View Full Version : Playoff Performances
I'm the LA team in Mogul Enthusiast League. In 10 seasons of the league's existence, LA has made it to the playoffs every year. Out of the 10 playoff appearences, LA made it to the WS only two times and lost both of those times. The team has almost always lost to a MUCH lesser team in the playoffs. LA has averaged 106 wins/season, including a 122 win season and a 118 win season.
LA won 113 games this season (the league's 11th year) and was knocked out in the 2nd round because they couldn't score on a pitcher who had a 4.95 regular season ERA. This is nothing new though.
The problem is that the playoffs are much too random. A guy with a regular season batting average of .200 can hit 3 homers in a game while the league MVP can go 3 for 15 in a series. I know you've heard of this problem before.
Originally posted by electro
I have seen 120+ win teams lose to 90ish win teams in the playoffs every year and probably around half the time. I won 120+ for 7 straight years and got 1 World Series win.
Seeing a more skilled team, with great regular season statistics, lose to a lesser team MORE often than it wins really takes the fun out of the game. What is the point of winning 122 games and having three 20 game winners, four 30 homer guys and a 2.40 team ERA if you know you'll lose in the playoffs?
Here is someone else who seemed to have the same problem.
Originally posted by Schaefling
I have played in close to thirty years worth of playoffs with my three teams and I must protest the game code for the playoffs.
To me the results generated in the playoffs are simply much too random. It seems to me inferior teams clearly should have a chance to beat superior teams but the probability should not be fifty percent which is what it looks like to me as there appears to be no correlation between regular season perfomance and post season performance. There also seems to be no benefit whatsoever to resting your players during the season which is routinely done in real life so your players will be sharp for the playoffs. And giving your pitchers an extra day of rest during the playoffs also has no benefit which is totally bogus.
What this all boils down to is less decisionmaking for the gamer which really hurts both realism and game play. I know this game cannot match the ability of games like Strat-O-Matic to give managers virtual total control over their teams but for God's sake our management decisions should have some effect in the playoffs.
I am particularly upset about the way great pitchers get exhausted during the playoffs. Resting them does not matter. Sooner or later they get totally bombed even if they are Pitcher of the Year with 25 wins and a 1.50 era.
Please! Please! Please Fix This! Please make our decisions count and please reward managers who break their backs to create really solid teams.
There is nothing more frustrating than losing to a team who won over thirty fewer games than your team only to discover it's a computer team and has not been managed at all during the playoffs which only reinforces my belief that what we do with our teams in the playoffs makes no difference at all because of the total randomness of the results.
I'm sorry for the long post but this clearly is the biggest problem with the game. The whole point of the game is to get your team to the playoffs and to perform well in the playoffs. If your performance results in the playoffs dont even come close to matching the stated abilities of your players then I say what's the point?
Originally posted by Cipster
Well it happened again. Chicago A with 94 wins booted the Yankees with 106 wins. I was up 2-1 and both Pettite and Aaron Williamson got bombed in the playoffs.
Williamson had a 2.95 ERA this year with 278 K's in 228 innings yet he was shelled in game 5.
My lineup had 6 players with 20+ homers and one with 18 and a nother with 13 yet somehow Chicago that has only one player over 20 homers (their SS has 33) shelled my pitching. I know the homers are an isolated start but compare position by position and I have a better team up and down the board.
I have the MVP from 2 years ago (A-Rod) last years' MVP Tony Thrornburgh and the pitcher of the year. WTF does it take to win a @@#%$^ series. I got beat in the 1st round the last 3 years.
I heard somewhere in a Clay post that they try and make it so the home team wins 55% of their games. If that is the way the sim is run that's pretty weak. If that is the extent of realism required then it's not that realistic.
Just my two cents.
Originally posted by John
Didn't matter you lost anyway. I don't understand how you can put up stunning records than lose the playoffs so easily...Colorado has made it to the second round at least every year except once. There records aren't nearly as good as yours...
Cipster
11-14-2001, 09:09 PM
I second this post (you can see my quote earlier). It is very, very strange indeed.
I think the odds of this happening are somewhere around 1% or less. It seems that season performance is in no way tied to playoff results which of course is very unrealistic.
This is what happened to LA a few years back. Does it seem very realsistic?
Originally posted by khan
This Year, my ace Mike Mussina started three postseaon games. He pitched 15 innings and gave up 13 runs. In the regular season, he was 19-3 with 5 shutouts, a 1.73 ERA and struck out 201 batters in 234 innings, while walking only 35 batters. How the **** does that happen?
John Billops, former ROY, who has already thrown 2 no-hitters (including a perfect game), 17 complete games, 12 shutouts and is 47-19 with a 2.33 career ERA in three years, was also lit up. In two starts, he pitched 8.3 innings and gave up 11 earned runs. HOW??????????????????????????????
Both Mussina and Billops were lit up in ALL of their postseason starts. I could understand if they had one bad game.
Originally posted by avaynberg
Boston has made the playoffs every year and had the best record in baseball the first 2 years and still gets killed in the playoffs.
Hold on, and you're saying that with a pitcher with 50 saves and the best postseason ERA, in in the bottom of the ninth inning to shut down the offense can not possibly give up a lead and a good offensive club not bang out a few runs off of a bad relief staff, in real life, right? Is that what YOU ARE SAYING KAHN? I'm just teasing you. You should recognize that in the postseason you face much harder teams. And you know I was talking about the 2001 world series, right?
I feel you Drew. Rivera is as automatic as they get, except that one magical night. But you bring up a good point. Rivera gave up the lead that one night, but what about all the other postseason games (I think he had a streak of 26) when he slammed the door?
Its funny you mention Rivera because I had him on the very same LA team for a couple of years. I was paying him 50 points and he was automatic during the regular season, but would blow saves right and left during the postseason. He cost me game 7 of the WS one time.
