3 and Out

You will be missed Nev....and you too mike4169. Many including me have thought of leaving for a variety of reasons. One week I am thinking of starting new themes .. the next I decide I am through with this with my own questions about things that don't seem right with the game... and the following week am sucked into some league. I have left for periods of time as well and came back.

If you do stay away it will be a loss for us all. I don't think I have been in a league with you as I think about it......maybe a long time ago possibly early barnstormers or maybe the copycat theme....but don't think so. If we have it was a number of years ago and not often. Was thinking about one of these days jumping into a high cap autodraft or a live draft. If I'm lucky will still get a chance on that.

You may miss it and dive back in. You may miss it and dabble in a few leagues. You may just come and add insight on the boards. You may go. Stating the obvious, ultimately do what makes you happy. You are always welcome here.

Well Michael, as much as some of us like to tease you - (well....me - Didn't you quit ?) - I don't like to see original vets run away. There just aren't that many of us left.

Wouldn't it be really cool if you gave Barnstormers 2016 a shot and made the finals ? You could probably finance the whole thing with your Event 1 and subsequent event wins. Just imagine 4 Tix to your favorite MLB game (and SOM gives the finest seats in the house too)

Ah what COULD have been.

Happy Trails Michael.

MM

I'm quite certain Nev will never play again in the Barnstormers. Goes back to a cruise he was on about 11 years ago...

I have no plans to play in it again myself. This year I had the best regular season record of any participant but crapped out in the playoffs. IMHO the entire event is based on an inconsistent premise. For example, one has to demonstrate proficiency at multiple caps, stadium types and draft formats. All well and good,if the purpose is to have the best manager demonstrate his skills in the long run. But all these variables are too easily obviated by the playoff format which rewards a much greater element of luck i.e. best of 7 games series as opposed to best over 162 games. There is no way to get around the short series luck factor but the reward system used by the Barnstormers goes way overboard in rewarding the team that emerges from the short series gauntlet with a whopping extra 20 wins. In short, where the rewards really are is in doing well in short series playoffs -which I cannot imagine anyone advocating determines the best team or manager over a season -especially given the vast number of 100 win teams that we have seen over the years exit the semi's.

This issue could be remediated to a certain extent by lowering the rewards for winning playoff games. Credits already do that. Instead of a 20 point bonus, let the team who wins two series get 8 extra points, 1 point for each post season game won. That way the finals loser is guaranteed at least 4 points, up to 7. And the losers of the semi's get as many credits as the games they win. This would be a much more accurate barometer of overall skill. Otherwise the data from a 162 game schedule is less important than success in two short series. This way the standings are based purely on games on,not some arbitrary bonus that negates the whole point of the tournament format.

My point is if the Barnstormers Tour is designed to come up with the best manager over the course of the tournament, aggregate wins is a much better barometer than anything else, particularly the arbitrary results of a short series or two.

Doubtless this will fall on deaf ears as the event is run at the caprice of it's director with a veneer of collaboration from a committee of four, at least one of whom has already agreed publicly (BruceF) with the position I am advocating here.

Bottom line, if the format changes to one that places a premium on performance over the long haul, then I will play in it again. Unless and until that happens I won't.

Oh no, not again...

It really doesn't matter to me if such a huge range of possibilities are normal SD or created in a black box..I realized a long time ago that if, as your example, Bonds hitting between 55 HRS and 91 HRS in any given season is "normal" or to be expected, than that is just too big a field "of expected" "For Me" because too much luck is involved.


here's a conversation on two teams...

Hey nev good team did they win a title?

"Yup 98-64 record and Bonds hit 91 HRS and won MVP"

Well good nev, that's to be expected.

Hey nev good team did they win a title?

Nope 80-82 and Bonds hit 55 hrs.

Well sorry nev but that's to be expected.

And this is the "expected" SD spread..which should happen 2/3rds of the time...Imagine the other 1/3rd?

and if it's a 3% chance that Bonds hits 70 HRS in half a season...and since we know that like flipping a coin, the previous occurrence has no effect on the 50/50 odds of the next flip...each flip, or in my example, each half is independent...meaning he has a 3% chance of hitting 70 HRS in the second half Shouldn't Bonds have hit 140 Hrs in a season for me a couple of times based on my 2000 teams?


Also I think the 114 hr season for Bonds was in a theme league...but I could be mistaken.

And, as I said... while I realized this a long time ago, that the normal variation of results is much to big for my liking...other parts of the game, many other things about the game I really enjoyed...which is why I continued to play...and as Bruce said this was my addiction.

Bonds 2001 has hit 115 home runs (612 AB) in League 425982 (80M) and 114 dingers (607 AB) in League 347420 (100M). Neither league was a theme league.
He has hit over 100 home runs in 28 leagues and 90 or more in 65.
The fewest he has hit (500AB min.) is 47 but his head and body were much smaller on that team.
This in 1153 seasons of 80-100M baseball.

Maxie

So Nev has made the primary point on Bonds -
and thank you Maxie for backing up the numbers-- why in one league has Bonds NEVER hit 120+?
I mean NEVER!
let me make another one--

WHY do certain cards perform differently at different caps--
no, I KNOW you know what I mean-- NOT CONSISTENTLY DIFFERENTLY!

WE all know some cards won't do squat at high caps, but thats not what their cards say,
however they miraculously perform at lower levels.

NOW how is that possible? Why shouldnt all cards perform with approximately the same incremental difference at EVERY LEVEL???????

Maxie...If I understood rburgh's numbers correctly wouldn't Bonds hit 140 HRs 1.1 times in his 1153 seasons?

See I highlight 140 so perhaps people will stop showing me how many times he's hit 115, 112, 109, 106, 103.

Me "I'm looking to buy a black shirt, do you have any?"

Community "Sure, we have.. midnight blue, navy blue, dark navy blue, rich indigo blue and a deep blue velvet"

Me "but nothing in black?'

Community "yes we have midnight blue, navy blue, dark nav......"

Using rburghs analysis the likelihood of 10 in a half season would be the same as 70 so Bonds would be as likely to hit 20 in a season as 140 for a season. Ten is 2.5 standard deviations from 36.5 for a half season and also at a 3% chance by his method.

Me thinks there is a flaw in his method. If not, then my crazy theory seems more plausible to me than ever.