Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):
I think its a bit more difficult then they are putting on to find someone to throw a 4.55 in Nashville.  And by difficult, I dont mean hard to do, I mean expensive.  Not for the ML minimum.  Probably $4-$6 million a year.

If you want to get into looking at it that way, Ducey is going to cost (maybe he's already at that point... never looked at the contracts) more than Sheldon to resign.  On the open market, of course, I would be shocked if both didn't go for a max contract. 
But I still don't think any of that has a bearing on the Cy Young award, just player value.
Nashville is not Colorado, either, it is a slight hitters park, based on the park ratings you posted (I don't know if there has ever been a team in Nashville in my worlds).  If you are paying $6mill a year for a guy that is going to average a 4.55 ERA, you are doing something wrong. 

Posted by jvford on 2/21/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):
I think its a bit more difficult then they are putting on to find someone to throw a 4.55 in Nashville.  And by difficult, I dont mean hard to do, I mean expensive.  Not for the ML minimum.  Probably $4-$6 million a year.

In real life, MLB teams pay about $5 million per WAR.  Nothing to sneeze at.  Also, economically, the more you pay for something, the more valuable it is.

Bobzilla.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to actually acquire someone to make up those 81 innings.  A large part of them would go to your best relievers......your other starters would pick up a bunch too.

This, too... I run 10 & 11 man pitching staffs, usually, and I know I don't max out the use of my bullpen or all of my starters.  205 innings is plenty out of a starter to not have to do something to accomodate him in the rotation.  start to get down to 180, 170, you need an extra guy ready to start a game.

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 2/21/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):
I think its a bit more difficult then they are putting on to find someone to throw a 4.55 in Nashville.  And by difficult, I dont mean hard to do, I mean expensive.  Not for the ML minimum.  Probably $4-$6 million a year.

In real life, MLB teams pay about $5 million per WAR.  Nothing to sneeze at.  Also, economically, the more you pay for something, the more valuable it is.

Bobzilla.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to actually acquire someone to make up those 81 innings.  A large part of them would go to your best relievers......your other starters would pick up a bunch too.

This, too... I run 10 & 11 man pitching staffs, usually, and I know I don't max out the use of my bullpen or all of my starters.  205 innings is plenty out of a starter to not have to do something to accomodate him in the rotation.  start to get down to 180, 170, you need an extra guy ready to start a game.

I just want to get all this straight.  In this simulation, average players grow on trees.  You don't have to max out your starters or your relievers.  They can all just breeze through the season.  And you only get credit for up to 205 innings.  Anything else I should know?

Bobzilla

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 2/21/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):
I think its a bit more difficult then they are putting on to find someone to throw a 4.55 in Nashville.  And by difficult, I dont mean hard to do, I mean expensive.  Not for the ML minimum.  Probably $4-$6 million a year.

In real life, MLB teams pay about $5 million per WAR.  Nothing to sneeze at.  Also, economically, the more you pay for something, the more valuable it is.

Bobzilla.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to actually acquire someone to make up those 81 innings.  A large part of them would go to your best relievers......your other starters would pick up a bunch too.

This, too... I run 10 & 11 man pitching staffs, usually, and I know I don't max out the use of my bullpen or all of my starters.  205 innings is plenty out of a starter to not have to do something to accomodate him in the rotation.  start to get down to 180, 170, you need an extra guy ready to start a game.

I just want to get all this straight.  In this simulation, average players grow on trees.  You don't have to max out your starters or your relievers.  They can all just breeze through the season.  And you only get credit for up to 205 innings.  Anything else I should know?

Bobzilla

I guess reading up on ideas such as "extra capacity" and "underutilization" would help you.

I usually "short-staff" myself because I want an extra day of 100% for my starters.    So while I sometimes hit a wall on my way to 1224(pre-roster expansion IP), I probably don't have to.   Most likely, I leave an extra 150-180 starter innings on the table every season.

Posted by jvford on 2/21/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 2/21/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):
I think its a bit more difficult then they are putting on to find someone to throw a 4.55 in Nashville.  And by difficult, I dont mean hard to do, I mean expensive.  Not for the ML minimum.  Probably $4-$6 million a year.

In real life, MLB teams pay about $5 million per WAR.  Nothing to sneeze at.  Also, economically, the more you pay for something, the more valuable it is.

Bobzilla.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to actually acquire someone to make up those 81 innings.  A large part of them would go to your best relievers......your other starters would pick up a bunch too.

This, too... I run 10 & 11 man pitching staffs, usually, and I know I don't max out the use of my bullpen or all of my starters.  205 innings is plenty out of a starter to not have to do something to accomodate him in the rotation.  start to get down to 180, 170, you need an extra guy ready to start a game.

