All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > SimLeague Baseball > Is the Fatigue Code Broken in the Sim?
3/28/2013 11:30 AM
Posted by grayfoxx on 3/28/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):
If a fatigued player(95%) goes 2-4 with a 2B and 2 RBIs everybody jumps up and says "why did he do so good, he is fatigued" - but maybe the fatigue factor DID set in - maybe if he was at 100% he would have gone 3-4 with 2 2Bs and 4 RBIs.  Do we really expect fatigued players to go 0-4 with 3 Ks every game?

We have no way of knowing how/if fatigue played a part in each PA. WIS should come up with a fatigue symbol that would show up in the PBP, just like the +/- does
Thats a good idea grayfoxx...maybe it is impacting performance more than I give it credit for.

As for owners playing hitters/pitchers ruitinely at 95%...it's still a flaw in the system in my mind that you are allowed to do so and get away with near 100% performance. It just seems that this is a fandamental flaw in WIS that it is the "norm" to play players fatigued. Should I change my approach to managing my teams (or drafting for that matter) and "do what everyone else does" and play fatgiued players?

If the "norm" is to have fatigued players be effective at 95% (or 92% as others have noted), then that should be written into WIS help menus and the site staff should tell newbies to draft fewer PAs and IP and just play fatigued players.

If it is not intended for this to be the "norm", then WIS should impose stricter penalties on fatigued players.
3/28/2013 11:33 AM
Posted by contrarian23 on 3/27/2013 8:43:00 PM (view original):
     My fundamental thing is stil this: No one plays fatigued pitchers. NO ONE. Why? Because pitching a fatigued pitcher is a roll of the dice, and often they perform      HORRIBLY. Plus, pitching them while fatigued sends them into a fatigue spiral and it takes multiple games of rest to get them back to a fatigue level that makes      them a usable pitcher again.

Can't speak for anyone else, but this is definitely not true of my teams.  I routinely pitch guys who are in the low 90s...and I would wager I am involved in many more PAs where I have a pitcher below 99 than a hitter below 99.  If not, it's close. 
My experience is that owners are gunshy of pitching fatigued pitchers because they know that performances can vary widely and that their pitcher will not recover or be able to pitch again for a few days. With hitters, they can stay at 95% for game after game and not drop to 94%...so in my experience owners just keep playing them.
3/28/2013 12:45 PM
How can you know that a fatigued player isn't getting some type of penalty for playing fatigued?  You state that you believe they are getting 100% performance but how in the world are you coming to that conclusion?  Are they batting 1.000 with a 4.000 OPS?  Because if not, you won't know that if they weren't 100%, that they might be doing *better* than they are right now... so the 95% fatigued guy is actually operating at 95% efficiency.

So unless you run a test league like Booger has posted, where the teams are identical, the parks are identical and you then run different fatigue levels, you can't make that claim.

What you do want to claim is that it is your belief that a .400 OBP player operating at 100% should be superior to a .450 OBP player operating at 95% over a prolonged period of time.

I don't know about other owners but the primary reason I don't care as much about hitter fatigue is that there is a 6 PA cap on batters per game while there is no PC cap for pitchers.  If for some reason your pitching staff gets lit up or some 27 inning marathon, your pitchers will suffer and will take a very long time to recover.  The hitters on the other hand will decline slowly (assuming they have anywhere near a suitable # of PA) and thus you can still be effective.

Look at how it work in RL in the MLB.  Pitchers are routinely shutdown when inning levels are reached and/or PC in games are exceeded.  Do you think any hitter is yanked out of game for too many PA, or even if they are moderately tired by playing 3 weeks straight?
3/28/2013 2:31 PM
I am not claiming I know anything about the fatigue model. If CS would post it then I would know something. You are correct that I am noting that I think performance levels are too high for players who are less than 100% based on evidence I've seen in games. That is why I asked a question in the thread title: "Is the Fatigue Code Broken in the Sim?"

So far a majority of owners have told me no and I can live with that if that is the answer. But I want to find out why that is the answer when I think it shouldn't be.

