Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2010 8:04:00 AM (view original):
For the people who refuse to alter their line-ups:

Do you trade players who are underperforming?  Because, if you do, it's not as if their ratings changed, they're just not doing the job you expected.  And, IMO, trading is certainly a more drastic move than dropping a guy from 3rd to 7th.

No, I don't trade them.  Trading good ratings based on bad performance in a small sample size, even 300-400 PA, would hurt my team.

To the comment about Tony LaRussa-- In real life players go through divorces, have hidden injuries, get caught with ugly strippers in hotel bars in Canada, get diagnosed with anxiety.  There are reasons, not known to the fans, why a player would not perform to 100% of his tools and skills in real life.  These hidden reasons do not exist in HBD; only fatigue, which is visible, modifies the ratings.  I have asked sitestaff if prior performance affects a player's ratings for a particular game (ie, is there "streakiness" in HBD), and they swear there is no such thing. 

So it makes no sense to mess with a carefully-chosen lineup based on performance.  That is, unless you have enough sample size, either in one player or in a bunch, to use the information to conclude that you have been reading ratings wrong, and then make systematic changes based on your new understanding of the ratings.

agreed 100% dedelman

I don't move a guy who is clearly my best hitter based on ratings out of one of the top 4 slots in the lineup because his numbers are down, or move a guy who is clearly my worst hitter out of one of the bottom 2 slots in the lineup because he is numbers are up. 

I definitely don't trade underperforming players, I will trade overperforming players.  (Note any setup guy on my teams who has a 1.20 ERA in 30 innings is definitely on the market!)

It's a basic tenet of investing.  Buy low, sell high.  To do the opposite is very foolish and I love to play in leagues with these people.

Who needs a sample size. If my number 5 hitter has been crap for 40 games, I'm finding a better number 5 hitter. If guys under performs some years and over perform others, why not try changing it up a bit even if it's for a short time? Because WIS says it's all about ratings?

We know good players can have an off year, we've seen it. It seems like a no brainer to change things up a bit at times.

Doesn't work that way though. Sometimes a .300 hitter starts 5 for 25 and finished the year at .200 in 500 at bats. You just wasted a chance to improve because of stubbornness. By not changing something earlier in the season.

If a guy has a bad string of games, I won't likely mess with anything.... but that's only if he has a proven track record in my ballpark.

To keep throwing a guy out there who I think should perform, but doesn't, year in and year out is silly.

He has to have a solid track record for me to "trust" him to come around.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2010 4:27:00 PM (view original):

schuler, you posted your record a few days ago and said something like "I'll save you some time.  I'm not that good at this game."   Do you think that might have ANYTHING, anything at all, with your refusal to believe that stud #3 hitter might be better served hitting 6th if for no other reason than he's batting .211 with a slugging of .317?

Nope.  Quite the opposite, not benching or moving down my stud hitters gives me a significant advantage over those  that do.  I love seeing opposing owners bench a stud hitter in the playoffs because they aren't hitting.

I posted my record a few days ago and sarcastically said "I suck" to preempt you because posting someone's record is one of your favorite things to do. 

But let's stick to the debate and cut out the ad hominem attacks.

I never point out that you have 61 seasons completed and 2 titles.  Playing in a league with 32 teams that's about average.  With so much experience and such a familiarity with the forums and game we'd expect you to be better than average.  (Note - I know this point is a bit misleading, given the randomness in the short series playoffs, I'm just making a point about what Mike would do)

But what I just said is completely irrelevant to the debate.  Attack the logic, not the presenter, that's bush league.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2010 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Also, this game is about resources.  If I have a guy hitting .210 and eating 1/15th of my budget, I feel obligated to find someone who can either A) hit better than .210 or B) hit .210 and eat less than 1/15th of my budget.     That's just common sense.

No it's not common sense, not if the guy is a career .300 hitter and his ratings haven't changed.

Sell low, buy high.  Who knew that investors had it all wrong all these years.   Move to Wall Street Mike, become a millionaire.

I can see you heading up a hedge fund now. 

MikeT - "This stock is near it's 52 week low, we must sell before it goes even lower!"
Partner - "There is no reason to think the price will fall through the floor.  Actually it's probably going to come back up, this is a terrible idea Mike"
MikeT - "NERD!!"

Posted by schuyler101 on 6/25/2010 7:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2010 4:27:00 PM (view original):

schuler, you posted your record a few days ago and said something like "I'll save you some time.  I'm not that good at this game."   Do you think that might have ANYTHING, anything at all, with your refusal to believe that stud #3 hitter might be better served hitting 6th if for no other reason than he's batting .211 with a slugging of .317?

