How Bad Can You Be?

Flipping that notion upside down, we should be able to select the cards to avoid equally well. But isn't it weird how quick we all come to the same conclusion that "Well, with a tweak here and a better ballpark, that lineup's not all that bad!" It's almost like we can't see bad cards. So maybe, the I can read the cards thing is overstated.

Disclaimer warning here. My contention here will change with the weather. Part of me says we can. And yet there is so much that goes in to a card I am not always even sure what we mean by I can read the cards. Does that mean we can look at a card and instantly size it up and KNOW it is better than another card? Or with a quick once over we can predict how it will produce in a given park or league? Can we instantly tell how many HR, singles, etc are on a card? Does that include the presence or absence of productive outs? Remember our long and fun discussions on GB/FB? At the height of my database tracking of cards I could tell you for any card exactly how many gb()B it had and which cards were top 10 out of all second basemen. Heck I could tell you the top 20 in any category for players who played both middle infield positions and at least one OF position.

I have come to the conclusion over the year that there are fewer "bad" cards than I once thought. A lineup of all leadoff hitters will likely underperform win wise. Tweak that with swapping a couple run producers for the middle of lineup on the other hand and you might have something. Ditto an all power team could struggle and be much improved by swapping a couple HR or bust guys for the right table setters at top of lineup and you might have something.

I think these are the reasons one person submits a lineup he thinks will win and another looks at it and says with a tweak or two I could win with that. Another reason I think you see that is with the cap, especially lower caps the margin of error is smaller than no cap or higher cap.

Is it possible to be worse than .500 without TRYING to be?

I was thinking about this earlier. If we make the assumption that it is not possible to be worse than .500 without trying to be does it not follow that if you finish below .500 you must not have been trying? Can we carry that a step further and say, excluding newbies, anyone finishing under .500 must have been trying to post a losing record.

Or is that going too far and over thinking it?

Out of curiosity, I checked all my completed 2013 seasons (33), to see how my range of bad v good records were.

First, I had to exclude keeper and theme leagues (12).

That left 21 teams where I was trying to put together the best squad I could. Not sure what these results say, but throwin them out there for what it's worth:


Overall: 1845-1557 (.542)
Avg record: 88-74

80M cap leagues (15)
Overall: 1346-1084 (.553)
Avg record: 90-72

Best 108 wins
Worst 76 wins


I've obviously had quite a bit of success with this set. I should emphasize THIS set. Past experience does not predict future results (for you investors out there!). I don't use the ratings guide. I tried it one year, but soon realized I enjoyed reading the cards on my own much better.

So what does it all mean in terms of newbies and vets,etc...? Not sure, but that's one of the reasons I wish SOM would bring back the manager ratings they've promised since they took over from TSN. I liked to see experience level of managers I was entering leagues with, since I ont think it's really all that fair for a vet to enter an auto league with a bunch of newbies...but now there is no way to know anymore.

I'm sure I've benefitted from matching up against newbies, but with roster makeups (in terms of dollars) being somewhat similar in 80M leagues, it tells me that yes, there are definite values to be exploited if you know what to look for, just like there are overvalued guys that sucker in less knowledgeable players. Those over valued guys (in my opinion) were the players I put into my projected 100 loss team a couple pages back.

Merry Christmas!

I have come to the conclusion over the year that there are fewer "bad" cards than I once thought.

In the past two seasons I have rapidly moved to the exact same belief. With regard to the finishing below .500, I can't agree that people aren't trying. First, vets have plenty of sub .500 teams - not a lot, but it does happen and I know when it happens to me it's not for lack of trying. Second, I liked your earlier statement about operating in a universe where plus .500 teams cause the dart-throwers to underperform their 50/50 chances.

Not sure what these results say...

I think they say a lot...anyone would take that record in a heartbeat! There's no dart-throwing in those lineups!!

And there are way too many of such variables to ascribe losing teams to shedding salary alone or seeing shedding salary as their main cause. This is particularly true since good managers often shed salary judiciously, so it isn't even an inherent contributor to an unsuccessful team.

I think we both agree that SOM is a multi-dimensional puzzle. I don't know that I agree there are too many variables to make assessments. Veteran best practices like salary construction, middle infield defense, ERAs and WHIPs, OPS, ball park selections, etc are fairly easily assessed, even at a glance.

