Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):
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.
Again, stats are relative to ratings and ratings are relative to opponent. If your methodology is stats, then fine but it's still comparative analysis
In your Moonlight Graham, the league average pitching is 4.08 / 1.32 and the league average slash line is .253/.320/.401 (which is very low)
In my Rickey, league average pitching 4.25 / 1.34 and slash is .257/.323/.410
In his Topps, league average pitching 4.54 / 1.40 and slash is
.266/.332/.432
You're making an argument that at least 6 teams in his league are tanking and therefore skewing the pitching data but 1- that's just not true and 2- that argument simply makes no sense in this context anyways. 1- One team lost 106 and one team lost 104, but everyone else had at least 63 wins. The pitching data is not skewed, literally every single team's pitching is observing this phenomenon in this league. The #1 team in the league is 3.31 ERA, that's absurdly high. Average ML slashline of .266/.332/.432 is absurdly high. Those numbers are coming from average player rating. Again, stats are relative to ratings and ratings are relative to the opponent. The average hitter here is massively better than that in any of our leagues.
In general, hitter ratings have a greater weight in the batter v pitcher interaction (54%-46% favoring the hitter) so again, there are TONS of good hitters in this league and they're making EVERYONE's pitchers look worse relative to their ratings. There are no negative outlier teams like you're insinuating. The teams worse than the 4.54 average are 4.69 4.71 4.72 4.76 4.84 4.91 4.93 4.99 5.23 5.28 5.49 5.57 5.58 5.61 and the distribution of all 32 teams is basically linear). There are no 2.50 teams and no 7.00 ERA teams or anything like that. The best team is -1.23 to average, the best team is +1.08 to average. No outliers. Your theory is flat-out wrong.
It has nothing to do with "playing in worlds where the worst team only loses 90", that's a dumb statement. His league is very competitive except for the one exceptionally good Pittsburgh team, and the two 100 loss teams. But in general, every single team that's in the middle has outstanding hitters. One of the 80-82 teams has
Francis Shumaker and
Walter Hines, and
an 84-win team has a 99 OVR Marwin Lira. The quality of the hitter pool in this league is absolutely ridiculous dude.
Your theory is "he's just average", my theory is "he should be very good in almost every situation, but relative to this world he's very average because the crop of hitters is historically good". Splits of 53 and 71 with 90+ control and 70+ average pitch routinely make all-star teams in other worlds. Stop giving people advice that these players are bad or average
7/14/2017 3:35 PM (edited)