Page 3 of 7

Is a 100 win team SOM kryptonite?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:14 pm
Hey J-Pay,

Thanks for all the help with this post and those from the previous years.

One question:

Of the 20 teams you used for this study, can you tell if there is a positive or negative correlation between 100 win seasons and championships?

Anything you noted on wins versus championship success?



PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:45 pm
by drew6013
"Subtract out the defense (Guzman minus 32 runs, Jeter minus 18 and Vizquel minus 6"

How do you figure these negative runs? What would a, oh i don't know, a 4e27 come out to be?

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:07 am
by thisisray
i think guzman may be on my next draft list. your the man j-pav. thanks!

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:24 am
by J-Pav
Sorry guys, I just got home from work (11:45pm Chicago time). Is Peavy on the Cubs yet??

[quote:5d3c5b20be="Aray0113"]Great work as, usual, J-Pav!

I have three questions and one observation for you:

Q1: How much if any, do you factor in trades and add/drops of players for this team?
[i:5d3c5b20be]I ask this because I tried two 'formula' teams in last year's card set; both finished with 81-81 records, but one got better as the season progressed, while the other faltered (probably due to a trade I made which upset the salary structure).[/i:5d3c5b20be][/quote:5d3c5b20be]

I make all my trades before the season begins. After the season starts, I make zero trades and probably very close to zero drops. If I do drop, almost always it's because I overforecasted my pitcher innings. So I might drop a $0.60 pitcher who's getting no innings for a $0.50 basestealer or something.

Also, the salary structure is not at all rigid. In fact, if you squint hard enough, most teams probably look pretty close to it. I doubt your team faltered because you upset the balance of the salaries. Your team likely just wasn't [i:5d3c5b20be]scoring enough runs[/i:5d3c5b20be]!

[quote:5d3c5b20be="Aray0113"]Q2: In a related question: what do you look for when selecting your sub-$1M guys: filling a need, or just filling the roster?[/quote:5d3c5b20be]

There's always some [i:5d3c5b20be]need[/i:5d3c5b20be]. A $10 mil guy should get you all the tools. A $1 mil guy will likely get you one tool. For me, that one tool is almost always OBP. Ideally, though, he's a one-sided platoon who can give you a little D or something too. I never just "fill the roster." At the very worst I'd use a $0.50 defender or pinch runner type. At best, again, a one-sided platoon guy. Every player should have a purpose.

[quote:5d3c5b20be="Aray0113"]Q3: The "Managerial Strategy" factor: Do you use your normal preferences, or do you let the personnel and the ballpark dictate your strategy settings?[/quote:5d3c5b20be]

I tried the micro-manager thing. I hate it at work and I hate it in Strat-O. I'm an autopilot guy, with the exception of some match-up pitching. Just my opinion, but for every brilliant micro move I made, HAL countered with one that would've worked better if I had just left things well enough alone. Plus, I simply just don't have the time to mess with my teams like that, although, I think it would be a great newb strategy for the guy who is very closely watching one team.

[quote:5d3c5b20be="Aray0113"]Observation: I should have learned better after consistently using high-injury, mid-$ guys (most notably Alex Escobar) in last years' set. Never even thought about using Guzman -- the high injury and high error rating scared me away (though if he were a corner IF, I would have had him on a lot of my teams).[/quote:5d3c5b20be]

Escobar was THE bargain of last year's set. Guzman might be for this year. Although he's no '07 Escobar, strong hitting shortstops are extremely hard to come by in '08.

[quote:5d3c5b20be="Aray0113"]You've rekindled a 'new' sense of variety to my team selection.[/quote:5d3c5b20be]

That's the best thing you could've said about my post. :D

[quote:5d3c5b20be="Aray0113"]You do realize that you're going to start a run of "Guzman-Mania" with your revelation, don't you? :wink: [/quote:5d3c5b20be]

There aren't many revelations left come November. That's why I wait 'til now to write the post!

Re: Is a 100 win team SOM kryptonite?

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:37 am
by J-Pav
[quote:f0452e2d49="sponedal"]Of the 20 teams you used for this study, can you tell if there is a positive or negative correlation between 100 win seasons and championships?

Anything you noted on wins versus championship success?[/quote:f0452e2d49]


The one 100 win team I used was a tour team called the [b:f0452e2d49]Nanaimo Drillers[/b:f0452e2d49] (manager: Wayne Lepitzki, record 103-59). Don't know if he won it all or not.

My opinion, and not meant to offend Wayne, is that 100 win teams are just 95 win teams that HAL gave more love too. There is no "building the 100 win team." Over the last several years, the best records teams (usually an average of 20 or so teams) averaged 95 wins. Anything above 90 wins nowadays is usually a playoff bound team.

I'm sure wins correlate very well with rings; however, there are never any guarantees. I've won rings with both 100 win teams and sub .500 teams (both infrequently, however).

P.S. Thanks for the links to your Citizen's Bank teams in the other thread. I found looking at those teams very helpful. :D

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:38 am
by J-Pav

Hanley is a minus 41! :shock:

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:50 am
by J-Pav
[b:35ff836c36]Ray[/b:35ff836c36] (the other Ray, not "A-Ray" Ray):


The point isn't necessarily to try Guzman, although I think you'll like the results. The point is to get down the basics, then tweak things with a Guzman-like player (that's code for "there are more players than just Guzman out there to try").

My gosh, we all play [i:35ff836c36]so many teams[/i:35ff836c36] - the only ones that ever really stick out are the ones where you make a little discovery, that for a team or two, is truly just yours.

Also, thanks guys for the positive comments. You guys are so nice, I [i:35ff836c36]almost[/i:35ff836c36] wish [b:35ff836c36]luckyman[/b:35ff836c36] would come out of hiding to tell me that the whole post is wrong, just like the old days!

Emphasis on the "almost". :D :D :D

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:18 am
by drew6013
Thanks J-Pav. But How do you figure the negative runs? Are you reading the cards in all the times fielding comes into a play, and running an average or the position? or is that an actual count from one of your seasons?

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:45 am
by J-Pav
It's an approximation from a fielding chart (range and errors) that assumes a 162 game season.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:16 am
by drew6013
Just off the top of my head...
Hanley might get you 100 offensive runs but he's going to net roughly the same amount of runs that Guzman does and save you some sweet cash. Pretty interesting.