Posted by tecwrg on 8/19/2015 7:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hockey1984 on 8/19/2015 7:18:00 PM (view original):
This sounds like a lot of fun.

A few ideas I think would be what I would want to do if I was thrown into the leagues.

1) sign guys with high temper rating and put argumentative to high. See how many guys you can get punted from a single game.

2) build a pitching squad of all bullpen guys and tandem ever game

3) try to pull off a 3 pitcher rotation

4) is it possible to get position players to pitch?

Personally I like the all out offence one. I'd sign a bunch of players, play em all out of position but have a minimum of 80 power per guy. Every at bat swing for the fences.

1)  Argumentative only applies to the likelihood of the manager getting booted, so that wouldn't really work.

2 and 3)  Definite possibilities.  Like I said in my original post, I would try to load up with the best pitchers available, so that could fit in to my "pitching and defense" option.

4)  I don't think so.

I 've had players tossed for arguing balls and strikes.

Of course.  But that's based on the player's temper rating, not on the team's argumentative setting.

I think the all defensive team is a cool idea.  I know it wouldn't be easy, or a perfect test (small sample size, nuances, etc.), but finding two very similar starting pitchers, with all similar categories except one very high gb/fb and one very low would be interesting.   

To play off of that, you could build a staff of high GB/low GB pitcher in conjunction with whatever type of O/D you decide upon. 

They'd be playing with the same D and facing the same batters in the same parks.    If you could get 600+ innings from each type, their might be something to be seen.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/20/2015 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Of course.  But that's based on the player's temper rating, not on the team's argumentative setting.

That's still what I'd do. All high temper guys with high aguemenatitve. See how many guys get tossed before the end of the game.

With the 'all speed team' I'd be tempted to do that to figure out where to put high speed and base running guys after your 1 and 2 spots are taken.

Posted by hockey1984 on 8/20/2015 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/20/2015 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Of course.  But that's based on the player's temper rating, not on the team's argumentative setting.

That's still what I'd do. All high temper guys with high aguemenatitve. See how many guys get tossed before the end of the game.

With the 'all speed team' I'd be tempted to do that to figure out where to put high speed and base running guys after your 1 and 2 spots are taken.

Again, the temper rating and the argumentative setting are two separate and independent things.  One has no impact on the other.

How about trying to use at least 1 high and 1 low GB/FB SP and comparing the HR/XBH results? Combining that with an  defense (or even the opposite) could provide some useful information. Too small a sample size to be definitive, but it would be a start and at least somewhat instructive. As Mike noted, data against opposition in consistent parks would have value. One would think it would be easy to find a few owners willing to accommodate research by trading appropriate players. If you can get a couple of GB/FB test cases with reasonably similar splits, control & , the results would be interesting.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/20/2015 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hockey1984 on 8/20/2015 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/20/2015 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Of course.  But that's based on the player's temper rating, not on the team's argumentative setting.

That's still what I'd do. All high temper guys with high aguemenatitve. See how many guys get tossed before the end of the game.

With the 'all speed team' I'd be tempted to do that to figure out where to put high speed and base running guys after your 1 and 2 spots are taken.

Again, the temper rating and the argumentative setting are two separate and independent things.  One has no impact on the other.

No I know. But I mean, high temper guys will get your position players tossed. Having arguementative on very agressive will get the coach tossed. So try to see how many position players and coaches you can get tossed in total.

My idea is to see who would get tossed for arguing a call if both the player and the manager were involved. You would have to assume that if the manager is very argumentative (like MikeT for example) and the player has a low temper rating that they both would argue a call that didn't go their way. Would the manager override the player, or would the player get the hook and get tossed, or would they both get tossed?

I suppose if I were to take the opposite route of the "all defense" strategy, and went with a team full of 90+ power guys who can't play defense, I could double-down on the defensive ineptness and play with LH throwers at 2B, SS, 3B and C.

Maybe I can do all defense at the ML level, and do the LH slugging Neanderthal strategy at AAA.

Minor league stats are meaningless.   Even moreso is a single season world. 

I know.  That's why I want the more meaningful strategy at the ML level, and restrict the stupid **** to the minor leagues.

Maybe I'll do hockey's high-temper and argumentative experiment in AA.  That's less about stats and more about how the engine handles ejections.

I can do low-temper at High A for comparison reasons.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I know.  That's why I want the more meaningful strategy at the ML level, and restrict the stupid **** to the minor leagues.

Maybe I'll do hockey's high-temper and argumentative experiment in AA.  That's less about stats and more about how the engine handles ejections.

I can do low-temper at High A for comparison reasons.

Spoken like a true scientist. (That's a compliment).

I can't wait to see the results of these tests. .