I your RL example, most pitchers are kept to strict pitch counts and only go so many IP. In WIS, you can use them pretty much how you want so long as you don't burn past their pitch limit. Are you requesting that WIS use a Real Life scenario where RP can only be used every other day in relief or SP can only start games? So the way I see it, pitchers fatigue in WIS is working well based on their usage. I have no complaints about pitchers fatigue model.

It's the hitters that bug me. You state that no hitter is yanked out of a game for too many PAs, or even if they are moderately tired by playing 3 weeks straight. In real life, teams have scheduled days off. In WIS they do not. Plus, hitters are pulled from lineups and get off days - very few hitters play all 162 games:  Here are all the players to play 162 games in the last 5 years from www.baseball-reference.com:
2012 (NL AL) Starlin Castro (CHC) 162   Prince Fielder * (DET)
Adam Jones (BAL)
Ichiro Suzuki * (2TM)
162      
2011 (NL AL) Prince Fielder * (MIL) 162   Miguel Cabrera (DET)
Ichiro Suzuki * (SEA)
161      
2010 (NL AL) Matt Kemp (LAD) 162   Ichiro Suzuki * (SEA) 162      
2009 (NL AL) Prince Fielder * (MIL) 162   Robinson Cano * (NYY)
Brandon Inge (DET)
Nick Markakis * (BAL)
161      
2008 (NL AL) Adrian Gonzalez * (SDP)
Ryan Howard * (PHI)
162   Justin Morneau * (MIN) 163

It's a little more than 3 players per season who play every game (at least in the modern era - I will grant you that it was more the further you go back in time). So that tells me that off days and rest are being used in real life.

Go to your league leaders and look at games played. Here are the top 25 in games played in 3 of my leagues right now (and all I can see is the top 25 - I bet there are actually more). In your leagues, I bet that you'll have no problem finding 25 guys in your league that have played EVERY game.  Look at that comparison versus real life and tell me that is realistic or the fatigue model is working correctly?

MLB104281 League Leaders (through 44 games)
League:   Category:   Split:  
Pos:   Qualified:    
Rank Name SN G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO HBP SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS STRK L STRK
1 Wolf, Chicken 1890 44 193 40 78 11 1 4 26 11 12 1 23 18 .404 .439 .534 .973 4 22
2 Louden, Baldy 1915 44 153 15 38 3 1 2 24 16 19 1 3 9 .248 .324 .320 .644 0 6
3 Garciaparra, Nomar 1998 44 180 28 53 3 1 4 34 6 18 0 2 2 .294 .316 .389 .704 10 10
4 Ventura, Robin 1993 44 169 14 36 5 1 3 20 21 22 2 0 0 .213 .304 .308 .612 2 6
5 Durham, Ray 1998 44 166 22 39 10 2 2 17 23 27 1 15 5 .235 .328 .355 .684 3 4
6 Weaver, Buck 1920 44 164 22 43 4 1 1 17 8 11 2 4 2 .262 .305 .317 .622 1 12
7 Burns, Oyster 1889 44 183 23 55 8 2 0 17 25 13 0 10 14 .301 .385 .366 .751 5 12
8 Miller, Doggie 1895 44 173 15 36 4 0 1 19 8 6 0 4 2 .208 .240 .249 .489 0 7
9 Richardson, Bobby 1961 44 155 7 32 3 1 1 10 7 5 2 0 0 .206 .250 .258 .508 6 7
10 Stephenson, Riggs 1929 44 161 18 47 7 1 3 20 25 14 1 1 4 .292 .390 .404 .794 1 9
11 Alexander, Gary 1978 44 150 16 33 6 0 9 30 11 48 0 0 0 .220 .270 .440 .710 0 4
12 Samuel, Juan 1986 44 164 18 39 5 1 3 18 7 30 1 19 4 .238 .272 .335 .607 0 6
13 Thomas, Frank 1958 44 171 16 38 9 0 3 22 7 21 2 0 0 .222 .261 .327 .589 1 6
14 Stephens, Vern 1942 44 180 17 52 8 2 1 15 11 15 0 0 0 .289 .330 .372 .702 0 11
15 Moses, Wally 1936 44 188 27 46 6 3 1 7 15 15 1 1 0 .245 .304 .324 .628 5 7
16 Smith, Ozzie 1991 44 156 24 38 7 0 2 23 23 4 2 3 0 .244 .348 .327 .675 1 7
17 Combs, Earle 1930 44 174 33 61 11 8 0 35 19 13 0 3 2 .351 .412 .506 .918 0 11
18 Suzuki, Ichiro 2008 44 199 41 63 4 4 0 14 16 14 0 15 2 .317 .366 .377 .743 2 10
19 Cepeda, Orlando 1959 44 195 44 57 13 1 4 35 6 32 4 6 1 .292 .324 .431 .754 2 6
20 Collins, Eddie 1919 44 183 33 62 8 2 1 25 21 14 1 13 11 .339 .410 .421 .831 2 14
21 Kelly, George 1921 44 184 39 61 8 1 16 37 14 29 2 0 0 .332 .385 .647 1.032 3 12
22 Rose, Pete 1977 44 185 33 59 8 2 3 31 20 12 1 3 0 .319 .386 .432 .819 1 9
23 Mayo, Eddie 1947 44 163 15 44 10 0 0 18 6 7 2 0 1 .270 .302 .331 .634 2 7
24 Dark, Alvin 1957 44 165 18 52 10 2 1 17 6 14 0 0 0 .315 .335 .418 .753 0 11
25 Lemon, Jim 1959 44 168 33 49 8 2 4 22 14 27 2 0 1 .292 .351 .435 .786 1 7

