Pre-1911 pitchers - The Death of this Game Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Progressives, themes - there are alternatives to the monotony of OLs.  It's not just deadballers, though; see biglenr's thread on the sim as a whole.  If there has been a long time between updates, loopholes will be identified, exploited, and copied en masse.  It happened with Superman Long A, it happened with 1894 Pitching, it's happening now with Deadballers.
3/12/2012 10:50 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.

Hey everyone, I just removed a post of mine that announced the creation and league placement of a team designed to beat Addie Joss and other deadball pitchers consistently. I designed it with care but after setting it up as a dream team I found that it won only about 45% of games against a dream team designed around the ones that are currently beating my teams consistently in open league play. This post now is about what I have discovered - maybe you all already knew it, about why it is so hard to design such a team with success, though let me say I have not given up.

I had (ok, ok, foolishly it turned out) even challenged Joss strategists and other lovers of deadball pitcher staffs to please place their teams in the league that mine was the first to be in (so when I withdrew there was still nobody else whom I had actually inconvenienced) and also on others who, like tdiddy3 feel as I do, to design their own versions of the Kryptonite team so we would have an open league as a kind of laboratory to see what worked. Half teams with Joss and other deadballers (and the inevitable Vince Coleman -did anyone actually like him when he played by the way? I didn't, though I liked Raines, and Rickey Henderson was a wonder to see play).

Of course, I will try again. But here is what I discovered about a great part of where the problem lay: 

I wanted to counter the 3-man deadball staff with its typical 1.60 etc. ERA with either a 3 or 4-man rotation of completely modern pitchers. Then a decent bullpen (my usual strategy, which I threw overboard for this particular project, is to have more resources in the bullpen and treat starters as people who should throw 6 innings and keep my team in the ball game, but not for Joss % Co. to have a chance you need to keep the other team from scoring). 

Here are some numbers: 

Bob Gibson 68 - $40,052 per inning
Nolan Ryan 81 - $40,064 per inning
Luis Tiant 68 -  $38,246 per inning 
Sandy Koufax 65 - $48,713 per inning
 
BUT

Addie Joss 08 - $37,362 per inning
Addie Joss 07 - $27,963 per inning  (!)   - this latter is the equivalent of a $5,500,000 pitcher, not the ones I am discussing above who are comparable to deadball pitchers in their stats and could be competitive. This is why my staffs in fact are lined with 5-6 million dollar men, who apparently are no longer able to compete, not because of technological development since Lee Majors, (see Clemens, Roger - oh by the way Clemens 1997: $39,917 per inning.). But rather because they cost more than the old craft worker of the early age of the industrial revolution. 

So this is a big part of the problem - it isn't that Koufax, Clemens or Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan or Guidry can't compete head to head today, or tomorrow, it is that you can't afford to get enough innings from them for your team, so either they are out of the game before Joss, or they are pitching only once every four days instead of 3 and you can't afford four of them the way you can Mathewson, Joss and Cy Young. If you do get four of these guys, you have no money at all - I don't mean only $4 but like $1 million - left over for the entire bullpen, but again, three - as it turns out grossly underpriced per inning, deadball pitchers might give you 350 innings a piece, and granted some of the bullpens are rather thin - this is why I have also not given up my other main strategy which is to load the bullpen with huge innings, and see what happens late in the season, which I have not yet had a chance to see. But my teams may be too far behind by the time those old arms start to fall off the deadball competition. 

That is why I had the idea of a team with enough great hitters and overall high average and power, right ballpark and go with starting pitchers plus starting players who don't need rest, so that if you have to fill the roster with $200,000 players they won't play anyway, but at least you always have George Brett batting against these guys, or Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, whatever, rather than second team players, and you always have a comparable starter on the mound even statistically, despite the difference in eras. So the real issue is that either deadball pitchers are underpriced, or post-1919 pitchers underpriced.

It is annoying - the Homestead Grays with Satchel on the mound and Josh Gibson behind the plate would have massacred these guys and I am not convinced that Dotty Hinton, the great catcher and best player in the World War II era All Girls Baseball League would not have had a good chance against Joss as well. I mean who did the Cleveland Naps play against anyway? There was no farm system, no cars, no telephones, so recruitment was not of the best players in the country, who remained unknown (aside from the ones banned from playing) and today instead we know who the best HIGH SCHOOL  prospects are in the Dominican Republic and Taiwan. But the stats from the Negro and All Girls leagues are not here, as if they are any less scientific than those of Providence in 1880 when leagues and players changed daily (like in the Negro leagues in the 30s) and rules and equipment different. 

