Every One of My 13 100+ Win Teams in ATG9

Lol- dude, no. I get what the butterfly effect is.
don't get so defensive; you were given very thorough explanations of the differences
between the 2 scenarios- and yes, of course there is still a large amount of randomness,
which is how naysayers can always throw doubt on the process...but thats ignoring the
many times in the past we have found out that what was suspected was actually true.
Also no and no- presenting data is meaningless UNLESS the data has correlation...
and thats the point that has been repeatedly made, not even counting that he has a long
standing account of presenting the same data only to do an about face.

Also also - that is simply incorrect- other folks HAVE posted data - in fact Nev's opening statement IS DATA-
I mean, seriously???
_________________________________
Been there, proved that at least 8-10 times....It took "YEARS" for SOM to admit (not sure they even knew bc they're like Ray Charles leading Stevie Wonder over there) that there were bulletproof players...Think about that, Years! For those of us that were there, we remember the HUGE debates that our "anecdotally" given examples of Willie Mays NEVER missing an inning, were met with plenty of dismissive hands from the Charlies of this site.

The question was asked
That just seems silly to me. How can a team be historically good for 67 games and then be historically bad for the following 20 games?


So I posted an article that shows how it happens in real life:

On Aug. 2, the Joe Torre-led Braves held a commanding seven-game lead in the National League West over second place San Diego. After dropping their 11th straight contest less than two weeks later, they found themselves in second place, 2.5 back of the Los Angeles Dodgers. For the Braves, this was part of a 2-19 run that spanned from July 30 to Aug. 18 and saw them lose 14.5 games in the standings.

So it is not silly, unless somehow the game the simulation is imitating displaying characteristics that are called silly somehow makes sense in real life but not in computer simulations. Most players here have played more than 10-20 times the number of seasons that are played by any team in the history of baseball. It is also impossible to know what is in the programming without a review of the programming. A portion of the results of the programming can be informative or useful in the development of strategies to use in the creation of teams in the strategy.

But I think too often this game does lead to apophenia.

This is not being disrespectful to charlie or anyone else here, but I couldn't help but be reminded of Monty Python's argument clinic sketch. And then I had to watch it again. So good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkQhK8O9Jik

Loved that!

This team was streaky:

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1676313

First 53 games: 28-25 .528
Next 45 games: 32-13 .711
Next 40 games: 11-29 .275
Final 24 games: 13-11 .542

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/schedule/1676313

The question was asked
That just seems silly to me. How can a team be historically good for 67 games and then be historically bad for the following 20 games?


So I posted an article that shows how it happens in real life:

On Aug. 2, the Joe Torre-led Braves held a commanding seven-game lead in the National League West over second place San Diego. After dropping their 11th straight contest less than two weeks later, they found themselves in second place, 2.5 back of the Los Angeles Dodgers. For the Braves, this was part of a 2-19 run that spanned from July 30 to Aug. 18 and saw them lose 14.5 games in the standings.

So it is not silly, unless somehow the game the simulation is imitating displaying characteristics that are called silly somehow makes sense in real life but not in computer simulations. Most players here have played more than 10-20 times the number of seasons that are played by any team in the history of baseball. It is also impossible to know what is in the programming without a review of the programming. A portion of the results of the programming can be informative or useful in the development of strategies to use in the creation of teams in the strategy.

But I think too often this game does lead to apophenia.

Charlie, so are you saying that the Braves had a .731 winning % and was on pace for 118 wins when they went on that horrible cold streak??? I doubt it ...

They had a "commanding 7 game lead". That doesn't sound like a team that had a historically good winning % to me.

Because the team I referenced had a .731 winning % before going 5-15 (.250 ball).

They had a 61-37 record they then went on to have only 2 wins in 21 games not 5.

Using statistics, let's assume your team was identifiable at the start of the season as vastly superior to the remainder of the league and could be expected to win 55% of the games. The odds of a team that good going 5-15 over 20 games is 0.65% or about 1 team in 16. The odds of the team going 49-18 to start the season even if it could be identified as being a superior team is 0.08% or one in 1200.

Now you have played 500+ teams so chances are you would have one teams start 49-18 team. The number of times a team, built to win 55% of the time with enduring a 5-15 record is that you should have 29 teams having to face that dismal record despite your clearly superior skills to the average player. There is a 2 percent chance you could have 40 teams with a 5-15 record.

The rarity is not the 5-15 it is the 49-18 despite the amazing prowess you possess. Now if you are actually as skilled as the average player or your playoff record a .500 manager, then it raises the likelihood of seeing a 5-15 record in a 20 game stretch to 2 percent and you should have on average 89 teams with a 5-15 streak or nearly one in every four of your teams.

The odds of seeing a 2-19 team versus a 5-15 team is 300 times less likely. You have a bunch of those?

They had a 61-37 record they then went on to have only 2 wins in 21 games not 5.

Using statistics, let's assume your team was identifiable at the start of the season as vastly superior to the remainder of the league and could be expected to win 55% of the games. The odds of a team that good going 5-15 over 20 games is 0.65% or about 1 team in 16. The odds of the team going 49-18 to start the season even if it could be identified as being a superior team is 0.08% or one in 1200.

Now you have played 500+ teams so chances are you would have one teams start 49-18 team. The number of times a team, built to win 55% of the time with enduring a 5-15 record is that you should have 29 teams having to face that dismal record despite your clearly superior skills to the average player. There is a 2 percent chance you could have 40 teams with a 5-15 record.

The rarity is not the 5-15 it is the 49-18 despite the amazing prowess you possess. Now if you are actually as skilled as the average player or your playoff record a .500 manager, then it raises the likelihood of seeing a 5-15 record in a 20 game stretch to 2 percent and you should have on average 89 teams with a 5-15 streak or nearly one in every four of your teams.

The odds of seeing a 2-19 team versus a 5-15 team is 300 times less likely. You have a bunch of those?

Probabilities based on math - no one will pay any attention.

Now if I post there are multiple owners with 30 straight 100 win teams defeated in the playoffs or that SOM was caught in lies 10-15 times, then that’s the kind of solid proof everyone can get behind.

The odds of seeing a 2-19 team versus a 5-15 team is 300 times less likely. You have a bunch of those?

Probabilities based on math - no one will pay any attention.

Now if I post there are multiple owners with 30 straight 100 win teams defeated in the playoffs or that SOM was caught in lies 10-15 times, then that’s the kind of solid proof everyone can get behind.

why do you entirely ignore the part of 'SOM has been caught in lies 10 times' in the exact same types of scenarios that we are discussing here?

Why does unrelated MLB data count more than actual data from the game we are actually playing???

can absolutely fathom people disagreeing with whats being said-
what I can't fathom are people who disagree using really poor rationale behind the guise of unrelated or at best poorly related 'data'.