I know a thing or two about the 53 and 61 Yankees. But if someone professes to know more, they can take them.

SG had "managing" the 1998 Yankees in mind from the beginning.

:)

SG, I'll do the 1912 Red Sox.

I'll do the '78 Yankees

Put me down for the 1995 Indians.

I suppose I should make my email available.

Are you guys planning on trying to program the manager profiles to get the team to play the way it did historically, or to maximize results in the game?

That is, are the '98 Yankees going to lead off with Chuck Knoblauch, because he was the real lead-off man, or Derek Jeter because he compiled a better stat line for a leadoff hitter?

I could see it either way. If these teams were put in some kind of time machine league, why wouldn't they try to adapt and innovate? On the other hand, Joe Torre was part of the 1998 Yankees too, and maybe you are not really simulating them if you don't acknowledge his clearly established choices.

It is important to be unbiased - try your best. Try not to give excellent's on defense unless they're considered an all-time great defender. Don't give very good's in the OF unless they're gold glove quality.

Those are my only two suggestions.

I'm excited to see the results.

Chris, I was going to keep Knoblauch at leadoff since it wouldn't matter much whether it was he or Jeter leading off. As far as what people should do, I vote for the flexibility of changing whatever they want. The one thing I'm going to do is restrict the playing time of any part-time players who would skew the results significantly (Shane Spencer '98 for instance).

Spivey, I'm using Diamond Mind's official versions of almost every team and I think their ratings are pretty fair. For the teams I had to create, I used the ratings that they had assigned to those players on other disks that I had. For the '01 Mariners it was easy as I have the 2002 projection disk. For the '95 Indians I used the ratings I had from the '97 and '98 disks where possible.

I'll save all the data from all the runs in case anyone wants to look at anything, and post the results every 100 runs or so unless people want them more frequently.

Playing '98 Spencer in this sim league would make the '98 Yankees unstoppable (not that they aren't already). He'd probably give Babe Ruth a run for his money with the rate stats he put up in that one month.

Are players who were injured during the year in question or acquired/traded during the course of the year available the whole year or only as much as they actually were -- e.g. Jose Canseco and Rickey Henderson on the 1989 Athletics, Bob Gibson on the 1967 Cardinals

If this is supposed to go with the team that you know the most about, and I can be quickly brought up to speed on the DMB rules, then I'd like to do '55 Brooklyn.

If no-one else wants the 68 Tigers, I can do them. But if someone else wants to put in a claim, feel free. I'm a bit pressed for time for the next couple of weeks, but could fit this in if necessary to get the simulation going. It depends when the deadline is.

Ivan Grushenko, I will let players who had part-time duty during the course of the year be fully available, provided their stats are not anomolous to the point that they would skew the results significantly.

Alex, the rules are pretty straightforward for Diamond Mind. What I'll need from the volunteers are a few manager settings for basic baseball stuff such as frequency of bunting, propensity of stealing, etc., and then the lineups and pitching staffs set up. I'll send emails to all the volunteers, I don't think it will take too long to do it.

Ivan Grushenko, I will let players who had part-time duty during the course of the year be fully available, provided their stats are not anomolous to the point that they would skew the results significantly.

Alex, the rules are pretty straightforward for Diamond Mind. What I'll need from the volunteers are a few manager settings for basic baseball stuff such as frequency of bunting, propensity of stealing, etc.


So I get to let Newk pinchit?

Also, how do you want people to deal with "propensity of stealing"? Compared to your average 1955 NL team, the Dodgers were the freakin' '85 Cardinals, and they obviously had the horses to run with anyone (Gilliam & Jackie), but they still only stole 70-someodd bases as a team that season. Do they run, or not?

I don't own the latest version of DMB, but would be willing to set lineups, rotations, and tendencies for the '54 Indians if owning the game isn't a prerequisite.

Fantastic. I'll be waiting to hear from you, SG.

Do they run, or not?

That's your call. Currently, Diamond Mind has them set as neutral.

I don't own the latest version of DMB, but would be willing to set lineups, rotations, and tendencies for the '54 Indians if owning the game isn't a prerequisite.

Nope, you don't need the game. I'll send you what settings I need.

I'd like to take either the 61 or 53 Yanks, whichever is available.

I'll do the 2001 Mariners.