If Sandy Koufax in his best year cost what Joss does in his best year PER INNING it would be a different game here. I am not done yet though. And maybe someone better at this than I can construct a good team to more consistently beat deadball pitchers - just that, making it seriously competitive for them, would have two good results immediately:

1) Those of us who want to use more modern players, or who want to use deadball era players as fun thought experiments only with a modern roster, would have more fun and at least be able to compete even if not always, or not usually win - it would be enough to show that you COULD win to make this more fun and also to bring about the second good result:

2) The Joss/deadball strategy would be used less often, since it would not be a guarantee, so that those here  who would like to use modern pitchers, but don't out of self-defense, seeing it as the price they must pay to be able to play Wade Boggs, or Pujols or Jeter, would no longer consider it absolutely necessary and further,  since it would be then shown to be possible to defeat the Joss/deadball strategy then it would take some of the fun out of using it, since once you know the other player could beat you with...let's call it strategy X for now, then even if they don't employ strategy X which has been shown to be successful close enough to 50% of the time, it means when you win with Joss it is only because the other players are "letting" you win with Joss because they have chosen not to employ the Kryptonite strategy they could use, because they are having more fun without it, meaning that winning with Joss would become meaningless and bereft of all honor and glory. 

This would even have another happy effect: we would, ironically, be free to use Joss again, and not out of war but because we want to see what happens with a staff of Kenny Rogers, Addie Joss, Roy Halliday and Jared Weaver, and with a pre-Rivera, Troy Hoffman etc. relief pitcher going the last 2-3 innings of a close game. Or whatever. 

Anyway, this first incarnation of the team "Bring me the head of Addie Joss" (yes, that was, and someday will be its real name) didn't quite take. It doesn't have to win a majority of the time, but close to 50% would be enough to reduce the incentive a bit to use only deadball pitchers, but back to the drawing board. Mwaa Ha Ha !

 

3/13/2012 7:40 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Well maybe we will, but the idea of an open league is that anyone can play. Except apparently some are feeling that there is now only one way to play. The front page of this site says something like "You can test how Aaron would do against Pedro, or Ted Williams against Seaver, or Gibson against Ty Cobb" or whatever, except that you can't because in fact as tdiddy is saying, if you get any of these players, they won't perform against Joss and the others merely because of a glitch, or as I have put it, the combination of a protected market (true however of all pre-1947 players, not just deadball era ones) and an incorrect pricing on the market of their value, since it is unclear why Clemens costs 50% more per inning than Joss and those who want to use Clemens are unable to do so and still compete. 

Yes, we may play in these other leagues, but remember: some of us are new here, I don't for example even know what a progressive league is, and when I looked on the Knowledge base there was nothing there to explain it. I may like certain theme leagues, but don't have time to start one, and if the idea is that I did want to see how Ted Wiliams would hit against either Roy Halliday or Addie Joss, but can't then a league where everyone is from 1967 or whatever, though I see the appeal in that, won't do it. In other words, some of us are literally not able to get what we are paying for. And yes, you could say, "it's a free country, don't buy the product" but see how that compounds the problem which is that this resource is here, the leagues are open but some can't use them unless prepared to lose. I have teams with .300 averages, 200 homers and a team ERA of 3.08 losing almost every game. The competition is tough as it should be, and it may be that I put the teams together badly, but I am finding simply that good pitchers, with ERAs in the low 2.00s from the modern era can't get anybody out and no one can hit somebody from 1904 with the same ERA as my pitcher. 

Maybe the deadball era pitchers are the ones that should play in a deadball theme league, or a separate open but only deadball era league. But that would mean we can't use them in moderation. 
3/13/2012 10:29 AM

I am in the LCS of a franchise theme league right now. It is the first time I've been in a theme league that allowed deadball pitchers and I will freely admit that I would not be in the playoffs without my 3 starters (I chose the Cubs franchise). That being said, the group of guys I frequently play against tend to develop themes limiting players to 1947-present, and I can imagine we might go back to that. I'm trying to get a progressive going with them, but only time will tell if they agree.

