Well thankfully he is my 4th or 5th SP.. I was just being greedy and expecting more. This world is packed with SP's so it would be difficult to get great value for him in a trade. I basically gifted Lou Becker in season 4 just to save some money.

Doug Paul
Audry Vargas
Paul Crow
Al Jacquez
Shep Vogelbach

my eyeballs are wedged into the back of my skull right now from rolling my eyes so hard

lol you have literally no idea how this game works.

The ratings are just a probability chart calibrated to the historical average. When a 71 vR pitcher faces a 62 vR hitter there is a certain defined probability of hit. When a 71 vR faces a 68 vR hitter, the 68 performs better than a 62. The 68 is literally higher on the chart. This is literally reflected in this player's OAV and therefore ERA

You can't even decide what your argument is, first is that it's because he's "just an average player" and then it's because "he plays in New Orleans" which isn't true, then it's "utilization". Maybe you're just an idiot. You're constantly wrong

Oddly enough, I do pretty well.

It doesn't matter what the player pool is if it's not used properly. It doesn't take a genius to know that some worlds are very competitive and some worlds are not. It's a pretty common practice is ****** worlds to hold back studs to build "super teams" and to lose 120 season after season in order to acquire those studs. If you don't think there's a difference between worlds because all of them lose the same amount of total games, you're completely clueless. "Average" numbers get skewed because a handful of teams have ERAs over 5 and 200 errors/negative plays.

Now show us your one example of a similar pitcher and explain how that proves those guys are really good.

Dumbass. And I'm not using that word lightly.

This guys is similar and has a 3 season career with 3.5 ERA.

Best part of posting in the open forum. You get some advice and MikeT and Foster put on a show.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 6:35:00 AM (view original):
Oddly enough, I do pretty well.

It doesn't matter what the player pool is if it's not used properly. It doesn't take a genius to know that some worlds are very competitive and some worlds are not. It's a pretty common practice is ****** worlds to hold back studs to build "super teams" and to lose 120 season after season in order to acquire those studs. If you don't think there's a difference between worlds because all of them lose the same amount of total games, you're completely clueless. "Average" numbers get skewed because a handful of teams have ERAs over 5 and 200 errors/negative plays.

Now show us your one example of a similar pitcher and explain how that proves those guys are really good.

Dumbass. And I'm not using that word lightly.

well I already have but you admit that you don't read my posts (which is ultimately your problem and why you never learn anything).

I'll even show you an example from each of my leagues, these are the only ones who remotely fit the criteria:

Texas: Bum Sweeney con 87, vL 50, vR 71, vel 90, gb 91, ps 96-78-65-58-54 (avg p 70.2), career 1250 IP, ERA 3.25 WHIP 1.17, slash line .235/.294/.379
Toronto: Denny Nomo con 99, vL 55, vR 67, vel 92, gb 79, ps 80-79-40-51-38 (avg 57.6), career 2250 IP, ERA 4.24 WHIP 1.30, slash line .269/.316/.425 HOWEVER he has only spent parts of 3.5 seasons with my club totalling 565.2 IP, and in those seasons his lines are ERA 3.23, 3.68, 3.63, 4.00, WHIP 1.04, 1.25, 1.15, 1.22, and slash lines .233/.272/.372, .263/.309/.397, .240/.295/.359, and .277/.305/.427
Seattle: Derrik Hayes aka the most effective 72 OVR you're going to see: con 90, vL 64, vR 68, vel 32, gb 50, ps 87-87-56-48-42 (avg 64), career 1450 IP, ERA 3.03, WHIP 1.14, slash .232/.288/.354. Yes Seattle is particularly good for pitchers, however he also has two full 200 IP seasons with NY2 (Mets= 0,-1,-1,-1,-1) that are exactly the same as the Seattle ones, so that config appears to be stadium-proof.
SF: closest examples are Jude Kashmir who has 2 Cy Youngs with 88 con, 64 vL, 78 vR, 54 vel, 84 gb, ps 83-68-80-60 (avg 72.75). 78 vR is quite high for this conversation but 78 is certainly not superman; yet it's enough to utterly dominate, career 1355 IP, ERA 3.27, WHIP 1.18, slash .233/.294/.355
Conversely, the other example is Esmerling Martin whose splits are especially low for this conversation- 87 con, 51 vL, 63 vR, 95 vel, 85 gb, ps 94-76-40-46-51 (avg p 61.4), career 1120 IP, 4.14 1.33, .256/.321/.405, HOWEVER he has benefited very much from two career-transforming minor injuries where prior-to he was 83 con, 48 vL, 60 vR, 94 vel, 85 gb, ps 91-75-37-43-48 (avg 58.8). The extra 4 con, 3 vL, 3 vR, 1 vel, and 2.5 avg pitch have changed him from a perennial 4.30-4.50 ERA guy with slash .259/.326/.425 to a 3.60-3.90 ERA guy with slash .250/.320/.390.

