1977 Off-season Thread (Post-ST file is up! Season tomorrow night)

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by ekcut

Exactly...Valdosta is always written in pen as the favorite. All the rest of us can do is hope to make them work for it, and with a lot of luck upset them!
I can only hope that M-Ras brings a large destructive ego into the dressing room!

I hear he is like Barry Bonds and demands to have a private locker away from the rest of the players, with an xbox system and flat screen tv. Rumors have it that Rick Inman and Carlos Gonzales are going to give him a swirlie to make him realize who runs that clubhouse.

[ekcut]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

No no no. I didn't mean to imply there was an upgrade at the helm. GG did a hell of a job there when there wasn't much left on that team and turned them into a formidable club.

I was thinking of Chief because he's got a few rings under his name (having played in the 'easier' RL) and because it's akin to what happened in Boston, when the new regime came in and all of a sudden they started winning titles.

We are beginning to develop quite the impressive GM Roster in this league.
You can name off 8 good top notch GM's in the CL alone!! Mix that with a few semi-competent guys in the RL and the FOOL one of the tougher leagues around!

[Alan T]

haha, I love it

[muns]

Originally Posted by ekcut

We are beginning to develop quite the impressive GM Roster in this league.
You can name off 8 good top notch GM's in the CL alone!! Mix that with a few semi-competent guys in the RL and the FOOL one of the tougher leagues around!

Dont make me piss in your cheerios this morning

[Young Drachma]

few semi-competent guys in the RL

You really wanna go there?

[Young Drachma]

Question to the FOOLmetrics crew:

Can we concoct any stats -- using FOOL, of course -- that give a better impression of the value of a reliever than using saves or holds or whatever? Probably too much work in OOTP, but...I'm still curious.

[kaosfere]

Originally Posted by ekcut

You can name off 8 good top notch GM's in the CL alone!!

And think how good we'd be if I weren't bringing the average down!

(Not fishing for compliments there. I've never played much online, and whether or not I actually am, I do feel significantly the inferior to a number of folks here. )

[Young Drachma]

Inferior and you have a league title. Imagine how THEY must feel.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Question to the FOOLmetrics crew:

Can we concoct any stats -- using FOOL, of course -- that give a better impression of the value of a reliever than using saves or holds or whatever? Probably too much work in OOTP, but...I'm still curious.

I know why you are asking this, I wish I had a good idea of one though. Problem is that most of the newer stats don't handle relievers well either because they are so specialized, with so many different purposes.

If you want to go with pure value to a team, then you could retrospectively go with VORP or WIn Shares or something and tell you how much that relief pitcher contributed to that team that season.. but those stats will be skewed to not weighing relievers as high as other positions due to how they work, and on top of that a lights out middle-relief guy would be scoring less than an average closer in many situations because of managerial misusage.

At one point years and years ago, I wondered if there was some value to looking at Inherited runners not scoring, but that is off as well since many relievers start an inning, and would have 0 INherited runners as well.

You likely would have to see how effective they pitched based on some combination of how few hits, walks and runs they give up as well as looking at how many inherited runners they stranded based on a percentage.

Saves and Holds are just statistically meaningful of the situation at hand, and not necessarily how a pitcher performed. Runners scored is misleading because when coming in to pitch for someone else, the runs scored get counted against the previous pitcher and not them. So you'd have to figure out some kind of measurement that encompasses the various purposes of a relief pitcher like I mentioned I guess.

[Young Drachma]

I think increasing the value for the number of innings they throw is a good idea, too. Maybe some sort of total calculation like what OPS does or SLG but for relievers. Or for pitchers under a certain threshold of IPs or something.

Just bantering.

[Alan T]

Just a fun and semi-related comment.. I was once a RL manager. My record in the RL was 248-214 which ends up as a .538 winning percentage. So obviously the RL is a tougher league!

(Of course back then, I had to deal with that St.Louis juggernaut back then. )

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think increasing the value for the number of innings they throw is a good idea, too. Maybe some sort of total calculation like what OPS does or SLG but for relievers. Or for pitchers under a certain threshold of IPs or something.