I think deadball pitchers can be used sparingly, or in themes, or limit one per team. But as I saw, a rotation of deadballers, like mine and some of the other playoff teams, will consistently beat modern players over a 162 game season. Can you beat them? Yes, as evident of both Cleveland teams (and both Addie's) being eliminated. But it's tough.

3/13/2012 10:45 AM
Posted by boogerlips on 3/13/2012 8:59:00 AM (view original):
If Addie Joss is the death of this game, then why don't people join theme leagues that have blacklists or are limited to 1920-2011 players? Seems like half the time we have one of these threads, someone says, "Hey guys I've got it! We'll start a league that doesn't allow Addie Joss!!!!!" .......and nobody joins. The newest OL on the other hand will fill in a couple days.
I agree with booger, there are tons of theme leagues that help you avoid these problems.  You have choices.

If it is not Addie Joss then it is someone else.  Everytime there is an update they close a loophole and gamers find a new one.  That is the point of "Games" is to figure out the strategy to win.  I play in higher caps and I would argue that Pedro and Maddux are just as much a problem as Joss and Alexander.   FWIW Walter Johnson used to be unstoppable and they brought him back down to earth.  I don't hear anyone crying foul with that.  What happens when they kill Joss? People will start complaining that Lamar Hoyt is shutting down Ruth and Foxx. It is all just numbers, irregardless of the name attached to the number why does it bother you who beats you?
3/13/2012 12:33 PM
Granted, I don't play many OLs, and when I do it's not really to win, but to experiment, but haven't really noticed a "Joss problem" or a "deadball pitchers" problem. Yeah, there's alot of Joss out there, just like there used to be alot of Caruthers/Ruth/Johnson rotations... Or how about when every other team had a Rusie/Meekin rotation (that was the only time I ever played an OL to win and it was to show how easy it was to win in an OL by just drafting the cookie strategy du jour and I won 111 games and the WC with those two as my starters in a division that featured four 100 game winners).

But Joss and the deadballers are beatable, even with modern pitching. In fact, from my observations I thought the good fielding deadballers with modern pitchers was a bigger cookie strategy. And, for the record, that's why Clemens, et al cost more per inning than Joss; it's a combination of the effect they have on defenses and their K/9 rates, which means fewer balls in play as well. Especially with high AVG deadball fielders and hitters (which is a great Joss beating strategy btw, load up on hitters like Brouthers and Cobb), the plus effect on defense and the extra K's help negate the poorer relative defense and your hitters beat up on Joss where he's weak, especially if you play in a plus hits (and XBH) stadium.

Yes, the site is stale and the cookies are known, but I don't see what the problem is, even in OLs... I still play more thems and progressives than anything else and feel that's always been where the site is most fun (I didn't join an OL for my first 4 years here), but even OL seem like they're still enjoyable and challenging with at least a couple of widely different winnable strategies.

The one I'm tired of seeing is Tim Raines, but not even close to the point I was with Tony Phillips or Richie Ashburn or Billy Hamilton or Tony Fernandez before them...
3/13/2012 12:52 PM
Posted by boogerlips on 3/13/2012 8:59:00 AM (view original):
If Addie Joss is the death of this game, then why don't people join theme leagues that have blacklists or are limited to 1920-2011 players? Seems like half the time we have one of these threads, someone says, "Hey guys I've got it! We'll start a league that doesn't allow Addie Joss!!!!!" .......and nobody joins. The newest OL on the other hand will fill in a couple days.
I agree with boogerlips.  There are theme leagues available that exclude deadballers, there are theme leagues now where no player can have more than 50 uses and no one joins.  Until these leagues start filling up I will view most negative post about deadballers like I view the 15 people that are at customer service complaining at Disney World while the other 3000 patrons are having fun.  Also someone  mentioned homeruns. My teams always hit over 125 homeruns in OL's in a season, and I definitely win my fair share of games. There is also a theme league where to make the playoffs where you have to hit 135 homers to qualify.  My solution is get better and get searching.
3/13/2012 1:41 PM
Thanks just4me, interesting insights. It is true that I have been going with all modern players, and haven't really explored what it costs to get good ones from the deadball era. Also I don't deny at all that some of them - Cobb, Shoeless Joe, and others would have been very great in any epoch, especially with modern training and development. 