Re: Playing tougher teams in the postseason-
I won 122 f-r-e-a-k-i-n games while playing in the TOUGHEST division in baseball (in my league). I played against the better teams MORE during the regular season because the best teams were in my division.
Cipster
11-14-2001, 10:08 PM
I was there watching Khan's painful postseason adventure since the first season. It is truly something as perverse and unexplicable as the curse of the Bambino. I had a run like his, for 3 years straight years I kept losing a game five in the first round to teams with worse records. It really eats at you.
khkoenig
11-15-2001, 12:59 AM
That kinda reminds me of the Atlanta Braves. They've made the playoffs like 10 seasons in a row, and how many WS have they won? (Ans: 1). It does happen in real life.
Also look at the Astro's. Been in the playoffs 3 of the last 4 years (or something like that), but as soon as they get to the playoffs they totally choke.
My only complaint about the Baseball Mogul playoffs is the high scoring games. Most playoff games are lowscoring because the pitching is so tough (look at Arizona's loose 3 man rotation, for instance.)
- I did not "make it to the playoffs", I had the best record in my league, or was tied for the best record most years.
-At least Atlanta got to the WS a few times and won one. In 11 years, I've gotten there only 2 times and lost both times.
-If you have a stacked lineup and super pitching, and you destroyed the tough teams during the regular season, you should win MORE than you lose in the playoffs.
-If you want examples, look at Florida, NYY and Arizona. Florida and Arizona were stacked for a short run and both got to the WS (and won it). The Yankees always pick up the best pitchers (Cone, Pettite, El Duke, Clemens, Mussina, etc.) and they seem to always get there too.
Bottom line- If you have more talent and better regular-season stats than another team, you should at least win some of the time in the playoffs.
playoffs are between the best 4 teams, and even though there are differences in the number of games they won, their winning percentages are usually with 10% to 20% of each other, eg a .600 team playing a .700 team. Use 10 sided die and roll a series of playoff games and check the results. I haven't done this, yet, but will.
ExEP
dturkenk
11-15-2001, 11:24 AM
I looked at the postseason results from every season from 1990. I found what rank in regular season wins the World Series winner had, and also how far the leader in regular season wins advanced in the postseason.
Admittedly I'm just looking at W/L record which is dependent on the competition a team plays, but it should be possible to replicate based on runs scored or runs allowed or some combination of the two. I'll do the analysis if anyone's interested.
Year WS Winner Rank RS Leader Round
1990 Cincinatti 4 Oakland WS
1991 Minnesota 2 Pittsburgh CS
1992 Toronto 2t Atlanta WS
1993 Toronto 4 Atlanta CS
1994 NO SERIES
1995 Atlanta 2 Cleveland WS
1996 New York(A) 3 Cleveland DS
1997 Florida 4 Atlanta CS
1998 New York(A) 1
1999 New York(A) 3 Atlanta WS
2000 New York(A) 9 San Franscisco DS
2001 Arizona 6 Seattle CS
So in the past 11 postseasons, the top team in wins has won it all once, lost in the world series 4 times, the championship series 4 times and the division series twice.
Based on those results, what you are seeing looks a little off, but not all the far from reality.
-Not always the 4 best teams. There were many years in our league when 4 of the 5 NL West teams had won more games than the NL Central winner, but only two of them would get to the playoffs. Therefore, the four best teams are not always in the playoffs.
-Why a 10 sided die?
i stand corrected, you are right, the four best teams don't always get in. also, they don't play the same teams, so it isn't a simple comparison of how many games each won.
comparing .600 and .700 is easier with 10 sided die than two dice to make 100. but, with three you could duplicate the exact percentage (ie .567 vs .710).
ExEP
This is getting old. I've got two questions for anyone who's trying to justify a better team getting r-a-p-e-d in the postseason.
1) If the NL All-Star team played a five or seven game series against any NL team, and you HAD to bet money on the series, who would you bet on?
2) In the Olympics, when the more talented US Basketball Team ("Dream Team") plays against opponents, who always wins the Gold Medal?
The point is that talent level should dictate who wins or loses, not a f-r-e-a-k-i-n 10-sided die. Yes I understand strange things happen, but the more talented team should have better odds of winning.
The better team does have the better odds, but not that much in a 5 or 7 game series. That is one of the reasons they play 162 games in a season and even then it's often settled by one game or less. I just want to get my team in the playoffs and then anything can happen and often will.
ExEP
dturkenk- Thanks for running the numbers. Lets just skip 1994 because nothing happened.
If I'm reading the stats correctly, 8 of the 10 WS winning teams had a regular-season record in the top 4 (80% probability).
Secondly, the team with the best regular-season record has made it to the WS 40% of the time.
If those were the percentages in BBMO, I'd be content. But they're not.
Schaefling
11-15-2001, 12:53 PM
I believe Khan has a point especially when referring to pitching. The 2001 World Series was a testament to great pitching and especially starting pitching.
Drew's argument about the best teams not always winning makes sense to me but what has never made sense to me is the way good to great pitchers and, in particular, starting pitchers get lit up in the playoffs.
In BBMO Starting pitchers simply do not have as much endurance in the playoffs as they have in the regular season. This should be corrected and Clay did say he was looking into this. I hope he will give us an update on this. Just remember he has been pretty busy lately and also had a nasty cold.
Poor performances by starting pitchers also leads to relievers putting in lousy perfomances as well since bullpens become overworked when starters only go two or three or four innings.
In the meantime, I would remind you of what Clay said in one of his posts. When starting pitchers get lit up they need EXTRA REST in order to perform well the next time out. This is especially true in the playoffs. I have kept this in mind ever since he mentioned it and have acted accordingly. Because of this my playoff performance results have improved.
Schaefling
11-15-2001, 01:00 PM
Clay's last update to the code should also help. Now when you clinch during the last week your top three minor league starters will pitch all the games for the last week allowing a team to rest all five of its starters for the playoffs.