I just want to get all this straight.  In this simulation, average players grow on trees.  You don't have to max out your starters or your relievers.  They can all just breeze through the season.  And you only get credit for up to 205 innings.  Anything else I should know?

Bobzilla

I guess reading up on ideas such as "extra capacity" and "underutilization" would help you.

If those have to do with the simulation, no thanks.  I don't care enough to find what you're talking about.  I just want to know if talent is evenly distributed.  And if it's true that you don't have to max out your pitchers.

Bobzilla

It also occurred to me that this discussion is no longer "Which one for Cy Young?" and more "I understand stats better than you and mine are more important". 

At the end of the day, no one is figuring out FIP, defensive value, park effects, VORP, WAR, SPAGHETTI OR RAVIOLI for either of these guys.   They're looking at this:

G	IP	W-L	SV	ERA	WHIP	OAV	K/9	BB/9

IIRC, Ducey wins the first two(maybe three).   The rest favor Sheldon.

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 2/21/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):
I think its a bit more difficult then they are putting on to find someone to throw a 4.55 in Nashville.  And by difficult, I dont mean hard to do, I mean expensive.  Not for the ML minimum.  Probably $4-$6 million a year.

In real life, MLB teams pay about $5 million per WAR.  Nothing to sneeze at.  Also, economically, the more you pay for something, the more valuable it is.

Bobzilla.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to actually acquire someone to make up those 81 innings.  A large part of them would go to your best relievers......your other starters would pick up a bunch too.

This, too... I run 10 & 11 man pitching staffs, usually, and I know I don't max out the use of my bullpen or all of my starters.  205 innings is plenty out of a starter to not have to do something to accomodate him in the rotation.  start to get down to 180, 170, you need an extra guy ready to start a game.

I just want to get all this straight.  In this simulation, average players grow on trees.  You don't have to max out your starters or your relievers.  They can all just breeze through the season.  And you only get credit for up to 205 innings.  Anything else I should know?

Bobzilla

Nice over-simplification.
If you have a rotation full of 205 inning pitchers, in my experience, you won't have to adjust your starting rotation if you don't want to.  All of them can throw every 5th game at the reccomended PC.
If you construct your staff well and manage your team, you will get close to the max out of your best pitchers (because you did it on purpose) and have a number of decent pitcher's "leave innings on the table"
The fact is, you rarely have the exact Stam/Dur combo's in your rotation to run it exactly like that (or you have a guy with high durability that you want to start more often, which cuts off some of your lesser starters IP).  It's also hard to intentionally max innings out for more than one reliever... at least how I run my staff.
Where are you getting "And you only get credit for up to 205 innings"  at?  Everyone I have seen post has said that the extra innings have value.  I just personally think  205 innings at 2.50ERA/.97 WHIP is more outstanding than 286 innings at 3.08ERA/1.11 WHIP

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
It also occurred to me that this discussion is no longer "Which one for Cy Young?" and more "I understand stats better than you and mine are more important". 

At the end of the day, no one is figuring out FIP, defensive value, park effects, VORP, WAR, SPAGHETTI OR RAVIOLI for either of these guys.   They're looking at this:

G	IP	W-L	SV	ERA	WHIP	OAV	K/9	BB/9

IIRC, Ducey wins the first two(maybe three).   The rest favor Sheldon.

This... we're voting for for the "best pitcher" in the league, not trying to determine who is more likely to help our fantasy team.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
It also occurred to me that this discussion is no longer "Which one for Cy Young?" and more "I understand stats better than you and mine are more important". 

At the end of the day, no one is figuring out FIP, defensive value, park effects, VORP, WAR, SPAGHETTI OR RAVIOLI for either of these guys.   They're looking at this:

G	IP	W-L	SV	ERA	WHIP	OAV	K/9	BB/9

IIRC, Ducey wins the first two(maybe three).   The rest favor Sheldon.

I looked at almost all of those.  Well, not the Italian stats.

Bobzilla

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
It also occurred to me that this discussion is no longer "Which one for Cy Young?" and more "I understand stats better than you and mine are more important". 

At the end of the day, no one is figuring out FIP, defensive value, park effects, VORP, WAR, SPAGHETTI OR RAVIOLI for either of these guys.   They're looking at this:

G	IP	W-L	SV	ERA	WHIP	OAV	K/9	BB/9

IIRC, Ducey wins the first two(maybe three).   The rest favor Sheldon.

This... we're voting for for the "best pitcher" in the league, not trying to determine who is more likely to help our fantasy team.

