Posted by Jtpsops on 8/25/2019 7:12:00 PM (view original):
First schwarze in two years in the PM2 games

Rigged..

Posted by DoctorKz on 8/25/2019 4:31:00 PM (view original):
There's always that fine line between fatigue and too much fatigue. We all pretty much cut it close...a little luck, a good crop of parks to play in can make all the difference. ..here we are, near the 1/6th mark, a couple of wins is the difference between 20th and 40th.

Crash Davis had a good explanation of the difference between hitting .250 and .300...a dink, a gork, 1 seeing eyed grounder a week...just one more dying quail a week, and you're in Yankee Stadium...

This is why five tool guys are so valuable. Their performance isn't solely tied to the whims of the hitting Gods.

I started 10-20 overall and thought it would be a very rough start. Then I played near a .700 clip for awhile and peaked at 4 games over. Then a .500 stretch for quite awhile. But alas, I seem to be slipping further under .500 lately. A couple teams have semi serious fatigue, but it's not a real reason for most of it. Time to break out the secret weapon....if I just had one.

$70M staff has 1 pitcher over 93% & the next game won't be much better...

I would argue that almost my whole $90 million lineup - aside from Brouthers - is underperforming, but my '52 Valo really takes the cake. Through 137 PAs, he has a triple slash of .138/.213/.154.

Posted by schwarze on 8/25/2019 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by NebHusker on 8/24/2019 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Okay enough of the good, bad & ugly posts. I'll just say much like milest points out, things are slowly trending to the ugly side.

Did schwarze get shot out of a canon or something??? He is flying up the charts faster than the Beatles in the 60's.

...trying to stay quietly under the radar...

Well, it was a really nice run. Got as high as third place overall. Then this afternoon's 1-5 included the following four losses...

70M - Lose 4-2, Early Wynn giving up 2-run HR to Bob Geren in the 9th (Wynn allowed 1 actual HR in 45 real life innings that season)
90M - Lose 6-5, giving up 2-out RBI double in 9th to force extra innings, then lose in 11th (I had 10 players reach base in innings 8-11 and didn't score)
100M - Lose 7-6, after being up 6-4 with 2 outs and nobody on in 9th... walk, single, walk, single, single, lose 7-6.
130M - Lose 3-2, giving up two in 8th and one in 12th (we had 1st/3rd, no outs in 10th and failed to score)

Why is the sim so biased against you?

Posted by redcped on 8/26/2019 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Why is the sim so biased against you?

Would that be considered a "reverse-jtpsops" ???

So far my worst team has been the variable cap team that I thought would be best. Having only 1400 IP/162 has been fine - basically everyone is at 100 and I haven't had anyone pitch under 90%. The problem is that the pitchers haven't been very good.

The team was built around 8 lights out relievers (Kimbrel, Jansen, Miller etc), and they have collectively been awful. Between them the 8 pitchers have thrown 125.2 IP for a record of 3-13, 5.02 ERA, 1.42 WHIP. They've also given up a few home runs (1 every 7 innings) though that was sort of expected; it's the cost of modern relievers. But I did not think that they would be running a WHIP almost double their real-life rate. If this doesn't turn around it will be a painful learning experience.

I've rarely had luck with modern day relievers. I don't know if it's their low IP/G (I usually set them on 10/15) or some other reason. I almost always go with short-inning starters, guys like Nick Maddox and Johnny NIggeling.

Posted by schwarze on 8/26/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):
I've rarely had luck with modern day relievers. I don't know if it's their low IP/G (I usually set them on 10/15) or some other reason. I almost always go with short-inning starters, guys like Nick Maddox and Johnny NIggeling.

