[IBL] IBL Insight Sought

[Brent Cunningham]

It does seem to me like you are having a lot of bad luck, but I agree with
Kevin's assertions.  Having the best pitchers available to start 60+ times
(although none do), and pitch 275 innings potentially means a lot of starts
at -2 fatigue, so you might be facing very good pitchers more often.

Some of it may be team make up - do your guys that are underperforming have
worse slash lines against lefties or righties?  Are they having to face
pitchers with that worse slash line a lot just to get them usage?  Facing
teams with excellent defense more often will reduce the range play success
rate too.

Some of it may be your conference...you have a lot of experienced owners in
your division, and your conference.  Nothing against the newer guys, but
the guys that have been around for 10-20 years have a very good idea of how
players will perform and what their cards will look like.  Having Nelson,
Chris, and George in your division is a tough draw.

I guess my point is that there are probably multiple little things that
when added together could suppress numbers.  And that's not even to mention
that rollbot is fickle.

All that said, Doug, you are an asset to the league...you've stuck around
despite poor records, and are an active owner, and get your resutls/boxes
in on time.  I hope you see it through, because you are putting a lot of
effort into that team.

-Brent


On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Kevin Greenberg <greenbergk at gmail.com>wrote:

> Probably some of both.  Remember, the way the game is built is that your
> players will hit to their same numbers if they face a league average staff
> in the same park.
>
> But it is not the game, it is the league rules.
>
> Park effects aside, remember, we don't face league average batters,
> pitchers, or defense.  Between a combination of 20/20 hindsight, perfect
> defensive information, and the fact that you see 100-133% of the best
> opposition (and close to 0% of the worst), you would expect everyone in the
> IBL to underperform their MLB rate numbers, at least by a little.
>
> As an aside, this is particularly true of SP, as the replacement level for
> IBL SP is much better than at other positions.  Where as we play 24 of the
> top 30 guys at positions (and more for DHs), we only use about 110 of the
> 150 starters.  But that even understates the issue as most MLB regulars bat
> about 600 times so you can only push them to 105 or 110 %.  But with top
> SPs you can almost always push towards 125%.
>
> The disparity of IBL v MLB is not necessarily true of counting stats
> as you benefit from teammates with a positive selection cycle.  But for
> rate stats this is to be expected.
>
>
> On Monday, May 26, 2014, Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All (especially IBL old timers)
>>
>> I was going to rant about how this is the 5th year of futility for the
>> Crabs, but in all honesty, it's getting old.  So instead, I'm looking for
>> IBL insight into a phenomena that I seem to be suffering from.
>>
>> The player cards are based on the previous years numbers.  The algorithm
>> involved is probably quite heady, but I'm guessing (hoping?) that the
>> numbers are predicated on actual performance.  Now, knowing that, and
>> understanding that Pursue the Pennant (the game that is the mechanics
>> behind the IBL) is a dice-game, how accurate have you found the cards to
>> be?  Will a .300 hitter actually achieve a .300 batting average (give or
>> take...what....10%?).  Same with pitchers, are their WHIP's predictable?
>>
>> I've lost something like 15 straight on the road, been no-hit, been 2
>> hit, been shutout half a dozen times and scored 2 or less in nearly half of
>> my games.  Most of my players are batting 50-100+ points below where they
>> "should be". (i.e. Hosmer was a .302 batter in 2013 and is hitting .202 for
>> me here).  I had been taking players in the draft or proposing in trades
>> based on their actual numbers from the prior season (K-rate, walk rate,
>> WHIP, OBP, etc...).  But is that even relative?
>>
>> Granted, it's only 1/3rd of the season, but when I see numbers like this,
>> I start to question the validity of the stats that back up the game
>>
>> Hosmer .201 (actual .302)
>> Lagares .172 (actual .242)
>> LeMahieu .149 (actual .280)
>> Markakis .231 (.271 actual)
>> Castro .223 (.245 actual)
>> Suzuki .176 (.232 actual)
>> Conger .200 (.249 actual)
>> Villar .143 (.243 actual)
>>
>> This doesn't even include pitchers who's WHIP's and ERA's are
>> significantly higher than their 2013 season (along with K-rate and
>> walk-rate).
>>
>> It's a game based on rolling a pair of dice, I know.  Is what I'm seeing
>> a mirage?  Are numbers always lower than in actuality?  Am I simply seeing
>> a 100 AB slump by the majority of my lineup (for the 5th straight year,
>> btw)? Why should I care that Starlin Castro is having a much better season
>> statistically if he's just going to bat .200 for me regardless?
>>
>> Are we just looking at bad luck, or is this how the game is statistically
>> built?
>>
>> Doug/BAL
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20140527/58197908/attachment.html>