Do the DH's just sit out the road games, or does Edgar Martinez, say, get to play first base? Perhaps this is one of those manager's decisions you're talking about.

Edgar Martinez, say, get to play first base?

Or third base ...

I wouldn't mind doing the 1989 A's. But I was young at the time, so my memories of usage patterns may not be as good as some others' memories, so if someone else asks nicely, they can have the bash brothers.

The question of whether or not I get Rickey and Jose is important -- that's the mid-season roster change issue, and injured much of the season issue. I think that since both players played a sizeable chunk of the season, and were everyday players when available, they should be available all season.

Canseco issue: I've not played DMB, but my recollection of the old Pursue the Pennant PT limits is that they were for part-timers and platoon guys (especially so that you couldn't take advantage of freak splits) and that full-timers who were injured but still got 60+ games or so were not given PT limits, but did have a "major" injury likelihood.

Henderson issue: These teams are all more likely to add talent midseason, not deal it away. In that respect, I think players acquired midseason or for the stretch run should be available to use all year. I don't know how much this interacts with the injury issue (trades to replace an injured player) but I think it's better to have the injury replacement on hand in case the guy does get hurt again.

Do the DH's just sit out the road games, or does Edgar Martinez, say, get to play first base? Perhaps this is one of those manager's decisions you're talking about.

Manager's discretion. I won't allow a player to play a position he is not rated at though, so Martinez could not play 3B in 2001.

The question of whether or not I get Rickey and Jose is important -- that's the mid-season roster change issue, and injured much of the season issue. I think that since both players played a sizeable chunk of the season, and were everyday players when available, they should be available all season.

I agree, and would allow both to be available all year. The only players I would prefer to restrict the use of are the ones who had a realistically unsustainable performance in a very small sample size which would cause problems if they were given a full-time role.

So I get to let Newk pinchit?

And I guess Kevin gets to try Smokey Joe Wood at DH.

Good luck DCA.

The Mariners get hurt by the DH thing, as they have to sit either Olerud or Edgar for half their games.

SG, does the game use only the stats from the year in question? For example, Jay Buhner quite possibly would have been the best option in LF for the Mariners (they started him there often when he finally came back from injury), but he hit kind of poorly in 53 PAs.

The Mariners get hurt by the DH thing, as they have to sit either Olerud or Edgar for half their games.

A little less than half, as they get to use the DH in the games at '74 Oakland, '78 Yanks, '84 Tigers, '89 A's, and '95 Indians. Edgar gets about 100 games if used strictly as a DH.

Does the game use only the stats from the year in question?

Yes, that's the way it works. Al Martin doesn't do it for you?

The Mariners get hurt by the DH thing, as they have to sit either Olerud or Edgar for half their games.

I think the non-DH teams (that is, the post-DH rule NL teams and everyone before that) actually get hurt worse because they have their standard (with pitcher) line-up for ~half the games but then a guy who probably isn't good enough to start for the rest with DH whereas the DH teams have a tangible offensive advantage there

I understand this stuff, but if we're trying to determine the best team, shouldn't we let DMB auto-manage, to the point where it sets the lineups? Otherwise, the people with a rock-solid understanding of DMB and player ratings will give their teams an advantage that this study doesn't account for.

Al Martin doesn't do it for you?

Hmmm... no. So I think McLemore is a better choice. He had significantly more playing time than Martin overall, and Martin only had about 1/3 of the innings in LF.

McLemore was crazy that year, starting games at every position except 1B and C.

I think the non-DH teams (that is, the post-DH rule NL teams and everyone before that) actually get hurt worse because they have their standard (with pitcher) line-up for ~half the games but then a guy who probably isn't good enough to start for the rest with DH whereas the DH teams have a tangible offensive advantage there

Well, it's hard to say who gets hurt more. Obviously, the teams are constructed for the environment they play in, which is one reason these sorts of things can never be definitive. The Mariners had both Olerud and Edgar because they knew they had a DH. The older teams didn't bother to find a DH because they had no reason to.

I understand this stuff, but if we're trying to determine the best team, shouldn't we let DMB auto-manage, to the point where it sets the lineups? Otherwise, the people with a rock-solid understanding of DMB and player ratings will give their teams an advantage that this study doesn't account for.

