Streakiness..? Topic

Stengel says.......Does 'the Sim' decide randomly to make some players better and way worse than they were in real life.   Answer No.  But Park factors(An abundance of hitter or pitchers parks and a dearth of hr's), A Predominance of Left or Right handed pitching or hitting and many other factors that may not be evident.  These factors aren't known until a season is fully underway and could be resulting in poor performance. Whilst It cost almost 700 thousand to replace this player,  it cost SEVEN MILLION if he remains on the bench!  And I'd Start Don Wilson on a 4 or 5 pull with McAnally ready to go in long relief, Wilson is not underperforming enough to bench.  You have to factor in the other teams strengths and weaknesses as well. 

1/11/2012 2:00 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
I know I've posted this many many times, but most people dramatically underestimate how often streaks happen in real life.  Pick any major league team in any season, and chances are you can find an extended period where they played .600 or better and an extended streak where they played .400 or worse.  Often one right after the other.  The most memorable examples of this happen during pennant races (in recent years the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cardinals, Angels, Mets, and Red Sox have all had such periods).  But these things happen all the time.  Even very dramatic swings are not uncommon in baseball history.  Check out the game logs of the 1977 Red Sox at  Starting June 8th they won 13 of 14, then lost 9 in a row, then won 9 of 11.

The 1987 Jays finished the regular season - last 14 games - by winning 7 in a row and then losing 7 in a row.

There are elements of WIS that make streaks a little more common than in real baseball (principally fatigue, and the strategy used by many owners of tanking a few games in order to get by with fewer PA and IP), but streaks happen all the time in real baseball.  We just don't notice them because we don't pay as much attention to every MLB team's day by day performance as we do to our WIS teams.

Same thing with pitchers - pick any season and you can almost certainly find a pitcher who went on a phenomenal hot streak followed by a long cold streak or vice versa.  Heck, let's do the 1980s:

1981 - Fernando famously starts the year 8-0 in his first 8 starts, 7 CG, 5 SHO, and 4 runs allowed in 72 innings.  His next 8 games?  1-4, with 35 runs allowed (34 earned) in 47.1 innings
1982 - Eckersley, after 2 very mediocre years for the Red Sox, posts a 2.11 ERA in his first 9 starts (and getting the start in the All Star game largely as a result of that).  His next 6 starts: 26 runs (24 earned) in 36.2 innings
1984 - Sutcliffe is the poster child for this.  Starts the year with Cleveland, goes 4-5 with a 5.15 ERA.  Traded to Cubs, goes 16-1 with a 2.69 ERA - in Wrigley Field.  Maybe most amazingly, he struck out 58 batters in 94 IP for Cleveland, then fanned 155 guys in 150 IP for the Cubs.  Basically doubled his strikeout rate.
1985 - Andy Hawkins becomes the first (and I think only) pitcher to win his first 10 starts...actually gets to 11-0, then goes 7-8 the rest of the way.
1986 - Clemens starts 14-0, 2.18 ERA.  His next 9 starts: 29 runs in 65.2 IP.

Streaks happen.  A lot.  In real life and in WIS. 
1/11/2012 6:24 PM (edited)
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Posted by crazystengel on 1/11/2012 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Those Blue Jay 7W and 7L streaks are nothing compared to the 1916 Giants, who had 17W and 26W runs.  Yet they finished 4th at the end of the season -- because they were 43-66 when they weren't streaking.

Can you imagine what some of the conspiracy theorists here would say if they had a team like that?  There are two ways the complaint could go:

1. "How could my team, which was awesome enough to have 17- and 26-game win streaks, be 23 games under .500 the rest of the time?"


2. "How the heck did my mediocre team ever win 17 and 26 games in a row?"

(My hunch is that most owners would go with #1!)
In reality and by heart, I'd go with #1, but that's because I'm a long-suffering (until 2010) Giants fan.  

1/11/2012 7:47 PM
Posted by crazystengel on 1/11/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Ha, I'm surprised you'd start Wilson ahead of McAnally.  Not so surprised you'd rank McAnally ahead of Wood and the rest, though (if I understand your post correctly).  