MLB104321 League Leaders (through 83 games)
 
League:   Category:   Split:  
Pos:   Qualified:    
Rank Name SN G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO HBP SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS STRK L STRK
1 Puckett, Kirby 1987 83 339 64 113 16 2 15 74 21 52 1 12 5 .333 .373 .525 .898 12 12
2 McInnis, Stuffy 1917 83 346 38 108 11 0 3 40 18 13 4 9 15 .312 .352 .370 .722 3 19
3 Hatcher, Mickey 1984 83 346 47 121 17 4 2 40 11 22 1 0 0 .350 .369 .439 .809 5 19
4 Powell, Boog 1969 83 319 51 101 9 0 22 61 51 28 5 0 0 .317 .419 .552 .970 0 13
5 Blake, Casey 2004 83 306 40 74 13 2 9 34 22 71 3 0 1 .242 .298 .386 .684 0 13
6 Clingman, Billy 1901 83 282 38 76 10 2 4 34 26 14 4 1 5 .270 .339 .362 .700 1 10
7 Luzinski, Greg 1972 83 323 43 93 21 2 15 62 20 46 2 0 0 .288 .331 .505 .836 12 12
8 Franco, Julio 1984 83 334 50 102 14 1 1 43 28 35 1 6 2 .305 .361 .362 .723 0 15
9 Yastrzemski, Carl 1968 83 306 86 115 23 1 13 61 72 43 2 4 3 .376 .496 .585 1.081 7 16
10 Webster, Mitch 1987 83 313 60 83 9 3 11 53 43 38 3 16 7 .265 .358 .419 .777 0 7
11 Lind, Adam 2009 83 328 69 113 19 0 15 78 40 48 3 0 0 .345 .420 .540 .960 1 15
12 Thomson, Bobby 1953 83 335 51 116 12 5 17 79 33 42 0 0 0 .346 .399 .564 .964 0 9
13 McMillan, Roy 1954 83 310 32 86 11 0 1 22 23 32 4 1 1 .277 .335 .323 .658 2 7
14 Southworth, Billy 1921 83 366 61 113 19 3 7 47 31 10 2 12 19 .309 .364 .434 .799 1 9
15 Baines, Harold 1985 83 354 56 114 11 2 11 58 24 48 5 0 0 .322 .373 .458 .831 5 11
16 Collins, Ripper 1934 83 327 76 125 23 3 18 72 41 29 1 0 0 .382 .450 .636 1.086 6 17
17 Loretta, Mark 2003 83 336 47 123 10 3 6 59 25 23 3 1 1 .366 .413 .467 .880 0 19
18 Rice, Sam 1925 83 386 72 131 16 2 1 44 23 9 3 12 9 .339 .380 .399 .779 0 18
19 Bartell, Dick 1929 83 375 53 112 23 2 0 44 19 24 1 7 0 .299 .334 .371 .705 4 13
20 Musial, Stan 1949 83 314 70 108 25 6 11 65 66 25 0 0 2 .344 .457 .567 1.024 7 15
21 Pfeffer, Fred 1891 83 326 39 77 7 1 5 26 57 56 0 25 25 .236 .350 .310 .660 0 13
22 Byrd, Marlon 2009 83 334 49 98 28 0 8 59 22 54 8 3 1 .293 .352 .449 .801 0 12
23 Smalley, Roy 1982 83 309 44 75 6 0 15 43 45 46 3 0 0 .243 .345 .408 .752 0 9
24 Mantle, Mickey 1958 83 275 74 82 7 1 27 70 97 52 2 11 5 .298 .484 .625 1.109 2 12
25 Pierre, Juan 2007 83 369 64 115 14 5 0 32 17 20 3 58 9 .312 .347 .377 .724 3 10


