Re: 2015 - A Year of the Pitcher
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:00 pm
The challenge of adjusting my strategy to the league's peculiarities are not at all the problem; I enjoy that aspect of it as well.
The thing is, the peculiarities are extreme, like beyond-anything-that's-ever-happened extreme. A pitcher's league is fine; I have no preference whatsoever whether the league is skewed towards pitchers or hitters, or power or speed, or whatever. But we could raise the league batting average in this league by ten, fifteen, even twenty points and it would still be a pitcher's league. I don't think raising the offense to a historically recognizable level would suddenly negate your strategic planning if you've been tailoring your decisions based on a run-starved environment; we have a long way to go before we get to "not run-starved".
As far as the stats, are you suggesting they don't "look pretty awful" now? I have a guy whose lifetime batting average is .227. He's a two-time All-Star. Stats are only "meaningless" when taken out of context. The sport changes, and the significance of the numbers changes with it. The power numbers in the 1910's "look awful." The WHIPs of the '30's "look awful". The batting averages of 1968 "look awful" (except in comparison with the GLBL). I don't see any problem with the 2015-2016 hitting stats "looking awful" out of context, just as I don't see any problem with the pitching stats for those years looking awesome out of context. If the game "corrects itself", as Mike believes it will, those numbers are eventually going to "look" out of place anyway; it's just a matter of when.
I don't have any issue with the league having its own character. I'd just prefer it to have a character I recognize. To take the discussion to a perhaps ridiculous extreme, is there a limit to how far from reality it can get before it starts to become a concern? What if the league were hitting .100? What if we averaged two strikeouts an inning? If that wouldn't be a problem for you, then okay; I give up. If it would be a problem, then you do understand what I'm saying; you're just drawing a line at a different place than I am.
The thing is, the peculiarities are extreme, like beyond-anything-that's-ever-happened extreme. A pitcher's league is fine; I have no preference whatsoever whether the league is skewed towards pitchers or hitters, or power or speed, or whatever. But we could raise the league batting average in this league by ten, fifteen, even twenty points and it would still be a pitcher's league. I don't think raising the offense to a historically recognizable level would suddenly negate your strategic planning if you've been tailoring your decisions based on a run-starved environment; we have a long way to go before we get to "not run-starved".
As far as the stats, are you suggesting they don't "look pretty awful" now? I have a guy whose lifetime batting average is .227. He's a two-time All-Star. Stats are only "meaningless" when taken out of context. The sport changes, and the significance of the numbers changes with it. The power numbers in the 1910's "look awful." The WHIPs of the '30's "look awful". The batting averages of 1968 "look awful" (except in comparison with the GLBL). I don't see any problem with the 2015-2016 hitting stats "looking awful" out of context, just as I don't see any problem with the pitching stats for those years looking awesome out of context. If the game "corrects itself", as Mike believes it will, those numbers are eventually going to "look" out of place anyway; it's just a matter of when.
I don't have any issue with the league having its own character. I'd just prefer it to have a character I recognize. To take the discussion to a perhaps ridiculous extreme, is there a limit to how far from reality it can get before it starts to become a concern? What if the league were hitting .100? What if we averaged two strikeouts an inning? If that wouldn't be a problem for you, then okay; I give up. If it would be a problem, then you do understand what I'm saying; you're just drawing a line at a different place than I am.