NDL Forum

cougnix wrote:I like the pythag talk. So in that same respect a team that has a positive and maybe a high positive would be a lucky team? Maybe not as good as the record shows?

This is so great, Pythag is finally coming around!!!

And the answer is yes. And I'm fairly certain there have been studies and pythag record is a better indicator of future success than your standard record is.

Cnasty wrote:Yes see Cleveland circa a couple seasons ago when he was like +20 exaggerated of course and he started talking pythag

Ahh yes. That was the Polar Bears year. The pythag lasted until the ALCS

shel311 wrote:
And the answer is yes. And I'm fairly certain there have been studies and pythag record is a better indicator of future success than your standard record is.

I hope you are right come playoff time for the Minutemen!

Cnasty wrote:

shel311 wrote:
And the answer is yes. And I'm fairly certain there have been studies and pythag record is a better indicator of future success than your standard record is.

I hope you are right come playoff time for the Minutemen!

Well, small sample size, but look at last seasons AL. Miami had a 8 pythag, Vancouver -3. Alabama had a -6 pythag though, their luck stayed bad against Vancouver. Then, Vancouver almost shocked the league but lost 4-2 to Cincinnati that had a -5 pythag. LE had a 6 pythag...Interesting...

Corey has hope!!

Bama was -7 pythag going into playoffs last year, this year plus one so pretty even keeled so far this season.

cougnix wrote:

Cnasty wrote:Yes see Cleveland circa a couple seasons ago when he was like +20 exaggerated of course and he started talking pythag

Ahh yes. That was the Polar Bears year. The pythag lasted until the ALCS

No... Everyone else started talking pythag. I still had no clue what it meant and didn't believe in it at the time. And here's Coug taking a stab at beating me in the LCS when my team had only one good starter on it. Team shouldn't even had made the playoffs

Whittness10 wrote:

cougnix wrote:

Cnasty wrote:Yes see Cleveland circa a couple seasons ago when he was like +20 exaggerated of course and he started talking pythag

Ahh yes. That was the Polar Bears year. The pythag lasted until the ALCS

No... Everyone else started talking pythag. I still had no clue what it meant and didn't believe in it at the time. And here's Coug taking a stab at beating me in the LCS when my team had only one good starter on it. Team shouldn't even had made the playoffs

No stab intended. Your team had a 9 pythag, and Corey did exaggerate. So the pythag lasted until the ALCS!

Lowell Decoligny leading the AL in Average!!

nick wrote:Lowell Decoligny leading the AL in Average!!

My scout and OSA has him at 56/29 and 55/28. Why are his potentials so low? I see decent numbers for him in hitting, not very good in the field though.

GeorgesGoons wrote:

nick wrote:Lowell Decoligny leading the AL in Average!!

My scout and OSA has him at 56/29 and 55/28. Why are his potentials so low? I see decent numbers for him in hitting, not very good in the field though.

I hate what happened to the ratings last season when niddler switched something after lengthy discussion

be careful what you wish for now I guess

they barely make sense to me anymore

ajalves wrote:

GeorgesGoons wrote:

nick wrote:Lowell Decoligny leading the AL in Average!!

My scout and OSA has him at 56/29 and 55/28. Why are his potentials so low? I see decent numbers for him in hitting, not very good in the field though.

I hate what happened to the ratings last season when niddler switched something after lengthy discussion

be careful what you wish for now I guess

they barely make sense to me anymore

They take stats into effect now if I'm not mistaken. This means a player could have a shitty year, and his ratings would take a hit, even though he's a good player. Miguel Aernivas is an example on my team, only the opposite way. He's always had a potential in the 50's, but his ratings are always 65+ due to him performing so well the last couple seasons.

ajalves wrote:

GeorgesGoons wrote:

nick wrote:Lowell Decoligny leading the AL in Average!!

My scout and OSA has him at 56/29 and 55/28. Why are his potentials so low? I see decent numbers for him in hitting, not very good in the field though.

I hate what happened to the ratings last season when niddler switched something after lengthy discussion

be careful what you wish for now I guess

they barely make sense to me anymore

The other way made wayyyyyyyy less sense. The other way he'd still be 29 overall.

What I've taken from it is they are playing out of their minds and above potential.

Only example I can think of is someone like Bret Boone (although steroids aided) was a career .250ish hitter? 13 HR's? Something like that? Comes back to Seattle and has a MVP type season hitting over .300 and had like 30-40 HR's or something stupid like that?

Baltimore Orioles of a couple of seasons ago had maybe the highest pythag ever. I'm not sure of the exacts, but they won something like 93 games and either scored less runs than they give up, or close to it.

shel311 wrote:

ajalves wrote:

GeorgesGoons wrote:

nick wrote:Lowell Decoligny leading the AL in Average!!

My scout and OSA has him at 56/29 and 55/28. Why are his potentials so low? I see decent numbers for him in hitting, not very good in the field though.

I hate what happened to the ratings last season when niddler switched something after lengthy discussion

be careful what you wish for now I guess

they barely make sense to me anymore

The other way made wayyyyyyyy less sense. The other way he'd still be 29 overall.

understood. however, a guy who has done it for multiple seasons in a row, stands to reason his "potential" wouldn't still be low.

Pythag talk is so 2029

ajalves wrote:understood. however, a guy who has done it for multiple seasons in a row, stands to reason his "potential" wouldn't still be low.

The old way wouldn't bring his potential up either, fwiw.

shel311 wrote:

ajalves wrote:understood. however, a guy who has done it for multiple seasons in a row, stands to reason his "potential" wouldn't still be low.

The old way wouldn't bring his potential up either, fwiw.

I guess why even have it then? I hear what everyone is saying....just doesn't seem to connect in my brain for some reason

also my scouts take on guys seems to swing every other sim.

one sim a guy is the next tom seaver, the next he's a career minor leaguer

Id be interested in a discussion about turning off scouting. Id like to know the advantages and disadvantages. Does it make the game more difficult, realistic or just easier because we all have the same information?

BigRy wrote:Id be interested in a discussion about turning off scouting. Id like to know the advantages and disadvantages. Does it make the game more difficult, realistic or just easier because we all have the same information?

I guess going back to my point, it doesn't seem to mean a ton IMO anymore