Maybe my claims about drops need further explanation. Drops reflect salary dumps as well as trades. So not all drops are necessarily equal. I agree there can be judicious drops. Scumby's team is a perfect example - he made some moves but he was still finishing the season at 94% full salary. I don't think that amount suggests much in terms of his team losing competitiveness.

However, drops are like empty beer bottles in the car at the scene of an accident. If you see 25 drops, then generally, before assessing all the other variables, you instantly know what the inherent contributor to that unsuccessful team was. If that manager is operating at 60% of available capacity, there's no reason to have to even look at his ballpark or middle defense.

I don't know that I agree there are too many variables to make assessments. Veteran best practices like salary construction, middle infield defense, ERAs and WHIPs, OPS, ball park selections, etc are fairly easily assessed, even at a glance.

I never said there are too many variables to make assessments. I said there are too many variables to make simplistic assessments like ascribing team failure to salary shedding. Your inclusion of all those other variables actually supports that assertion. Many of my posts on this thread have made sound suggestions on how to make more complex, successful assessments of how and why average or below average managers fail.

However, drops are like empty beer bottles in the car at the scene of an accident. If you see 25 drops, then generally, before assessing all the other variables, you instantly know what the inherent contributor to that unsuccessful team was. If that manager is operating at 60% of available capacity, there's no reason to have to even look at his ballpark or middle defense.

You're erroneously using an extreme example to support your criticism of a normal behavior here. It's like saying all the fatal car crashes at 110 mph support the claim just driving in a car is lethal. Of course 25 drops will most likely lead to failure. However, that only proves one shouldn't usually make 25 drops. It proves nothing about the perils of conservative or even regular drops, which you had mistakenly asserted as the basis of SOM failure.

Whoa Jason! Tap the brakes!!

First of all, Merry Christmas! I hope you and the family have celebrated early and well!

We're in the empty space between the 6am wake-up call and the afternoon dinner, so I'm trying to sneak in a little posting...

It's difficult to hold a friendly conversational debate with you when you insist on explanatory perfection with itemized disclaimers on every point in an informal baseball thread, while I'm not offered the same in return.

Let's get philosophical:

A. In the world of assessments, there are complex and simplistic assessments.
B. One is allowed to make simplistic assessments.
C. There are not too many variables to make simplistic assessments in SOM. You may or may not agree, but that's another topic.
D. The simplest assessment of a team's season ending situation, in my OPINION if I can be allowed one, is current salary.
E. I shorthand current salary by identifying drops, so I'm treating drops and forfeited salary as synonymous.
F. I completely understand that drops do not provide a complex assessment of all possible variables; however, this is a simple assessment.

You're erroneously using an extreme example to support your criticism of a normal behavior here. It's like saying all the fatal car crashes at 110 mph support the claim just driving in a car is lethal.

Um, what? Is dropping salary a "normal" behavior? My example had beer bottles not mph, mentioned nothing of fatality...so I do not really understand the point of what you wrote.

Of course 25 drops will most likely lead to failure. However, that onlyproves one shouldn't usually make 25 drops. It proves nothing about the perils of conservative or even regular drops, which you mistakenly asserted as the basis of SOM failure.

If you misunderstood what I said, that's okay, it's an informal post. I think you just need the fully disclaimered version:

"When one is undertaking a simplistic assessment of team failure, oftentimes you need look no further than season ending salary, easily ascertained by an at-a-glance look at player drops. If season ending salary is XX% below the initial 100% amount of available salary, in the eye of the assessor this team appeared to have eventually competed at an insurmountable disadvantage. This simple assessment is by no means intended to fully encompass all the variables available to digest and the implication is NOT that one, any or all drops are the entire explanation of any teams particular failure. However, if one were to choose a "most simplistic variable" for assessment, one would be hard pressed to find another indicator as easily predictive as forfeited salary, ie drops."

Can we agree on this?

If you disagree, I'm completely okay with that. I would just appreciate that instead of constantly parsing my words you offer up your own opinions. Re-writing my posts with slight alterations and faulty characterizations and then forcing me to argue against things I did not say or intend to say is way too exhausting!

Let's end on a humorous note...

