Biggest Loser?

League-related polls only (use OT Forum for OT polls).

Without looking it up, when was the last time no BBA team won fewer than 60 games?

2037
0
No votes
2031
4
36%
2026
2
18%
2025
2
18%
2017
3
27%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by RonCo » Sun May 26, 2019 10:56 pm

"Upset" was a poor choice of word. Apologies there.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by Ted » Sun May 26, 2019 11:14 pm

RonCo wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 10:02 pm
"Upset" was a poor choice of word. Apologies there.
No need for apologies. I think word choice is really interesting. It can be though provoking as heck.

While now perhaps irrelevant, I'm being trying to figure out why you would think I was upset, and I came up with another possibility. I actually have gotten a bit irritated at times when a talking about my way of doing things in my guide. But again, that has nothing to do with whether or not people choose to follow it. Rather, it has to do with being forced to debate the merits of the guide as I'm writing it. I state at the very beginning, that my way is not the only way, and this is how I do it. I restate that several times.

However, after each chapter, there are a number of people who have felt compelled to point out that a statement I make in the guide is not correct in the overall scope of things. While that may be true, it is actually irrelevant in the context of the guide I'm writing. My way DOES work, in the way I understand it, and hopefully I manage to convey that understanding. (Also, I have a hard time not debating other people's statements about team building, so I totally get the desire to talk about it).

Let's look at an analogy that may clear this up. Suppose I was writing a guide for "How to impress your dinner guests with a spectacular Roasted Duck with Pork and Lentils". In this hypothetical world, I have in fact, made this dish to the great satisfaction of my guests many times. Now, as I was publishing my recipe, a bunch of other very good chefs chimed in with suggestions about how the duck might turn out better at a certain temperature. Or that they've had success preparing the lentils another way. Both are correct, but changing my personal recipe might not work at all, and is frankly pointless in the context of the recipe itself. Or one of them even points out, "You know, you don't even have to serve duck." They would all be correct, but frankly obnoxious to the writer of the guide on "How to impress your dinner guests with a spectacular Roasted Duck with Pork and Lentils".

On the other hand, discussion of team building and the fun of how to do it IS part of why I'm writing the guide. It would hardly be any fun if everyone else didn't want to debate things. I'm not calling others obnoxious. It's hard to balance that aspect of creating fun dialogue with the desire to release a clear guide on my model that is not clouded with a bunch of other people's contradictory ideas (most of which are quite good). Frankly many of the suggestions, while perfectly viable in other models, don't mesh well with what I try to do. So maybe that's where you're detecting some upset about people disagreeing with my model. Again, any upset there is more about concern for discourse detracting from the piece as a whole, and not with the choices people make about how to run their own teams.

Anywho, lots of you probably don't care and haven't read any of this. Good for you. You have better things to do in life than listen to me.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
aaronweiner
BBA GM
Posts: 12020
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 761 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by aaronweiner » Mon May 27, 2019 8:02 am

Golly. Do I have to come up in every discussion?

Oh, wait, I guess I do.

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by RonCo » Mon May 27, 2019 8:29 am

You're famous.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

felipe
Ex-GM
Posts: 4560
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:21 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by felipe » Mon May 27, 2019 9:40 am

Ted wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 9:02 pm
felipe wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 8:28 pm
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree

When I first joined the BBA, it WAS impossible to get better if you were a 'have not' franchise...of course that was back in 1995

There have been many changes made over the years that have greatly helped competitive balance...

It won't be long before Wichita is a top team and stays there...

It is very possible to win now; you can be slow and systematic and take four or five years, or you can go the trade fleece route for quicker returns

To say the league is uncompetitive is unfair

I think that when you get so many capable GMs, they realize when to go for it, and when to be patient

So maybe it seems boring, but I think it's just the GMs are that much better as a group
You definitely have the long term experience on me. And I agree the GMs are better than when I got here. But writing the previews every season, I take a long look at every team. (I look at both conferences, because I like to see the differences between what Aaron writes and what I write). I really do go through the entire farm for each one when I do it. I'm seeing little to no progress out of upwards of ten franchises that are haven't competed at all for five years. That's a third of the league or so that wasn't competitive five seasons ago, and still doesn't appear to have picked up much (if any) ground. Another five to six franchises have been kind of sort of competitive, but seem to be losing ground. If those guys are losing ground, some of the bottom dwellers should be coming up. They aren't. The top teams are improving instead.