Just bantering.

We don't measure starting pitchers by inning pitched though either really... I think instead of innings, the number of "chances" in certain situations need to be factored in somehow as a 95% whatever percentage in a higher number of chances is always better than a 95% whatever percentage in a smaller sample size.

I think before you figure out the weight that the amount of opportunities play, you have to determine what you actually want to measure.. which for a reliever is about as nebulous as it gets.

[kaosfere]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Can we concoct any stats -- using FOOL, of course -- that give a better impression of the value of a reliever than using saves or holds or whatever? Probably too much work in OOTP, but...I'm still curious.

I was thinking about this a little last night, but was a bit too inebriated to actually make it make sense in my head.

However, when thinking about relief pitchers, the primary problem is that most pitching stats take things in isolating. The reliever, especially the MR, is important in a few ways that aren't as easily measured. He needs to be able to come in with inherited runners and keep them from scoring, and he needs to be able to leave his turn on the mound with as few potential runs set up for the next guy as possible.

ERA is a particularly bad metric for this: It doesn't count inherited runs scored, and it doesn't sufficiently penalize a reliever who comes in for an inning, puts 3 men on, and has to be bailed out by the guy after him.

ISTM that the idea metric would be something alone the lines of bases allowed per hitter -- something like a modified slugging average for pitchers. Perhaps something like (BB + HBP + 1B + 2x2B + 3x3B + 4xHR) / Batters Faced?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

I was thinking about this a little last night, but was a bit too inebriated to actually make it make sense in my head.

However, when thinking about relief pitchers, the primary problem is that most pitching stats take things in isolating. The reliever, especially the MR, is important in a few ways that aren't as easily measured. He needs to be able to come in with inherited runners and keep them from scoring, and he needs to be able to leave his turn on the mound with as few potential runs set up for the next guy as possible.

ERA is a particularly bad metric for this: It doesn't count inherited runs scored, and it doesn't sufficiently penalize a reliever who comes in for an inning, puts 3 men on, and has to be bailed out by the guy after him.

ISTM that the idea metric would be something alone the lines of bases allowed per hitter -- something like a modified slugging average for pitchers. Perhaps something like (BB + HBP + 1B + 2x2B + 3x3B + 4xHR) / Batters Faced?

How is that stat that much different from Opposing OPS? Which I guess isn't a bad starting point in the sense that batters are measured by that, so pitchers measured in the reverse isn't horrible. The issue with percentage stats and relief pitchers is they pitch so little during the season, that their stats can be skewed badly by one or two bad outings.

[Alan T]

For fun, here is FOOL's career OOPS leaders with a minimum of 50 innings pitched in their career:

Logan Finley
Artie Wiley
Carlos Gonzales
Maximo Lopez
Guillermo Arrojo
Walt Withecombe
Ivan Flores
Chris Turner
Will Hunter
Dennis Marnane
Pedro Castillo
Elroy Hensley
Francisco Padilla
David Barajas
Joe Payton
Stan Osborn
Charles Wilson
Kevin King

[Alan T]

Dola...

Which is a good mix of Starters, middle relief and closers

[ekcut]

I have always been on the search for a better stat for batters. Comparing the value of a high average speedster, against the lumbering homerun hitter is a great debate...(Although RC and VORP have pretty much ended that discusion)
But for pitchers, I beleive ballpark adjusted ERA is as good as it gets.
All that matters is runs scored...PERIOD. It doesn't matter how you do it, but if you keep guys from scoring, you're good!

I suppose as a reliever, there could be an added variable as sometimes you enter a game with someone elses runners on base. Your abilty to get out of those jams need to be considered, but really your abilty to keep YOUR batters from scoring, is no different then keeping inherited runners from scoring. "Clutch" pitching and "clutch hitting" are two abilties that are darn near myths! ( I bet we could debate that statement for days) People do NOT get better in clutch situations (they can get worse though). They may get luckier, but thier skills don't magically improve.