Diamond Mind's auto-managing is a little weak which is why I'm soliciting input from others. I don't think anyone would take the results of this as the definitive answer to the question of which team is the best, so I like the idea of letting people help out to make it a little more fun. If the '01 Mariners go 42 and 120 we'll know how bad of a manager Mug is.

Put me down for the 1906 Cubs, if you still need someone. I'll try to stifle my Dusty-leaning tendencies long enough to give them a decent chance to compete.

Hey UCCF, drop me an e-mail if you would.

If the '01 Mariners go 42 and 120 we'll know how bad of a manager Mug is.

Are you saying John Halama *shouldn't* be the #1 starter?

Why in the world are the '55 Dodgers and '89 A's here in place of the '53 and '90 versions?

Why in the world are the '55 Dodgers and '89 A's here in place of the '53 and '90 versions?

Popular vote

That's ridiculous. The entire purpose of the exercise is defeated by this.

Popular vote

Because they won the world series. That's a little bit important to some of us.

I think the non-DH teams (that is, the post-DH rule NL teams and everyone before that) actually get hurt worse because they have their standard (with pitcher) line-up for ~half the games but then a guy who probably isn't good enough to start for the rest with DH whereas the DH teams have a tangible offensive advantage there

Especially the really early teams. The 1906 Cubs had only 3 players other than the starting 8 compile over 3 AB's, and one of them was the second catcher. The Cubs DH looks to be Solly Hofman who compiled a .256/.326/.328 line in 195 AB's.

Because they won the world series. That's a little bit important to some of us.

Too important, apparently. The difference between winning and losing the World Series can't carry so much weight that you decide the team whose four and five hitters combined to hit .243/.319/.376 is the one that belongs. It just can't.

I'm also really curious as to how the 1906 Cubs will compete pitching wise. Assuming a 5 man rotation, that gives them a 3 man bullpen, as they had only 8 pitchers throw more than 1 inning.

So, in DH games, assuming a 5 man rotation, they have a 2 man bench and a 3 man pen.

Can that really work?

That's ridiculous. The entire purpose of the exercise is defeated by this.

You're free to conduct your own exercise.

Too important, apparently. The difference between winning and losing the World Series can't carry so much weight that you decide the team whose four and five hitters combined to hit .243/.319/.376 is the one that belongs. It just can't.

Please tell me you're not basing your entire argument on how well two hitters did for one of the two years? How about the pitching? 1955 pitching looks better at a glance than the 1953 pitching. '55 Dodgers led league in both hitting and pitching. '53 Dodgers only led league in hitting, 3rd in pitching.

I think it's a sound choice to go with the '55 World Series champion Dodgers over the '53 team.

I suppose it's lucky that the 1906 Cubs were chosen though, as the 1907 team had a 7 man pitching staff, with the 7th man posting a 76 ERA+.

So, in DH games, assuming a 5 man rotation, they have a 2 man bench and a 3 man pen.

Well, the Cubs had six men in their rotation. You could set up so that only four of them are in the rotation, so that gives you two extra bullpen arms. Plus those starters completed a huge percenage of their games, I don't know what DMB will do with that, but it hopefully adjusts somehow.

LobGM, respectfully, we had two threads picking these teams, both with a week+ to vote, you're a little late to the party to come in and start knocking the choices. That time has passed, friend

If you're going to let real Diamond Mind dummies participate, and bear with their utter ignorance, and nobody else wants it, I volunteer for the '46 Red Sox. Happy to bow out immediately if anyone wants it who knows what he's doing.

I'll take the '29 A's. If they're already taken, the '09 Pirates. Or whoever's left.

I'm also really curious as to how the 1906 Cubs will compete pitching wise. Assuming a 5 man rotation, that gives them a 3 man bullpen, as they had only 8 pitchers throw more than 1 inning.

So, in DH games, assuming a 5 man rotation, they have a 2 man bench and a 3 man pen.

Can that really work?

They can probably go with a 4 man rotation, as I think most of the earlier teams should. DH is going to be a problem, but I guess the best hitting pitcher could fill the role. They seem to hold their own in these combined leagues, so I guess Diamond Mind can handle them.

DMB question: Will the player's L/R ability reflect their splits from that year or what? How is that determined by the game?