I even did an analysis piece that showed that the league has split into three groups of "have's", "have nots", and "sometimes haves" that are pretty much the same teams over the past seven seasons. There is a lot of objective evidence that we are less competitive, if you look past win totals and start to look at win differential between teams and previous versions of themselves, and win differential within divisions.

This could all be part of a natural cycle. Or it could just be randomness. I can't honestly say I know. But objectively, we've been less competitive.

There are a multitude of reasons I don't think we are set up for this to improve any time soon. One really quick and easy way to look at it is to look at the top farm system list. Yes, it's bloated with 17 and 18 year olds that won't develop, but those guys won't develop at the same rate across all teams if we did this thousands of times. And yes, that list is too short to be a good judge of farm systems. However, the BAD teams should be even CLOSER to the top of a list with those flaws. And they aren't. The top ten systems only include 3 last place teams (and I mean last place for several seasons, not just one year). That would be Wichita, Charm City, and Des Moines. That top ten includes two teams that are among the best in the league, and who haven't been bad for a while. Yellow Springs and Edmonton. Before you mention Edmonton is only recently good, I'd point out that Edmonton should have competed five years ago, and only didn't through incompetent GMs or outright tanking. The top ten also includes Calgary at the top, who hasn't been bad in over a decade. You can throw out this year and call Valencia a bad team in recent years, and make the top ten only slightly weighted towards truly bad teams.

That's awful. Yes, the minor league system rankings aren't everything. But the fact that they look they way they do should tell you something. The way talent is coming into this league is fundamentally deranged and has been. Vancouver and Boise are outside the top ten. How? What has either of those teams done in the last five years besides ostensibly suck and accumulate good picks? Nashville and Hawaii haven't made the playoffs in as long as I can remember, and both are in the bottom third.

I mean, maybe ONE of those guys (and I mean hypothetically, I'm not picking a person) is a horrible GM who keeps trading his prospects for a bag of beans. But not all of them.
I’m gonna go ahead and take umbrage with what you say again

For reference Wichita has picked 1st, 2nd, 10th and 10th overall...and we finished higher than 8 other clubs this year; so we’ve been better than a full third of the league the last three seasons - once we got past our initial expansion season.

By doing little more than picking up other teams leftovers, we are what I would call competitive...not hot garbage at any rate

If the entry draft was the only method of acquiring talent I may agree with you.

But now we have built 2/3 of a quality lineup for next season, and 3/5 of a rotation that doesn’t completely suck.

We will have $70 odd million in cap space to fill in those holes with elite talent in free agency.

And we finally have some reinforcements in the pipeline

If the ‘right’ players are available, you never know what might happen.

So I do think the league is competitive, and I think you will see some changes in the ‘have’ teams in the near (3year) future

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by RonCo » Mon May 27, 2019 10:32 am

Ted wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 9:02 pm
One really quick and easy way to look at it is to look at the top farm system list. Yes, it's bloated with 17 and 18 year olds that won't develop, but those guys won't develop at the same rate across all teams if we did this thousands of times. And yes, that list is too short to be a good judge of farm systems. However, the BAD teams should be even CLOSER to the top of a list with those flaws.
Using the OOTP farm system ratings for anything is very dangerous. Still, they are something. I've been posting a different take that looks at teams' systems in a broader sense, and the data there looks better. I'll post an update shortly. They will still, however, show that teams who manage minors often and well (to this, I include those who manage their personnel coaching the kids?) will be better than those who don't, regardless to some degree of where the team falls in the standings. We are in agreement on many things about the glut of talent, but when looked at as a whole I don't see these lists as an indicator that talent intake is messed up.
... the fact that they look they way they do should tell you something.
Sure. Looking at farm systems list tell you more when you look at them over time. They can say a lot about how teams draft, how they IFA, how they trade (LBC this year did a yo-yo, or the skill of a GM at managing that system. They can show a dependency on minor league FA (like Vegas). They can also be influenced by a string of bad development (Valencia recently)...though there's a not unreasonable argument that this is akin to bad drafting (or at least risky drafting...selecting under-developed high school players is high-risk, high-reward).
The way talent is coming into this league is fundamentally deranged and has been.
Again, none of those things above suggest anything horrible (or good, for that matter) about the way talent comes in. They do say a lot about how GMs go about their work.
Vancouver and Boise are outside the top ten.
Vancouver is in my top 10 now.

