Normalization

This damn normalization is b#llsh&t. This team was screaming along at a .741 clip (40-14) and I kept wondering when the normalization would kick in and it kicked in big time as I have lost 6 straight. I have still have the best record in the league but I fear I am going to tumble into oblivion. I have the best run differential in the league and the best in my division by a wide margin. The differential was huge even in the league before the slide. And by the way I am whining. I know many others have experienced the same thing. Why in the hell can't Hal leave the damn game alone. I foolishly believed that this team would reach 100 wins but Hal took care of that. This team deserves better. I have 5 credits left and I think I'm done. This is too demoralizing.

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1439292

I can top that ... this team just finished Friday with a 96-66 record, Nice, still the best record in the league, but ... when you take a look at the schedule, some amazing records early on jump out at you. 27-3 .900 after 30 games and 42-9 .824 after 51 games. I thought I had a realistic chance at breaking the 110 win barrier 1/3 of the way through the season. But then normalization kicked and the team had a sub .500 record for the next 100 games. I cannot understand how a team that swept seven of the first 10 series did so only five more times after game 51. What happened? Who knows? Maddening ...

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/schedule/1437235

supertyphoon wrote:

But then normalization kicked and the team had a sub .500 record for the next 100 games

I hear you brother! It's hard to keep up an .824 pace but if you played .600 ball (which this team could have done easily) you would have won 108 games.

1. Other managers adjust to your team when you are off to a start like that.

2. Nobody plays .800 ball in a fairly administered capped league here. The salaries are a bit out of whack, but nothing like that. Expecting to is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Even in the current card keeper leagues people don't do that well, or (sub-.200) that poorly either.

3. Your Pythagorean record was 100-62 over the full season, so you underachieved a bit.

4. Injuries are a big equalizer, although it doesn't look like you had very many of them.

5. The general failure on this site to understand that a team's record after 1/4 to 1/3 of a season is not much more than a middling predictor of the team's final record makes me sad. If you take all of your teams' records after 54 games, and compare 3x those wins with your final win totals, you will find that at least half of your teams are 10 wins off their projection.

I'm with rburgh on this one. Any time a team jumps off to an incredible start, you need to look at how many overperformers you have. I've tested hitting normalization off and on since they officially turned off that switch back in 2008, and I see no signs of normalization for hitters. Looking at Lanier's team:

- You have a bunch of hitters overperforming even after your current 1-8 cold snap. Even platooning, Uggla and Trosky are off to really hot starts and I would expect each to cool down.
- Your entire outfield is raking beyond expectations. The power isn't surprising, but Belle, Griffey, and Post all batting over .300 this far into the season is unexpected.
- Your bullpen is pitching out of its mind. In a pure hitters' park, having four relievers with ERAs all below 3.5, especially with a weaker defensive team, is a sign of huge overperformance. Even Rivera at 2.05, while not stunning, is better than you would expect for a full season in Baker.
- I don't really see any underperformers other than May.

Typhoon - that's a good lineup of small ball hitters, but the top 7 all hitting .320 or better is a sign of some good fortune. 4 regulars were batting over .380 at game 51, and two of your sub 1M subs (Sizemore and Frazier) were batting .400 at that time. The odds of that continuing are slim to none.

It's not normalization - it's regressing to the mean. When you're way over or under performing, eventually the rolls will start landing on the bad columns instead of the good columns.

It's not normalization - it's regressing to the mean. When you're way over or under performing, eventually the rolls will start landing on the bad columns instead of the good columns.

I'm in this camp as well.

Normalization hit the 1984 Tigers hard.

Normalization hit the 1984 Tigers hard.

in 1985.

It was 1984

Tigers started season 35-5. Only finished with 104 wins. Normalization hit them big time. I bet Sparky Anderson was pissed when they didn't get 140 wins.

It's ridiculous to assume that because you win a bunch of games early that your team is entitled to win over 100.

It was 1984

Tigers started season 35-5. Only finished with 104 wins. Normalization hit them big time. I bet Sparky Anderson was pissed when they didn't get 140 wins.

It's ridiculous to assume that because you win a bunch of games early that your team is entitled to win over 100.

It was a joke. Tigers won 104 in '84 and 84 in '85. Haha...ha....ha...um....ahem...see, its normalization. Get it?.......tough crowd