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