All a pitcher can do is try to prevent people from scoring using his own talent. The quality of his defense behind him, and the ballpark are the only other variables. So therefor....there is no need for a 'reliever stat' as a ballpark adjusted era is as good as it gets. IMHO anyways

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by ekcut

I have always been on the search for a better stat for batters. Comparing the value of a high average speedster, against the lumbering homerun hitter is a great debate...(Although RC and VORP have pretty much ended that discusion)
But for pitchers, I beleive ballpark adjusted ERA is as good as it gets.
All that matters is runs scored...PERIOD. It doesn't matter how you do it, but if you keep guys from scoring, you're good!

I suppose as a reliever, there could be an added variable as sometimes you enter a game with someone elses runners on base. Your abilty to get out of those jams need to be considered, but really your abilty to keep YOUR batters from scoring, is no different then keeping inherited runners from scoring. "Clutch" pitching and "clutch hitting" are two abilties that are darn near myths! ( I bet we could debate that statement for days) People do NOT get better in clutch situations (they can get worse though). They may get luckier, but thier skills don't magically improve.

All a pitcher can do is try to prevent people from scoring using his own talent. The quality of his defense behind him, and the ballpark are the only other variables. So therefor....there is no need for a 'reliever stat' as a ballpark adjusted era is as good as it gets. IMHO anyways

I think your line of thinking is fairly similar to what I feel. The only issue with Adjusted ERA, is the inherited runners issue.

[Young Drachma]

I think the "clutch" debate is simply a situation of "this person is more likely to rise to the occasion.." but that's a myth, like you said, since it happens all of the time that guys with more experience, get trashed in clutch situations (Trevor Hoffman called...) whereas kids with no experience or expectation rise to the occasion (Josh Beckett in the '03 Classic or K-Rod for the Angels in '02)

[kaosfere]

Originally Posted by Alan T

How is that stat that much different from Opposing OPS?

Opposing OPS is more or less what I was getting at, yeah. (I've never been a huge fan of OPS in isolation, because in my mind it over-favors base hits and doesn't give enough value to the ability to draw a BB or challenge a pitcher enough to bring a disproportionate amount of HBP).

The small sample set is a fundamental failing in measuring just about anything for relievers. It would be possible to increase the sample size by going pitch-by-pitch and assessing a value for each situation, but a) that's more than OOTP allows, and b) it's getting close to Win Shares, which really confuse the hell out of me.

Still thinking about this, though.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think the "clutch" debate is simply a situation of "this person is more likely to rise to the occasion.." but that's a myth, like you said, since it happens all of the time that guys with more experience, get trashed in clutch situations (Trevor Hoffman called...) whereas kids with no experience or expectation rise to the occasion (Josh Beckett in the '03 Classic or K-Rod for the Angels in '02)

I think why the clutch debates always lingers around is that people remember key hits or key home runs more than other plays. It sticks in their mind and they then can say Joe Carter was a "clutch" player, or Kirk Gibson or whatever. Statistically speaking, it has been proven so many times that "clutch" does not exist, but people will always believe what is in their head over raw data. It is the same reason people say Jeter is a good fielder when statistically speaking, he is lousy.

[kaosfere]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think your line of thinking is fairly similar to what I feel. The only issue with Adjusted ERA, is the inherited runners issue.

I don't know. I really think, if you're looking for the true value of a reliever on his own, you need to consider the runners he leaves for the next guy, whether or not they end up scoring.

I don't care if a guy can come in with a man on first and get the next batter to GIDP every single time, if he then walks the bases full before leaving someone else to clean up his mess.

You could follow him up with a 5 star closer who gets him off the hook every time, and his AERA will look great. He's still,in my mind, a complete failure of a reliever who is going to look like shit as soon as he's not backed up by Mister Nine Pitch Inning.

[muns]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

And think how good we'd be if I weren't bringing the average down!

(Not fishing for compliments there. I've never played much online, and whether or not I actually am, I do feel significantly the inferior to a number of folks here. )

Ya you ass..... I cant even make the damn playoffs let alone win a title and here you come strolling along and bam right into everything you go......

