- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:53 pm
- Location: Earth
We are really eyeball-deep into the drop thing now, which was never my intention.
My intention is to look through a filter at teams that, for what ever reason, while adhering to standard best practices, fail to consistently move toward more winning seasons.
There may be a simple explanation, and the simplest I can think of is that the bulk of the left side of the curve is new players. Filling out the rest of the left side and moving toward the middle are veteran teams, that for one reason or another, just did not work out in that particular league.
Player selection/card reading might be another reason, although I haven't made up my own mind one way or another on that yet. There may be other factors (discuss).
Alk, your 45 drop team that won the ring did so while maintaining 98% of your original $80 mil. Those were either trades most likely, or that opening night thing where you build a lineup for the opening day opponent and turn over the roster between 10p and 12m, before HAL starts docking you salary.
I completely agree that any one team (out of bazillions) can win a ring while making excessive drops. Statistically there will be plenty of black swans far out on the tail. It would even be fun if someone did a "Hey Mom, look at me!" post and showed us the team that won a ring in an $80 mil league with $68 mil of remaining salary. We all know it's out there.
Having said that, me, Badjam, RB, et al, are completely correct when we say how easy it is to recognize when someone is shedding salary and it's HURTING their chances to win games.
So all I'm saying, is that my particular filter for sorting out winners and losers includes a first glance at remaining salary. If you're 62-100 and have zero drops that means there's plenty more to be looked at. If you're 62-100 and you have 45 drops that shed $22 mil of salary, do you really need to know much more? Sure, maybe. That 5.32 ERA? Was it the original $5 mil SPs or was it the later $1 mil SPs responsible? Maybe we'll never know, but maybe if you were playing with an $80 mil team you would see what went wrong in a much clearer light.
All I can tell you is that in 12 years I've won something like 125 20XX Championships. I can promise you, that in probably 123 of them, I had zero drops (ie, zero shed salary). Looking at other managers' Championship teams confirms what I already know. You are more likely to see zero drops (or something like say, less than three) than you are to see some higher amount.
Why newbie advice to not shed salary has turned into some thesis on the existence of HAL's love is perplexing. Every! Always! Never! What if! Fallacious!
Really?
Managers, esp newer managers, try and hang on to your original roster as long as you can. Make trades if necessary, but do everything you can not to field a $65 mil team against my $79.97 mil team. You are likely to find that difficult.
Now, about that original question...
My intention is to look through a filter at teams that, for what ever reason, while adhering to standard best practices, fail to consistently move toward more winning seasons.
There may be a simple explanation, and the simplest I can think of is that the bulk of the left side of the curve is new players. Filling out the rest of the left side and moving toward the middle are veteran teams, that for one reason or another, just did not work out in that particular league.
Player selection/card reading might be another reason, although I haven't made up my own mind one way or another on that yet. There may be other factors (discuss).
Alk, your 45 drop team that won the ring did so while maintaining 98% of your original $80 mil. Those were either trades most likely, or that opening night thing where you build a lineup for the opening day opponent and turn over the roster between 10p and 12m, before HAL starts docking you salary.
I completely agree that any one team (out of bazillions) can win a ring while making excessive drops. Statistically there will be plenty of black swans far out on the tail. It would even be fun if someone did a "Hey Mom, look at me!" post and showed us the team that won a ring in an $80 mil league with $68 mil of remaining salary. We all know it's out there.
Having said that, me, Badjam, RB, et al, are completely correct when we say how easy it is to recognize when someone is shedding salary and it's HURTING their chances to win games.
So all I'm saying, is that my particular filter for sorting out winners and losers includes a first glance at remaining salary. If you're 62-100 and have zero drops that means there's plenty more to be looked at. If you're 62-100 and you have 45 drops that shed $22 mil of salary, do you really need to know much more? Sure, maybe. That 5.32 ERA? Was it the original $5 mil SPs or was it the later $1 mil SPs responsible? Maybe we'll never know, but maybe if you were playing with an $80 mil team you would see what went wrong in a much clearer light.
All I can tell you is that in 12 years I've won something like 125 20XX Championships. I can promise you, that in probably 123 of them, I had zero drops (ie, zero shed salary). Looking at other managers' Championship teams confirms what I already know. You are more likely to see zero drops (or something like say, less than three) than you are to see some higher amount.
Why newbie advice to not shed salary has turned into some thesis on the existence of HAL's love is perplexing. Every! Always! Never! What if! Fallacious!
Really?
Managers, esp newer managers, try and hang on to your original roster as long as you can. Make trades if necessary, but do everything you can not to field a $65 mil team against my $79.97 mil team. You are likely to find that difficult.
Now, about that original question...