DH is going to be a problem, but I guess the best hitting pitcher could fill the role. They seem to hold their own in these combined leagues, so I guess Diamond Mind can handle them

How does DMB handle injuries? Is there a generic injury event, and based on how much the affected player actually played, the time missed is assigned accordingly? For example, a player who played every day gets injured and thus misses the rest of the game, but if it is a bit player, he's out for significantly longer. Or is a serious injury a serious injury, regardless of a player's "durability"?

Plus those starters completed a huge percenage of their games, I don't know what DMB will do with that, but it hopefully adjusts somehow.

One would hope, but there are a lot of offensive powerhouses here. How many games are they going to complete against the likes of the '95 Indians, the '01 Mariners, and the '75 Reds?

Mug, actual splits are in there where available. Older teams don't have splits so I believe the game handles them generically based on past history.

How does DMB handle injuries?

Each player is given an injury rating. Iron, normal, and prone are the only three, I believe. Most players are normal and prone, and only those who play each and every game or almost each and every game will receive the Iron status.

Got it. So, in the case of Edgar Martinez, for example: he hit RHP better in 2001 even though he hit LHP better for his career--DMB would treat him as being better against RHP?

How does DMB handle injuries? Is there a generic injury event, and based on how much the affected player actually played, the time missed is assigned accordingly?

Players are assigned an injury rating, which you can choose to use, or not use. You can turn injuries off completely, or set up random injuries. Most injuries are short-term. I don't think I see much in the way of season-ending injuries. Maybe I'll save the injury reports too.

I like variance in my runs, so I usually use the random setting.

So, in the case of Edgar Martinez, for example: he hit RHP better in 2001 even though he hit LHP better for his career--DMB would treat him as being better against RHP?

Right.

he hit RHP better in 2001 even though he hit LHP better for his career--DMB would treat him as being better against RHP?

Yes, DMB goes by single-season statistics, and its ratings for a player are also based solely on single-season performance.

The one thing I'm going to do is restrict the playing time of any part-time players who would skew the results significantly (Shane Spencer '98 for instance).


Perhaps just restrict all players to 110% of their PT. Perhaps a bit more for those teams who only played in seasons with 154 games. Perhaps 115% for those guys. Base it on PA and BFP. This is only a suggestion.

Each player is given an injury rating. Iron, normal, and prone are the only three, I believe. Most players are normal and prone, and only those who play each and every game or almost each and every game will receive the Iron status.

Ok, so again with the '06 Cubs. They played 152 official games. Evers played 154 (obviously a few suspended games there). He's obviously an iron man, as is Steinfeldt who played 151. 3 other guys played between 146 and 149. Iron?

Does anyone have the '86 Mets?

I think the non-DH teams (that is, the post-DH rule NL teams and everyone before that) actually get hurt worse because they have their standard (with pitcher) line-up for ~half the games but then a guy who probably isn't good enough to start for the rest with DH whereas the DH teams have a tangible offensive advantage there

There are only seven DH teams in the field, so a non-DH team will play only about 20 games with the DH.

There are only seven DH teams in the field, so a non-DH team will play only about 20 games with the DH.

So 21 games, given each team plays each other team six times, three at home and three on the road; and DH used only when DH-team is the home team.

3 other guys played between 146 and 149. Iron?

Not sure exactly. SG could easily post all the player ratings somewhere. I can easily post 'em on my website later tonight for everyone.

In the initial setup for this, some were arguing for inclusion of the 1897 Bostons. I wonder how they would have fared with their 5 man pitching staff?

I'll stop now.

I'm looking forward to the season.

Perhaps just restrict all players to 110% of their PT. Perhaps a bit more for those teams who only played in seasons with 154 games. Perhaps 115% for those guys. Base it on PA and BFP. This is only a suggestion.

That's not a bad idea, although I'd probably give a little higher threshold like 125-150 or so.

Ok, so again with the '06 Cubs. They played 152 official games. Evers played 154 (obviously a few suspended games there). He's obviously an iron man, as is Steinfeldt who played 151. 3 other guys played between 146 and 149. Iron?

Evers, Sheckard, Steinfeldt, and Tinker are all rated Iron. Everyone else is rated as normal.

Does anyone have the '86 Mets?

Nope, not yet. They're yours if you want them.

