I know it's a marathon and a law of averages etc.etc.etc.

But my team ERA (which carries a lot of factors) was somewhere between 3.65 - 3.80 the whole season (thru 120 games) and now after the last 25 games or so it's up to 4.12.

I've been platooning arms well but now most of my guys are getting shelled, consistently. And the ones who aren't, were the ones getting shelled during the first half.

Thoughts?

We got to 60-40 and we are now 19-24 since. I know there are streaks but this feels very much like the SIM keeping the division close. And we're 12-18 in a division with two very lousy teams which also plays into that theory.

Took a quick look at things.
Kluber has a 2.81 ERA in his last 10 games.
Key has a 3.99 ERA in his last 10.
Hendricks is at 4.86 in his last 10, but that included one awful appearance of 2 IP with 8 ER. Outside that one game, he's been good.
Kershaw has a 1.66 ERA in his last 10.
Weaver's ERA is 5.12 in his last 10, but he's had 6 scoreless appearances in that time.

Mike Jackson is at 12.91 but was only scored on in 4/10 most recent games.
Groom is at 4.00 scored on 3/10 previous games.
Henry is at 8.71 but only scored on in 4/10 previous games.
Miller's ERA in last 10 is 0.00
Romo's ERA in last 10 is 3.24.

Only one pitcher, Neshek, has been truly bad in his last 10 appearances. He's been scored on in 6/10 with a 14.54 ERA.

From what I can see, only a few pitchers on your entire staff have been "bad" over their last 10 appearances, and only one pitcher, Neshek, could really be said to have gotten shelled consistently. Looks like you're seeing something that isn't really there. The game engine does not adjust player performance in any way to encourage closer division races.

I was going off the last 25-30 games. Not the last ten. But I see your point and I check last 10 often. Just losing a lot of games late in the year with what used to be our strength.

I was using each pitchers' last 10 appearances from their game log, not the team's last 10 games. The pitchers' last 10 appearances were all made within the past 24-45 team games, which covers almost exactly the period of time you said they'd been getting shelled consistently. Numbers say they haven't.

3.65-3.80 to 4.12 is really not that much variance IMO

I see your point on the math.

Guess I'm just confused as to how my team can start 60-40. And 100 games is no small sample. And there are hot and cold streaks, but we've been 19-27 since that start and every facet of the team can be blamed. Good starting P- bad bullpen. Good offensive day, bad starting P.

Not sure how we can win 60% of our first 100 then lose nearly 60% of our next 46 games. Total shift and now the division is looking lost.

Posted by ynotjanns on 9/6/2018 3:46:00 PM (view original):
I see your point on the math.

Guess I'm just confused as to how my team can start 60-40. And 100 games is no small sample. And there are hot and cold streaks, but we've been 19-27 since that start and every facet of the team can be blamed. Good starting P- bad bullpen. Good offensive day, bad starting P.

Not sure how we can win 60% of our first 100 then lose nearly 60% of our next 46 games. Total shift and now the division is looking lost.

You just described normal variance kind of perfectly. I would have trouble counting the number of real teams that experienced something like that or worse ('69 Cubs, '95 Angels, '00 Yanks off the top of my head).

Yeah, 100 games is a tiny sample from a statistical perspective in this situation.

Yeah I guess. Well now 21-30 since that 60-40 start and threatening to lose the division.

Team just kind of finds every way to lose now. Best bullpen arm has been awful the last 20 games. Oh well.

But is 100 games that small? That's 60% of the season. More than half.

A season is a small sample

But a season at a time is what you do here. The players on the team are based on a season. I know they have the #normalized stats and what have you, but going from winning consistently to just losing all the time is a little messed up IMO. First time I've ever had a team 20 games over .500 in a while and then just collapse.

It happens, both in real life and in simulations.

It's not just about normalization, it's about statistics. In industry, one season would equal one run of the simulation. In order to get confidence that results are almost guaranteed to be "accurate" (in terms of the best teams being the winners and winning the amount of games that they should), you'd run the same simulation (aka season), thousands of times.

We run each season once, and honestly the variability is part of the drama and the fun. I just had a team come back from an 0-3 defect in the WS, but I've also lost WS that way before! That's only happened once in real baseball (and never in the WS), but there have been so many more seasons played here on WIS (compared to > 150 in the MLB) that flukes like that will happen. It's part of the game.

That's fair and I see that.

So we've now gone 21-31 and have lost 8/10 and are now a game out of first for the first time in over 120 games. Total collapse. 12-20 in the division and last 10 are all against them, so we're pretty much screwed.

Two of my bullpen guys have ballooned and tanked consistently over the last 10 games AT THE SAME TIME. Feels a bit arbitrary and perfectly timed for all things considered.

https://www.whatifsports.com/mlb-l/playerprofile.asp?ID=43587863&pl=False&type=2

https://www.whatifsports.com/mlb-l/playerprofile.asp?ID=43587866&pl=False&type=2