I outta.........

Jk of course

[muns]

Wow you guys make my head hurt with all this stuff flying around here. I can barely keep up with the stats that we have now, let alone make up new ones

[kaosfere]

Hmm.

Thinking about it, it seems to me that the currency of the short reliever, more so than any other pitcher, is the out.

For the extreme example, take the left-handed specialist. Here's a guy who may come in only for one third of an inning per game. If he comes up to get an out against a lefty, gives up a single, and is pulled, his raw numbers may still look decent, especially given the small sample set you'll have for him.

Looking at a series of four games where Mr Lefty is brought in to get one out, if he does his job in two of them, but walks his target in the other two, it's still very possible that his AERA will look excellent. However, he has had to face 4 batters to get 2 outs. Not all that good for someone who is put in with very specific demands.

Of course, how is this not simply another way of examining opponents OBP? I'm not sure it isn't.

(Sort of brainstorming out loud here, sorry for the noodling.)

[kaosfere]

Originally Posted by muns

Ya you ass..... I cant even make the damn playoffs let alone win a title and here you come strolling along and bam right into everything you go......

Fear my mad Canadian juju!

We're powered by MAPLE SYRUP and HOCKEY!

It's a winning combination.

[ekcut]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

Fear my mad Canadian juju!

We're powered by MAPLE SYRUP and HOCKEY!

It's a winning combination.

*Put's on his touque, cracks a Molson and writes his name in the snow*

Right on brother!

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

Hmm.

Thinking about it, it seems to me that the currency of the short reliever, more so than any other pitcher, is the out.

For the extreme example, take the left-handed specialist. Here's a guy who may come in only for one third of an inning per game. If he comes up to get an out against a lefty, gives up a single, and is pulled, his raw numbers may still look decent, especially given the small sample set you'll have for him.

Looking at a series of four games where Mr Lefty is brought in to get one out, if he does his job in two of them, but walks his target in the other two, it's still very possible that his AERA will look excellent. However, he has had to face 4 batters to get 2 outs. Not all that good for someone who is put in with very specific demands.

Of course, how is this not simply another way of examining opponents OBP? I'm not sure it isn't.

(Sort of brainstorming out loud here, sorry for the noodling.)

I'm thinking that a stat that revolves around money or something called Currency is a good name. Sorry, that's all I got right now.

I'll be able to delve into this later on and I'll have some semi-coherent thoughts.

[ekcut]

Originally Posted by kaosfere

Hmm.

Thinking about it, it seems to me that the currency of the short reliever, more so than any other pitcher, is the out.

For the extreme example, take the left-handed specialist. Here's a guy who may come in only for one third of an inning per game. If he comes up to get an out against a lefty, gives up a single, and is pulled, his raw numbers may still look decent, especially given the small sample set you'll have for him.

Looking at a series of four games where Mr Lefty is brought in to get one out, if he does his job in two of them, but walks his target in the other two, it's still very possible that his AERA will look excellent. However, he has had to face 4 batters to get 2 outs. Not all that good for someone who is put in with very specific demands.

Of course, how is this not simply another way of examining opponents OBP? I'm not sure it isn't.

(Sort of brainstorming out loud here, sorry for the noodling.)

What out of those 4 batters he faces in 4 games, he strikes out 3 and the 4th he comes in and he jams the batter, but the batter bloops a weak ass broken bat single over the 1bmans head. He is then pulled, the next guy in gives up a jack. Our lefty specialist is charged an earned run. His era is now 6.76...hardly a worthy number for a guy who stuck out 3, and gave up a texas leaguer!
What a minute...are we debating on the same side for the need for more accurate stat? I forget what the moral of these stories are...I guess it's "Dream on!!! There is no chance for a perfect stat for a relief pitcher....the random luck factor is too great with such a small amount of IP."

[kaosfere]

It's important to have good names for our stats before we work on 'em.

How much cooler would VORP be if it were called the "rocks-o-meter"?