There are only seven DH teams in the field, so a non-DH team will play only about 20 games with the DH.

Good point. It will hurt the Mariners significantly more to have 60ish games without Edgar/Olerud than it will help them to have both while another team has to scrape up a DH for 21 games, I'd think.

I understand this stuff, but if we're trying to determine the best team, shouldn't we let DMB auto-manage, to the point where it sets the lineups? Otherwise, the people with a rock-solid understanding of DMB and player ratings will give their teams an advantage that this study doesn't account for.

I was thinking about this, too. But rather than just using the auto-generated profiles, I hope we can solve that problem by trusting the people setting the manager profiles to recognize that this isn't a competition -- it's a study. They shouldn't try to take advantage of quirks in the game or anything; instead, they should try to put together a realistic profile, one that will accurately represent the team's talent.

I'll take the 1970 orioles.

How do we send the MP's to you SG?

Can't the '46 Red Sox play with a DH under a special dispensation? You may be able to guess why I'm asking....

Good point. It will hurt the Mariners significantly more to have 60ish games without Edgar/Olerud than it will help them to have both while another team has to scrape up a DH for 21 games, I'd think.

Maybe the vagaries will balance out. The M's get screwed out of one of their 4 best hitters for 60 games. The '06 Cubs get a 253 ERA+ starter every 4th game (and 159 or better 75% of the time), but they're saddled with a 3 man bench ( 2 in DH games) and a 4 man pen.

They shouldn't try to take advantage of quirks in the game or anything; instead, they should try to put together a realistic profile, one that will accurately represent the team's talent.

Boo!!!

But I agree.

That's not a bad idea, although I'd probably give a little higher threshold like 125-150 or so.

That's fine with me, as the '75 Reds will then be able to use Clay Kirby only in an emergency situation.

How do we send the MP's to you SG?

MHS (and everyone else who's volunteered), check your emails.

Can't the '46 Red Sox play with a DH under a special dispensation? You may be able to guess why I'm asking....

Well, either you want to remove Rudy York's Iron glove, or your pitcher's iron bats (2 of 4 starters with an OPS+ in the negatives)

While I've been prattling on about the '06 Cubs, I noticed that the '05 Giants are in the sim, they of the 5 man pitching staff. OK, 6 man staff, sort of, as they got 38 below replacement innings out of Claude Elliot (73 ERA+).

Every one of their starters relieved in a few games, McGinnity 8, Mathewson 6, Ames 3, Taylor 4, and Wiltse 13. How on earth is that staff managed? Is every pitcher available every day?

You're free to conduct your own exercise.

The stated purpose of this exercise is to pit the greatest teams against each other. The inclusion of inferior teams runs counter to the entire premise. You're free to, y'know, actually address that point.


Please tell me you're not basing your entire argument on how well two hitters did for one of the two years? How about the pitching? 1955 pitching looks better at a glance than the 1953 pitching. '55 Dodgers led league in both hitting and pitching. '53 Dodgers only led league in hitting, 3rd in pitching.

I was talking about the '89 A's, but that's neither here nor there. The '53 Dodgers had a run differential of 266, the '55 team had a differential of 207. Please tell me you're not basing your entire argument on ordinal rankings.

I agree that the 53 Dodgers would be a better choice than the 55 Dodgers, but obviously a bunch of people disagree with that. The fact is, there's going to be differences of opinion on this stuff--no one is going to think all the choices are correct. Not one team was selected unanimously. You're never, ever going to have everyone agree that no inferior teams were included. Personally, I think WS wins are way overvalued, but that's me, and if I had my way, a lot of people would be complaining about how undervalued they are.

The stated purpose of this exercise is to pit the greatest teams against each other. The inclusion of inferior teams runs counter to the entire premise. You're free to, y'know, actually address that point.

If you're expecting this to be some sort of grand answer on which team is best, you're gonna be disappointed for a bunch of reasons. "Choosing the '55 Dodgers rather than the '53 Dodgers" will be no higher than 87th on that list.

That's not a bad idea, although I'd probably give a little higher threshold like 125-150 or so.

I think that would be too high. 110% is good. The problem with this being based on PA is that somebody like Spencer would then be restricted almost soley to pinch hitting to maximize his value/PA, since he is still able to get as many PA that way. However, that was not the role in which he did play. Another awkward thing that could happen is that a player uses up all their playing time by mid-season and is an inelligible player the rest of the year, because they "used up all their available PA."

