 |
View Old Forum Thread
jbush56
Senators get 18 hits - score 16 runs.
Same line up as game 62.
Baltmore's pitchers in this order (Edurance, Velocity & Control):
Checo A-, B+, B-
Hagerman C+, B-, A-
Roa C, B-, B-
Haney D, B-, A-
Washington gets 4.5 times as many hits against much better control pitching in Game 63 as Game 62 and C+ Control from Chaney of Baltimore.
Why?
No Runs 3
August 06, 2004 at 10:28PM View BBCode
Game 63 Washington against BaltimoreSenators get 18 hits - score 16 runs.
Same line up as game 62.
Baltmore's pitchers in this order (Edurance, Velocity & Control):
Checo A-, B+, B-
Hagerman C+, B-, A-
Roa C, B-, B-
Haney D, B-, A-
Washington gets 4.5 times as many hits against much better control pitching in Game 63 as Game 62 and C+ Control from Chaney of Baltimore.
Why?
mb1083
August 06, 2004 at 10:34PM View BBCode
this is probably irrational but I have long suspected that once a team starts doing well ABE maximizes their performance and once a.team starts hitting the skids underperformance just clings to you like a dark shadow. I could write you chapter and verse on guy after guy on my team who didn't get close to their letters when with me who blossomed on better teams. Also I had over 50 games last year where I left 10 or more on, there were times where I just decided it was better to look at the score, fix my line up and move on because the box score was just too aggravating...
Phyrndyl
August 06, 2004 at 11:36PM View BBCode
Chaney has outperformed his ratings since the first day he pitched for me. I'd write and inquire but I'm too afraid they'll find something and make him pitch to his ability.
BravesFanLV
like with Cleveland, there always seems to be someone different stepping up to the plate and being the hero of the game...kind of infectious winning...
just like in real baseball where team chemistry can help win...
August 07, 2004 at 12:23AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
I've often wondered about the "chemistry" of a team...when I went through that 5-23 skid, it seemed I was losing different ways and having weird things happen (a lot of bases loaded walks, GIDP's, etc.) I wonder if that has any effect...where one guy does a little better based upon those around him...
like with Cleveland, there always seems to be someone different stepping up to the plate and being the hero of the game...kind of infectious winning...
just like in real baseball where team chemistry can help win...
rkrs2
August 07, 2004 at 11:39AM View BBCode
ABE is a computer program. It has no feelings. It has no streaks. It doesn't play favorites. ABE takes care of no one. ABE is like a roulette wheel. The last spin has nothing to do with the next spin. Quit looking for excuses. Better pitching + better hitting= better team.
mb1083
this from the charming individual last year who whined repatedly that his team was losing to lesser teams including the immortal "goddamned Wind" post. Apparently its easy to be philisophical about ABE when your winning... Here's a handly link to your post from last season which you entitled "why do I suck" because after all ABE is just a computer program and you would never look for excusess
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=36615
[Edited on 8-7-2004 by mb1083]
August 07, 2004 at 04:06PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkrs2
ABE is a computer program. It has no feelings. It has no streaks. It doesn't play favorites. ABE takes care of no one. ABE is like a roulette wheel. The last spin has nothing to do with the next spin. Quit looking for excuses. Better pitching + better hitting= better team.
this from the charming individual last year who whined repatedly that his team was losing to lesser teams including the immortal "goddamned Wind" post. Apparently its easy to be philisophical about ABE when your winning... Here's a handly link to your post from last season which you entitled "why do I suck" because after all ABE is just a computer program and you would never look for excusess
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=36615
[Edited on 8-7-2004 by mb1083]
mb1083
Three game lead and praying a lot, its ridiculuous how people keep trading me quality pitching in the JRL...might give you guys some ideas :lol: Go Thunder!
August 07, 2004 at 04:37PM View BBCode
my KC team frequently has ABE over for dinner but the Wind front office isn't on speaking terms with them right now:PThree game lead and praying a lot, its ridiculuous how people keep trading me quality pitching in the JRL...might give you guys some ideas :lol: Go Thunder!
Phyrndyl
Baseball is a team game only insofar that they match up a lot of players in one-on-one confrontations and sum the results. Sacrifices and hitting behind the runner are probably the only two "team-related" activities in the game. Oh, yeah, and leaving a pitcher in to "take one for the team" when you're getting crushed.
When I'm winning I feel better about everyhing in my world. I like everyone in it more. I smile. I'm happy.
Voila! Instant chemistry.