[Young Drachma]

No, no. It'd need to be called the Scale of Rock or SOR. SOR is soo much better than VORP.

[Alan T]

Trying to figure out what my pitching staff is going to be this year is like a big game of clue.. I have no idea who I want to use where.

[muns]

im ok with my pitching staff, but I feel the same way with my OF and a few position players. Im hoping I didnt screw around to much in the offseason as It looks like i have 3 new OF that werent on my squad from last year.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by muns

im ok with my pitching staff, but I feel the same way with my OF and a few position players. Im hoping I didnt screw around to much in the offseason as It looks like i have 3 new OF that werent on my squad from last year.

I haven't gotten to my lineup yet.. I'm finding the same thing there.. I have a million people at 1B and OF that i have no idea who I want to play.

I have a pretty good idea who will be playing 3B for me, but that is about it. Well maybe catcher too.

[kaosfere]

Like I've been thinking all along, my lineup is set (with the exception of me trying to decide if I want to platoon at SS). Pitching is the issue. I have one or two people I threw into the rotation even though I thought they might not be ready who did really well. I'm trying to decide if I want to give them a chance, or if I think they'll crumble over a long season.

[Young Drachma]

I'm thinking of going with a 1 man rotation. I mean, really. This year, we're not gonna be any good anyway, I might as well get daring and experimental.

But there is always that part of me that wants to do it straight and see if we can't get lucky and contend.

[Tasan]

I have an issue with closer. Two guys seem to be able to really handle it, but the guy with the more blue seems to struggle more in the role, while the guy with mainly greens seems to always have a better ERA as a late setup lefty, even vs. righties. For some reason, he gets more stars as a closer than the other guy too. That one really boggles the mind. The stars are just about useless, and I'd say just turn them off as annoying as they are.

[Alan T]

I think I'll be going with 2 new starting pitchers, 2 new bullpen guys, and 5 new hitters in my starting lineups...

This year will be like trying to pin eeyore's tail on eeyore in the dark.

[Young Drachma]

I've debated at times moving to Overall Rating using a number rather than stars. The stars are pretty useless. Especially in this league. But I dunno if OVR rating would help us much either. It's a nice shorthand, I think.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I've debated at times moving to Overall Rating using a number rather than stars. The stars are pretty useless. Especially in this league. But I dunno if OVR rating would help us much either. It's a nice shorthand, I think.

no, its no better. The reasons stars are wacky is because the talent level in the league is wacky. the ovr rating thing is basically a numerical depiction of the stars, and I feel it is even worse than the stars because there is always a huge jump in OVR between I think 30 and 50 or 60 or something where hardly anyone is ever rated there..

I think just leaving it as stars is the best thing and everyone just really needs to lessen their reliance on the game telling you who is good, and use the other, better tools to determine who is good or not

[muns]

Originally Posted by Alan T

no, its no better. The reasons stars are wacky is because the talent level in the league is wacky. the ovr rating thing is basically a numerical depiction of the stars, and I feel it is even worse than the stars because there is always a huge jump in OVR between I think 30 and 50 or 60 or something where hardly anyone is ever rated there..

I think just leaving it as stars is the best thing and everyone just really needs to lessen their reliance on the game telling you who is good, and use the other, better tools to determine who is good or not

agreed

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think I'll be going with 2 new starting pitchers, 2 new bullpen guys, and 5 new hitters in my starting lineups...

This year will be like trying to pin eeyore's tail on eeyore in the dark.

Ok, think I figured out the lineup some..

Brand new catcher, brand new 1B, new 1/2 of a platoon at second base, and shuffling around all three outfield positions to fit in Rasmussen as well as ... get ready for it..... "Red Headed Stepchild"...

Yeah Knapp isn't really ready to play in the majors, I'll have him play alot in a platoon though.. it will probably come back to bite me in the butt though, but I figured with my spring training bombing, I'll take an extended spring training with the entire season and have some fun with it.. What is more fun than letting Knapp have some play time??