Khan you might check and see if this helps. Just make sure you have at least three starters in the minors for the last week of the season in case you clinch early.
The fatigue is a symptom of the real problem, which is that Cy Young type starting pitchers get bombed in the postseason while average pitchers pitch consistently. In addition to the year below, I've had lots of other guys with A endurance, A- or better control, B or better power and B or better movement absolutely get hammered in the playoffs, year after year after year.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by khan
This Year, my ace Mike Mussina started three postseaon games. He pitched 15 innings and gave up 13 runs. In the regular season, he was 19-3 with 5 shutouts, a 1.73 ERA and struck out 201 batters in 234 innings, while walking only 35 batters. How the **** does that happen?
John Billops, former ROY, who has already thrown 2 no-hitters (including a perfect game), 17 complete games, 12 shutouts and is 47-19 with a 2.33 career ERA in three years, was also lit up. In two starts, he pitched 8.3 innings and gave up 11 earned runs. HOW??????????????????????????????
Both Mussina and Billops were lit up in ALL of their postseason starts. I could understand if they had one bad game.
In MAL, the Seattle Pilots (the lowest ERA in the AL) played the Yankees (one of the lowest ERAs) in the playoffs. The series went 3 games with the Pilots giving up 38 runs and the Yankees 19 (respective ERAs of 12.66 and 6.33).
I don't know if this adds to the discussion but I thought it was interesting.
ExEP
dturkenk
11-15-2001, 02:46 PM
Here's another way to look at the chance of winning a series. It's completely based on one probablilty comparison, just what the head to head probability of a team winning a game against another team and then extended to a 5 or 7 game series.
Prob of Winning a Game Chance to Win 5 Game Series Chance to Win 7 Game Series
50% 50.0% 50.0%
51% 51.9% 52.2%
52% 53.7% 54.4%
53% 55.6% 56.5%
54% 57.5% 58.7%
55% 59.3% 60.8%
60% 68.3% 71.0%
So therefore the chance of winning three series in a row when the teams are even (50% of winning a game) is 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5% or 1 out of every 8.
In other words, here's a table of the chance of winning the World Series based on the above percentages. We'll say for sake of assumption that the chance for a given team is the same over the course of the postseason (i.e. it is playing the same team throughout one 5 games series and 2 7 game series)
50% 12.5%
51% 14.1%
52% 15.9%
53% 17.7%
54% 19.8%
55% 21.9%
60% 34.4%
Of course this whole analysis is predicated on the fact that we could measure what the chance of a team winning a game head-to-head against another team should be, which I guess is where the debate lies. This is just how it extends throughout series and the postseason.
Clay Dreslough
11-15-2001, 03:05 PM
My friend Jeff had the following comments on this topic:
===
Clay,
My brother had a similar story. In seven seasons with the Sox, he was over 100 wins every year, often far over. I think he had the best record in baseball every year. What did he have to show for it? No world championships, one league championship. He didn't complain so much as remark about it, but if it happened to him more I'm sure he'd complain.
Of course, as the Mariners showed this year, having the best (by far) record in baseball doesn't guarantee postseason success. The 1954 Indians would also attest to that.
In fact, would it surprise you to know that since the switch to three divisions in 1995, a span of seven seasons, only the 1998 Yankees posted the best record in the majors AND went on to win the World Series. Of the seven clubs, one won it all, two lost the World Series, two lost their LCS, and two lost their DS.
Here's a table of the teams with the best record in each league and how they did:
AL NL
1995 *Cleveland 100-44, lost in WS Atlanta, 90-54, won WS
1996 *Cleveland, 99-62, lost in DS Atlanta, 96-66, lost in WS
1997 Baltimore, 98-64, lost in CS *Atlanta, 101-61, lost in CS
1998 *New York, 114-48, won WS Atlanta, 106-56, lost in CS
1999 New York, 99-64, won WS *Atlanta, 103-59, lost in WS
2000 Chicago, 95-67, lost in DS *San Francisco, 97-65, lost in DS
2001 *Seattle, 116-46, lost in CS Houston, 93-69, lost in DS
St Louis, 93-69, lost in DS
An asterisk indicates the best record in the majors (obviously).
So there you go. It's one thing to post a great regular season record, but it's another thing entirely to succeed in the post season.
Of course, if the problem people have is that so-so hitting teams are lighting up great pitchers, well, I don't know.
Jeff
===
Ok, lets separate good teams from good players. And to simplify this discussion, lets stick to pitching.
Seattle (2k1) might have had a great record, but how many of their pitchers had been all-stars or Cy Young winners BEFORE this year? If you were to give the Seattle pitchers ratings, would you give any of them "A" power or "A" control or "A movement"? Seattle's playoff losses are not shocking to me because they were "Playing over their heads" most of the season.
Lets look at Arizona on the other hand. If I were to rate the Arizona starting pitchers, I would definitely give RJ "A" power and a high B or low A for movement. His control would be a B as well (he never walks anyone because he strikes them all out :). Schilling has "A" control, high B to middle A power, and at least a low B for movement. So it makes sense that they shut down the Yankees.
Thats all I'm asking for in this game; for pitchers with A everything to not have a 9.99 ERA in the postseason when their regular-season ERA was 1.73. Or at least not have a 9.99 ERA MORE often than a 1.73 ERA. Please read below.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by khan
This Year, my ace Mike Mussina started three postseaon games. He pitched 15 innings and gave up 13 runs. In the regular season, he was 19-3 with 5 shutouts, a 1.73 ERA and struck out 201 batters in 234 innings, while walking only 35 batters. How the **** does that happen?
John Billops, former ROY, who has already thrown 2 no-hitters (including a perfect game), 17 complete games, 12 shutouts and is 47-19 with a 2.33 career ERA in three years, was also lit up. In two starts, he pitched 8.3 innings and gave up 11 earned runs. HOW??????????????????????????????