August 08, 2004 at 02:14PM View BBCode
I think chemistry in RL is a lot of baloney. Teams who win proclaim they have it, teams who lose blame losing on not having it. But baseball is the ultimate one-on-one game. Pitcher against batter. Chemistry neither helps you make contact nor helps you paint the corners.Baseball is a team game only insofar that they match up a lot of players in one-on-one confrontations and sum the results. Sacrifices and hitting behind the runner are probably the only two "team-related" activities in the game. Oh, yeah, and leaving a pitcher in to "take one for the team" when you're getting crushed.
When I'm winning I feel better about everyhing in my world. I like everyone in it more. I smile. I'm happy.
Voila! Instant chemistry.
mb1083
'69 Mets
'46 Browns
'34 Cardinals
'59 White Sox
'73 Mets
'9? Twins
'80 Phillies
those are just a few WS winners off the top of my head, the buy a world Series but never win 80s Yankees prove you need chemistry even if you have talent as do the '03 Mets.
August 08, 2004 at 02:38PM View BBCode
teams thaat CLEARLY had chemistry and were better as a whole than the sum of their parts'69 Mets
'46 Browns
'34 Cardinals
'59 White Sox
'73 Mets
'9? Twins
'80 Phillies
those are just a few WS winners off the top of my head, the buy a world Series but never win 80s Yankees prove you need chemistry even if you have talent as do the '03 Mets.
Phyrndyl
As I understand it, your definition of chemistry is--if Team A is worse than Team B but wins anyways, then the difference was better chemistry.
Why did the Carlton Phillies have such GREAT chemistry when he pitched and not when any one else pitched? Because he won all those one-on-one individual battles, that's why. Chemistry as defined here is no different than seeing a dice roll snake eyes and THEN deciding that it must be weighted...
I have to presume that Bill Buckner was a victim of BAD team chemistry then? He was too DEPRESSED to catch that ground ball because he just KNEW he was playing on the less cohesive team?
What happened to all that supposed Boston chemistry last year when they collapsed to the Yankees?
Gee, those are both Boston examples--is Boston perpetually a victim of bad chemistry--a collective death wish maybe?
Humbug! Hit the ball--you win. Pitch well--you win. Like the guy next to you--go out for beer.
August 08, 2004 at 06:42PM View BBCode
The Mets do not have talent. They have, hands down, the worst SS fielding the position in my entire life. They are very close to having the worst fielding of any team I have ever seen. They have terrible relief pitching and, until very recently, a lineup with ONE quality hitter in it.As I understand it, your definition of chemistry is--if Team A is worse than Team B but wins anyways, then the difference was better chemistry.
Why did the Carlton Phillies have such GREAT chemistry when he pitched and not when any one else pitched? Because he won all those one-on-one individual battles, that's why. Chemistry as defined here is no different than seeing a dice roll snake eyes and THEN deciding that it must be weighted...
I have to presume that Bill Buckner was a victim of BAD team chemistry then? He was too DEPRESSED to catch that ground ball because he just KNEW he was playing on the less cohesive team?
What happened to all that supposed Boston chemistry last year when they collapsed to the Yankees?
Gee, those are both Boston examples--is Boston perpetually a victim of bad chemistry--a collective death wish maybe?
Humbug! Hit the ball--you win. Pitch well--you win. Like the guy next to you--go out for beer.
mb1083
August 09, 2004 at 01:39AM View BBCode
The 72 A's had some talent but clearly had a number of guys who played above their heads and stuck together to excell, come on they had Green at second, never had a real starter at 1st, Rudi, Bando, Jackson, Tenace and Campeneris were all streak hitters but they were hungry and did what they needed to do. The 79 "we are family Pirates" lived on emotion as did Howser's KC championship team, the '14 Miracle Braves and the '46 Browns are the classic chemistry teams, the '01 Diamondbacks and the '03 Marlins are all great examples and I haven't even broken a sweat. Bill James has said his great regret is their is no real way to quantify chemistry and ESPN.com and TSN.com constantly talk about chemistry because its something worth talking about. You may be quite probably the most talented manager in this league but I don't think you will find many baseball experts siding with you on this issue.
BravesFanLV
yeah, I don't swear as much since I've actually had a span of 10 games with above .500 winning percentage ;-)
sorry to spark a powderkeg with the chemistry mention...I'm still new to this game and learning the nuances.
I'm trying to have as much fun with my losing ways as when I was winning. It can be frustrating sucking, but overall, I just really enjoy this game.
[Edited on 8-9-2004 by BravesFanLV]
August 09, 2004 at 05:57AM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkrs2
Didn't you know? Winning does change everything.
yeah, I don't swear as much since I've actually had a span of 10 games with above .500 winning percentage ;-)
sorry to spark a powderkeg with the chemistry mention...I'm still new to this game and learning the nuances.