Nope.  Quite the opposite, not benching or moving down my stud hitters gives me a significant advantage over those  that do.  I love seeing opposing owners bench a stud hitter in the playoffs because they aren't hitting.

I posted my record a few days ago and sarcastically said "I suck" to preempt you because posting someone's record is one of your favorite things to do. 

But let's stick to the debate and cut out the ad hominem attacks.

I never point out that you have 61 seasons completed and 2 titles.  Playing in a league with 32 teams that's about average.  With so much experience and such a familiarity with the forums and game we'd expect you to be better than average.  (Note - I know this point is a bit misleading, given the randomness in the short series playoffs, I'm just making a point about what Mike would do)

But what I just said is completely irrelevant to the debate.  Attack the logic, not the presenter, that's bush league.

You can't post, "I love when others .. so blah .. gives you a significant advantage" and then trot out a record that says the complete opposite. I don't normally bring up others records but if you think it gives you a significant advantage but the record doesn't show that, your argument holds no water.

  These games are about Probability and Chance.  SimDynasty also said it had no 'Streak' in the Code.  I don't believe it.  Sure, Pitchers Retiring and Youth being Called Up will all affect a Hitter.  But when a Hitter goes from hitting .310 with 50 HR Power to suddenly dropping to .210, there is something going on.

  I do 'ride the hot streak'.  But I'm not 'nerd' enough to track that on a 10 Game by 10 Game basis.  I just look and see who is hitting what SO FAR and set my Lineup by that.  The problem comes when legit Hitters aren't producing, and 44/66 Types are at least getting on Base.

  I'm in a Major Hitters Park, I need those guys on base as the ODDS are that some one else will get a nice little hit and knock them in.  If I keep my .200 'Slugger' in the 3 Spot, I'm killing Runs.  I'll take the guy looping light Singles at a .300 Clip at that point, just to get men on board.  Then, since my 'Sluggers' still have all that power, when they DO hit the ball it tends to leave the park.  I take those 'luck' runs in the 7-8-9 Spots (6-7-8 if No DH).  When they start hitting .250 or .300 (or whatever Career Average is) then they go back to 3-4-5.

  As my line up is RIGHT NOW, it is not optimal to what the Abilities say.  But if I went with the Abilities I'd be losing even more right now, as my 3-4-5 would be hitting around a combined .215.

  Perhaps this is just the Engine getting the Outliers out of the way, so these guys will be hot enough the rest of the way to get those Career Averages back on par.  That would be GREAT news, as I could then expect really torrid hitting down the stretch.  If this happens and 'Proves the Abilities Right', then so be it.  That's great.  Changing Lineups is the Difference between Mr. Right, and Mr. Right Now... and Right Now Weiss is hitting .300 (although he should be around .200) so he's a Top 3 Hitter for me.  When Maradona (hitting .185, but Career .295 with 30 HR Power) gets on Track, he'll be #3 again.

Obviously, there are philosophical differences here, which is one of the things that makes this game fun.

If you have a career .300/30/100 hitter, $5M player hitting 3rd who starts a year hitting .200 after 20 games, what do you do?

a) Move him down the lineup until his performance starts trending back up to his historical average
b) Leave him batting 3rd because the "law of averages" says that he'll have a streak where he hits .400
c) Bench him because any schmuck can hit better than .200 and you're losing games with that guy out there
d) Bench him and give that rookie a shot and get some idea of how the kid will perform
e) If he's a GREAT fielder too, leave him out there.  Otherwise, put in a better fielder that can hit .200 AND play great defense

If we all had the same answer, this game would be entirely too predictable.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/26/2010 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Obviously, there are philosophical differences here, which is one of the things that makes this game fun.

If you have a career .300/30/100 hitter, $5M player hitting 3rd who starts a year hitting .200 after 20 games, what do you do?

a) Move him down the lineup until his performance starts trending back up to his historical average
b) Leave him batting 3rd because the "law of averages" says that he'll have a streak where he hits .400
c) Bench him because any schmuck can hit better than .200 and you're losing games with that guy out there
d) Bench him and give that rookie a shot and get some idea of how the kid will perform
e) If he's a GREAT fielder too, leave him out there.  Otherwise, put in a better fielder that can hit .200 AND play great defense

If we all had the same answer, this game would be entirely too predictable.

The only wrong answer there is b.