Anyway, good to hear optimism about it. I have really enjoyed putting together teams that in a real world, even a real fantasy world with Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson, would be pretty good, as well as - and this is an important point at least to some of us, to respond to Bilfert's legitimate questions and especially his last about it beign just numbers so who cares what name is given to who beats you - aesthetically fun. 

I once dated a mathematician who explained to me that the aesthetics of the math itself were the fun for people like her, no practical application, and I guess for those for whom the point of playing games is to figure out how to beat them, let's say in a strict sense (since this is true for everyone, Bilfert is right on that) it must be like math is for mathematicians. But since this is a baseball sim game and not just "combination A will do x if opposed by strategy y in combination B leading to the same result every time" there is an aesthetic quality to constructing teams and a certain joy in seeing them up and running. 

It isn't all sentiment any more than it is all winning, nor all aesthetics, so I do sometimes get players I hated when they played in real life (see Rose, Pete  - and had nothing to do with the later scandal; and Schilling, Curt who owes me two World Series) because they fit nicely with others in an aesthetically pleasing lineup or roster. My first team ever here sucks so far - 7-13 right now, but I still check it first because that combination of players - Musial, Gwynn Mattingly, Yogi, and Dave Stewart, whom I always admired but seems forgotten by fans today, and is holding his own so far against even the deadball staffs (the rest of that staff is getting hammered every day though) - that combination feels right. Pete Rose, with 100 at bats in his late career hitting .365 as a late inning pinch hitter off the bench or the very occasional stand-in feels exactly right for that team. This at least is a big part of the fun for me here. And that team is actually losing as much for my own lack of experience - many of the good starters did not have enough PAs so need to be rested for lesser lights etc. 

But I love good benches - one disappointment I had with the team I tried to create to bury the deadball was that it was all starters - I pretty much had to spend all the money on powerful starters like Ruth and Koufax and Brett etc. - and although it might have had a chance, there was an aesthetic ugliness to it - four great pitchers, a good enough closer, 4 great starters 4 good ones and then 12 players that went for $300,000 each. Ugly. 

I love the teams I come up with that had bullpens real world teams would die to have - I shift the combination - sometimes Bill Lee as long reliever, or Lindy McDaniel, or some others who are surprisingly effective so far, with ERAs somewhat over 3.00 and good IPs but middle relievers. I like using good starters as long relievers, seems to be cost effective by the way compared with actual relievers. 

Power off the bench from right and left, the right back up infielder. Yes, you can have a team that needs none of these, but it is sort of sad. The 1998-9 Yankees had four or five guys that could play different positions each, hit decently enough to not really weaken the lineup once in a while, and unlike those horrors that they put on the field from 1981-1993 or 2003-2008, they always had another pitcher they could put on the mound. A great one? No. But one that could keep them in the game. There is an aesthetic to the whole thing, that I like. One of my favorite players from the 1970s Yankees was Dick Tidrow. He was good, could be called in at any time in a game and usually give you a decent start. If you load up on greats - and I have tried this as a winning strategy, I might win indeed Bilfert and just4me but it won't be pretty.
3/13/2012 1:54 PM
You don't need to load up on the "greats" to win.   It's actually a lot easier to build a team without spending 8+ million on any player.

This game is pretty fluid, you can build a team however you'd like and be successful.   As long as you end up maximizing your PA and IP it really doesn't matter in an OL.

I'll bump a thread on progressives...you sound like you would like them.
3/13/2012 2:44 PM
Thanks (apparently from your user name) oh fellow New Jersey native ! I am going to explore alternative strategies and mix and match a bit. Yes, I appreciate it as I can't any explanation of what progressives are.

By the way, you guys have a point who suggest that blaming the use of Joss etc. is not the point - my teams that are doing poorly are not hitting all that badly, the lowest is .268 (that first team that I mentioned in the post just above - they are now 7-19 having lost 11 in a row) - there are 4 people hitting .300 on that team so someone is hitting the pitchers we are facing. However, another of my teams with the worst record in the league now got beat 27-3 tonight. Joss pitched for the other team - we got 3 runs off him which should have been enough to keep us in the game, but Tom Seaver '67, one of the most dominant pitchers of all time gave up 10 runs in 4 innings, he is now 0-4 on the season with an ERA of 9.55 and the team ERA is 7.90, all good pitchers. The team cumulatively had 252 home runs, - yes that is right, I put together an offensive powerhouse  - they have hit 17 home runs in 19 games - ok, maybe within a margin of error against world class pitching. And it is true that no less than 7 players are hitting .290 are better, 5 of them starters. So they can hit. The problem in a way is not Joss but Seaver. Also Mike Marshall on another team in another league: 209 innings in relief with an ERA just 2.42 - the greatest relief pitcher in history that year (all honor to Mariano, but 209innings !) and  he dominated baseball that year - he has been in three games, lasted 2 innings, blown all three saves and has an ERA of 30 something. 

