**Posts:**1436**Joined:**Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:17 pm

gkhd11a wrote:J-Pav wrote:gk: I know you’re being sarcastic to lazily make a point. Instead of answering a question that’s not being asked, let’s try and figure out what is actually going on instead.

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/league/expanded/457932

I’m simply asking the question “Why would this be occurring?”

From your definition of the runs scored usage, they not only note that runs scored is not necessarily a natural choice for determining the quality of a team but also "If chance plays a very large role, then even a team with much higher quality than its opponents will win only a little more often than it loses." In other words as chance increases the "QUALITY" factor i.e runs scored becomes less of a factor and higher quality on average will have lower wins than expected continually due to an increase in the amount of chance in the distribution of the runs scored. That stratomatic is more dependent on chance than baseball should be obvious, the result is from a dice roll as opposed to actual play of the game, therefore the higher runs scored teams on average should have less wins than expected as a result of chance and the lower ranked teams a higher average, which is what is occurring. This is in the definition you provided. To expect a game based on dice to produce a quality difference through dice rolls versus the quality difference between Hall of Fame pitchers and minor leaguers should be obvious.

By the way, this is exactly what happened in your upside down league as all the teams with positive run differential underperformed while the terrible teams overperformed.

Being a small ball guy, I typically DON'T have high scoring teams, often times finishing in the bottom third of the league in runs scored yet having a good positive R/D. So there goes your High Scoring teams underperforming theory.