NLD XXXVI - The Fun Continues

Getting close to the mid-point. Who will start dropping players?????

I gotta say, that was a lot of work on those stats and ratings for so few comments.

Getting close to the mid-point. Who will start dropping players?????

I gotta say, that was a lot of work on those stats and ratings for so few comments.

Joe, I really find your analysis extremely interesting. Honestly, I feel sheepish about commenting, because my teams seem to beat the projections. But the overall thrust of the projections is generally really accurate.

The more I play this game, the more I realize just how many games you have to play before the luck really starts to even out. You can't completely measure the luck with the die roll ratios, either, as Corky has been seeing. In the "short run" (which is a fairly *long* "short run"), it really comes down to whether your players happen to get the best die rolls disproportionately often. The analysis is really important in terms of reinforcing the fact that you really have executed a particular strategy (by your player selection), even when the game results aren't showing it - *yet*.

Just a quick example to illustrate the above - and the Jets early season good luck - Marte was hitting really well against *RHP* early in the season, and really kept it going until about 6 games ago, when he went into a 2-24 slump. With some good hitting against LHP, he was in the top 10 for OPS for most of the first half - again, until the last few games, when he slipped way down the OPS standings.

Over the course of 162 games, the luck *tends* to even out. Sometimes the luck doesn't even out, even after 162 games, but most often it does.

I had a team in a fun league, with a $60 million cap, about a year ago. They didn't do much for 50 games, despite my projections that they should do really well. I had Ortiz, in Progressive, and a few other "value" players for the ballpark. But, they finally went on a huge streak, and caught up to my own expectations for the team. It's just amazing how long it can take for that to happen. I know there are times when you realize that you made a "mistake" somewhere, in terms of a player that really doesn't fit a strategy or ballpark, or just isn't good value. But for most experienced gamers (hello group!), it's usually just waiting for the luck to even out.

I do have some pet theories as to maximizing value. (I'm a believer in adjust pitching preferences for every series, and I frequently use "F8" "quick hook" for starters and good pitchers in lead roles). Some of my theories are more like ideas that I'm still testing - e.g. my theory that catcher arms and outfielder arms are under-valued, by strat, and compared to statistics that I've heard and read on the boards. (By the way, I still haven't heard back from strat. I'm assuming that the stats are correct, but that Joe is also correct, saying that some single** results are preserved, on a random basis).

But Joe, I really do find the stats interesting, and thanks!

In our current league, I am really interested by BigAlric's extreme defense and solid pitching. I'm interested (and not surprised) at his success so far. I also think that defense is slightly under-valued in strat. Anyway, that strategy is one that I've always liked, and it's fun to see BigAlric making it work!

Love this game, love this league! Thanks for the great games, guys!

And Joe, thanks for the analysis! It's fascinating!

Geoff

Vacation with the kids at the beach all week. Thanks for the ratings Joe, I know its labor intensive.

I was very pleased with my draft but wanted to maximize bpsi and missed those parks. I expect this team do to well as your ratings indicate. I liken it to poker. You can be on the right side of a 60 -40 toss and lose. But you should win. Bottom line is given the skill of the managers most teams should be within "dice range" of each other. Therefore despite teams being better than others they are seldomely out of dice range.

Guys,

Thanks for the comments. GB, you're overperforming y our rating because you are 13-5 in one run games!

What's surprising to me at the half-way point is that Smokey is down in the one runners but is in first place.

Stoney not only has a good rating but is also crushing the one runners no wonder he's running away with it. Corky will make run if his one runners come back to average.

Big A is higher than the rating would suggest, but that's a little bit because of his one run rating for sure.

I feel that AT's rating is almost meaningless given his make up and the injury adjustments that don't work for a team like his. His one run rec is pretty bad. Could be due to bad luck or just because his D stinks. And, maybe, conversely, that's why Big A's one run rating is so high.

Wow, look at that, a three-way tie for first in the Central with JMP only 4 back!

Well, that didn't last long.

Proof (example) of runners taking 3 bases on a DOUBLE** result - 7th inning, Ellsbury batting, rolls 2-10. The runner on first, Kendrick, scores, and the batter (Ellsbury) takes an extra base on the throw!

This expands the official explanation of the "max rules" for extra base running, where Strat says that singles with either one or 2 asterisks are converted to regular singles, requiring a managerial decision as to whether or not to send the runners for an extra base.

Here it is (inning 7):

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/ga ... /424551/50

Joe, there is just no way that the official rules explanation is consistent with the number of base running opportunities according to the max rules, unless, as you say, there is a randomized reduction of the base running opportunities - or the stats are understating the opportunities.

I am going to try to infer a ratio on the ** results, using the first 21 games for the Blue Bombers, and the first games for the Expos. I'll see if even that makes sense. From looking at games results, it looks like a lot of the SINGLE** die rolls are resulting in the runners holding up.

This game result proves that SINGLE** results are not being counted as running opportunities when the runner advances 2 bases, at least part of the time. Or, putting it another way, as Joe says, maybe the SINGLE** results are not actually opportunities 100% of the time.

In this game - 8th inning, Molina advances from first to third base on a SINGLE** result on a hit by Marte on Masterson's card, with a 6-5 die roll:

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/ga ... y/424551/8

Molina did not have any "advance" results on the strat stats through game 21. Therefore, the stats kept by strat did not consider this to be a base running opportunity for Molina, even using the "max" base running rules.

My recalculations for the first 21 games seem to bear this out - even though some/many SINGLE** results are turned into ordinary SINGLE results with the max rules, it seems clear that the SINGLE** results that DO cause the runner to advance 2 bases (whether by managerial decision or not) are NOT counted in the opportunities. By contrast, if a SINGLE** result is turned into a managerial decision, and the runners DON"T advance, then it IS counted as a base running opportunity.

This adjustment, together with a correction to remove ordinary FB(b) sac flies, seems to cause my stats to be much closer to strat's base running stats.

Having said that, I believe that this means that the base running opportunity stats ARE UNDERSTATED, because I'm fairly certain that many of the successful SINGLE** advances required a managerial decision to run - which I have proven elsewhere. Since some of these required a managerial decision, the opportunities that strat is recording are somewhat understated.

GB, are you sure that Si** that get two bases are NEVER counted? If so, I'm sure you've found a bug in their counting.

Meanwhile in league play, we got our first sweep of the year and, suddenly, we're in first place. Took 93 games to get a sweep. At the risk of jinxing myself, we also have not been swept up till this point. Weird huh?

JTJ:
"GB, are you sure that Si** that get two bases are NEVER counted? If so, I'm sure you've found a bug in their counting."

Really sure. The stats for base running opportunities would be **much** higher if **all** Si** are counted - i.e. if they counted the Si** results where the runner actually advanced 2 bases.

The only Si** results that are being counted as opportunities are the ones where the runner **didn't** advance 2 bases.

I'll check my work again, and see if there's a way to reasonably infer what portion of the Si** actually remain automatic advances.