The Quantum Law Of SOM

A major reason that I enjoy the SOM mystery card games so much (and the single-season games not nearly so much, including the ATG games), is that in addition to having to architect a mystery card team with the proper balance of pitching, offense and defense to take advantage of your home ballpark, in order to be successful one needs to be able to deduce, using limited statistical samples, just which year's card each player has been assigned for that season. The earlier one can do so in the season, the better. Of course injury reveals and other things, such as HBP's (not every player year might have them !), triples (somewhat, since they can also be off the pitcher's card), BPHRs frequencies, and also hitter/pitcher card roll occurrences, all go into the "calculus" of making this determination. Of course starting with the 90's ,and now the 2000's , most (but not all) injury reveals have been eliminated due to most injury now being HBP's.

Over an infinite number of at bats, a player's performance will eventual converge on their intended stats, and the SOM cards are pretty darn good at that. I've had some seasons where a players stats in every offensive category were so close to their real-life stats that it was downright spooky. But the keyword is "eventually". I've also had seasons where I thought I definitely had a card's best year "A", only to find after the end-of-season reveal that it was actually middling year "B", or sometimes even worst-year "C". I'd think I had a Cy Young pitcher card, and it would perform like one over the course of the entire season, only to find that it was actually a terrible year card that I would have dropped if I had only known. And vice versa. I'd think I had a Cy Young pitcher card, and it would perform like one over the course of the entire season, only to find that it was actually a terribly year card that I would have dropped if I had known. Or I'd drop a pitcher after 3 starts with a 12.95 ERA or a high priced batter after starting the season 2 for 26 only to see after the season was over that they had their superstar hall-of-fame year card. You don't want to wait too long to drop an under-performer, but not short either. But it's sooo hard to be patient, esp. with the low early season 5% drop penalty and a fairly large selection of unsoiled FA's still available.

I'm currently in big trouble with my 80's Tourney team this year (and the 80's is usually my most successful MC game), and I've got a $0.88 Gerald Young card that I'm now counting on to be his stupid-good 1987 year (.321/.380/.380 - 5L with his vs LHP card give > 54% OBP, HOF stuff). After 65 ABs he's current giving .309/.413/.397 . What else could he be, right? But his vs LH/RH splits are the exact opposite of what would be expected, ie

vs LHP: 26 AB - .154/.267/.154
vs RHP: 42 AB - .405/.500/.548

What gives? It's 63 games into the season now, and I'm committed to keeping him as my full-time CF'er, since I needed the deploy the $$$ to try to shore up my horrific pitching staff. Those 26 AB's vs LHP could very well be 20 on the pitcher card and only 6 on his, but he is currently a balanced 39/41 overall , and his vs RHP card doesn't quite warrant those numbers he has again them.

Because of this random element in SOM, I'm continually amazed/astounded by the "superstar veterans" of the SOM MC games that never seem to have a bad season no matter what. The old legendary PanzerAce, the great AdamKatz, Jimmy_C, JuiceJC, our esteemed tourney commissioner, organizer and HOF player (.543 lifetime winning pct? incredible) , hallerose, multi-time MC tourney champs pushpin76 and Moodywoody. It boggles my mind to think that given the very nature of the game that anyone can win the MC tourney multiple times. But I suppose is it testimony to the "skill" required to be truly successful at this wonderful game. Even in this year's 2021 tourney, with field of players at an all-time high of 168 (!), check out who's currently in the top 20. Amazing.


"God does not play dice with the universe, but he DOES play dice with SOM. " -- Lee300, 2021
The Quantum Law of SOM

The measurement problem in quantum SOM occurs when a player has an excellent card but plays crappy. Let's take the case of Mike Lum from my cursed 70s team. Early on, HAL kept using Lum to pinch hit against lefties and he hit some doubles and a homer vs. lefties. So, I figured it had to be his 4L year of '73 where his card has an obp of .450, 38% hits, and good clutch against lefties. Perfect for Shea. So, I stuck him 5th in the lineup against lefties confident that the predicted averages would result in success, but when I looked at each game result against lefties - Lum and my team were always the dead cat. After 146 AB v lefties Lum is batting .233 v lefties, my team is 21-31 against lefties and last in the division. On the other hand, in my early use of Larry Sorensen, he was unbeatable going 3-0 in nearly complete games with an ERA of 2, but his near total lack of pop outs told me he couldn't be on his best year and I should cut him. But I couldn't bring myself to do it, and, sure enough, probabilities caught up and he started playing like the mediocre card he has.

