Every One of My 13 100+ Win Teams in ATG9

You can't use MLB as a comparison because teams are constantly changing. You've got trades, you've got call-ups, you've have players performing poorly due to injuries, fatigue, slumps, changes in line-ups, players figuring things out. Strat is random dice rolls and injuries for the most part. If a team that is so high beyond the curve for 60-70 games then all of a sudden they aren't..you just wonder how that happens. The team that was so good that it was beyond the effect of random dice rolls...and then all of a sudden totally reverses course. Each game the luck is random, independent of past games. So even if a team got incredibly lucky on dice rolls for 60 games...that doesnt mean they should all of a sudden be incredibly unlucky.

You can't use MLB as a comparison because teams are constantly changing. You've got trades, you've got call-ups, you've have players performing poorly due to injuries, fatigue, slumps, changes in line-ups, players figuring things out. Strat is random dice rolls and injuries for the most part. If a team that is so high beyond the curve for 60-70 games then all of a sudden they aren't..you just wonder how that happens. The team that was so good that it was beyond the effect of random dice rolls...and then all of a sudden totally reverses course. Each game the luck is random, independent of past games. So even if a team got incredibly lucky on dice rolls for 60 games...that doesnt mean they should all of a sudden be incredibly unlucky.

My point exactly.

I had a team maybe 1-2 years ago going from memory that started the season with something like 17 or 19 wins in a row. Then lost something like 10 straight, then won 12 straight, then lost 7 straight. lather, rinse, repeat, all season long it seemed. I'm 99% certain they did not win a ring.

Never seen anything like it before or since. I can try to find the team, but it's a pain in the ass searching.

** update: after 15 minutes of searching, I gave up trying, hundreds of teams to scour through. ugh.

we don't have reasonable access to all the data to 'prove' that the frequency is much greater than it should be, but that doesn't make the evidence itself less compelling.

It actually does, by definition, make the evidence (such as it is) less compelling.

It's a game, they're ways to "hack" it -- not cyber-wise (I hope) but just studious ways. We certainly don't know about the black box, and greatly wish for more transparency for fairness sake. Not a big illumination, but i found if i play the oft-injured Del Rice and Dick Brown in a power park, only one catcher is injured at a time, due to SOM rules, if I understand it correctly. See: https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1677639

So at $80M, you get pretty good production for about $4M in catchers ...27 HRs, 78 RBIs so far in 117 games. Not big OBP guys, all slug.

we don't have reasonable access to all the data to 'prove' that the frequency is much greater than it should be, but that doesn't make the evidence itself less compelling.

It actually does, by definition, make the evidence (such as it is) less compelling.

debatable.
unless you know exactly what parameters to input, numbers can also tell you a false story-
as we see by Charlies constant refrains of 'this happened x number of times in MLB'-
where he fails to take into account the factors which underpin said events that are entirely different at SoM. (or could be in the black box for all we know)
some of which were mentioned earlier.

The argument against what Charlie posted is that real world fluctuations are driven by changes to the rosters, batting orders, etc. so they cannot be compared to the "unrealistic" fluctuations observed in SOM outcomes. However, SOM simulations do not have a fixed set of parameters either. There are constant changes to lineups, pitching rotations, managerial settings, etc. etc. If you say, "Well these are small changes and cannot have large effects," I refer you to the work of Edward Lorenz and the Butterfly Effect.

Randomness occurs in the real world both at the atomic and macroscopic levels. If SOM outcomes were completely repeatable that would be the height of unrealism.

The argument against what Charlie posted is that real world fluctuations are driven by changes to the rosters, batting orders, etc. so they cannot be compared to the "unrealistic" fluctuations observed in SOM outcomes. However, SOM simulations do not have a fixed set of parameters either. There are constant changes to lineups, pitching rotations, managerial settings, etc. etc. If you say, "Well these are small changes and cannot have large effects," I refer you to the work of Edward Lorenz and the Butterfly Effect.

Randomness occurs in the real world both at the atomic and macroscopic levels. If SOM outcomes were completely repeatable that would be the height of unrealism.

Not really- that would be incorrect on 2 different levels.
the first argument is that there are a TON more variables in real life that aren't taken into account in the game-
and, if they are taken into account then they are part of the 'black box' settings.
On top of which there are specific limitations that the online game has that should definitely limit some of the real world variability--
For example- for most players there are much less injury time
only 1 catcher can be hurt
fatigue only efx a player for a game etc etc etc

The second argument is that regression to the point of going the opposite direction SHOULDN'T happen nearly as frequently as in real life.
This was covered earlier regarding the chances of rolling a 1 after you've rolled 5 ones in a row- the chances remain the same...again, with the caveat that we don't know what 'black box' things are taking place.

also- SoM does not feature constant changes to rotations, and mostly a limited changing of lineups, even at large caps.
The argument just doesn't correlate.