Boise has had a turnstile GM and is now led by an otherwise great GM who openly disdains running his minor league system. They will be outside the top 10 until he changes his ways. That's not a complaint or suggestion he do anything. In fact, Boise moved in my more holistic ranks from #19 to #12 this year, which strongly suggests Jeff is a good drafter.
Nashville and Hawaii haven't made the playoffs in as long as I can remember, and both are in the bottom third.
Nashville is in my list of top movers, having gone from #28 this time last year to #14 now.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by RonCo » Mon May 27, 2019 10:36 am

Addendum on what Farm Systems tell you ... one of the first things I do in the rare times I've joined a new league is to go deep dive my division mate's farm systems. I read them as great indicators of who my rivals are as GMs. A highly skilled GM will often have a top-10 farm system regardless of where they draft.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

usnspecialist
Ex-GM
Posts: 6652
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
Location: Manama, Bahrain
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 776 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by usnspecialist » Mon May 27, 2019 11:00 am

RonCo wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:36 am
Addendum on what Farm Systems tell you ... one of the first things I do in the rare times I've joined a new league is to go deep dive my division mate's farm systems. I read them as great indicators of who my rivals are as GMs. A highly skilled GM will often have a top-10 farm system regardless of where they draft.
I suppose I'm the exception that proves the rule there huh?
Randy Weigand

Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-

League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43

Image

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by RonCo » Mon May 27, 2019 11:06 am

usnspecialist wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 11:00 am
RonCo wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:36 am
Addendum on what Farm Systems tell you ... one of the first things I do in the rare times I've joined a new league is to go deep dive my division mate's farm systems. I read them as great indicators of who my rivals are as GMs. A highly skilled GM will often have a top-10 farm system regardless of where they draft.
I suppose I'm the exception that proves the rule there huh?
Farm Systems tell lots of stories. GMs with great teams and crappy minors are often highly-skilled, high-volume traders who leverage every scrap of future value for current value. So, to date, that would seem to fit. :)

(an aside, they will sometimes have reputations as sharky traders, too).
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by RonCo » Mon May 27, 2019 11:13 am

YS9, as another example, fits my personality. Though I'll trade at times, I'm not a high volume trader. I'm a meticulous collector and manager of my minors, though. And I develop players pretty well from inside. If you know what to look for, you'll see it. In my case, if you look at my real prospects in the AAA/AA, and even to a degree A ball, you'll see in their numbers that they generally take a fairly disciplined ride through my system. You;ll also see the personnel I employ to teach them gets managed fairly thoroughly...though studying that can take insane amounts of time.

You also see it in the guys we have on our major league roster, who (especially now that time has passed and I've gotten through the end of the kids I inherited) come mostly from the draft, from occasional forays into the FA market as I need, from bumpers, from minor league contracts, from IFA and scouting finds, and from occasional trades while in the minors.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
Rubaboo
BBA GM
Posts: 2186
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI
Has thanked: 200 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by Rubaboo » Mon May 27, 2019 12:00 pm

usnspecialist wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 11:00 am
RonCo wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:36 am
Addendum on what Farm Systems tell you ... one of the first things I do in the rare times I've joined a new league is to go deep dive my division mate's farm systems. I read them as great indicators of who my rivals are as GMs. A highly skilled GM will often have a top-10 farm system regardless of where they draft.
I suppose I'm the exception that proves the rule there huh?
This is under the assumption that you're a highly skilled GM?
#fakenews #shotsfired
Fred Holmes
General Manager
Mexico City Aztecs - BBA

BBA Champs - 2052
JL Champs - 2027, 2052
JL MW Champs - 2022, 2023, 2024, 2027
JL Sun Belt Champs - 2035, 2036, 2038
JL Frontier Champs - 2051, 2052
JL Manager of the Year - 2023, 2024, 2026, 2052

User avatar
7teen
BBA GM
Posts: 9806
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:59 am
Has thanked: 223 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by 7teen » Mon May 27, 2019 12:23 pm

RonCo wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:36 am
Addendum on what Farm Systems tell you ... one of the first things I do in the rare times I've joined a new league is to go deep dive my division mate's farm systems. I read them as great indicators of who my rivals are as GMs. A highly skilled GM will often have a top-10 farm system regardless of where they draft.
Reading this and realizing you've never had a top-10 farm system :(
Chris Wilson

LB Surfers 95-96
FL Pac Champs: 95

Madison Wolves 99-2039
JL MW: 99-2009, 17, 20, 21
JL WC: 12
JL: 01, 04, 09, 12
FL Heartland: 32
FL WC: 31, 33
BBA Champs: 04, 09