I'm in my four door sedan when I bump the car in front of me. It turns out, the car is a patrol car. The officer walks up to my window and asks, "License and registration?" As I roll down the window, he peers into the vehicle. In the passenger area are 25 empty beer bottles. In the back seat are two half dressed women and between them is a small farm animal. I'm not wearing pants, I'm in the process of texting an order to Taco Bell and the radio is on full blast. My doobie then falls out of my mouth into my pantsless lap.

Now, there's a lot wrong going on here. But did the officer really need to go much further beyond the 25 empty beer bottles to assess this situation?

(*Note: There were no fatalities or injured farm animals in the imagination of this example, and driver speed was not a factor).

The only one who needs to tap the brakes is you, Jeff, with all your excited exclamation points. I had been posting quite calmly. Merry Christmas to you as well, though. I have a little posting time as well, since 8-yr-old insisted on a 6:30 presents opening. I also never insisted on "explanatory perfection." I just pointed out the flaws in your reasoning; explanation wouldn't have rectified those flaws.

Let's get philosophical:
A. In the world of assessments, there are complex and simplistic assessments.
B. One is allowed to make simplistic assessments.
C. There are not too many variables to make simplistic assessments in SOM. You may or may not agree, but that's another topic.
D. The simplest assessment of a team's season ending situation, in my OPINION if I can be allowed one, is current salary.
E. I shorthand current salary by identifying drops, so I'm treating drops and forfeited salary as synonymous.
F. I completely understand that drops do not provide a complex assessment of all possible variables; however, this is a simple assessment.

First of all, this isn't very philosophical; it is--as you admit--very simplistic. People are allowed to make simplistic assessments and have opinions. However, your simplistic assessment and opinion concerning current salary just happen to be fallacious. I've shown that in my previous posts.

You're erroneously using an extreme example to support your criticism of a normal behavior here. It's like saying all the fatal car crashes at 110 mph support the claim just driving in a car is lethal.

Um, what? Is dropping salary a "normal" behavior? My example had beer bottles not mph, mentioned nothing of fatality...so I do not really understand the point of what you wrote.

Yes dropping salary is normal behavior in SOM. Players normally do it all the time; you know that as well as I. Also my analogy was clear; I'm surprised it went by you. You were using an extreme example of normal behavior--shedding 25 players--as a way of speciously identifying normal player drops as unproductive action. I correctly said that would be like erroneously pointing out fatalities from 110 mph crashes as proof of the perils of regular driving.

If you misunderstood what I said, that's okay, it's an informal post. I think you just need the fully disclaimered version:

I didn't misunderstand you at all, you made your point clear when you said: "I really want to say that the key variable consistently present among losing teams is shedding salary. Don't do that." So my analysis of your stance was dead-on. And your "full disclaimered" version is not a re-statement of that previous stance; it is an alteration of it. Of course we agree excessive salary shedding is damaging, but that's not what you've been asserting. As you yourself said above, your opinion is: "the simplest assessment of a team's season ending situation, in my OPINION if I can be allowed one, is current salary." This just isn't true. As I've shown many times, there are way too many variables to make such an unsound statement.

If you disagree, I'm completely okay with that. I would just appreciate that instead of constantly parsing my words you offer up your own opinions. Re-writing my posts with slight alterations and faulty characterizations and then forcing me to argue against things I did not say or intend to say is way too exhausting!

You seem upset here and are taking our healthy disagreement too personally. I haven't "parsed" your words any more than you have mine. I correctly pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. That's what we grown-ups do in grown-up discussions to come to some agreed upon conclusion. And the only thing "faulty" was the reasoning in your posts. I well represented your arguments in my counter-arguments and clearly pointed out your faulty reasoning. I'm sorry that upset you, but it's all part of philosophical discussion.

I've used up my computer allotment for the day, so have a wonderful Christmas, Jeff.

Okay.

This post is so about my managerial efforts. I have been bad so many different ways its not even funny. I could take a 100 win team and turn it into a 75 win squad haha. This will be the first set I have not won a single championship with!

To sebastian,

If you'd like to get a discussion going about your season, how many teams have you played this card set? Can you post at least some of them, and explain what you believe the problem has been?

Most of the folks here, I think, will be genuinely helpful, although it's probably not too comfortable to turn your head and cough in front of a group. You can ignore the sound of latex gloves snapping in the background, it may turn out to be an easy remedy right off the bat.