Does "best pitcher" not mean "most valuable"?

Bobzilla

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
It also occurred to me that this discussion is no longer "Which one for Cy Young?" and more "I understand stats better than you and mine are more important". 

At the end of the day, no one is figuring out FIP, defensive value, park effects, VORP, WAR, SPAGHETTI OR RAVIOLI for either of these guys.   They're looking at this:

G	IP	W-L	SV	ERA	WHIP	OAV	K/9	BB/9

IIRC, Ducey wins the first two(maybe three).   The rest favor Sheldon.

I looked at almost all of those.  Well, not the Italian stats.

Bobzilla

I assume you weren't in the league or voting for the CY Award.    If I had to guess, a good world has about 75% participation in Awards voting.  No one is going to spend 20-30 minutes on each award to make sure they know the PItching Runs or RC27 for each candidate.  Just isn't going to happen.

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
It also occurred to me that this discussion is no longer "Which one for Cy Young?" and more "I understand stats better than you and mine are more important". 

At the end of the day, no one is figuring out FIP, defensive value, park effects, VORP, WAR, SPAGHETTI OR RAVIOLI for either of these guys.   They're looking at this:

G	IP	W-L	SV	ERA	WHIP	OAV	K/9	BB/9

IIRC, Ducey wins the first two(maybe three).   The rest favor Sheldon.

This... we're voting for for the "best pitcher" in the league, not trying to determine who is more likely to help our fantasy team.

There is also a degree of seperation.  If I hit .750 with 40 hrs, 40 dbls, 5 triples and someone else hits .333 with 41 hrs, 45 dbls and 10 triples are you going to tell me that the .333 hitter wins MVP because he won 3 of 4 categories?

It's not that he won 3 of the categories, it's because Sheldon was vastly superior in WHIP/OAV/ERA.

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcden on 2/21/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jvford on 2/21/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JFerg on 2/21/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 2/21/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):
I think its a bit more difficult then they are putting on to find someone to throw a 4.55 in Nashville.  And by difficult, I dont mean hard to do, I mean expensive.  Not for the ML minimum.  Probably $4-$6 million a year.

In real life, MLB teams pay about $5 million per WAR.  Nothing to sneeze at.  Also, economically, the more you pay for something, the more valuable it is.

Bobzilla.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to actually acquire someone to make up those 81 innings.  A large part of them would go to your best relievers......your other starters would pick up a bunch too.

This, too... I run 10 & 11 man pitching staffs, usually, and I know I don't max out the use of my bullpen or all of my starters.  205 innings is plenty out of a starter to not have to do something to accomodate him in the rotation.  start to get down to 180, 170, you need an extra guy ready to start a game.

I just want to get all this straight.  In this simulation, average players grow on trees.  You don't have to max out your starters or your relievers.  They can all just breeze through the season.  And you only get credit for up to 205 innings.  Anything else I should know?

Bobzilla

Nice over-simplification.
If you have a rotation full of 205 inning pitchers, in my experience, you won't have to adjust your starting rotation if you don't want to.  All of them can throw every 5th game at the reccomended PC.
If you construct your staff well and manage your team, you will get close to the max out of your best pitchers (because you did it on purpose) and have a number of decent pitcher's "leave innings on the table"
The fact is, you rarely have the exact Stam/Dur combo's in your rotation to run it exactly like that (or you have a guy with high durability that you want to start more often, which cuts off some of your lesser starters IP).  It's also hard to intentionally max innings out for more than one reliever... at least how I run my staff.
Where are you getting "And you only get credit for up to 205 innings"  at?  Everyone I have seen post has said that the extra innings have value.  I just personally think  205 innings at 2.50ERA/.97 WHIP is more outstanding than 286 innings at 3.08ERA/1.11 WHIP

I'm not really trying to over-simplify anything.  I just want to know if talent is evenly distributed or not.  In MLB it is not.  I think everybody agrees that the two pitchers saved the same amount runs relative to average, notwithstanding the difference in park factors.  The talent distribution matters here, because if it is evenly distributed, you don't need to look at replacement level.  If it isn't evenly distributed, you do, and Ducey moves ahead of Sheldon.  Because Ducey would have more value if this were MLB.  It isn't, so I wanted to know more about the simulation itself.  You guys know more about it than me, so I'm just trying to get things straight.  The 205 innings thing was just a joke.  It just seemed like some people were saying that 81 average innings wasn't hard to come by.  If that wasn't their intention, then I apologize.  Maybe Sheldon's numbers look more impressive, or more outstanding, but they don't have more value.

Bobzilla