So actually there may not be an Addie Joss problem, but a Tom Seaver problem. Why can't the modern pitchers get anyone out? As if they pitched from AA ball, or High School. 
But I will try mixing some old-time hitters and fielders where appropriate with the mods and experimenting and looking up other kinds of leagues. Thanks. 
3/13/2012 4:47 PM
The problem with the game is if you want to play in a theme league, you have to wait forever to get the game started.  I'm in a theme league on another account and there have been 4 teams in it for a week.  I want to play now, not in 2 months.
3/13/2012 5:43 PM
italyprof, I think your problem with this game is that it runs based purely off of statistics and not the memories or impressions you or anyone else have of players.  Your issues with Mike Marshall's struggles because you regard him as "the greatest relief pitcher in history" are a great example.  That argument, statistically, just doesn't hold water.  In his 209 inning season Marshall had an OAV+ of 103.  103.  There have been literally dozens of relievers better at limiting hits PER SEASON since the rise of the relief pitcher proper in the early '90s.  Last year, for example, there were over 140 pitchers who made the majority of their appearances in relief who had an OAV+ of 103 or better.  Were all of them as good at preventing HRs and BBs as Marshall?  No, but maybe 20 or 30 were similar or better, and more than you can count on your fingers significantly better all-around per-inning pitchers than Marshall.  In one season.  ERA is a per-inning stat.  Is his ERA going to remain at 30?  Of course not, the sample size is tiny.  But it won't be 2.42, not even close.  Historical ERA means NOTHING in the SIM (not actually nothing, but very close to nothing, and it can be virtually entirely ignored).  His underlying numbers are average at best for a reliever in the SIM (in which above-average players are the norm; 80 million is much better than the average historical team).  You need to start looking at pitchers in terms of H/100, BB/100, and HR/H and the normalization of those numbers if you want to understand how the sim works.  Trying to make arguments based on ERA or wins will get you nowhere.

All of the pricing in this game is based on a statistical formula.  Prices aren't just arbitrarily assigned; in fact, they are subject to no DIRECT human manipulation but are simply outputs of the pricing equation.  The bias that makes deadballers cheaper arises from the fact that in the last major update fielding became normalized.  This meant that pitchers from poor-fielding seasons now hurt their teams' defenses when they were on the mound.  There was a corresponding price reduction for pitchers from poor-fielding seasons and increase for pitchers from particularly good-fielding seasons, but since the best fielding seasons are only slightly better than the overall historical average those increases are not nearly so noticeable as the decreases for guys from the deadball era, when fielding percentages were dramatically lower than the historical average.  It definitely seems as if this price adjustment based on fielding normalization was overdone, and at some point we may well see some reduction of the impact of league fielding on pitcher pricing.  That said, it is still very much possible to win a league with modern pitching.  My most recent WS champion featured Greg Maddux, Lefty Grove (old, but not deadball), and Ron Guidry in the rotation.  It can absolutely be done.  In fact, the reality is that the preponderance of deadball pitchers has made the HR a relatively infrequent event in OLs and many other leagues spanning the full historical spectrum of baseball covered by the sim.  This means that most of the best teams don't feature a lot of HR power.  You can, consequently, ignore HR rates more now than at any other time in the past 6 or 7 years of sim engines.  This opens up some of the cheaper modern pitchers.  If you play a high-AVG/OBP low-power offense in a -HR park (easily the most common offensive strategy these days in OLs) you don't need low-HR pitchers.  I actually think modern pitching with high-AVG deadball hitting might be the strongest OL strategy right now (as J4M suggested above).  I don't play OLs, but I might just to see if I can beat the Joss's of the world with modern pitchers.
3/13/2012 7:21 PM
12 Next ▸
Pre-1911 pitchers - The Death of this Game Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 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.