Hi Franky, it was only inadvertent that I had omitted you from my short-list of SOM MC greats, which you certainly are. And it is only because of this type of analysis that each of the great players do, each in their own way but more or less taking into account the data similarly, that makes them (us?) so good. Given enough time of course, the actual card one in dealt will converge on its intended stats, but the key question is, what is enough time? Like a coin toss, a card's performance does not depend on its prior outcomes, and since half of the outcomes come from the opposing pitcher/hitter card, it's necessarily a "fuzzy math" and we have to make assumptions and educated guesses all the time. And... you just can't trust HAL ! I've made that mistake a number of times , and have regretted it. Maybe HAL will provide good info 80% of the time, but the other 20% he's just BS'ing you. So just how IS that cat doing inside of box? So we have to make educated guesses, at least until the probability wave collapses to a static state, via a definitive"reveal".

It's not Rocket Science after all, it's a little harder !

doesn't bother me about a mention. But I'm going to go way off topic here and mention a couple lay-person physics questions that have been bothering me. This idea that the state of an object is undetermined fits the idea that we are living in a matrix and the simulation doesn't bother to create events until we observe them. Also, I was watching a Brian Greene pbs NOVA episode on time where he said that according to standard physics if you travel toward a distant object you are looking at the future of that object; if so, then why don't we have a radio telescope orbiting the sun to look for distant supernovas or distant radio bursts so we can observe the light several months or years before the light reaches the earth?

Mystery leagues are humbling. I’ve had a previous run of success playing the 60s when I joined a private league with some very good managers. It was going to be a challenge. But I put together a good team, and they were dominating. After 80 games they were 50-30 (.625) and their run differential was by far the best in the league. My hitting was best, and my pitching was close to being best. I got a couple of flattering comments from other managers about my “skill” playing the 60s.

And then the brown stuff hit the proverbial fan. It was a $60 million cap league, so your top couple of guys are especially important. Mine were Killebrew and Billy Williams. They had been tearing it up. Suddenly, they came down to earth. Worse, they both turned out to be on their worst cards (not exactly stinker years but far from their best cards.) And even worse, they both had their only season where they could get injured for more than 3 games at a time. (Ironically, Killebrew has two seasons where he can’t get hurt at all and Williams has four.) And injured they became over and over. And not just them.

Anyway, my team went 35-47 the rest of the way and ended up with a +16 run differential, a shadow of what they were doing early in the season. They did rally at the end to squeak into the playoffs, but were quickly eliminated in the semi-finals.

I would have tried again with this group of great managers (lots of fun chatter during the season), but they were going on to another decade. So, I joined a 60s autoleague. Only two managers had a lifetime record over .500, and they were both in another division. My draft went well; I was confident…

Once again, Killebrew and Williams both turned out to be on their worst seasons. (This time I cut Williams.) They weren’t the only key players who had a bad card. I also had others with good seasons who woefully underperformed. I did make a couple of bad decisions, so I can’t blame this disaster of a season completely on bad luck.

I’m not posting this just to whine. I’m just trying to make the point how humbling the mystery leagues can be. On the other hand, they will keep you entertained all season long as you try to analyze your players and make necessary changes. Play ball!

NOVA episode on time where he said that according to standard physics if you travel toward a distant object you are looking at the future of that object; ?

I dont pretend to be an astrophysicist, but I disagree with above quote.
When you are observing the light from a star/object you are observing its past (measured in its light years from you).
If you are moving towards the object/star you would see the light sooner then if you were an observer from earth.
The closer to the speed of light you are moving the more minimal the time lag between present day star and what you are viewing--in standard physics the formulas break down when you approach the speed of light. You can only view the future in that you can see the past sooner then Earth could see it.