And about that $7M player -- of course he shouldn't be on the bench.  That goes without saying.  As much as I think the WW is a terrible route to go for "underperforming" players (except for the two owners on the site savvy enough to know how to use the WW), obviously it's better than having a player you're not using at all.  
Crazy, contrary to your implied suggestion, I never professed to be savvy in any aspect of this game, especially in regard to how to use the ww.  Like every owner in every league, I do what I feel is best for my team.  And if that means using the ww to IMPROVE my team (which is the ONLY time I use it), then so be it because that's the way I manage my teams, just as you have your own way of managing your teams and players, such as throwing games or using backups during inter league play.  While you may not agree with dumping players who are SEVERELY underperforming (e.g., a $7mil player hitting only .150 after one-third of the season and whose sitting on the bench PLATOONING), we simply have a difference opinion about it, and its not a matter of right or wrong as to when or how to use the ww. I would assume that every owner, including yourself, drafts and manages their teams in light of what works for THEM.  And using the ww, is merely one avenue I use to try to improve my team, because it works for ME, just as various other strategies work for others.  For example, I just completed a league in which I had two teams. Both were inconsistent and had players whose production didn't justify their cost. After nearly 100 ww transactions for each team, one won its division, and the other lost its division in the last game of the season.  For sure, I'm not saying owners should arbitrarily dump players in favor of ww players, because its truly not that simple.  But the bottom line is that it's all about what works for YOU!
1/11/2012 8:03 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
You and your co-worker re-enact hundred year old George Bernard Shaw quips?  Do you guys do Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" bit too?
1/12/2012 10:15 AM
One time I got to first base and then asked the first baseman, "Who's on first?" and he said, "STFU."
1/12/2012 11:30 AM
Posted by crimsonblue on 1/12/2012 9:17:00 AM (view original):
I once asked a devout church going co-worker while leaving work; Would you sleep with that bum over there for 30 dollars?  She said definitely not.  I then asked her if she'd sleep with him for 100 dollars, She said "Absolutely not!!!!" "I'm not a prosititute!!!!".  I said, ok then, would you sleep with him for 100 MILLION DOLLARS.  She said well yeah, I wouldn't like it but I could do some good and donate it to the church.  I said well then you are a prostitute,....... we're just haggling about the price...........My point is Given the choice of Using a 35-0 1972 Steve Carlton with a 0.00 ERA and a WHIP of .20 or an 0-35 1908 Addie Joss with an 36.00 ERA with a WHIP approaching 4.00 after 300 innings (And as a "randomer' you should believe that all things random can happen). There isn't a person here who would start Addie Joss if they had a choice in a playoff game 7 in that senario..........So Stengel, everyone is an "Irrandomer"  as you once called me (I call them the guys that manage their teams Lol), even you..........we just have different breaking points. haha
Crimson, given the scenario you mentioned, you'd be surprised at how many guys would still trot Joss out there for that game 7. lol
1/12/2012 11:52 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Posted by crazystengel on 1/12/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Why do some people keep playing this game when they believe the real life stats mean nothing?  That's what I don't get.  
    Yeah, it's an old joke....but she and all women fall for it.  that's what makes it funny.  It's Sad Troy but I think you're right (I should have said sane person)Lol.   Stats DO mean everything Stengel, It's just that some of us believe that ballpark tendencies, the other teams strengths and weaknesses and what our eyes see mean something too. ........... And Eddie Murray and David Segui are always "on first" in an OL.  Lol
1/12/2012 2:31 PM (edited)
Crimson - there is no set of circumstances in which Joss would not be better than Carlton.  Even against a lineup of all lefties who hit mostly doubles I'd lean towards Joss.  I don't give 2 sh*ts about what the league stats are given that they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever for the next game played.
1/12/2012 2:39 PM
I don't know what you mean about saying "sane person" - I don't see how any sane person could be told that the sim stats are not considered in later simulations and still give them any weight whatsoever rather than looking at the RL stats in context.
1/12/2012 2:40 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Streakiness..? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.