Portland Lumberjacks 2040-
FL Pacific: 50
FL WC: 49, 51
FL Champs: 49, 51

Vic Caleca TN of the Year 2046

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2902 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by RonCo » Mon May 27, 2019 12:33 pm

7teen wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 12:23 pm
RonCo wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:36 am
Addendum on what Farm Systems tell you ... one of the first things I do in the rare times I've joined a new league is to go deep dive my division mate's farm systems. I read them as great indicators of who my rivals are as GMs. A highly skilled GM will often have a top-10 farm system regardless of where they draft.
Reading this and realizing you've never had a top-10 farm system :(
:)

Key word "often."

GMs have various things they enjoy or understand about the game. Just to be pedantic...there are no wrong answers here. Your farm system, combined with your track record, speaks of a GM who is adroit at playing patchwork roster games. That was the reputation you had among the board when I first got here, and that's how you've done your damage...which includes stealing a division title that I wanted. :)

If any of Madison's pitching plans had panned out, you'd probably have another one or two.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

usnspecialist
Ex-GM
Posts: 6652
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
Location: Manama, Bahrain
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 776 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by usnspecialist » Mon May 27, 2019 1:09 pm

Rubaboo wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 12:00 pm
usnspecialist wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 11:00 am
RonCo wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:36 am
Addendum on what Farm Systems tell you ... one of the first things I do in the rare times I've joined a new league is to go deep dive my division mate's farm systems. I read them as great indicators of who my rivals are as GMs. A highly skilled GM will often have a top-10 farm system regardless of where they draft.
I suppose I'm the exception that proves the rule there huh?
This is under the assumption that you're a highly skilled GM?
#fakenews #shotsfired
I am an intelligence professional, I don't make assumptions, I make educated assessments :cool:
Randy Weigand

Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-

League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43

Image

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by Ted » Mon May 27, 2019 3:57 pm

felipe wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 9:40 am
Ted wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 9:02 pm
felipe wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 8:28 pm
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree

When I first joined the BBA, it WAS impossible to get better if you were a 'have not' franchise...of course that was back in 1995

There have been many changes made over the years that have greatly helped competitive balance...

It won't be long before Wichita is a top team and stays there...

It is very possible to win now; you can be slow and systematic and take four or five years, or you can go the trade fleece route for quicker returns

To say the league is uncompetitive is unfair

I think that when you get so many capable GMs, they realize when to go for it, and when to be patient

So maybe it seems boring, but I think it's just the GMs are that much better as a group
You definitely have the long term experience on me. And I agree the GMs are better than when I got here. But writing the previews every season, I take a long look at every team. (I look at both conferences, because I like to see the differences between what Aaron writes and what I write). I really do go through the entire farm for each one when I do it. I'm seeing little to no progress out of upwards of ten franchises that are haven't competed at all for five years. That's a third of the league or so that wasn't competitive five seasons ago, and still doesn't appear to have picked up much (if any) ground. Another five to six franchises have been kind of sort of competitive, but seem to be losing ground. If those guys are losing ground, some of the bottom dwellers should be coming up. They aren't. The top teams are improving instead.

I even did an analysis piece that showed that the league has split into three groups of "have's", "have nots", and "sometimes haves" that are pretty much the same teams over the past seven seasons. There is a lot of objective evidence that we are less competitive, if you look past win totals and start to look at win differential between teams and previous versions of themselves, and win differential within divisions.

This could all be part of a natural cycle. Or it could just be randomness. I can't honestly say I know. But objectively, we've been less competitive.

There are a multitude of reasons I don't think we are set up for this to improve any time soon. One really quick and easy way to look at it is to look at the top farm system list. Yes, it's bloated with 17 and 18 year olds that won't develop, but those guys won't develop at the same rate across all teams if we did this thousands of times. And yes, that list is too short to be a good judge of farm systems. However, the BAD teams should be even CLOSER to the top of a list with those flaws. And they aren't. The top ten systems only include 3 last place teams (and I mean last place for several seasons, not just one year). That would be Wichita, Charm City, and Des Moines. That top ten includes two teams that are among the best in the league, and who haven't been bad for a while. Yellow Springs and Edmonton. Before you mention Edmonton is only recently good, I'd point out that Edmonton should have competed five years ago, and only didn't through incompetent GMs or outright tanking. The top ten also includes Calgary at the top, who hasn't been bad in over a decade. You can throw out this year and call Valencia a bad team in recent years, and make the top ten only slightly weighted towards truly bad teams.