I'm trying to have as much fun with my losing ways as when I was winning. It can be frustrating sucking, but overall, I just really enjoy this game.
[Edited on 8-9-2004 by BravesFanLV]
Phyrndyl
And their two best players, Johnson and Schilling, are two of the most disliked players in baseball--one beause of his well-documented surliness, and the other for a sort of moral righteousness that seems to offend a number of teammates.
That team might have been one of the teams with the WORST chemistry ever to win a world championship. They rode two Hall-of-Fame pitchers at the height of their careers to glory.
The Oakland team is the only one I know enough about to comment on. I notice your description totally fails to mention Hunter, Blue, Fingers or the rest of their stellar pitching. That team won because they were the best pitching team in the AL at the time with more than enough hitting--especially for power. I lived my teens through those years and watched a LOT of baseball. Those teams won on talent--power and pitching. It is only their batting averages which look somewhat meager but they played in a HUGE pitchers park at the time with acres and acres of foul territory.
The '03 Marlins caught lightning in a bottle in the form of a group of raw, young pitchers who hit their stride at the same time. Where is all that chemistry this year? They are perhaps the BEST example of defining chemistry after the fact--they went on an unbelievable run and so they "must" have had "chemistry". Was all the chemistry wraped up in one person--Pudge Rodriguez? Certainly he has improved Detroit's attitude this year--mostly by hitting .370. Why didn't he similarly motivate all those Texas teams? Maybe because they lacked Florida's pitching?
A lot of teams have won over the years because multiple players put together career years simultaneously. Those teams had no more, nor no less, chemistry than they had in the year before and the year after. They won because collectively they had a career year. Statistically inevitable. Nothing to do with chemistry--although they were certainly happier that year.
I think my summary is this: Chemistry does not win games; winning games builds chemistry. It's nothing more than an illusion caused by momentum and building confidence.
'Ya gotta believe!
[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Phyrndyl]
[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Phyrndyl]
August 10, 2004 at 01:49AM View BBCode
I won't go into the other "hungry" teams--but you're not seriously suggesting that the '01 Diamondbacks won because of chemistry are you? Their two best players were possibly the two best pitchers in baseball. They've won darn near every one-on-one matchup over the course of their entire careers--regardless of the "heart" of the team behind them. Those two pitchers--with darn near any reasonable lineup--stood a darn good chance of beating any other team in baseball history in a short series. They were clearly a team built for winning playoff series who were destined to lack the pitching depth to be quite so overpowering in a long season.And their two best players, Johnson and Schilling, are two of the most disliked players in baseball--one beause of his well-documented surliness, and the other for a sort of moral righteousness that seems to offend a number of teammates.
That team might have been one of the teams with the WORST chemistry ever to win a world championship. They rode two Hall-of-Fame pitchers at the height of their careers to glory.
The Oakland team is the only one I know enough about to comment on. I notice your description totally fails to mention Hunter, Blue, Fingers or the rest of their stellar pitching. That team won because they were the best pitching team in the AL at the time with more than enough hitting--especially for power. I lived my teens through those years and watched a LOT of baseball. Those teams won on talent--power and pitching. It is only their batting averages which look somewhat meager but they played in a HUGE pitchers park at the time with acres and acres of foul territory.
The '03 Marlins caught lightning in a bottle in the form of a group of raw, young pitchers who hit their stride at the same time. Where is all that chemistry this year? They are perhaps the BEST example of defining chemistry after the fact--they went on an unbelievable run and so they "must" have had "chemistry". Was all the chemistry wraped up in one person--Pudge Rodriguez? Certainly he has improved Detroit's attitude this year--mostly by hitting .370. Why didn't he similarly motivate all those Texas teams? Maybe because they lacked Florida's pitching?
A lot of teams have won over the years because multiple players put together career years simultaneously. Those teams had no more, nor no less, chemistry than they had in the year before and the year after. They won because collectively they had a career year. Statistically inevitable. Nothing to do with chemistry--although they were certainly happier that year.
I think my summary is this: Chemistry does not win games; winning games builds chemistry. It's nothing more than an illusion caused by momentum and building confidence.
'Ya gotta believe!
[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Phyrndyl]
[Edited on 8-10-2004 by Phyrndyl]
rkrs2
August 10, 2004 at 04:08AM View BBCode
To add to the D-backs post, it has come out in the Boston media that Schilling and Johnson did not like each other at all. It seems that chemistry helps those teams that are stronger as a unit than as individuals. If the majority of players on a team are studs like the MFYankees, chemistry doesn't mean squat.Pages: 1