If you're expecting this to be some sort of grand answer on which team is best, you're gonna be disappointed for a bunch of reasons. "Choosing the '55 Dodgers rather than the '53 Dodgers" will be no higher than 87th on that list.

That's a gross exaggeration. 46th, tops.

I'll take whatever team goes unclaimed.

Okay, I've been consulting with my associate (SMK) and we definitely need some rulings as to how much we have to follow reality.

For example: The ideal vs LHP lineup we constructed would *not* be used by the 2001 Mariners in real life. Among other things, it has Javier leading off and Ichiro batting 9th. Do we go with the ideal or do we try to mimic reality?

Another issue: If we decide that we're best off with Edgar's offense, do we play him at first for 60 games? SMK strongly feels that if we have to sit Edgar for 60 games, we're not really playing the 2001 Mariners per se. In other words, his offense is a vital part of that team.

I thought a fair compromise would be to play Edgar at 1st vs Lefties in no-DH games, and Olerud at 1st vs RHP. But that's still a lot of Edgar-free games. However, Olerud is so good against RHP that I wonder if his defense makes up for it.

Even if we use Edgar in the field for 60 games, we still have the substantial disadvantage of losing the 3rd-best hitter on the team for a third of the season. Anyway, can we get a ruling on this?

Also, a final ruling on playing time?

Dan, FWIW, since I knew nothing abuot how Martin/Lemon managed the '78 Yankees, I created the line-up myself. I assume I had some of it right (persumably Bucky Dent batted 9th a lot of the time) but otherwise the line-up, pitching rotation, bull-pen use etc. is my own invention

Okay, I've been consulting with my associate (SMK) and we definitely need some rulings as to how much we have to follow reality.

Yes, now we're into the "Devil's in the details."

Another one: How does our modern day John McGraw manage a 5 man pitching staff in this sim?

Do we go with the ideal or do we try to mimic reality?

Go with ideal. Lineup order shouldn't make a ton of difference.

I thought a fair compromise would be to play Edgar at 1st vs Lefties in no-DH games, and Olerud at 1st vs RHP. But that's still a lot of Edgar-free games. However, Olerud is so good against RHP that I wonder if his defense makes up for it.

Your team, your call. Olerud's rated Very Good at 1B with a below average error rate, Martinez is rated as a poor 1B with a higher than average error rate. Splitting 1B duties in non-DH games seems like a fair compromise.

Also, a final ruling on playing time?

I still prefer not to restrict playing time for people who performed reasonably close to expectations in limited time. However, if enough people feel strongly enough against that, we can use Greg's suggestion of limiting playing time to 110% of their actual time.

Another one: How does our modern day John McGraw manage a 5 man pitching staff in this sim?

Diamond Mind set up the 1905 Giants with a 3 man rotation. As far as I can tell it doesn't seem to hurt them too much.

Diamond Mind set up the 1905 Giants with a 3 man rotation. As far as I can tell it doesn't seem to hurt them too much.

Well, in that case, I'll manage the '05 Giants. 54 starts out of Mathewson. Super sub Moonlight Graham. I'm in.

Another DMB dummy (i've played OOTP quite a bit tho'), if nobody else more knowledgable or experienced wants the '42 Cardinals I'll take a shot at setting 'em up.

These 1000 simulated seasons will happen in real time, right?

But that gives the Giants an unfair advantage. If the 2005 Astros could have used a 3 man rotation, they'd be historically great. Still, based on that is how they were used, I can't think of a better way to do it.

But that gives the Giants an unfair advantage. If the 2005 Astros could have used a 3 man rotation, they'd be historically great. Still, based on that is how they were used, I can't think of a better way to do it.

I agree. If you restrict the Giants to a 5 man roataion, their bullpen consists of 38 innings of Claude Elliot, he of the 73 ERA+.

OTOH, 54 starts out of a 230 ERA+ starter seems like too big an advantage. Still, they are restricted to 2 relievers aside from the replacement level guy. And they have only three guys on the bench, one not worth a damn. Essentially, they are competing with a 15 man roster.