That's awful. Yes, the minor league system rankings aren't everything. But the fact that they look they way they do should tell you something. The way talent is coming into this league is fundamentally deranged and has been. Vancouver and Boise are outside the top ten. How? What has either of those teams done in the last five years besides ostensibly suck and accumulate good picks? Nashville and Hawaii haven't made the playoffs in as long as I can remember, and both are in the bottom third.

I mean, maybe ONE of those guys (and I mean hypothetically, I'm not picking a person) is a horrible GM who keeps trading his prospects for a bag of beans. But not all of them.
I’m gonna go ahead and take umbrage with what you say again

For reference Wichita has picked 1st, 2nd, 10th and 10th overall...and we finished higher than 8 other clubs this year; so we’ve been better than a full third of the league the last three seasons - once we got past our initial expansion season.

By doing little more than picking up other teams leftovers, we are what I would call competitive...not hot garbage at any rate

If the entry draft was the only method of acquiring talent I may agree with you.

But now we have built 2/3 of a quality lineup for next season, and 3/5 of a rotation that doesn’t completely suck.

We will have $70 odd million in cap space to fill in those holes with elite talent in free agency.

And we finally have some reinforcements in the pipeline

If the ‘right’ players are available, you never know what might happen.

So I do think the league is competitive, and I think you will see some changes in the ‘have’ teams in the near (3year) future
I am NOT trying to be insulting. I do apologize for any hurt feelings. I hear the arguments you are making from many teams. What I strongly feel is that you (and they) are wrong. Again, I think there are a number of quality GMs who have not adjusted to the glut of talent in the league and are overrating their own teams. I also think we see things in different ways.

So I'm going to be an ass and keep driving the same point. I'm not trying to pick on you, Stu, or say you are a bad GM. This "conversation" could occur with any number of GMs. You just happened to be the one to engage me.

I do not see what you call 2/3rds of a quality lineup. You have one legitimate young superstar in Alex Ramirez. He is truly good and can be a centerpiece. If you only have one of those guys, you'll never have a top offense. But one is good enough for a solid offense. But for that solid offense to happen, you have to have other above average players. Right now, Wichita has 3 other bats with an OPS+ over 100. Don Logan will be a free agent (or if you extend him he'll be old). Gabriel Talamate is over 30. Alvin Dickinson has a career OPS+ under 100. Those are the only above average bats on your team right now. Gary Schneider is just kind of solid role player type. Useful, but replaceable.

The only bats in your top 30 prospects that look to be above average players are your top three. Gouzie, Bowen, and Hernandez. By the time they are good, Logan, Talamate, and Dickinson will either be aging and less effective, or gone. You might get one year with all those guys contributing. That is NOT a quality offense. Compare that projected talent to say, Nashville, who had bats like Moreland, Suarez, Yong, Kamade, and Jackson. They only managed a 6th place offense with that team. That's good, but not enough to carry a team. Your projected offense pales in comparison to the contenders who rely on offense. Jacksonville, Rockville, Phoenix, San Fernando. Madison's offense is vastly superior. The offense I see you projecting looks middle of the pack to bottom of the top third.

That would be fine, but you don't have any pitching. You say 3/5th's of a rotation that doesn't completely suck. Hiroyuki Rin is your only starter with a FIP or ERA under 4. You have no other starters with ERA's under 4.5. Only one more has a FIP under 4.5. So let's look at Rin, Muira, and Sanchez. Rin is 32. His clock is ticking loudly. Muira is 29. He may be able to maintain his level of mid to back rotation stuff 3-4 more years. Sanchez is 29. Same story. In your minors you have Feliciano and Montoya. Neither will be developed or on your team with all three of your current starters. Maybe one of those three will still be around when those guys are ready. Definitely none of your current offensive plus players outside of Ramirez will be.

You do have a crapton of budget space, so some free agent acquisitions could make all the difference. But the players currently on your roster and in your system may get one year, two tops together. As currently constructed, they look like at best a bottom of the top third offense and a bad pitching staff. You are currently 10th and 11th in those rankings, which is why Wichita lost 90 games this year. So lets say you end up 6th on offense and say 9th in pitching with your internal assets. That's a mediocre team. Not even .500 probably. So you're counting on picking up 10+ wins from FA? 1) That's hard to do. 2)Those will be expensive and usually short lived, given the age of most FA acquisitions.