The Martin example shows us how such tiny differences in attributes make a very big difference in overall long-term production and whether a guy is "bad/below average" or "good/ above average". Every single guy above is varying degrees between good/All-Star/Cy Young candidate or winner/future Hall of Fame candidate

The variable factors between them are league player pools. I've already shown how the Rickey (Texas) player pool is particularly bad- go back and look. There are multiple Awful lineups in that league. The Show II (SF) lineups are stronger, closer to the strength of Mantle. But that Topps league (@willsauve) has a ridiculously high number of ridiculously good lineups. In Rickey, Shep Vogelbach would contend for a Cy Young, but in Topps he's an SP4. Vogelbach and Sweeney are incredibly similar. On the other hand, Alexi Navarre is a guy who might be doomed to struggle in most worlds because of 70 control and 50 vL, but he could at least be a decent SP4/SP5 in a different league. In Topps this guy gets shredded into pieces and is nothing more than replacement-level LRB

League strength is by far the biggest factor in these two players' badness. In most other leagues they would rank anywhere from very good to excellent. Topps is a new league and also it's a merged league which are both abnormal factors. Ratings do not exist in a vacuum, they are relative to the opponent.

That answer took literally two sentences, which you could have and should have accepted at face value because I'm smarter than you and worth believing. I was even nice enough to add objective analysis! Which you obviously ignored because it contradicts your worldview and you're too lazy to read. Other people are less lazy, other people improve

Posted by hockey1984 on 7/14/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Best part of posting in the open forum. You get some advice and MikeT and Foster put on a show.

hey man something needs to fill the time between Mayweather-McGregor

I think we're just disagreeing on methodology here. You're making all these elaborate theories about how worlds are different because people deliberately tank or how players are "utilized" whatever the hell that means.

All I'm doing is fetching the actual numbers from World>Reports>Franchise Rankings>Filters: ML, AL, Starting Lineup, Current, Sort by- Power (descending) for the sake of presentation. The inputs (ratings) speak for themselves lol. I could care less WHY the ratings are different, they're just different.

And a general observation is that the into player pool for Season 1 in every world has a much stronger player pool than the player pool in Season xx. Not sure why, that's just the way the HBD database is config'd. For this particular league Topps it's not an Intro player pool... it's a Merged player pool. So, it's not exactly the same thing but it's definitely something worth mentioning, because merged worlds specifically tend to ONLY import qualty team / superteam remnants from dead worlds. Owners tend to avoid taking their 50 win team from a dead world and importing it into a Superworld so that they can lose harder and win 25 games, that's just not how it goes lol

You're looking at stats (outputs), I'm looking at ratings (inputs). Stats are relative to Ratings, and Ratings are relative to the opponent. Stop disagreeing

I stopped here "well I already have but you admit that you don't read my posts" but I was being sarcastic when I said "Now show us your one example of a similar pitcher and explain how that proves those guys are really good" . One is not enough of a sample size. In fact, some could say that's the exception that proves the rule.

The problem you're having is that you've never played in worlds where the worst teams lose 90ish and the best win less than 100. It changes the entire league averages because no one has 5.78 ERA. And certainly not several of them. When I say "league average", I am talking about stats. The standard league average for pitchers in good worlds is 1.30 WHIP and 4.10 ERA. Looking at his two pitchers, I expected them to be around "league average". They are.

These threads generally get derailed whenever pjfoster jumps in to "help". He's arrogant and dismissive, he believes that he has some sort of higher insight into the game than everybody else, and is much more often than not dead wrong.

His posts should be regarded in that context.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/14/2017 2:26:00 PM (view original):
These threads generally get derailed whenever pjfoster jumps in to "help". He's arrogant and dismissive, he believes that he has some sort of higher insight into the game than everybody else, and is much more often than not dead wrong.

His posts should be regarded in that context.

I'm only "arrogant and dismissive" when the person is clearly wrong and telling me I have my head up my *** even though he admits to not even reading the information. I am mostly very agreeable and that's why I mostly don't comment. But Mike is wrong constantly, of his own volition

Our respective results speak for themselves, you have 1 win in 126 seasons which is objectively bad and he has 8 in 179 which is better but still average... my record is 5 in 46 and yes that is because I do have higher insight into the game. That's not arrogant that's just what our records say. If I was arrogant I'd just keep the secrets to myself and let you be wrong, but I'm a man of the people and I chat with people who TC me and sitemail me because we're all just here to get better and have fun

You two are the literally the only two who I don't like, because you two are the arrogant ones who dismiss me even though I have the facts and you don't. Have you ever given thought that you're the one who should be taking my advice and not the other way around? Why would you be the one who organizes mentoring when you don't have any of the facts

Except you're not smart enough to recognize when you disagree with EVERYONE, EVERY TIME, the possibility exists that you're wrong. If you were winning championships non-stop and destroying everyone in quality worlds, I'd think "Damn, he might be onto something," That isn't happening. You CAN'T possibly be the only person who is right and everyone else is wrong. Your record does not indicate it.

Now where I think you fail is you have the rating data. But you just can't apply it. Join better worlds. You'll find out.