Someone who had physics more recently then 30 years ago can chime in though too.

Lee, as for your dilemma, GYoungs insane walk rate and pathetic double rate makes his card #5 IMO.

Lee, as for your dilemma, GYoungs insane walk rate and pathetic double rate makes his card #5 IMO.

Thanks Dave. I'm going to have to reluctantly concur with your analysis that it is indeed GYoung's #5 card, and not his uber #1. I am braced for the downward results that are sure to follow in the next 100 games or so remaining in the season. But considering that I'm basically punting CF, his defense being CF2(-1)e3 is really nice enough, and CF is such a critical SOM defensive position. I NEVER EVER put anyone less than a CF2 out there. And even on offense, with all his walks, he's still a balanced 32%/32% OBP on his card, so that won't hurt TOO much at the bottom of the lineup, although he is far cry from my beloved Gorman Thomas with his CF1 and his unconditional HR power across the board. But I missed out on getting him in the draft, and have burned through a number of under-performing (not surprisingly) imposters Bradley, Murphy and lastly Moseby before dumping all of them. Gorman is always one of my 80's core players, since I prefer to play my 80's in Riverfront, but "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime you just might find, you get Gerald Young, yeah yeah" .

First of all, your post seems to ignore the fact that you are one of the better 80s players yourself.
Second, there is very, very rarely a season where I dont make a mistake. Everybody does. But if Guerrero is hitting .150 after 100ABS the "right" move is to drop him (assuming you havent got an injury reveal or other clue) even if you eventually find out it was a "mistake".

Specifically, with respect to GYoung, based on the stats you posted, I can tell..... nothing.
The ABs against righties are meaningless. He has no year like that. Even in his best year he doesnt hit righties much better than any of his other years. Can't tell anything after 26 ABs. If HAL is PH him against lefties frequently, then you have something. As another poster mentioned, if he only has ph once or twice, it could mean that it is his best year, or everyone on your bench and the player being ph for all are just even worse against lefties than Youngs other years.

I dont know any other stats to follow in addition to the ones you mentioned. Its mostly HBPs, injuries and, to a lesser extent, who HAL phs for/with (and that last one isnt that relaible unless it is consistent). Hitter/pitcher roll frequency and the othe rstuff you mention go into the analysis, but its mostly stats, injury reveals and HBPs.

I will tell one story about how I think I might have gone the extra mile. In a recent league, a player I consider pretty good dropped Kal Daniels after about 10 games following an injury of a ground ball double play. Normally, I wouldnt have even bothere to second guess the drop, but I needed a DH. On its face it could have been one of his two best years or his worst year. He was hitting under .100. But I knew it wasnt his bad year. After about 100 ABS, he was still hitting under .200. After 200 ABs he was around .225. By the end of the season he was hitting over .350. what I noticed was his bad year was an injury on a ground ball to the pitcher. The opposing pitcher (who, luckily, at this point has only pitched 2-3 games and less than 15 innings) had no assists so I knew it was one of his better years. This was the only time I ever figured a player's year based on a position. I'm not suggesting anyone else get this crazy-probably not that healthy, but I thought it was pretty cool. This sort of thing is impossible with most players (becuase the injuries arent that different) and would have only worked in this instance really early in the season and specifically with respect to injuries to pitchers (as they are less likely to have assists or PutOuts than position players), but it happened.

I would completely disagree with your theory as it pertains to pitchers. The pitchers don’t mean revert or come particularly close to their carded seasons. In part because they’re pitching against more of an all star lineup. I check my teams performance against their carded seasons and would estimate that 80% of the time pitchers WHIPs are higher than their seAson

One of the interesting things about a MC season is the rosters changing. Everyone is trying to get better and when they do those early results have no meaning.

For me sometimes the decision is will the move make my team worse. Otherwise time, what do I have to lose.

The best to pick up someone else’s discard and have it rock your team.

It is just a big mystery