I just think that the number of bad teams and lack of competitive teams in the Johnson particularly is skewing people's perceptions. Yes, you can compare yourself to the other bad teams in this league and see how you could be better than them. That doesn't make you a contender. Those teams are bad. All of them are worse than they "should" be. Not because of their GMs, many of whom like you, are good at this, but because the top teams have been getting replacement talent through the draft, IFA, and scout finds at the close to same rate the losing teams are. You shouldn't be shooting for beating out the other bad teams. You should be shooting for Jacksonville, Rockville, Yellow Springs, Edmonton. The teams I hear people telling me they are trying to construct don't have a chance in hell of beating teams as good as those ones. You may be improving, and you may be doing a good job of improving given the resources that have been made available to you, but it's not enough.

I don't understand why I'm meeting so much resistance about this. It's a simple concept. Teams have a certain amount of talent. They overwhelming way teams with less talent make up ground is through the draft. In recent years, scout finds, IFA, and the depth of the draft have made it so that the replacement talent is coming in much more evenly, instead of skewing the top replacement talent to the teams that have lost recently. This is because the overpowered scout finds (which thankfully have been turned down) are essentially random addition of talent. IFA actually favors already good teams, because most often those are the teams will lots of cash. Now we've had a bunch of super deep drafts, which also pull talent away from worse teams because the depth of players leads to more randomness in development. All of this has made the flow of good prospects to losing teams not nearly what it was a decade ago.

Anyway, I'm at the point now where I'm sure most of you have just decided I'm a huge piece of shit and just like to pick on people to be mean. Or I'm completely off my rocker and just a jackass. Or something. Whatever. If I haven't convinced anyone by now, I'm not going to.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Bumstead
Ex-GM
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by Bumstead » Mon May 27, 2019 4:25 pm

After all of Wichita's "brilliance," Boise somehow had a better record than Wichita.... :P

I find it very difficult to make a trade in this league, unless I'm making a trade where I'm being fleeced. So, I quit trying. I realize the truth isn't popular here. I just can't do anything with trade ideas that start out as a fleece from my side. I'm not much on continuing from being insulted to agreement.

I always hear how great the GM's are in this league. I know there are good GM's in this league, but I am in other leagues with really good GM's where I can trade without being insulted. Those are the leagues that get the majority of my time. I'm waiting on this league to come around.

User avatar
JimBob2232
BBA GM
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by JimBob2232 » Mon May 27, 2019 4:37 pm

Yum. Duck. Lentils. Where is this great recipe you speak of?

#threadhijackattempt

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by Ted » Mon May 27, 2019 4:44 pm

JimBob2232 wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 4:37 pm
Yum. Duck. Lentils. Where is this great recipe you speak of?

#threadhijackattempt
Strong work. :D

Also, I don't like duck.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
JimBob2232
BBA GM
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by JimBob2232 » Mon May 27, 2019 4:53 pm

Ted wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 4:44 pm
JimBob2232 wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 4:37 pm
Yum. Duck. Lentils. Where is this great recipe you speak of?

#threadhijackattempt
Strong work. :D

Also, I don't like duck.
No recipe? Thats fine. I'll opine anyway. it didnt have enough sauce, so make sure you double the sauce. Also, i didnt have any red lentils, so i used green ones. I threw in a little smoked paprika to give it some additional flavor because it didnt seem like it had enough. I also chose to use my sous vide cooker for the duck. Made it very moist and tender. Excellent recipe! Definitely a family favorite! 5 Stars.

#stilltryin'

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Biggest Loser?

Post by Ted » Mon May 27, 2019 5:02 pm

JimBob2232 wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 4:53 pm
Ted wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 4:44 pm
JimBob2232 wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 4:37 pm
Yum. Duck. Lentils. Where is this great recipe you speak of?

#threadhijackattempt
Strong work. :D

Also, I don't like duck.
No recipe? Thats fine. I'll opine anyway. it didnt have enough sauce, so make sure you double the sauce. Also, i didnt have any red lentils, so i used green ones. I threw in a little smoked paprika to give it some additional flavor because it didnt seem like it had enough. I also chose to use my sous vide cooker for the duck. Made it very moist and tender. Excellent recipe! Definitely a family favorite! 5 Stars.

#stilltryin'
Yes! This is EVERY Review of EVERY online recipe ever. Five Stars! Well done sir!
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “League Polls”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests