Skill or Chance?

[J-Pav]

Here are some semi-random thoughts on SOM 2006.

As of today, the Top 20 managers in SOM 2006 are averaging a .516 winning percentage, and this figure appears to be heading lower. Last year, the Top 20 managers listed by points averaged a .530 winning percentage (at the end of the card year).

As the "best" managers approach .500, I'm wondering if the SOM pricing model has taken "skill" out of the equation. Are we now playing an elaborate coin flipping contest?

One of the things I've noticed so far in '06 is how often I'm getting swept in a series. Here is my record for my first four teams in 2005:

348-300 (.530 win pct)

In 2006:

341-307 (.526 win pct)

In a true coin flip situation, you could expect to sweep about 6% of the time (the reverse is also true).

0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.125

So over the course of a season, I would expect to sweep ten series and be swept ten series if the chance of winning was 50%.

In 2005, my record over the first four teams was 40 sweeps for and 23 sweeps against (.635 pct). This year I was 35 sweeps for and 29 sweeps against (.547 pct). In 2005, my overall winning pct improved as the year progressed, as would be expected from improving my "skill" in the game. (Note: My final overall win pct was drastically reduced by "experimental teams" over the course of the year). This year, my winning pct (like many other managers) is moving backward towards .500, even though I should be "getting better."

Here's something else I've noticed which appears to be out of whack:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=298

This is my first 2006 team. I was wondering how I could have finished sixth in offense when I had a .351 obp, which from what I've seen from other teams is light years ahead of the typical .320 team obp. Then I noticed it. [b:64461d005e]Ederific[/b:64461d005e] was first in runs scored, third in runs allowed and somehow finished with a .500 record (81-81).

So what's the point?

While researching my latest tour team, I counted up all the team obp points and total base points throughout the league. I was shocked not only that all 12 teams were more or less equal (frighteningly so), but that no matter what combination I concocted with the same amount of salary, I always stayed nearly the same in obp and total bases (even using injury players).

The one item which throws the coin flipping analogy out of whack is the salary dumpers. If you're in a league where the manager trades down his salary in the FA pool, the other managers in the division get a boost in winning pct because their $80 mil team will be effectively superior to the $70 mil team.

All else being equal, it all appears equal (except for HAL and luck).

I'm bringing this up because if there's no edge to be gained by analysis (Dubois, Thomas, etc.), then what would be the reason for playing? I can flip three coins every night for eight weeks for free.

So I guess I'm hoping that someone can show me where I'm wrong so I can find something analytical to pursue. In the meantime, I continue to be swept by newbs at a pace which to me suggests that this year it's all a 50/50 proposition.

[jdmercha]

But seriously, I think that the game has been around long enough that the skill level of most of the managers is pretty equal. Given an equal payroll and an equal chance at getting the players you want, the records of most managers should be gravitating toward .500. If all things are equal then chance is what makes the difference.

So now the skill level comes in when picking a stadium and matching your players to it. For myself I seem to be able to pick the right players to play in Fenway. I've not had success in any other stadium, so now I put all my teams in Fenway.

I have also noted that the waiver order can be used to determine who will make the playoffs. The team who picks last has managed to get more players from their original draft list. They will have the best chance of making the playoffs. In my last league I predicted three of the four [layoff bound teams, as they picked last on the waiver period.

[Jerlins]

I'll take a shot.

1. Perhaps there are fewer "analysis" type players out there, but they do exist, perhaps not in positions you might wish them to be, but they are there.

2. There might not be as many "bargains" out there, but by the same token, there are indeed overpriced players folks just need to stay away from to be successful. If 05 success was based on securing a R. Johnson or J. Santana, its doubtful similar success can be achieved drafting Clemens in this set. The hitting is just too darn expensive (as well as fewer so called "analysis bargains") to justify spending 11 million on one pitcher.

3. I don't get ratings disks or any other helpful tools so I haven't a clue what they may show, but "newbs" have the same access to them as "vets" which may even the playing field a bit.

I don't know, I hated the set when it came out. My first team was built on what worked best for me in 05. It was a total disaster. I've adjusted somewhat, and as of this writing, disregarding the first team fiasco, my winning % isn't all that far off from the 05 set, though the sample is way too small to support that claim. I'm still adjusting and readjusting to the quirks of the set, and while I may not "get it" when all is said and done, I still have a blast playing this game.

[J-Pav]

:D LOL. The free time comes in waves. Sometimes too much, sometimes too little. I guess today...too much!

I understand stadium advantages. I also understand draft priorities. I also know how to micromanage the settings, although admittedly I don't do it often. My point is, you can do everything right and still finish worse than .500, whereas in the past, if you did everything right then HAL really had to hate you to keep you from the playoffs.

I just finished a live draft where I got nearly every single player I wanted, exactly when I wanted them. Then, watching the posts, two or three other guys basically said the same thing. The player pool is so deep that everyone can have who they want. Back in '04, very [i:3e6a56d884]few[/i:3e6a56d884] managers understood the value of DuBois and Feliz as your first two picks. Everyone else went after Bonds and the other usual suspects. [i:3e6a56d884]That's[/i:3e6a56d884] an edge.

Other edges included:

Three stud starters, budget relievers.
Three stud relievers, budget starters.
Injury teams/platoons.
All 1s and 2s on defense.
All lefties in Shea.
All righties in Wrigley.

This is where the fun was to be had (imho).