Both Mussina and Billops were lit up in ALL of their postseason starts. I could understand if they had one bad game.
dturkenk
11-15-2001, 03:54 PM
I agree that pitching performance should at least be close to regular season/career performance, but I'm not sure how representative the example you keep raising is.
4 starts is really not a large sample. It's entirely possible that two great pitchers had back to back bad starts. I'm not saying there isn't something wrong with the game, but I think there needs to be a more exhaustive study, which is a little tough since the game doesn't keep track of playoff stats.
Clay, are playoff games treated any differently than regular season games in terms of programming??
I know it sucks to have this kind of thing happen to you - I've gone through a similar situation where I made the playoffs 13 straight years and only made one World Series and lost that one.
But as people have said, in some ways it does mirror real-life unfortunately... kinda makes you feel bad for Braves and Astros fans.
Schaefling
11-15-2001, 04:04 PM
I think limiting the argument to starting pitch gets right to the heart of the matter. Starting pitching and particularly great starters should pitch better in the playoffs in BBMO. Considering the incredible interest in this subject I would strongly recommend Clay and Sports Mogul look into this further and see if they can improve this area of the game.
The old adage in baseball has always been that good to great pitching shuts down good hitting and that's especially true in the playoffs. That's not happening in BBMO anywhere near consistently enough. Period.
As for comparing BBMO to real life baseball I have come to the conclusion that this is a mistake. It's the wrong place to focus our attention.
The whole point of BBMO is to see if you can manage your teams really well with the possibility of putting together teams far superior to those in real life. When someone like Khan puts together an awesome team with an awesome pitching staff HE SHOULD EXPECT TO DO BETTER IN BBMO than when compared to real life teams. SO FAR BBMO HAS FAILED TO ACHIEVE THIS AND THAT IS WHAT KHAN IS COMPLAINING ABOUT.
Let's remember though that we are talking about making a great game better. Clay and his team have done a great job with BBMO.
Clay Dreslough
11-15-2001, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by dturkenk
Clay, are playoff games treated any differently than regular season games in terms of programming??
No. Recently I increased the home-field advantage to try to help the favorite in the playoffs. But that's it.
Judging from the title of this thread, the complaint probably isn't that I intentionally screwed up the playoffs code but rather that there is a bug causing bad playoff pitching performances. I've looked at the code and didn't find such a bug, so I'm still awaiting further evidence. It's possible Mussina got unlucky. It's possible there's a bug. Right now I don't know.
Clay
hwt1313
11-15-2001, 04:40 PM
Perhaps it is just this simple. According to a past post, the game adjusts for long term fatigue. I believe that James said that a pitcher with 34 starts would perform 20% worse than the same pitcher with 30 starts. If the figures are off, I apologize.
Many teams use their ace starters 35+ times during the season. Then add 1-2 starts in the first round, 2-3 starts in the LCS, and 2-3 starts in the WS. Now we are at 40+ starts. If a pitcher can lose 20% in just 4 starts, how much can they lose in these additional 10+ starts?
In my experience, great teams need great pitching. And these great pitchers are getting too tired, and turning into good BP pitchers.
By the way, one year I took a chance and used a game 7 starter who hadn't started a game all year. He pitched a complete game shutout.
Schaefling
11-15-2001, 05:25 PM
I don't like to talk about the tactics I use but I do think long term fatigue could be a signifigant factor in this.
I have played the CD game a lot over the years and pitchers with 200+ innings usually perform worse than pitchers with less than 200+ innings. One of my tactics in the CD game was to make sure starters stayed around 200 innings so they were not too tired for the playoffs and I usually had at least one good pitcher limited to about 150 innings so he could be extensively used in the playoffs.
My experience with probably 50+ years of playoffs in different leagues in BBMO is that pitchers with over 200+ innings of pitching almost always(with some notable exceptions) perform worse than pitchers who have less than 200 innings.
Furthermore, starters with less than 100 or even no innings pitched often perform far better than pitchers who have been used a lot in the season.
I hope this info helps, Clay.
Possible solution: Let starters during the playoffs recover in three days instead of four and recover from bad outings in say four days. I think this really could help signifigantly. A manager should be able to rely on just three starters in the playoffs if he likes which is just impossible now.
Also Clay didn't you at one time with the CD games experiment with resetting pitcher fatigue for the playoffs because of this very same problem?
Cipster
11-15-2001, 05:52 PM
I had no idea this fatigue factor could change performance in the playoffs. I always use a strict 5 man rotation because I try and stay at least 5 deep at starter but all my pitchers have great endurance so they pitch over 200 innings even in a strict 5 man. My top man out of the bullpen gets 60 innings on average. I guess from now on I'll just have my spot starter moved into the rotation for some stretches and also a starter from the minors.
The year my star starters did well in the playoffs two of them were injured for 2 week stretches which means they had around 29-30 starts instead of the usual 33-35. Maybe we are on to something here.
Clay Dreslough
11-15-2001, 09:23 PM
FYI, here's the math for figuring predicted winning percentages. If Team A with winning percentage 'x' plays team B with winning percentage 'y', the chance of A winning is:
(x * (1-y))
----------------------------
(x * (1-y)) + (y * (1-x))
So if a .700 team plays a .600 team, their chance of winning is:
(.700 * (1-.600))
---------------------------------------------
(.700 * (1-.600)) + (.600 * (1-.700))
... equals ...
(.7 * .4)
-----------------------
(.7 * .4) + (.6 * .3)
... equals ...
.28 / .46 = 60.8%
Clay
Clay,
Is the "fatigue pattern" schaefling noticed in the CD version also present in BBMO?
Also, is it true that a pitcher with 34 starts would perform 20% worse in the playoffs than the same pitcher with 30 start?
Schaefling
11-16-2001, 04:51 AM
I truly appreciate Clay taking the time to show us the winning pct. formula used in the playoffs. It makes it easier for us to understand exactly how the game works in the playoffs.