The argument against what Charlie posted is that real world fluctuations are driven by changes to the rosters, batting orders, etc. so they cannot be compared to the "unrealistic" fluctuations observed in SOM outcomes. However, SOM simulations do not have a fixed set of parameters either. There are constant changes to lineups, pitching rotations, managerial settings, etc. etc. If you say, "Well these are small changes and cannot have large effects," I refer you to the work of Edward Lorenz and the Butterfly Effect.

Randomness occurs in the real world both at the atomic and macroscopic levels. If SOM outcomes were completely repeatable that would be the height of unrealism.

Not really- that would be incorrect on 2 different levels.
the first argument is that there are a TON more variables in real life that aren't taken into account in the game-
and, if they are taken into account then they are part of the 'black box' settings.
On top of which there are specific limitations that the online game has that should definitely limit some of the real world variability--
For example- for most players there are much less injury time
only 1 catcher can be hurt
fatigue only efx a player for a game etc etc etc

The second argument is that regression to the point of going the opposite direction SHOULDN'T happen nearly as frequently as in real life.
This was covered earlier regarding the chances of rolling a 1 after you've rolled 5 ones in a row- the chances remain the same...again, with the caveat that we don't know what 'black box' things are taking place.

also- SoM does not feature constant changes to rotations, and mostly a limited changing of lineups, even at large caps.
The argument just doesn't correlate.

No Salty, you are wrong, which you would find out if you'd take 5 minutes to Google "Butterfly Effect" before making your usual sweeping assertions. The striking think about Lorenz research was the FEW variables in his model which led to widely different results with small changes in input parameters.

It's interesting to me that Charlie is the only one in this thread that presented data rather than anecdotes and he is being criticized for making an unsound argument.

The argument against what Charlie posted is that real world fluctuations are driven by changes to the rosters, batting orders, etc. so they cannot be compared to the "unrealistic" fluctuations observed in SOM outcomes. However, SOM simulations do not have a fixed set of parameters either. There are constant changes to lineups, pitching rotations, managerial settings, etc. etc. If you say, "Well these are small changes and cannot have large effects," I refer you to the work of Edward Lorenz and the Butterfly Effect.

Randomness occurs in the real world both at the atomic and macroscopic levels. If SOM outcomes were completely repeatable that would be the height of unrealism.

Not really- that would be incorrect on 2 different levels.
the first argument is that there are a TON more variables in real life that aren't taken into account in the game-
and, if they are taken into account then they are part of the 'black box' settings.
On top of which there are specific limitations that the online game has that should definitely limit some of the real world variability--
For example- for most players there are much less injury time
only 1 catcher can be hurt
fatigue only efx a player for a game etc etc etc

The second argument is that regression to the point of going the opposite direction SHOULDN'T happen nearly as frequently as in real life.
This was covered earlier regarding the chances of rolling a 1 after you've rolled 5 ones in a row- the chances remain the same...again, with the caveat that we don't know what 'black box' things are taking place.

also- SoM does not feature constant changes to rotations, and mostly a limited changing of lineups, even at large caps.
The argument just doesn't correlate.

No Salty, you are wrong, which you would find out if you'd take 5 minutes to Google "Butterfly Effect" before making your usual sweeping assertions. The striking think about Lorenz research was the FEW variables in his model which led to widely different results with small changes in input parameters.

It's interesting to me that Charlie is the only one in this thread that presented data rather than anecdotes and he is being criticized for making an unsound argument.

Lol- dude, no. I get what the butterfly effect is.
don't get so defensive; you were given very thorough explanations of the differences
between the 2 scenarios- and yes, of course there is still a large amount of randomness,
which is how naysayers can always throw doubt on the process...but thats ignoring the
many times in the past we have found out that what was suspected was actually true.
Also no and no- presenting data is meaningless UNLESS the data has correlation...
and thats the point that has been repeatedly made, not even counting that he has a long
standing account of presenting the same data only to do an about face.

Also also - that is simply incorrect- other folks HAVE posted data - in fact Nev's opening statement IS DATA-
I mean, seriously???

For those who play 20XX...this is an example of the hard slog Ive had recently after I had a good run (8 rings in 18 or 19 teams)...

I mean the hitting numbers are just absurdly bad.. Two of the teams in my division have cheap starters like I do btw!

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1681330