MLB103660 League Leaders (Final standings)
League:   Category:   Split:  
Pos:   Qualified:    
Rank Name SN G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO HBP SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS STRK L STRK
1 Rose, Pete 1976 162 680 119 231 47 6 13 60 86 57 1 1 1 .340 .415 .484 .898 2 11
2 Suzuki, Ichiro 2011 162 632 76 166 22 0 4 64 19 56 5 27 10 .263 .289 .316 .606 2 14
3 Wietelmann, Whitey 1943 162 550 41 110 16 2 0 43 33 56 3 0 0 .200 .249 .236 .485 0 5
4 Gehringer, Charlie 1940 162 614 87 170 28 2 6 63 92 28 4 4 5 .277 .373 .358 .731 2 8
5 Howard, Ryan 2008 162 648 88 144 16 2 29 104 60 184 2 0 0 .222 .289 .387 .676 0 10
6 Tenace, Gene 1974 162 490 61 93 16 1 23 84 90 100 6 0 1 .190 .320 .367 .687 2 6
7 Millan, Felix 1970 162 650 78 199 23 3 3 89 21 27 3 4 1 .306 .329 .365 .694 2 9
8 Wills, Maury 1962 162 684 118 210 15 8 7 62 43 47 2 126 18 .307 .350 .383 .733 4 14
9 Lofton, Kenny 1996 162 663 114 180 28 4 8 75 37 60 7 76 25 .271 .317 .362 .679 7 11
10 Clemente, Roberto 1964 162 681 126 240 52 4 14 123 51 90 1 1 3 .352 .396 .502 .898 10 24
11 Jones, Chipper 2003 162 626 111 235 36 1 29 125 85 73 0 1 0 .375 .448 .575 1.023 1 18
12 Joost, Eddie 1952 162 574 75 132 31 2 15 80 82 121 3 0 0 .230 .327 .369 .697 1 6
13 Schaal, Paul 1971 162 634 101 172 45 6 15 99 90 54 5 0 2 .271 .364 .432 .796 3 11
14 Laabs, Chet 1942 162 645 116 177 27 6 42 136 75 142 4 0 0 .274 .353 .530 .883 0 13
15 Minoso, Minnie 1953 162 650 94 186 28 3 11 82 67 64 11 25 13 .286 .362 .389 .751 9 13
16 Robinson, Brooks 1973 162 584 47 128 14 1 8 41 44 71 2 0 0 .219 .276 .288 .563 2 10
17 Thomas, Frank 1956 162 687 81 201 31 4 22 111 19 82 2 0 1 .293 .310 .445 .756 2 13
18 Fielder, Prince 2007 162 594 84 164 22 2 36 105 71 121 9 0 0 .276 .358 .502 .859 2 16
19 Sandberg, Ryne 1996 162 622 64 149 19 5 22 94 42 120 4 11 7 .240 .290 .392 .682 2 10
20 Hundley, Randy 1968 162 571 44 138 23 6 4 50 32 50 2 0 1 .242 .284 .324 .608 6 10
21 Goslin, Goose 1936 162 629 125 184 31 3 28 111 59 76 3 4 2 .293 .353 .485 .838 3 13
22 Kluszewski, Ted 1950 162 621 80 189 38 0 30 97 41 38 4 0 0 .304 .349 .510 .859 0 13
23 Garcia, Damaso 1985 162 628 79 173 25 5 9 64 7 36 2 21 13 .275 .285 .374 .659 0 16
24 Bordick, Mike 2000 162 658 88 188 33 2 20 88 30 101 3 2 6 .286 .319 .433 .752 1 9
25 Munson, Thurman 1977 162 652 71 192 29 7 11 88 25 76 7 0 0 .294 .326 .411 .737 0 14


