Then the actual playing time simulation should suffice for this part of the exercise. The other simulation(s) will be for those who want to answer different questions. Those questions are no more or less valid than anyone

But I think that isn't the question ... it fixes health effects, injuries are completely non-random, and it doesn't capture the team at its best. But imperfectly. Why not use the same starting lineup as in real life in every game, that at least get the timelining and interactions of injuries and trades correct.

It doesn't answer the question, what if these teams just all got together in the winter and said "let's play a season" or 1000 seasons. If we're not answering that question, which it appears that we're not, I don't want the 89 A's. Put them back up for bid. This isn't to be interpreted as a slam on the experiment (after all, others are doing the heavy lifting), but just of my ability to contribute.

I wanted the team -- one I rooted for as a kid -- to try to faithfully mimic their tendencies, look in more detail at how they were actually used, and come up with a way to take those same tendencies to a different type of competition, so that they'd be fairly presented in the simulation and competitive in the non-DH settings, not come up with my own optimization. I thought that was what was wanted, and I have a hard time understanding how any of the others are reconcilable with the stated purpose of this excercise (though I have no problem seeing how they could be interesting in their own right). I'm too busy at work this week for a conference next week to do both, since it's not a trivial thing to do.

The other simulation(s) will be for those who want to answer different questions. Those questions are no more or less valid than anyone else's.

Of course, it will be impossible to draw any conclusive answers either, with as many as 28 teams each altering their real-life lineups, thereby destroying any notion of a "control group."

Query:

If we assume that Player X, who was injured in real life, should be injured in the simulation or have a high propensity for injury, then shouldn't those who remained healthy for the entire season be immune to injuries?

In Season Y, Player Z was not injured. So, Team A in Season Y got a full season out of Player Z. If we are comparing teams to their counterparts, then you would want to accurately simulate who was injured and who was not injured. Those are very important factors, and I don't think you can have the historically injured players being injured in the simulation AND have the historically healthy players being susceptible for random injuries and still be logically consistent.

And on that note, SG, I'll take any team you have left.

DCA, there really isn't a question of an "optimisation." We're setting a very few managerial parameters to apply through the whole season; working all weekend parameter by parameter won't imporve your result by even 1 game, I suspect. Since the 1989 As had an intelligent manager, if you set the parameters as he would have set them, you will surely be close to optimal.

That's not the case for the '46 Red Sox, as anyone who's read the Ferrell/Grove complaints about Cronin would see -- he was manager for over a decade, during which the Sox significantly underprerformed expectations -- they were a "throw money at the problem" team like Steinbrenner's Yankees, but they didn't get close till '46, and only again in '48-49 when Cronin was no longer manager.

My "Williams batting second" is just a small experiment to see if it makes a difference. In reality, if the '46 Sox were to reappear and take the field in '06, I think it quite likely that the intelligent (though not God-like) Theo Epstein would sit down with Williams and persuade him to try this non-standard lineup, and that Williams would take the same positive view of Theo that Schilling/Damon take and agree it was worth a try.

The situation is a very rare one, where you have one hitter of superlative quality in a lineup that is strong but not all that special. Manny/Ortiz on today's Sox aren't that quality, and anyway there are 2 of them. Babe Ruth in 1920-21 might be another example, or Bonds in 2001 (he's not that good now, I suspect.)

I wanted the team -- one I rooted for as a kid -- to try to faithfully mimic their tendencies, look in more detail at how they were actually used, and come up with a way to take those same tendencies to a different type of competition, so that they'd be fairly presented in the simulation and competitive in the non-DH settings, not come up with my own optimization.

So which settings, exactly, would you be tweaking then? As I see it, the MP created by DMB itself is already set to that team's tendencies. Let SG run the 1000 simulations given DMB's MP for the 28 teams, and then we'll also run 1000 simulations given tweaked MPs by each of us, optimizing our team's settings given their statistics and ratings.

(In angry Manya voice) So, what's wrong with that?

T&B;There are two ways to do it, either of which I'm fine with. One is that based on what happened in the season, each player gets an injury rating (PTP used Iron, Normal, Minor, Frequent, Major). I think Iron players can't get hurt and miss more than 3 games ... but it is random within injury groups. DMB probably works similarly, but I'm sure it's more sophisticated now).

The other is to use a historical injury rating, based on the seasons around the one in question ... say 3-5 years centered on the current. Then the randomness in the actual season washes out, and players who were miraculously healthy for the whole season in real life would still be at risk in the sim.

I think the first is less work to model, but I have no preference other than that.

A third option is to fix PT, which I disagree with. Because then you have the mean teams playing each other, and don't have a distribution of the ways things could have worked out that still averages out to what actually happened.

Who wouldn’t love optimizing? Who wouldn’t love a person that optimized?

