalizing a bit and I'm still winning), but my point on earning some of the 1-run games is that saberheads generally agree - most of 1-run records are random/luck, but in [b:42dbe5385d]some[/b:42dbe5385d] cases exceptional 1-run records are in fact attributable to an exceptionally strong bullpen. Look at what the Giants did in the last couple of weeks, and what their pen did to help that happen - they're now 12-3 in 1-run games on the year, and a lot of it has been earned, not just luck, through 22+ innings of their pen not allowing a run. I'd make a similar argument for my club right now, that kind of exceptional work by my pen has generated a lot of our +11 1-run record. If you think [b:42dbe5385d]all[/b:42dbe5385d] components of a good 1-run record are luck-based, you're just a bit misinformed buddy.

[joethejet]

As I said, your pen might help you be a little above average, but +11 is a lot of luck to it. If you were, say, +4 then you could say, "I'm built that way" to be +11? If you think that's skill, then you're just a bit misinformed buddy. ;)

As for the Giants, they will come back towards the mean as the season wears on, just like the Padres did last year. Good Pitching helps, but teams tend to trend towards the mean over time.

You still haven't addressed my pitching. Don't you think that it's a fair amount worse, as a whole, than would be expected? And, don't you think your pitching, given the amount you spent on it shouldn't expect to be at the top?

Jet

[qksilver69]

I expected all the staffs in our div to be near the top, just due to the parks. we have 3 of 4 parks that really suppress runs, and I thought my D was good enough (1s or 2s everywhere except RF & C, where we have 3s) that pitching would be my strength, yes. Especially when I got Meek & Burnett pitching about 20% of my total innings. Meek's WHIP is better than expected, but again, in that div, I expected an ERA in the low 2s for both of them and WHIPs around 1.00-1.10.

More later, gotta put kids in the bath...

[qksilver69]

Two more 1-run wins! :P

[Jeepdriver]

My team has just tanked the last 1/3 of the season. I think I've won 1 series in the last 10 or so.

[joethejet]

[quote:1a9d6137c4="qksilver"]Two more 1-run wins! :P[/quote:1a9d6137c4]

Hey, I always say "better to be lucky than good!" ;) :P

But seriously, your pitching/D isn't as good as Big A's or Stoney's. you can say you're close to Zim and Big M, but they are more than likely better.

Yeah, you should be in the top 6, but, essentially, at the top? There's some things going well for you there. Your D is actually pretty middle of the pack. I don't think you're taking into account your platoons, Cuddyer, Valbuena, Freese, Bonifacio....or e-ratings, Dyson.

Jet

[qksilver69]

[quote:166ca402d5]But seriously, your pitching/D isn't as good as Big A's or Stoney's. you can say you're close to Zim and Big M, but they are more than likely better. [/quote:166ca402d5]

Well, I would explain why my pitching is better than theirs, but a) the results speak for themselves, and 140+ games is not all luck, b) I'm not in this to denigrate my fellow managers, and c) not gonna give away all my secrets... :wink:

Plus, we're kinda beating a dead horse here Joe. As long as you think your rating system gives you all the answers, you won't really look past that - kind of the classic case of when the results don't match the hypothesis, you invent reasons why the results aren't valid. Instead of doing that, for a change, why don't you do this: assume the results are valid (that my pitching is in fact better than theirs, or at least is consistently performing better in this instance) and ask yourself why that might be?

[joethejet]

Well, actually, I stopped talking about ratings awhile back. Just look at the $ spent.

I think my pitching is better than it's performed. I think it's a worse case scenario. I think it's pretty obvious that this pitching isn't *that* bad.

I think it's pretty funny when someone who is +13 in one run games thinks it's all because they are a great manager and luck has nothing to do with it.

Obviously your park has something to do with the fact that the pitchers have done. Well, the problem is you haven't given my any reasons for Romero having a .395 BA v LHB, or Lopez is at .282 while your Slaten is at .200. That's not luck at all? Really?

Are you really saying it's expected that Zumaya should be > .290 against both sides?

To add injury to insult we just lost Hensley for 8 games. Haven't seen pitcher injuries for that many games very often. :( On the bright side, he won't be blowing any more saves for awhile.

Jet

[qksilver69]

$ spent is a pretty rough measure for "better". And I never said luck wasn't involved Joe, it's just that you seem to consistently attribute your performance (when bad) to poor dice, and attribute others' good performance to lucky dice. At some point it might serve you better to look past that....