Of all the things I would fix about the current SIM engine, there are two that rise to the top of the list:
(1) The in-game fatigue model; all pitchers fatigue too quickly, but it's especially pernicious with modern relievers. Modern relief usage is predicated upon the assumption that the first 15-20 pitches a pitcher throws will be better than the next 15-20, etc. So a lot of modern relievers end up with IP/G that reflects that. They "could" throw 30, 40, 50 pitches, but their effectiveness starts to decline after 20. WIS's algorithm takes their average IP/G as their MAX, and starts fatiguing them too soon. A guy with 0.67 IP/G starts fatiguing after like 5 pitches, which is just silly.
(2) The log 5 normalization for HR gives way way way too much advantage to deadball pitchers. And penalizes modern HR hitters way too much. In my opinion, a modern SP who gives up 0.4 HR/9 is much much better at preventing HR than a deadball era pitcher who allowed 0.1 HR/9. In WIS that is not the case.

Posted by contrarian23 on 8/26/2019 5:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by schwarze on 8/26/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):
I've rarely had luck with modern day relievers. I don't know if it's their low IP/G (I usually set them on 10/15) or some other reason. I almost always go with short-inning starters, guys like Nick Maddox and Johnny NIggeling.

Of all the things I would fix about the current SIM engine, there are two that rise to the top of the list:
(1) The in-game fatigue model; all pitchers fatigue too quickly, but it's especially pernicious with modern relievers. Modern relief usage is predicated upon the assumption that the first 15-20 pitches a pitcher throws will be better than the next 15-20, etc. So a lot of modern relievers end up with IP/G that reflects that. They "could" throw 30, 40, 50 pitches, but their effectiveness starts to decline after 20. WIS's algorithm takes their average IP/G as their MAX, and starts fatiguing them too soon. A guy with 0.67 IP/G starts fatiguing after like 5 pitches, which is just silly.
(2) The log 5 normalization for HR gives way way way too much advantage to deadball pitchers. And penalizes modern HR hitters way too much. In my opinion, a modern SP who gives up 0.4 HR/9 is much much better at preventing HR than a deadball era pitcher who allowed 0.1 HR/9. In WIS that is not the case.

(1) Agreed... always bothered me that avg IP/G is treated as MAX by the WIS engine.
(2) The issue here is that the engine puts too much weight on the absolute stats (with respect to HR/9) and not enough on HR/9+ or other advanced stats that attempt to normalize for the era that a pitcher pitched in. For instance, 1994 Greg Maddux with a HR/9 of 0.18 and a HR/9+ of 539 should be almost as good (if not better) at suppressing HRs as 1919 Babe Adams with a HR/9 of 0.03 and a HR/9+ of 539. Unfortunately, Maddux tends to give up anywhere between 2 and 3 x as many HRs. WIS normalizes hitters far better than it does for pitchers, which is why deadballers rule and HR hitters suck.

14 inning game in the $70m league. 27.3 (more than 3 whole games) more IP than league avg for the season. It just keeps getting worse and worse. I'll be trying to eat innings with dudes below 90% fatigue soon. I'll never draft this few IP again, even if I win the WS in that league it's just not fun.

If I can get by with only using 2 pitchers in the AM games, I'll have have 2 pitchers for the PM game at 98 & 95%... After that, it looks pretty bleak. I'm in 1st place in my division right now & if there was a way to just quit a league, I'd do it.

Posted by schwarze on 8/26/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):
I've rarely had luck with modern day relievers. I don't know if it's their low IP/G (I usually set them on 10/15) or some other reason. I almost always go with short-inning starters, guys like Nick Maddox and Johnny NIggeling.

I should double check how many pitches those guys have ended up throwing. It isn't that many - I have most of them on 10-15 limits. But maybe even that is too high, and I've gotten burned by in game fatigue.

I'm still a rookie technically, but most of my success has been based on modern pitching vs deadball hitters. Most of the leagues I play in- owners use high avg old-school hitters AND deadball pitchers. I also use high avg hitters, but I typically use modern pitchers with lower OAV# bc, well, in my mind, it just makes sense. When my opponents are using high avg, low BB, low HR hitters--- Using deadball pitchers with a higher OAV# compared to modern pitchers doesn't make sense to me. My career sample size is small, but my record is pretty good. I've had modern relievers under-perform on occasion, but it works out more times than not.