Middle Defense: Another Tutorial

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1383826

This shows Murphy with 101 doubles? In a non-theme league? Is that even statistically possible, short of some kind of quantum irregularity in the local universe?

The posts were called "The Secret Formula". They're in the archived boards. It's not like they're hidden posts or anything. I think I posted about 20 Champs teams per year over what, like 10 years??

I don't "need" to post anything, or even convince anybody of anything. Do your own research. When I do post something, it's out of fun and kinship with the community. I'm not misleading anyone or manipulating anything. I just (usually) enjoy the discussion.

The classic misinterpretation of The Secret Formula is that it is somehow my "opinion". The Secret Formula is 7th grade math. You might not like that 90+ percent of Championship teams use 1s and 2s up the middle, but the FACT is, they do. There's a lot I can't do, but one thing I do very well is add, subtract, multiply and divide. Tell me all you want about your 3 defenders, or bomp helium's 4 defenders, but don't tell me I can't add. Maybe this year will be different, all I know is it holds up VERY well over the previous 12 or 13 seasons.

I think it's wonderful when someone's bold approach works. But a trend is a trend is a trend. And by the way, 90% is not 100%. So I actually DO GET IT that some teams use 3 range defenders up the middle. I DO IT TOO!! It doesn't change the trend, the fact, the conventional wisdom, the veterans best practices or whatever you want to label it as. If 90+ percent can be most, then most Championship teams use 1s and 2s..

Actually, the Secret Formula is your opinion. It may be a very successful one, but it isn't infallible or the only way to build a successful team. And the fact you provide championship teams has no relevance to the thread topic. Everyone knows you can win with 1s and 2sx middle infielders.

And, as I said earlier, anyone has to provide evidentiary support if they are asserting something is true beyond their opinion, including you. Considering you already erroneously asserted teams with 3s middle infielders will produce runner-ups, without substantial evidence, it is perfectly reasonable for anybody to request the evidence behind your factual assertions.

And I think it's great you admit using 3s middle infielders is a viable way to win a title. The fact you are using Santana at SS proves it. But who cares about the trends you claim should be followed. There are many different ways to win championships, and whomever limits themselves to trends or formulas is simply unimaginative.

Wow, what a moron. J is showing a starting point, based on actual results, for new managers and others to have a better chance at being successful. This is baseball after all, there are no absolutes. If you read a little better, you will see that his sample size shows that managers are better off with strong defense up the middle. A solid strategy in baseball older than any of us. Of course there are exceptions, best tried by the more experienced managers. Most of us have won leagues with a three in the middle (my most recent was a platoon at second with Backman and Beckert in ATG8) but most of our championships were with a better middle. It seems you just like to argue, dismissing solid winning strategy he is trying to pass along. More people would offer their winning tendencies if they didn't have to subject their every word to your petty nonsense.

who cares about the trends you claim should be followed. There are many different ways to win championships, and whomever limits themselves to trends or formulas is simply unimaginative.

"This is the sort of thing that gives mindless pendantry a bad name." -- Gore Vidal

Tcochran, what do you mean by offense "drying up" in the 2014 set?

In the NL, team runs per game were the lowest since 1992 (as was the ERA)

In the AL, it was even worse, with team runs per game at the lowest level since 1981 (also along with the ERA)

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1383826

This shows Murphy with 101 doubles? In a non-theme league? Is that even statistically possible, short of some kind of quantum irregularity in the local universe?

Loved that Donnie Murphy card: 2nd to teammate Bautista for MVP in the regular season and winner of playoff MVP

who cares about the trends you claim should be followed. There are many different ways to win championships, and whomever limits themselves to trends or formulas is simply unimaginative.

"This is the sort of thing that gives mindless pendantry a bad name." -- Gore Vidal

Clown did it again! He actually accused me of pretentiousness, and he quotes Gore Vidal a second time. Too funny.
He also used the same quote; our Clown must not be too well read...

Sorry, Tcochran, I missed your post. Thanks for answering.

And on these boards, clown time is never over...in fact, it's almost ALWAYS clown time here!

Cool, because I was depressed at the thought that clown time might be over!

In the NL, team runs per game were the lowest since 1992 (as was the ERA)

In the AL, it was even worse, with team runs per game at the lowest level since 1981 (also along with the ERA)

There's a great page in baseball reference dot com (can't remember where) that lets you look at the full-league aggregates for every year in every statistic; and it's also sortable! It's about as mindblowing as anything in baseball can be to see the huge increase in runs scored during the steroid era, and the sudden dramatic decrease in the past three years -- truly (relatively speaking), it's a new deadball era.

[Note ahead of time: if anyone (ahem) thinks I'm obliged to define "steroid era," the particlular "anyone" should know "his" posts are blocked by me; thus I will contentedly remain ignorant, forever, of the fact that I have not met "his" demands. (As noted in another post, I generally ignore what fictional characters have to say, unless I've chosen the book or movie or play featuring them.)]

As long as he doesn't use that Gore Vidal quote a third time...