How Bad Can You Be?

And on a completely unrelated note, I also think that's why the Football online game failed. The board game requires a hands on approach on a play to play basis that the online game could never replicate and that lack of control and /or being able to get HAL to make adjustments from series to series or even play to play made it much less than the board game experience.

I agree. I played a couple seasons of the online football but was very frustrated with lack of control. A lot of the fun of the football board game was setting up an opponent, getting in their head, running when they called pass defense and vice-versa. That was completely lost in the online game. And if you think trying to determine what choosing aggressive for one of the baseball settings would make Hal do try guessing what the computer would do because you chose west coast offense or whatever. Imagine instead of having the settings we have in the baseball game we were instead offered choices of Whitey ball, or Weaver style. It was just too much for me. Loved the football board game and even the computer game. Just translated really bad to online.

That is one area where strat is a lot like real life. I remember reading in one of the baseball annuals an analysis of teams record in one run games. They associated high win % in one run games with luck and argued it was a predictor the team would come back to earth the next year and regress record wise. They also claimed the opposite.

Luck isn't necessarily involved in one-run games any more than it is in games decided by many runs. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes close games have hardly any "luck" involved, and sometimes games decided by 5 runs or more are littered with "luck." I don't know what "luck" was in the study Valen mentioned, but most people consider it to be when events go against probability. If that doesn't happen in a one-run game, luck wasn't a significant factor. If it happens often in a 10-2 game, then it was. Yes, luck has the ability to do more damage in one-run games, but it is not more likely to be present, much less the determinant, there.

Also, luck's presence in MLB is significantly different than in Strat-o-matic. Luck is not the same in SOM as in real life. In MLB, luck can make its presence known through a myriad of natural phenomena: freak physical ailments, missed signs, bad calls etc. In online SOM, luck is isolated by the rolls of the dice and HAL's algorithms, so it can be better isolated and anlyzed. However, even in SOM, luck--i.e. unlikely occurrences/dice rolls--is as likely to be present in games with high-scoring margins as it is in one run games.

So from this I drafted a team of players , who in my research, tended not be drafted in 80 Million dollar drafts very often.

A very interesting approach. To make it easier to follow you might post this in a new thread and then update us on a regular basis on how it is doing. I would be interested in following that and discussing as the season unfolds.

Note you were able to spend all by 20 thousand of your money. I remember when I first started playing would fidget with my draft cards trying to spend every last penny.

Emphatically, "luck" plays a far larger role in one-run games than in games decided by "many runs".

Here is a pretty in-depth article discussing one-run games:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/ten-things-about-one-run-games/

Bill

Emphatically, "luck" plays a far larger role in one-run games than in games decided by "many runs".

No, it doesn't. My previous post explained why. If you think my previous post was wrong, counter it and/or support your argument. You haven't done so yet.

Interesting but have a nosy question. Why would the square root be the +/-? Wouldn't that be based on some standard deviation calculation? Figure when I completely do not understand something there is a chance to learn something.

"...the tally will usually be within + or - the square root of N, where N is the number of flips."

http://www.askamathematician.com/2014/0 ... and-tails/

Emphatically, "luck" plays a far larger role in one-run games than in games decided by "many runs".

No question, you're right.

No question, you're right.

A four word "argument"? I know J-pav can do better.

However, if that's the best he can do on the matter, I will restate my response to that stance.

Luck isn't necessarily involved in one-run games any more than it is in games decided by many runs. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes close games have hardly any "luck" involved, and sometimes games decided by 5 runs or more are littered with "luck." I don't know what "luck" was in the study Valen mentioned, but most people consider it to be when events go against probability. If that doesn't happen in a one-run game, luck wasn't a significant factor. If it happens often in a 10-2 game, then it was. Yes, luck has the ability to do more damage in one-run games, but it is not more likely to be present, much less the determinant, there.

No question, you're right.

A four word "argument"? I know J-pav can do better.

However, if that's the best he can do on the matter, I will restate my response to that stance.

Luck isn't necessarily involved in one-run games any more than it is in games decided by many runs. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes close games have hardly any "luck" involved, and sometimes games decided by 5 runs or more are littered with "luck." I don't know what "luck" was in the study Valen mentioned, but most people consider it to be when events go against probability. If that doesn't happen in a one-run game, luck wasn't a significant factor. If it happens often in a 10-2 game, then it was. Yes, luck has the ability to do more damage in one-run games, but it is not more likely to be present, much less the determinant, there.

I believe it was Bill James that first suggested the "luck" factor in one-run games. Here is a short analysis of James' look at one-run games (in a context of trying not to pigeonhole James):

Take one-run games. People talk about the « character » it takes to win one-run games. Bill says that they involve a huge amount of luck – and that that may be the only safe statement that can be made about them. But is it safe to leap to the conclusion that there are no identifiable characteristics of teams that win a lot of one-run games? No. Bill’s studies indicate that a team can’t persistently win more than its share of one-run games, but there may be some persistent tendency for a team to lose more than its share.
Teams that fit the image of “one-run” ballclubs – more bunts, more steals, better pitching, and so on – show a small tendency to fare better in one-run games. But the extent to which this is true is so minor, it’s impossible to work backward from the characteristics to predict whether a team will do well or poorly in close games.

From: Scott Gray, The Mind of Bill James: How a Complete Outsider Changed Baseball