I also understand his making winning pct. a greater factor during the playoffs was done as a result of complaints being made by players, mine included, who felt their teams with great winning percentages were performing too poorly.
After thinking about all that's been discussed in this thread, however, I'm not sure I like the idea of winning percentages playing any part at all in the playoffs or in the regular season for that matter.
I always envisioned games in BBMO being decided based primarily on the stats of the players. You take batting ratings and compare it to fielding and pitching ratings according to some complex formula Clay has devised and factor in a random element and compute out game scores. Team winning percentages would have nothing to do with the outcome of games in the interest of complete fairness between teams.
If winning percentages play a part then lineups and rotations and substitutions and roster changes and injuries lose much of their importance which in turn greatly reduces the importance of decision making by the managers.
I also think winning percentages are not always a very accurate way to determine which is the best team.
To begin with some divisions are much tougher than others. Winning 90 games in one division could be equivalent to winning 100 games in another.
Sometimes managers field very poor teams with cheap players in order to increase cash reserves. Such poor teams can clearly make some divisions much easier than others. In fact, in the MAL league there was a serious complaint about this tactic grossly increasing the winning percentages of some teams.
Knowing all this I have to conclude that winning percentages should play no part in deciding the outcome of playoff games or regular season games. Ratings and/or actual stats should be the sole factors along with a random factor deciding the outcome of games.
Do the rest of you agree or disagree?
I doubt that Clay's figures on winning % is used in the game. He was merely trying to illustrate the percentage of games a team playing .700 ball would win over a team playing .600. I would be surprised if the games themselves weren't played out using the normal algorithms.
It is difficult not to develop superstitions about things we don't understand. Since some of us don't know the exact algorithms we can begin to think all sorts of things matter that don't.
ExEP, Seattle Pilots, MAL
dturkenk
11-16-2001, 09:35 AM
I agree with exep. I think Clay posted that formula as a followup to my posting the chance of winning the series based on the chance of a team winning a game.
Simply comparing winning percentages is not a good way of determining who will win, but as observers, it's probably the best way we have of figuring out whether or not there's a problem
Clay Dreslough
11-16-2001, 12:29 PM
The formula posted above is just a statistical tool used for predicting an outcome of a sports game, based on the proven performance level of two teams (against the same or similar opponents).
This formula is NOT used in any way in Baseball Mogul, where each at bat is simulated using PLAYER data, whether during the regular season or post-season.
As for pitcher fatigue, I don't belive the effect is supposed to be anywhere near 20% for a difference of 4 or 5 starts. But perhaps there is a bug causing a greater effect than intended.
Clay
Clay Dreslough
11-16-2001, 01:02 PM
Is there any research out there indicating that good pitchers perform well in the playoffs (e.g. with lower post-season ERAs than they have during the regular season)?
Clay
Schaefling
11-16-2001, 02:18 PM
To begin with let me apologize for misconstruing how the formula Clay posted is used. I am glad to hear it's not used in determining the outcome of games.
My misconception came because earlier Clay indicated he had "increased the home field advantage to try to help the favorite in the playoffs."
Now maybe I'm wrong again but isn't the favorite the team which has the highest winning percentage? Isn't home field advantage usually determined in the first round of the playoffs on winning percentages?
So by increasing home field advantage in the playoffs doesn't winning percentage factor in once again? Or am I wrong on this point also?
P.S. I am going to look into pitching perfomances in the playoffs. Hopefully others will as well. My available data is probably 10 plus years old. If others could check out recent playoffs and the 1990's that would be great.
Clay Dreslough
11-16-2001, 03:15 PM
First, there is a bug with seeding the teams, so the team with the highest win percentage won't always get home-field advantage. But that is the intent, and the code will soon reflect it.
The 1987 and 2001 World Series are among the examples that seem to indicate a greater home-field advantage in the playoffs than the regular season. So, the sim should reflect this (and this would help teams that win 120 game in the regular season).
In the regular season, home teams win about 55% of all games. This is due partly to the strategic advantages of hitting last, but also partly due to better stats on the part of home-team players. The tweak to the engine that increases "home-field advantage" works by further improving the performance of home-team players.
Clay
Originally posted by Clay Dreslough
Is there any research out there indicating that good pitchers perform well in the playoffs (e.g. with lower post-season ERAs than they have during the regular season)?
Clay
The complaint is not that good pitchers don't perform BETTER in the postseason than they do in the regular season. It would be illogical to expect better results when the pressure is higher and the competition is tougher.
The complaint is that "good pitchers" (pitchers with great regular season stats and/or great ratings) perform MUCH worse in the postseason than they do n the regular season.
But since you asked, here are some interesting results from the actual 2001 postseason for the AL. I've listed the player's postseason ERA followed by (/) their regular season ERA. Similarly, 9 National league SP had a postseason ERA less than 3.
1 Tim Hudson/0.93/3.37
2 Barry Zito/1.13/3.49
3 Bartolo Colon/1.84/4.09
4 Jamie Moyer/1.89/3.43
5 Roger Clemens/2.36/3.51
6 Mark Mulder/2.45/3.45
7 Mike Mussina/2.63/3.15
8 C.C. Sabathia/3.00/4.39
Clay Dreslough
11-16-2001, 05:50 PM
The reason I brought it up is that there is an argument to be made that some pitchers do actually "turn it up a notch" in the post-season.
I realize this isn't your point. You simply want them to be AS GOOD as their regular season performance. But while we're on the subject, we should nail down what the most realistic simulation would be.
Clay
Not necessarily even "AS GOOD" (same ERA in postseason as regular season), but closer to their regular-season ERA than 9.99. You wouldn't believe how many times 20-win, 2.5 ERA pitchers get bombed in the postseason (in my leagues anyway).
