Roll a dice 600 times. When it comes up 1 100 times, 2 100 times, 3 100 times, 4 100 times, 5 100 times and 6 100 times stop and let me know. If it doesn't start over and do it again.

7	grivfmd1	ML	95-67	.586	1st	No	Yes	yes	yes	yes
8	grivfmd1	ML	81-81	.500	3rd	No	No
9	grivfmd1	ML	102-60	.630	1st	No	Yes	yes	no	no
10	grivfmd1	ML	62-100	.383	4th	No	No
11	grivfmd1	ML	88-74	.543	2nd	Yes	No	no	no	no
12	grivfmd1	ML	97-65	.599	1st	No	Yes	yes	yes	yes
13	grivfmd1	ML	60-52	.536

Also Cooperstown - year 10 is the same year Mike's team "collapsed" - almost no changes in the team between yrs 7 to 10 and only moderate changes from 10 to 13 (some youth movement at positions but pitching essentially the same after year 10 trades).

Not saying that teams are programmed to loss but that they may be programmed to exceed, mirror, or disappoint compared to their potential. In year 8 one of my star players had a "career" year - so to me it seems unlikely that team variation is due solely to player variation.

I agree with the regression to the mean phenomenon but suspect it operates on a yearly (or 1/2 year? at the all-star break?), not on a purely random basis. This is one of the reasons I rarely "tear down" a disappointing team. It would have to happen 2 years in a row before I would threw in the towel on a team I thought should be descent.

I suspect you will see this occurring more often in competitive leagues where the difference between teams is inherantly less and therefore swings in records tend to be greater with even subtle changes in the team or the "engine". (for example - the pop in year 12 could have been the change in the HR programming - or could have been something else - but the team "took off" after the all-star break after being blah up to that point)

Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2010If you want to look at schedule as a factor, I don't understand the reference to "division".  You play 10 games against each of the other 15 teams in your league, and then 12 games total against the other league.  So in terms of schedule, division has no meaning within your league because all 15 teams are treated equally.Perhaps his league as a whole got significantly better (not just his division mates), along with maybe playing a tougher division of interleague games this season as opposed to last.Still, my experience is that significant swings in W/L record from season to season goes well beyond schedule, to the point where I think that overall schedule is an insignificant factor.

Well the other teams would be winning more too, tec. Even though you are playing the same schedules they would in general be winning more...

Quote: Originally posted by grivfmd1 on 2/28/2010Players seem to be "programmed" at the begining of a season to be better, same, or worse than average.  Rarely have I seen a player turn around during a season, except at the all star break - so I have wondered if that is a "re-set" point.Have also wondered if a similar "programming" event takes place regarding overall team play (better, same, or worse than predicted) since I have had teams "bounce back" the following year (and even at the all-star break) with little change in personel.Inquiring Minds want to Know

I've often wondered the same thing about individual players -- minus the All Star break factor.

I'm actually wrestling with a dilemma right now of how to play one of my starting pitchers in an upcoming playoffs. Said pitcher has historically been an excellent #2 for me, but this entire season, without any changes in his ratings, he has been getting absolutely lit 3 of every 4 starts. I expect him to bounce back next season, but based on my experience, as ridiculous as it may sound, I do not expect him to bounce back before then.

Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.

"Do I should chalk this up to statistical variation? Or it there something more sinister in the engine? Are certain franchises cursed by the simmy in a given season? I know it's far-fetched but this one season has me puzzled."

I think they pushed the Chicago Cubs button on your team.

My team in Roy Hobbs:

1st Half record this year: 31-50 (.383)

2nd Half record this year: 54-27 (.667)

I made almost no changes mid-stream. WiFS, however, did change the sim (added back half of the boys' steroids) right around the midpoint.

Could this explain what you're seeing?

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 2/28/2010
Roll a dice 600 times. When it comes up 1 100 times, 2 100 times, 3 100 times, 4 100 times, 5 100 times and 6 100 times stop and let me know. If it doesn't start over and do it again.

BINGO!

Something that people need to get a solid grip on is that individual players' seasons are all still "small sample size". 500-600 PAs or 200 IP is nothing in terms of statistics.

You have bad luck with a couple of key players, and suddenly your team is in the tank.

A player's career is starting to edge towards a meaningful statistical sampling, but really, you should be looking in the millions for a number of events that becomes statistically relevant.

Conversely: When was the last time someone started a thread because their team exceeded expectations? Same statistical variance... and for anyone looking for a consistent, season-to-season simulation, they should be equally annoyed. But you'd rather think you managed the sh!t outta those guys, right?

Conversely:When was the last time someone started a thread because their team exceeded expectations? Same statistical variance... and for anyone looking for a consistent, season-to-season simulation, they should be equally annoyed. But you'd rather think you managed the sh!t outta those guys, right?Every time someone really goes off the deepend in one of my leagues about so and so couldn't possibly have this bad of a year with these ratings I end up pointing out that they never seem to post about their overpreforming players.

Seems insane to me that WifS would say: "Hey, look, MikeT has been to the playoffs 7 straight times. Let's hit him with a humility bomb!!!"

3	MikeT23	ML	90-72	.556	2nd	Yes	No	no	no	no
4	MikeT23	ML	93-69	.574	1st	No	Yes	no	no	no
5	MikeT23	ML	88-74	.543	2nd	Yes	No	no	no	no
6	MikeT23	ML	87-75	.537	1st	No	Yes	no	no	no
7	MikeT23	ML	106-56	.654	1st	No	Yes	yes	no	no
8	MikeT23	ML	94-68	.580	1st	No	Yes	no	no	no
9	MikeT23	ML	92-70	.568	2nd	Yes	No	no	no	no
10	MikeT23	ML	65-97	.401	3rd	No	No

Even moreso because it didn't happen here(the team won the WS the season after I with no roster changes):

Joey Belle	DOV Diamond Kings	1	$93.8M	101-61 (.623)	1	-
Joey Belle	DOV Diamond Kings	2	$94.8M	98-64 (.605)	1	-
Joey Belle	DOV Diamond Kings	3	$96.3M	96-66 (.593)	1	-
Joey Belle	DOV Diamond Kings	4	$113.8M	96-66 (.593)	1	-
Joey Belle	DOV Diamond Kings	5	$108.2M	92-70 (.568)	1	-
Joey Belle	DOV Diamond Kings	6	$90.0M	100-62 (.617)	1	-
Joey Belle	DOV Diamond Kings	7	$91.2M	103-59 (.636)	1	-
Joey Belle	DOV Diamond Kings	8	$85.4M	102-60 (.630)	1	-

That's because it IS insane.

Nobody complains when their team does well. Even (especially?) when they shouldn't.

Only negative variation will be noticed and commneted upon.

To be fair, I had a guy I knew was way out-performing his ratings, all season, but I was afraid to mention it because I didn't want to jinx it. And because I'm a superstitious ***.

Or, as the conspiracy theorist would say it, I didn't want ADMIN to notice and flip the "F-U" switch.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Seems insane to me that WifS would say: "Hey, look, MikeT has been to the playoffs 7 straight times. Let's hit him with a humility bomb!!!"

That would be insane. Everyone knows that MikeT is impervious to humility bombs.

That is one of my superpowers.