I was playing around trying to draft an all bargain pitching team and I came up with a group of 8 pitchers with this line for under $40M.  Anyone think they could do better?

weighted avg year = 1913
ip        = 1208
whip  = 0.89
oav     =  .206
k/9      = 3.12
bb/9   = 1.36
hr/9    = 0.12
k/bb    = 370-161
salary = $39,272,361
FP/RRF = B+/A-

Not bad, even though I believe your stated numbers can be skewed heavily depending on whether you're using two heavy inning super stud starting pitchers whose numbers would vastly influence the final numbers.  But at any rate, for whatever its worth, I'm sure that for $40mil I could put together a staff with very comparable numbers - that is, if I'm not worried about the rest of my roster. 

How well do they normalize?

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/24/2012 12:43:00 AM (view original):
How well do they normalize?

Yep, that's the question.  Show me the + and # stats.

Posted by biglenr on 9/24/2012 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/24/2012 12:43:00 AM (view original):
How well do they normalize?

Yep, that's the question.  Show me the + and # stats.

whip#       = 0.98
oav#         =  .220
k/9#           = 3.40
bb/9#         = 1.56
hr/9#          = 0.20
fp#             =  0.96
rrf#             =  2.84
whip+        =  133
oav+          =   119
hr/9+          =  131
era+          =  157
erc+          = 175

Pitching Totals

90-45-35

1,205

1.78

.206

0.86

4.64

1.01

0.41

591-129

$40,634,806

I did that in like 5 minutes....

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/25/2012 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Pitching Totals

90-45-35

1,205

1.78

.206

0.86

4.64

1.01

0.41

591-129

$40,634,806

I did that in like 5 minutes....

Yeah, but it is not nearly as good a line and costs over $1m more.

Depending on how the normalizations, particularly of the HRs, go, it could be a significantly better line.  I don't know where you get "not nearly as good a line" from.  The OAV is identical, the BB/9 is better, and we already know your guys normalize horribly.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/25/2012 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Depending on how the normalizations, particularly of the HRs, go, it could be a significantly better line.  I don't know where you get "not nearly as good a line" from.  The OAV is identical, the BB/9 is better, and we already know your guys normalize horribly.

The HRs in TJ's line are huge factor; I really doubt that line is nearly as good.  However, if TJ will kindly post the normalized numbers we'd know.  Also cost is $1.3M or 3.5% more.  That is significant.

I only had 5 minutes!    Now you want normalized #'s!  ;)

I'll see what I can do tomorrow, today is not so good...

How's this one? 1-2-3a-3b rotation, 20 more IP, and $2m cheaper...  It was also about 5 minutes work.  Other that Bill Burns, I tried to avoid big pitching seasons.

		SP	1974 Catfish Hunter	R	25-12-0	319	2.49	.229	0.99	4.04	1.30	0.71	143-46	$9,310,198
		SP/RP	1917 Stan Coveleski	R	19-14-4	314	1.81	.194	0.99	4.01	2.84	0.09	133-94	$10,213,419
		SP/RP	1906 Roy Patterson	R	10-7-1	153	2.09	.231	0.96	2.85	1.08	0.06	45-17	$4,210,692
		SP/RP	1908 Bill Burns	L	6-11-0	176	1.69	.229	0.93	3.00	0.98	0.16	55-18	$4,724,046
		SP/RP	1915 Tim McCabe	R	3-1-0	44	1.30	.177	0.82	3.67	1.94	0.22	17-9	$1,476,708
		SP/RP	1992 Dennis Rasmussen	L	4-1-0	43	2.53	.218	0.94	2.53	1.69	0.42	12-8	$1,149,235
		SP/RP	1915 George Dumont	R	2-1-0	43	2.03	.169	0.88	4.05	2.70	0.00	18-12	$1,650,416
		SP/RP	1901 Mike O'Neill	R	2-2-0	48	1.32	.197	0.95	3.51	2.20	0.44	16-10	$1,253,217
		SP/RP	1924 Babe Adams	R	3-1-0	42	1.13	.209	0.86	1.13	0.68	0.23	5-3	$1,480,431
		SP/RP	2004 Kiko Calero	R	3-1-2	46	2.78	.176	0.82	9.34	1.99	0.99	47-10	$1,800,556
Pitching Totals					77-51-7	1,228	2.02	.213	0.95	3.76	1.74	0.33	491-227	$37,268,918

Ok, newbie question regarding the staff you put up.  Catfish and Stan can eat innings and throw a pitch count up to about 115 (?)  Patterson and Burns would be limited and lose stamina quicker, so maybe 75 to 80 pitches per game?  That puts the burden on the pen.  If this is your staff without changes, how will you keep the pen fresh without increasing 2 of four starting pitchers pitch counts?  Thanks!

Posted by corvair on 9/26/2012 11:13:00 PM (view original):
Ok, newbie question regarding the staff you put up.  Catfish and Stan can eat innings and throw a pitch count up to about 115 (?)  Patterson and Burns would be limited and lose stamina quicker, so maybe 75 to 80 pitches per game?  That puts the burden on the pen.  If this is your staff without changes, how will you keep the pen fresh without increasing 2 of four starting pitchers pitch counts?  Thanks!

Generally you need 800-900 ip. Catfish and Stan plus Bill Burns could give you enough starter innings by themselves as long you you blow an occasional game with AAA or scrubs.

Posted by biglenr on 9/26/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):
How's this one? 1-2-3a-3b rotation, 20 more IP, and $2m cheaper...  It was also about 5 minutes work.  Other that Bill Burns, I tried to avoid big pitching seasons.

		SP	1974 Catfish Hunter	R	25-12-0	319	2.49	.229	0.99	4.04	1.30	0.71	143-46	$9,310,198
		SP/RP	1917 Stan Coveleski	R	19-14-4	314	1.81	.194	0.99	4.01	2.84	0.09	133-94	$10,213,419
		SP/RP	1906 Roy Patterson	R	10-7-1	153	2.09	.231	0.96	2.85	1.08	0.06	45-17	$4,210,692
		SP/RP	1908 Bill Burns	L	6-11-0	176	1.69	.229	0.93	3.00	0.98	0.16	55-18	$4,724,046
		SP/RP	1915 Tim McCabe	R	3-1-0	44	1.30	.177	0.82	3.67	1.94	0.22	17-9	$1,476,708
		SP/RP	1992 Dennis Rasmussen	L	4-1-0	43	2.53	.218	0.94	2.53	1.69	0.42	12-8	$1,149,235
		SP/RP	1915 George Dumont	R	2-1-0	43	2.03	.169	0.88	4.05	2.70	0.00	18-12	$1,650,416
		SP/RP	1901 Mike O'Neill	R	2-2-0	48	1.32	.197	0.95	3.51	2.20	0.44	16-10	$1,253,217
		SP/RP	1924 Babe Adams	R	3-1-0	42	1.13	.209	0.86	1.13	0.68	0.23	5-3	$1,480,431
		SP/RP	2004 Kiko Calero	R	3-1-2	46	2.78	.176	0.82	9.34	1.99	0.99	47-10	$1,800,556
Pitching Totals					77-51-7	1,228	2.02	.213	0.95	3.76	1.74	0.33	491-227	$37,268,918

hr9# = .37
whip# = 1.00
oav = .219
k9 = 3.88
bb/9# = 1.83
era# = 2.27
erc#  = 2.10
f/r = B/C

Impressive, but I think my group would be significantly better.