-Also, maybe the "undenible money pitcher" scouting report should be reserved for guys who "turn it up a notch."
Schaefling
11-17-2001, 01:25 AM
In my last season in the MAL league I tried an experiment. Way ahead in games won of all other teams in the entire league I rested my starting pitchers for two weeks at the start of September.
After pitching once or twice in Mid September the new code rested my top three starters for the last week giving my top three lots of rest.
My best pitcher Leiber pitched two good games but Mike Mussina with a 3.00 ERA and Weaver, who also had a very good season, both pitch poorly. I lost the game Mussina pitched 16-1!
I made sure these starters had less than 30 starts each and were well rested but it did no good at all. Of course, I realize this is just one series but it's not atypical of what I have seen.
Coincidentally my batters with the best team average in the league at over .300 were pretty much shut down in the playoffs except for one game.
Now I have to say something seems off when not only your pitchers but your batters suddenly perform like minor leaguers in the playoffs. I suppose though it just might have been bad luck.
I did not see much of a home field advantage for my players either as they performed worse at home than on the road. You would think guys who hit .300 for the season would hit pretty well at home given what Clay said about adjusted perfomance for home games although perhaps Seattle's pitching simply shut them down.
My New York Yankees team went 114-48 against 30 human teams in a tough division but put in a sub-par performance in the playoffs. Again this may have been just poor luck and I admit my opponent Seattle did win 100 games.
With my experiment failing I have to ask - Is there any correlation at all in BBMO between regular season performance and playoff perfomance? Does a player's stats for the season count in the playoffs or do his ratings only count?
dturkenk
11-17-2001, 02:50 AM
Between 1990 and 2001 there were 140 seasons (some players, like Glavine, have multiple seasons) where a starting pitcher pitched at least 10 innings in a postseason. I picked 10 innings as a very arbitrary cutoff since anything less seems to be largely a matter of luck.
Of course, this skews the results to pitchers on winning teams, and teams after the advent of the extra round of playoffs. Well, anyway, here's the results I found.
Of the 140 seasons,
59 saw the ERA increase from regular season to post-season.
36 by at least a run
22 by at least 2 runs
12 by at least 3 runs
4 by at least 4 runs
1 pitcher had the exact same ERA in the regular season and post season
80 saw the ERA drop in the post-season
51 by at least a run
21 by at least 2 runs
2 by at least 3 runs
1 by at least 4 runs
Overall, for the 140 seasons, the composite ERA dropped .24 runs.
I also looked at WHIP
71 had higher WHIPs in the post-season
3 had the same
66 had lower WHIPs
Overall, WHIP dropped .1 from the regular season to the post season.
I constrained this to starters becuase that's where the discussion has been focused, so releivers may perform worse.. but what this seems to indicate is that pitchers tend to perform better in the postseason about 57% and the variance is most often between 1-2 runs. I would put up some idea of the distribution, but I can't figure out how to do that in Excel.
Schaefling
11-18-2001, 09:41 PM
In spite of my postings on this thread I just wanted to say I think Clay and his staff are doing a great job. I do think starting pitching performances in the playoffs can be improved but at the same time I really appreciate the careful methodical way problems in the game are examined and corrected when possible.
I know many managers wish corrections and bug fixes could be made faster but I think Sports Mogul has moved at just the right pace.
Clay,
If you want to see this "bug" firsthand, go into Mogul Enthusiast League and look at this year's playoffs. This is getting really old.
hwt1313
11-19-2001, 03:29 PM
Here is an analysis of the Mogul Enthusiast playoffs and World Series that Kahn mentioned. Of the 31 starting pitchers used:
35% ERA was lower in playoffs
65% ERA was higher in playoffs
3% ERA was lower by more than 3 points
10% ERA was lower by 2-3 points
6% ERA was lower by 1-2 points
16% ERA was lower by less than 1 point
16% ERA was higher by less than 1 point
6% ERA was higher by 1-2 points
19% ERA was higher by 2-3 points
13% ERA was higher by 3-4 points
10% ERA was higher by more than 4 points
There was no significant connection between ERA and innings pitched or games started during the season.
The average starting pitcher had an ERA increase of 1.13 points. This seems in line for the playoffs considering you are only facing the best teams with the best lineups in the league. I'm starting to think that this is being blown out of proportion, and is being used as an excuse for teams who think they should have done better.
sudden
11-19-2001, 03:53 PM
The data set is very interesting. Yes, these pitchers are facing (presumably) the best hitting teams but those hittign teams are also facing (presumably) the best pitching & fielding teams. Maybe somebody could gather the data as to what happens to the playoff teams hitting stats. Do they go up or do they go down? Theoretically, the hitting stats should go down as they are facing the better pitching teams.
An ERA increase of 1.13 is highly significant. It seems to me from my playoff experiences (I've made the playoffs about 14 times but never advanced to the World Series - but that's just bad luck not a bug.;) ) that the starters do get hit around too often in the playoffs.
Cipster
11-19-2001, 05:41 PM
It is a small sample but this year's playoff teams all had significantly lower batting averages in the postseason. There was only one team in one series (the Braves vs. Huston) that batted better in the postseason.
hwt1313-
Please look up a pitcher named Benji Watanabe (SD) in Mogul Enthusiast and tell me how "in line" for a guy with A endurance, A- control, A- power, B- movement, 2.67 career ERA and 57 CG, 37 shutouts to have an ERA of 9 in one game and 15 in another in the SAME postseason. By the way,he only pitched two games in this postseason.
Before you start talking "excuses", read dturknek's research. In actual playoffs (last 11 years), only 38/140 pitchers' ERA went up by two or more points. In Mogul, 42% of the pitchers' ERA went up by two or more points.
Those two stats are in line about as much as my 107 Win average per season to your 78 wins per season in Mogul Enthusiast.