I don't even remember who the other player was that I had actually drafted in the whole ghost of JimmyOOTP blowup that occured.. I'll have to go back and look because right now I'd love nothing better than watching Knapp end up better than him after feeling stuck with him just trying to be the nice guy and keep a fellow manager happy who obviously wasn't going to be happy no matter what!

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Ok, think I figured out the lineup some..

Brand new catcher, brand new 1B, new 1/2 of a platoon at second base, and shuffling around all three outfield positions to fit in Rasmussen as well as ... get ready for it..... "Red Headed Stepchild"...

Yeah Knapp isn't really ready to play in the majors, I'll have him play alot in a platoon though.. it will probably come back to bite me in the butt though, but I figured with my spring training bombing, I'll take an extended spring training with the entire season and have some fun with it.. What is more fun than letting Knapp have some play time??

I don't even remember who the other player was that I had actually drafted in the whole ghost of JimmyOOTP blowup that occured.. I'll have to go back and look because right now I'd love nothing better than watching Knapp end up better than him after feeling stuck with him just trying to be the nice guy and keep a fellow manager happy who obviously wasn't going to be happy no matter what!

Oh, well looks like the player I picked there was Alan Poole who has turned out to be a hell of a player.. guess I have my work cut out for me then. Teaches me to try to be the nice guy. Ahh well

[Young Drachma]

Nice guys finish first. Look @ your record!

As for my season in Chicago, it's hard to be backsliding towards lame-dom so soon after a title, but..I truly believe this is for the best for us going forward, as it'll keep us poised to be competitive for the next decade. I hope I'm not wrong.

[Young Drachma]

HTML is updated. Or at least, that's what the game told me. It's not true, so I'm running it again. Some teams didn't get updated.

[ekcut]

I have the same rotation as last year, only my 3 youngsters are a year older and a year better. Tien also improved from 47 EN to 49...not sure if that will make a difference, but is sure wont hurt!
My bullpen is nothing spectacular. I did add a veteran presence in Pate and Mckeane...who both return the the 'pins in the twighlight of there careers. Hensley wont reproduce his sub 2.00 era as my closer, but he is still solid enough not to be a detriment. Most of my cheap, solid names are back for another year.

My lineup is also pretty much intact.
Underachieving SS Cole is out, and gold glover Tabberaci is in. I have to say this is a dwon grade, but only a slight one.
At 3B underachieving Mark Taylor is out, with rookie Ignacio Costa stealing his spot. Whether this is an upgrade or not depends soley on if Taylor proves last season wasn't a fluke...if he returns to his form from the previous 5 seasons this will be a good move. Costa has some serious skills, but does have holes in his game.
We have a 4way going on in the outfield as rookie Domingo Sanchez is forcing his way into the lineup with studs Sequia, Ewing and Richards all sharing time. Ewing is a stud...97 contact, 100 speed, who wouldnt want this guy leading off. Sequia is the best #2 hitter in basball. 100 contact, 100 eye...awesome guy to have at the top of the order. Richards and his 38.6 VORP will only see platoon duty this season...I really should of tried to trade him in the offseason as he is too good not to play everyday.
Sanchez is blosuming into a young griffey jr clone, and can not be kept out of the lineup.

Which Terrapin team is the real deal? Is it the team the struggled to stay above .500 for the 1st half last season? Or is it the team that posted one of the best records in the 2nd half last year? We are a better team this season, but will it be enough??

[Young Drachma]

I'm working on a dynasty about the T-Storms that I'm going to post on OOTP and here in the dynasty forums.

[Alan T]

Ok, I exported for tonight. I don't like my chances for this season at all. My average age of the hitters in my lineup is 26 years old which last season would have been the youngest team in the majors. Considering I have a 36 year old, a 32 year old and a 30 year old in the lineup, that gives you an idea of how young the rest of my lineup will be. I have a feeling this is the end of the run for me.

[Alan T]

Dola, going to the movies with my wife tonight at 9:40, so I won't be around for the disaster of this season. I'll catch up when I get home!

[Young Drachma]

Disaster, right. We believe you.