That's true, Gagne, but the Giants top three starters threw 67% of the Giants' innings that year, compared to 46% by Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens last year. Seems like you might be able to do something with the inning percentage breakdown

Teams Taken & Who Has Them (and those left open). Through post #85:

1905 Giants - Miserlou
1906 Cubs - UCCF
1909 Pirates
1910 A’s
1912 Red Sox - kevin
1927 Yanks
1929 A’s
1939 Yanks
1942 Cards
1946 Red Sox - karlmagnus
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks - Potch1214 - them or '61 Yanks but I'll slot him here
1954 Indians - Ernie C's Elbow
1955 Dodgers - Screw All
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers - fra paolo
1970 Orioles - Rauseo
1974 A’s
1975 Reds - Tamer
1978 Yanks - RB in DC
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets - Howard Megdal (asked about them, but hasn't officially claimed them)
1989 A’s - DCA
1995 Indians - Bernal Diaz
1998 Braves
1998 Yanks - SG in Atl
2001 Mariners - Werr

12 team unaccounted for, by my reckonin'.

Perhaps just restrict all players to 110% of their PT. Perhaps a bit more for those teams who only played in seasons with 154 games. Perhaps 115% for those guys. Base it on PA and BFP. This is only a suggestion.

For the early teams at least, you'd almost have to use a higher standard. Can you imagine it being September 1 in a sim, and Brown & Reulbach have both capped out their innings? Or Mathewson & McGinnity?

In DMB, is there anyway to account for the fact that many managers liked to use their best pitchers a disproportionate amount of time against the best rival teams? It happened as early as the Mordecai Brown teams and as late as the Whitey Ford/Casey Stengal Yanks.

Re: '53 Dodgers vs. '55 Dodgers. I think a pretty good argument can be made that the '55 Dodgers were significantly better than their stats. They broke out 22-2 and had the pennant wrapped up by mid-May. Then they just had to coast (to the biggest peacetime pennant race victory the NL had in the last 60 years before divisional play, IIRC). The '53 Dodgers had 4 teams closer than that in early July. Heck, on July 11, the Braves were still just 2 games back. They couldn't coast for five months like the '55 squad could.

So no one's claimed the '27 Yanks, '39 Yanks, and one of the '53 or '61 squads? This is the Yanks blog, right?

If you need someone to take one of the grubs at the end, I should be able to manage that.

Updating the list in post 88:

SJ took the '61 Yanks, Greg Tamer volunteered to take the 1909 Pirates, Miserlou took the '29 A's, and I've sent emails to Patrick W for the '42 Cards and Howard Megdal for the '86 Mets.

Not all teams need to be claimed, as most already had lineups, pitching staffs, and manager profiles set up by Diamond Mind.

Miserlou took the '29 A's

Um, not to my knowledge. '05 Jints

Sorry, I got mixed up. Gaedel, Elster, Backe has the '29 A's. You guys and your fancy handles...

You guys and your fancy handles...

At least I don't go changing it every couple of weeks. (Not directed at you). ; )

Who's the "Mug" guy? Anyway?

See post 88, Miserlou.

Now see, that's who should be confustcating SG, not me.

All in good fun, in case the levity doesn't come through.

And by the way, Mug changes his handle every two days, not every two weeks.

Boy, I'm really in the slow lane.

Re: my post #76.

I'll take the '27 Yanks, if no one else has claimed them

Like some other people, I'm new to Diamond Mind, but I'd be willing to manage a team. Maybe the '98 Braves, or the '84 Tigers.

Karl I was walking into a Staples Store and Dom Dimaggio was going out...it was right after 9/11..all I knew about that team at that time was 104 wins and the Pesky deal...I said hi and 46' 104 wins and he said things so fast back..but he made it clear that it should of been 106 and it was so fast that I didn't understand the why...since then I've gone deeper into this team and wow they had some juice ...good luck..I'll be pulling for 'em

Thanks, Buzzards Bay, I'm sorry we can't both manage them. In my quickie research today, I came up with one interesting tidbit which was that Pesky was 53 for 102 lifetime on stolen bases -- DiMaggio and Metkovich were the team's more successful base stealers. Given that and the Slaughter incident, I think he must have been one of those deliberate people who aren't good at lightning fast decisions. Slaughter wasn't a fluke, in other words.