 
3/28/2013 2:56 PM
Here's an even better link for number of games played by hitters: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/G_top_ten.shtml 

As you can see, hitters take days off in real life and are rested...even if it is for a few games. The current fatigue model in WIS does not force an owner to rest players for even one game in a season. To me, I think there is something wrong with that.
3/28/2013 3:01 PM
So basically you're saying you're opposed to the 10% bump they give hitters and pitchers for PA and Pitches?

(The real reason I wanted to post was to point out the great line from Whitey Wietelmann...)
3/28/2013 9:28 PM
Posted by AKlopp on 3/28/2013 3:01:00 PM (view original):
So basically you're saying you're opposed to the 10% bump they give hitters and pitchers for PA and Pitches?

(The real reason I wanted to post was to point out the great line from Whitey Wietelmann...)
I am opppsed to it not for reasons of fatigue but because it encourages teams to be unrealisticly dependent on their startering 8.  I think the 10% bonus should be dialed back to a 1 - 5% bonus.
3/29/2013 12:04 AM
Posted by zubinsum on 3/28/2013 9:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by AKlopp on 3/28/2013 3:01:00 PM (view original):
So basically you're saying you're opposed to the 10% bump they give hitters and pitchers for PA and Pitches?

(The real reason I wanted to post was to point out the great line from Whitey Wietelmann...)
I am opppsed to it not for reasons of fatigue but because it encourages teams to be unrealisticly dependent on their startering 8.  I think the 10% bonus should be dialed back to a 1 - 5% bonus.
If you keep the 10% bump, then 99% needs to actually show fatigue in my mind (should be like 89% in the current system).

If you get rid of the 10 bump (or dial it back as zub notes), then 99% should be like it is today.

This would make owners do many things that I think would dramatically improve the game including:
  • Owners would have to occasionally rest their starting 8 players, thus making their bench more important
  • Owners would have to actively manage their teams or rely on autorest settings or see declines in performance
  • Owners would have to make decisions down the stretch to roll the dice and play someone who is fatigued or rest them
  • Owners would have to draft more PAs to get through a season, so they would either have to draft higher PA/162 players, carry a non-200K bench, draft platoons or all of the above

Right now, owners who choose to use the strategy where they ruitinely play fatigued players are not subject to bullet points above because the current fatigue system allows them to get reasonably good production out of fatigued players and they just play them 162 games out of the season.
3/29/2013 9:40 PM
These are the results from a recently completed $160M cap league in a neutral ballpark where a 4 man platoon at DH was used.
Player SN AVG OBP SLG avg# obp# slg# avg% obp% slg% average fatigue level
Bonds, Barry 2004 0.273 0.465 0.442 0.362 0.607 0.799 75.41% 76.61% 55.32% 93+
Williams, Ted 1941 0.320 0.412 0.472 0.403 0.544 0.732 79.40% 75.74% 64.48% 93+
Cobb, Ty 1911 0.333 0.370 0.429 0.413 0.462 0.633 80.63% 80.09% 67.77% 93+
Lajoie, Nap 1901 0.318 0.350 0.444 0.417 0.461 0.649 76.26% 75.92% 68.41% 93+
Mauer, Joe 2009 0.268 0.342 0.373 0.363 0.440 0.564 73.83% 77.73% 66.13% 93+
Bautista, Jose 2011 0.221 0.341 0.332 0.305 0.451 0.595 72.46% 75.61% 55.80% 93+
Giambi, Jason 2001 0.235 0.333 0.319 0.340 0.474 0.638 69.12% 70.25% 50.00% 93+
Boudreau, Lou 1948 0.252 0.301 0.339 0.353 0.441 0.534 71.39% 68.25% 63.48% 93+
Phelps, Josh 2007 0.211 0.284 0.308 0.349 0.460 0.630 60.46% 61.74% 48.89% 64.03
Brown, Gates 1968 0.250 0.276 0.386 0.390 0.460 0.704 64.10% 60.00% 54.83% 53.42
Strang, Sammy 1908 0.051 0.181 0.064 0.100 0.401 0.109 51.00% 45.14% 58.72% 14.14
Thompson, Jason 1986 0.064 0.114 0.079 0.200 0.410 0.276 32.00% 27.80% 28.62% 10.03