Clay Dreslough
11-19-2001, 06:58 PM
Just letting you know that I think a pre-ponderance of the evidence does indicate pitcher performances in Baseball Mogul's post-season are unrealistically poor.
While Mogul Enthusiast is not enough of a sample size by itself, it appears to be part of a larger trend. Moreover, dturkenk's research (thank you!) indicates that starters actually perform somewhat better in the playoffs, despite going up against better lineups (and someties on shorter rest).
I've got a version now that reflects this research and it's testing well. I hope to have it up in time for Wednesday morning's sims (11/21/01).
Clay
metdenn
11-20-2001, 03:28 AM
ARGH! Just when my run may be over ARGH ARGH ARGH!
hehe Anyway did you see my ideas in the rave thread clay?
dturkenk
11-20-2001, 02:23 PM
I looked into the numbers I gathered a little bit further and came up with the following two sets of results
Of the 149 pitchers who had regular season ERAs at least .5 runs better than league average
74 had worse ERAs in the playoffs
47 by over a run
37 by over 2 runs
30 by over 3 runs
23 by over 4 runs
21 by over 5 runs
14 by over 6 runs
2 had the same ERA
73 had better ERAs in the playoffs
45 by over a run
21 by over 2 runs
3 by over 3 runs
Of the 86 pitchers who had regular season ERAs at least .5 runs better than league average and pitched at least 10 innings in the postseason
39 had worse ERAs in the playoffs
21 by over a run
14 by over 2 runs
8 by over 3 runs
1 had the same ERA
46 had better ERAs in the playoffs
28 by over a run
10 by over 2 runs
These numbers are inclusive by the way, so the 39 who had worse ERAs includes the 21 who were worse by over a run.. just to clarify
dturkenk-
Thanks for looking up these stats. Based on your latest post, you might already be headed this way, but I was wondering if you might have any information on how the real dominant pitchers (top ten in ERA or Cy Young candidate or most complete games/shutouts, etc.) tend to do in the postseason compared to their regular season stats.
Again, thanks for the work you've already done.
Clay Dreslough
11-21-2001, 09:25 AM
Just letting you know we weren't able to get the new code tested and launched for Wednesday's sims. With the Thanksigiving break, this improvement will have to wait until the middle of next week.
Clay
dturkenk
11-21-2001, 11:04 AM
Khan - I looked into some of the different categories you suggested - namely Cy Young votes and Top 10 ERA leaders, and here's the results
Of the 69 pitchers who pitched in the playoffs and received Cy Young votes
41 had worse ERAs in the playoffs
26 by over a run
20 by over 2 runs
17 by over 3 runs
12 by over 5 runs
9 by over 6 runs
1 had the same ERA
27 had better ERAs in the playoffs
19 by over a run
5 by over 2 runs
Of the 48 pitchers who pitched at least 10 innings in the playoffs and received Cy Young votes
24 had worse ERAs in the playoffs
13 by over a run
9 by over 2 runs
6 by over 3 runs
2 by over 4 runs
24 had better ERAs in the playoffs
18 by over a run
4 by over 2 runs
Of the 87 pitchers who pitched in the playoffs and were in their league's top ten in ERA
42 had worse ERAs in the playoffs
27 by over a run
21 by over 2 runs
17 by over 3 runs
12 by over 4 runs
11 by over 5 runs
1 had the same ERA
44 had better ERAs in the playoffs
27 by over a run
10 by over 2 runs
1 by over 3 runs
Of the 56 pitchers who pitched at least 10 innings in the playoffs and were in their league's top ten in ERA
23 had worse ERAs in the playoffs
14 by over a run
10 by over 2 runs
6 by over 3 runs
1 by over 4 runs
33 had better ERAs in the playoffs
21 by over a run
6 by over 2 runs
Dan
Isn't this a powerful argument for the inclusion of playoff stats (and attendance), kept seperately? It is difficult to correct stats that aren't being measured.
Agreed!
There is a poll in one of the forums regarding whether the scouting screen should also contain postseason stats.
Last time I checked, a lot of voters thought it was a good idea to have playoff stats on a player's scouting screen.
Well, no matter what you say about rest not having anything to do with late-season and playoff performance, I'll have to disagree. In Mogul League Baseball, I always made sure to have 5 strong starters, and when it came time for the postseason last year, I was involved in some pretty close, pitcher dominated games. No 15-14, no 15-2 games. Only 3-2,4-2, and other low-scoring games. You guys are just trying to do bad by not listening to the basics of good postseason performances and you are just trying to find holes. If you experiment with what I say, someone post the stats and see if my idea works, just as it did for me.
Drew-
I tried your theory and it did not work. I rested my top 4 SP the last 3 weeks of September and they were bombed in the postseason, again.
One of them led the league in ERA during the regular season, another was 3rd in the league and the worst of them had a regular season ERA of 3.48. All of them won 15 games or more and had less than 200 IP for the season.
Their combined postseason ERA was about 5.8 and my team was knocked out in the first round.
Cipster
11-28-2001, 01:32 PM
I did not try anything fancy but I also lost in the first round. My team won 108 games to lead the league by a wide margin (only Atl had won 100 games). They got bombed by Texas 3-1 in the ALDS. Texas won 78 games this season, Yes a sub .500 team. They are one game away from the WS as they are up 3-2 on Boston.
Go figure.
PS. Some semblance of sanity is restored. Boston came back and won in 7. This is turning into a soap opera... :)
Schaefling
11-28-2001, 06:37 PM
Clay has indicated the latest version of the game is going into effect and this is supposed to improve starting pitching performance in the playoffs.
I believed this happened at 3:00 PM PST or 6 PM EST today.
Clay Dreslough
11-28-2001, 06:45 PM
It actually happened closer to 3 pm EST. In fact it caused a couple of sims to "hiccup" (run, and then back up and run again).
Clay
Schaefling
11-28-2001, 08:07 PM
MY first experience with the new version was a total bust. You can read how I feel about the new version in my new thread in the Rants and Raves section. Believe my my thread was a very big Rant!