This year, all those strategies have been priced away. It seems the greatest determinant of your league success is the skill of the other managers in your division. If they're any good, you all play .500. If one or more are completely lost, then you benefit proportionately.

It reminds me of the "paper, scissors, rock" national competition.

[J-Pav]

Actually, this diatribe might be something of an endorsement for Joe the Jet's ratings guide. If obp, total bases, baserunning and defense have been priced away, then what's left is situational baseball, which I believe is what Joe factors in to his ratings.

The problem is, if we're down to the last nuggets, this kind of edge might not add much value that couldn't also be attributed to chance.

[1crazycanuk]

Not exactly related to the topic but I tend to dump players before the deadline, in effect ending up with one of the lowest salary caps in the league. And my teams always do better after doing so. A 70 mil team CAN do better than an 80 mil team.

[cummings2]

It's a very interesting and valid point you bring up J. I am going to go through some numbers and chime in later with a more "educated" perspective, however, my first impression is that there are several elements taking place into this "parity", the pricing for sure is one element.

I think that to some extent there is a saturation of the same strategy being employed by most managers. Park approach has become almost formulaic not in terms of strategy but in terms of players to use. It's almost as if there is some desire to just know which players to use where as opposed to which approach/strategy to use. When this happpens in most environments the end results are dictated by such small numbers that it does resemble a coin flip.

Another thing in particular about this year's set is that there is such a seeming abundance of pitching and "shortage" of offensively productive- good defensive guys that I've seen a great deal of managers abandon the solid defense approach. As we know, even with dominant pitching porous defense evens things out to more "normal" stat-lines.

So, on the one hand you have better pitching and worse defense offsetting each other and on the other hand lots of managers approaching offensive strategies very smilarly to offset each other, the result is a more balanced winning percentage and narrow maargins of error.

The result is that so far, at least in my first 5 or so leagues, the managers that pay attention to more elements of the game end up with better results, that is the managers that balance the running game with pitching, bullpen settings, good defense, park strategy, budget allocation, etc... essentially I think this set (and pricing maybe) allow for multiple ways of winning and 25% of the playoff spots are no longer earned by merely getting an 11 Million SP*

But as I said earlier, you bring up very valid ideas that I want to look into before commenting with more "substance", this rant was just based on my current (and initial) impression of the 06 set

As always, thoughtful stuff to read J. Thnx.

C2

[MARCPELLETIER]

I disagree with you J-Pav to a certain extent.

Yes, it's been harder, but I do believe that there is a large enough window to show your talent on the long run.

It's been three years now that I have been micro-managing and carefully monitouring my Tour teams only. On average, these teams have played .550 (on average 89-73), quite better than the rest of my teams for which I don't pay too much attention anymore.

So yes, I don't play .600 as before, but I still am able to consistently beat the average pack.

In my opinion, I think that micro-managing is underrated. As Yogi said it, You can observe a lot just by watching. You can see a bench player playing too much. You can observe that your bullpen is missing a reliever. You can observe a divisional opponent going nuts with right-handed hitters before the season starts, prompting you to choose a pitcher that fits less your stadium and that will pay more on the long run, etc etc.

I also believe that you should change your line-up and settings depending on where you are playing, what pitcher you are facing----but I see everyone going with one line-up and sticking to it the whole season through, sometimes even when bench players replace injured players. Might contribute to only 2 or 3 wins per season, but all those little details build up at the end.

One point which you mentioned that certainly contributes to the fact that most teams play around .500 is that teams seem to finish with similar stats and spending similar ratios of hitters/pitching---but this is the right strategy for Coors-like or Petco-like teams.

But it is definitively a fact that the competition is better than ever.

[J-Pav]

The quantity/quality of pitching is definitely making a difference. I'm scoring much less this year than last year, my net runs are down something like 30% (due entirely to weaker offensive production...my runs allowed stats are identical to last year).

So your $48-50 mil in hitting goes less far. It seems that the teams having some bit of success are going $7.5, 6.0, 5.5, 3.0 ($22 mil) with their starters and lobbing $8-10 mil at the bullpen. But they're winning games w/ a .320 obp and a .410 slg pct from their offense. There's no gimmicky clutch advantage or anything else to point to, except there appears to be a strong element of luck.

In one league, the team with the best record was 90-72. The worst record, 72-90. It's almost a perfect bell curve around .500. In another league, I missed the playoffs finishing third in offense and second in pitching (85-77 record). In my first tour league, no one topped 88 wins.

In the past, if I got swept or noticed a team "outperforming" the field, there was a reason to point to where somebody built a better mousetrap. Now, it seems that one pile of $80 mil guys equals any other pile of $80 mil guys.

Are we really playing to be 4% over .500 (88 wins)? And if you are, is that [i:97d0222805]skill[/i:97d0222805]?

[MARCPELLETIER]

Well, it is skill if it is done on a continuous basis. Don't forget that the Tour has most of the better managers. Also, I should add that I have finished in the top 10, but not first, so some owners finished with better records than mine. I have indeed noticed some of my very own bad patterns, and I am trying to improve.


[quote:eb84b6c60c]
Are we really playing to be 4% over .500 (88 wins)? And if you are, is that skill?[/quote:eb84b6c60c]

I would correct in this way: we are playing to be [i:eb84b6c60c]on average[/i:eb84b6c60c] 90 wins, with our real objective being closer to 100 wins in order to compensate for those seasons where we fail to get over 80 wins.