Computer manager is smokin' the reefer

Rondell Tate · 06-26-2009, 02:14 PM

I'm early in a 1967 historical league with a fantasy draft. One team I played had an ... unusual lineup.
Leading off ... 1B Boog Powell ...

At which point I say to myself, "Self, did you set the lineup choices to Traditional like I asked you to?" I'm pretty sure I did, but then I thought, well, maybe they just don't have a good leadoff hitter and Boog's high OBP potential makes sense despite the fact he's slower than BBQ and is going to lead the league in solo HR ... or maybe they've just got every HR hitter in the league ...

Batting fourth ... 2B Rod Carew ...

And it's not one game. I've played them two series so far and in every game but one, it's been Boog leading off and Carew batting fourth.

I'll keep you folks updated on how it works out.

SteveP · 06-26-2009, 03:35 PM

I used to get kind of worked up over how the AI managed batting orders, then I realized most of the time my objections had to do with the leadoff batter. Then I started to realize how difficult it would be to program an AI to make the "correct" decision on a leadoff batter. Given 30 MLB managers (or whatever) you'll get 35-40 different types of leadoff batter decisions.

So, now I sort of follow the AI's decisions with curiosity, more than anything else, because sometimes its seemingly unconventional decisions work remarkably well.

Rondell Tate · 06-26-2009, 04:00 PM

Yeah, I'm not worked up over it. In fact, I'm thinking of backing it up and playing it out separately to see which one works best ... Carew's going to advance the runners as well as anybody in the game, but I think Boog's OBP is 50 points too low for this to make any sense at all.

SteveP · 06-27-2009, 04:18 PM

The only thing I tried to do was convince Markus to block catchers from being leadoff batters. It happens so rarely in history, that I thought he'd bite. No such luck. So, I'm getting used to seeing catchers leading off. We learn to adapt.

captaincarl · 06-27-2009, 05:32 PM

I read an article by Bill James in one of his books. He did an experiment with the 1935 Cubs and their lineup. He had the lineup the Cubs used and simulated a bunch of full seasons to get their production. After that, he inverted the lineup and did the same thing. He saw that the results were almost the same. In fact, the inverted lineup only produced, I think, about 1/2 run less per game.

It's not where the player bats, it's what they produce that matters.

Afino · 06-27-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captaincarl

I read an article by Bill James in one of his books. He did an experiment with the 1935 Cubs and their lineup. He had the lineup the Cubs used and simulated a bunch of full seasons to get their production. After that, he inverted the lineup and did the same thing. He saw that the results were almost the same. In fact, the inverted lineup only produced, I think, about 1/2 run less per game.

It's not where the player bats, it's what they produce that matters.

Not to mention Billy Martin's "hat trick".

Left-handed Badger · 06-27-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captaincarl

I read an article by Bill James in one of his books. He did an experiment with the 1935 Cubs and their lineup. He had the lineup the Cubs used and simulated a bunch of full seasons to get their production. After that, he inverted the lineup and did the same thing. He saw that the results were almost the same. In fact, the inverted lineup only produced, I think, about 1/2 run less per game.

It's not where the player bats, it's what they produce that matters.

I dont know. Over a full season 1/2 run a game is A LOT. (about 75-80 runs)

Afino · 06-27-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

I dont know. Over a full season 1/2 run a game is A LOT. (about 75-80 runs)

And 75-80 runs is a 7-8 win difference per season...

I'd say that's "significant".

captaincarl · 06-27-2009, 11:28 PM

The book by Bill James is in my town's library. I'll take another look and write down his results.

Rondell Tate · 06-28-2009, 12:17 AM

A month into the season and they've pushed Boog to fifth. Still have Carew batting cleanup:
Dick Howser (.326 OBP)
Richie Scheinblum (.309 OBP, 1HR)
Matty Alou (.381 BA, 9 RBI)
Carew (.322 OBP, 10 RBI)
Powell (.328, 5 HR, 13 RBI)

Tied for 8th in HR (8) and second in runs (79).

06-26-2009, 02:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rondell Tate Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 169 Thanked 1x in 1 post	Computer manager is smokin' the reefer I'm early in a 1967 historical league with a fantasy draft. One team I played had an ... unusual lineup. Leading off ... 1B Boog Powell ... At which point I say to myself, "Self, did you set the lineup choices to Traditional like I asked you to?" I'm pretty sure I did, but then I thought, well, maybe they just don't have a good leadoff hitter and Boog's high OBP potential makes sense despite the fact he's slower than BBQ and is going to lead the league in solo HR ... or maybe they've just got every HR hitter in the league ... Batting fourth ... 2B Rod Carew ... And it's not one game. I've played them two series so far and in every game but one, it's been Boog leading off and Carew batting fourth. I'll keep you folks updated on how it works out. __________________

06-26-2009, 04:00 PM	#3 (permalink)
Rondell Tate Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 169 Thanked 1x in 1 post	Yeah, I'm not worked up over it. In fact, I'm thinking of backing it up and playing it out separately to see which one works best ... Carew's going to advance the runners as well as anybody in the game, but I think Boog's OBP is 50 points too low for this to make any sense at all. __________________

06-28-2009, 12:17 AM	#10 (permalink)
Rondell Tate Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 169 Thanked 1x in 1 post	A month into the season and they've pushed Boog to fifth. Still have Carew batting cleanup: Dick Howser (.326 OBP) Richie Scheinblum (.309 OBP, 1HR) Matty Alou (.381 BA, 9 RBI) Carew (.322 OBP, 10 RBI) Powell (.328, 5 HR, 13 RBI) Tied for 8th in HR (8) and second in runs (79). __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-26-2009, 03:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
SteveP Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,768 Thanked 260x in 197 posts	I used to get kind of worked up over how the AI managed batting orders, then I realized most of the time my objections had to do with the leadoff batter. Then I started to realize how difficult it would be to program an AI to make the "correct" decision on a leadoff batter. Given 30 MLB managers (or whatever) you'll get 35-40 different types of leadoff batter decisions. So, now I sort of follow the AI's decisions with curiosity, more than anything else, because sometimes its seemingly unconventional decisions work remarkably well.

06-27-2009, 04:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
SteveP Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,768 Thanked 260x in 197 posts	The only thing I tried to do was convince Markus to block catchers from being leadoff batters. It happens so rarely in history, that I thought he'd bite. No such luck. So, I'm getting used to seeing catchers leading off. We learn to adapt.

06-27-2009, 05:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
captaincarl Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Location: Barrington, RI Posts: 3,944 Thanked 97x in 90 posts	I read an article by Bill James in one of his books. He did an experiment with the 1935 Cubs and their lineup. He had the lineup the Cubs used and simulated a bunch of full seasons to get their production. After that, he inverted the lineup and did the same thing. He saw that the results were almost the same. In fact, the inverted lineup only produced, I think, about 1/2 run less per game. It's not where the player bats, it's what they produce that matters.

06-27-2009, 11:28 PM	#9 (permalink)
captaincarl Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Location: Barrington, RI Posts: 3,944 Thanked 97x in 90 posts	The book by Bill James is in my town's library. I'll take another look and write down his results.