3/30/2013 11:49 AM
Good data nc...thanks for posting. At a 160 mil cap facing the best pitchers in the sim, it's hard to gauge what effect is fatigue based and what effect is Maddox/Pedro based. But it shows that even against the best of the best that marginally fatigued players can be somewhat effective. I take it that when you platooned it was to keep them out of the blue correct?
3/30/2013 6:05 PM
Here is my take on this. Some of us rail at a "lack of realism," but I contend that maximizing what you buy is as American, and as realistic to our way of life as it can be. We want to analyze this mathematical model that the SIM provides, and we want it to be predictable, reliably so, but that isn't realistic. Some of the best stories are guys who limped off the bench and hit a HR. Kirk Gibson, Mickey Mantle, how about Curt Schilling and the bloody sock? Was Koufax and his arthritic arm ever at 100%? To me, the unpredictability of the fatigue model is one of the things that make the game fun. I wish I was as clever as the guys who fully exploit it. This is a game, and people are going to find ways to game the game, no matter what code is written, because that is what we do. They close one back door, and we find another.
3/31/2013 8:24 AM
Another thing: In game fatigue. I opened the season in my 90m league with '08 Christy Mathewson. He finished the game at 41(71). If the fatigue process worked "better," would we ever get a complete game? Every pitcher gets fatigued as his game progresses. If it worked as absolutely as some suggest it ought, our in game managing would become a night mare.
4/1/2013 12:57 AM (edited)
Posted by pfattkatt on 3/30/2013 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Here is my take on this. Some of us rail at a "lack of realism," but I contend that maximizing what you buy is as American, and as realistic to our way of life as it can be. We want to analyze this mathematical model that the SIM provides, and we want it to be predictable, reliably so, but that isn't realistic. Some of the best stories are guys who limped off the bench and hit a HR. Kirk Gibson, Mickey Mantle, how about Curt Schilling and the bloody sock? Was Koufax and his arthritic arm ever at 100%? To me, the unpredictability of the fatigue model is one of the things that make the game fun. I wish I was as clever as the guys who fully exploit it. This is a game, and people are going to find ways to game the game, no matter what code is written, because that is what we do. They close one back door, and we find another.
With due respect... you are comparing a realistic simulation to a realistic exploitation of the rules.  I see no logic to this.  No mater what the rules are, there will be someone who will exploit the rules to their limits.  The point of changing the rules would be to get a more realistic representation (or simulation) of real life.
3/31/2013 10:24 PM
Posted by frazzman80 on 3/30/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Good data nc...thanks for posting. At a 160 mil cap facing the best pitchers in the sim, it's hard to gauge what effect is fatigue based and what effect is Maddox/Pedro based. But it shows that even against the best of the best that marginally fatigued players can be somewhat effective. I take it that when you platooned it was to keep them out of the blue correct?
I've concluded that you shouldn't draft anywhere near 100% of "needed" PA for the DH position.  Using the 4 man platoon at DH, none of the players ever got injured (even though there were times they played at less than 20%).
4/1/2013 9:23 AM
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 3/31/2013 10:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by frazzman80 on 3/30/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Good data nc...thanks for posting. At a 160 mil cap facing the best pitchers in the sim, it's hard to gauge what effect is fatigue based and what effect is Maddox/Pedro based. But it shows that even against the best of the best that marginally fatigued players can be somewhat effective. I take it that when you platooned it was to keep them out of the blue correct?
I've concluded that you shouldn't draft anywhere near 100% of "needed" PA for the DH position.  Using the 4 man platoon at DH, none of the players ever got injured (even though there were times they played at less than 20%).
I don't often play in DH leagues...but this to me directly shows something is wrong with the code for fatigue. It just shouldn't work this way in the sim.
of 9
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > SimLeague Baseball > Is the Fatigue Code Broken in the Sim?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.