I like the people at Sports Mogul and I really like this game but I really think that playoff results are STILL way too random. It also looks like starting pitching has been fixed totally at the expense of hitting. Worse yet the top notch STAR quality pitchers apparrently can be beaten by just about any starting pitcher since ALL STARTERS are now pitching really well.
I'm having real trouble with the concept that the game should change for playoffs. Yes, less excellent teams (all teams in the playoffs are at least good). sometimes win in a 5 or 7 game series, but that's life (and statistics). Why do pitchers suddenly become supermen during playoffs? What causes this to occur? There are plenty of crucial games during a season and no one (I think) would say the algorithms should change for those games.
It is rough to lose in the playoffs when you've got a great team, but it happens. Besides, we all don't agree as to what is a great team.
Can anyone explain why this 'playoff bug' hurts only good teams? Sorry, but lets get on with the competition.
ExEP, Seattle Pilots, MAL
trench610
11-29-2001, 02:33 PM
Come on, whiners...I've lost to lesser teams in the playoffs before.
It is this way in real life too...the outcome of 5 or 7 game series is essentially, for all intents and purposes, RANDOM.
If there is a bug in the code, then fine...but if not, I see no reason to further aid the teams which are already better. Any team can lose 3 of 5 or 4 of 7 at a point during the season. Sometimes bad hitters do well; sometimes good pitchers get shelled.
Deal with it. The Seattle Mariners won 116 games this year. They didn't reach the World Series. The '54 Indians won 111. They got crunched by the Giants.
That's life. Quit whining, and move on.
Schaefling
11-29-2001, 09:25 PM
Don't you just love it when someone calls someone a ******* or a dummy or maybe a whiner? They don't argue the point they just call you names. They just get off insulting someone. And possibly someone they don't know all that well. Well, I protest!
For Khan who started this thread. For Cipster and Drew and dturkenk and a whole lot of other managers who have been upset about starting pitching perfomance in the playoffs I protest! For Clay who changed the code because he saw the complaint had merit I protest!
So trench610 if you have a point to make and want to put some facts forward I will gladly follow what you have to say. But how about supporting what you say with some facts instead of calling people names? You will find I love a GOOD argument!
As for exep, where have you been for the last three months through all the big and small changes in BBMO? Did you think the change in pitching performances in the playoffs was the first change made to the game since it went online?
And where is your support for your position that no changes should be made to starting pitching in the playoffs?
Did you bother to read all the many posts in this thread? If so then how did you have the nerve to say what you did?
I think looking at playoff results to see if the new version is working is legitimate. How else are we to know? So far I don't like what I see.
This is not a knock on Clay or anyone at Sports Mogul. I know he and his staff are working hard to perfect this game.
So if you think I'm wrong post some results demonstrating this. And if you think I'm right please do the same.
But stop with the cracks about whiners. After all, why do you think so many bugs and problems were solved over the last few months? People complained about them.
I think it comes down to this.
Only the GMs who have gone to the playoffs virtually every year and lost to lesser teams in the playoffs despite crushing other teams in the regular season, despite having players with more A's than Ally McBeal's bra drawer and despite having players who put up MVP and Cy Young type numbers in the regular season are seriously frustrated about the playoff simulation.
Those who have not gone through this type of thing are sick of hearing about it and see it as whining.
I challenge anyone who thinks Cipster or Schaefling or myself are whiners to play any of us in any league anytime for any amount of cash. That would separate the players from the haters.
You're on. I would welcome an equal league with the best players. But, I would like an agreement that we will all lose quietly.
This does not include the reporting of real bugs.
Done deal. You were one of the more active GMs in Mogul Enthusiast so it'll be fun playing against you.
Exep- Do you remember John Billops? His posteseason ERA, in roughly 20 starts, is like 7.50. Do you think thats fair or realistic or accurate or fun for the GM who has him?
Thats the postseason pitching bug I've been complaining about.
You're right I remember Billops; he was given to me from the supreme being (the farm system). The team I had at the time, Chicago A, had been managed by the computer and was a mess except for a fairly decent pitching staff and Billops, a truly great starting pitcher. I traded him to you for an fading but great starter, a young but excellent starter and a good fielding third baseman. Billops went on to greatness, but the three guys you gave me stayed on the first team for four years while we went from 5th to first. I'm really sorry to hear that Billops let you down in the playoffs, but that's odds. Unless Clay has somehow changed his formulas for the playoffs, that's just how fate works, and that is what makes it fun.
I really look forward to an even league. It should be a lot more of a wide open contest. I only worry that we will all use the same strategies. In any case, it should be great fun.
I'm not saying it was a bad trade for either of us.
What I'm saying is that a guy who is unhittable in the regular season, year in and year out, with A everything, should not lose in the playoffs every f-r-e-a-k-i-n year to guys with C- endurance and D+ movement or B- control.
Its not just him. ALL of the top pitchers get bombed in the postseason while joe schmo guys pitch shutouts. If thats the case, whats the use of getting players with good ratings or even trying to go the playoffs?
Don't you think thats a bug?
BTW, I can't wait for the "equal" league either.
He won pitcher of the year at least once and was my ace for 7 years. His statistics were excellent but on any given game he could get bombed and be out of the game before the 3rd inning. I always thought it a shame when this happened during a playoff. But if the formulas are the same, the odds are the same. Chance.
Did Freddy Garcia have A endurance, B+ control, B+ power, B+ movement?
My scouting lately can never get over 8th, so I'm never sure. But, that really isn't the point. Look at the games throughout the season and note the number of bad games even a great pitcher has. Also note how many times your team gets swept in a series by a team playing .300 ball.
The trade for Billops was an example of a good trade. You had better guys in the minors than I had on my team. Billops would have been wasted with us and you could give me three decent players you could do without and we were both happy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.