Wouldn't the simplest thing to do would be to create an ideal lineup -- either by taking the best player at each position, player who played the most at each position, or the lineup at that point in the season that a team was 'hottest' -- and couple that with an 'ideal' rotation/relief staff? Then just play each game with that lineup/rotation/relief. No injuries.

So let the 1906 Cubs play Kling at catcher every game and go with a 3 or 4 man rotation.

So which settings, exactly, would you be tweaking then? As I see it, the MP created by DMB itself is already set to that team's tendencies. Let SG run the 1000 simulations given DMB's MP for the 28 teams, and then we'll also run 1000 simulations given tweaked MPs by each of us, optimizing our team's settings given their statistics and ratings.

I don't know ... that's the thing. But radically changing lineups, changing the distribution of starting position players (e.g. creating a platoon that wasn't actually used, or changing a position-sharing arrangement to favor a player who you know -- not think -- will be better), and especially altering pitcher usage patterns (say a normally reliable crunch time reliever has an off year and a scrub a great one; or benching a oft-used starter so he can't hurt you) can make a huge difference.

I assume the MP can be tweaked to do these. I may be wrong.

FWIW, I thought the point of us taking a team was to use what we know, or could infer, to fairly supplement DMB's profiles, and to adapt them to a different type of competition than they were used to facing -- this is more of a challenge for the old time teams, I think, which tended to play with small rosters and especially small pitching staffs that won't fit into a modern game. And details that DMB may not have known, or may not have included in the MP.

Plus I don't think the 89 A's -- for example -- should get 60-70 games of Canseco in every season. Just that his likelihood of being injured would be high, but they'd at least have a chance that he'd last the full season. That's a difference from the default case being run.

I assume the MP can be tweaked to do these. I may be wrong.

Yes, an MP can be tweaked to set the lineup vs LHP and RHP, platoons, defensive replacments, percentages of backups starting for the regulars, the starting pitching rotation, replacement starters and percentage of how often they start, RP structure for mopup, long relief, setup vs. L and R, closing vs. L and R, how often my team bunts, steals, sacrifices, takes pitches on 3 and 0, guards the lines, pickoffs, replaces starters in blowouts, removes pitchers for a PH, set PH vs LHP and RHP, how long SP remain in game, how often hit and run, holding runners, infield in, pitching out, intentional walking, pitching around, strict rotation or skipping guys, size of rotation, and, finally, these tendencies can be set not just for the team, but for all individuals as well. So if you want your SB king to run all day long but everyone else to
*never* steal, you can easily set that up. If you want a couple of SP to stay in the game until their arm breaks, you can do that to, while babying the others.

Expected reply: "That's unbelievable."
My response: "Oh, it's a scene man."

Why not use the same starting lineup as in real life in every game, that at least get the timelining and interactions of injuries and trades correct.

A) Because it would take far more time to set up than I have
B) Because the lineup the '89 A's sent out against Rich Dotson on May 17 may not be the lineup you'd want to send out there against Christy Mathewson.

I assume the MP can be tweaked to do these. I may be wrong.

The manager's profile is mainly just for things like bunting, stealing, etc., The player usage is part of the lineups, pitching staff, and depth chart settings.

Wouldn't the simplest thing to do would be to create an ideal lineup -- either by taking the best player at each position, player who played the most at each position, or the lineup at that point in the season that a team was 'hottest' -- and couple that with an 'ideal' rotation/relief staff? Then just play each game with that lineup/rotation/relief. No injuries.

I think this is where the playoff roster idea comes into play.

And on that note, SG, I'll take any team you have left.

All teams are spoken for, although I haven't heard back from some volunteers yet. If I don't hear back from some people in the next few days, I'll put those teams back up.

First off, I'd like to thank SG in Atl & offer him some kudos for being willing to go through all this. I can't imagine that I'd ever be willing to run 1000 sims of anything, nor can I imagine I'd tolerate a month of back-and-forth, I don't know if I'd even be that interested in letting others vote (I'd just start smacking people for leaving out the 1890s teams & go with the 28 I thought deserved it, vote be damned), & I can't imagine being willing to go throught the laborious and frankly dull (& apparetnly headache inducing) process of determining who manages who and what standards should be set up for roster construction. I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority of people here would also falter in at least one of these aspects. The fact that SG's willing to go through all this & run two different runs of simulations is worthy of the highest possibly commendation.

I know Brady is managing the 84 Tigers, but if he'd be still willing to take the 98 Braves, I'd love to set up the Tigers (with a little tutoring from a DMB-savvy Primate). Let me know either way...

The only reason Brady got '84 instead of '98 is that I arbitraily slotted him there in a post on the top of the page. By now SG's probably sent him an e-mail about the '84 Tigers, but if he hasn't done much prep work on them & it's OK with everyone else, this should be feasible. . . . But it might just be that you waited too long to ask for them. Like I said, SG almost certainly sent out the e-mail by now.

Why don't you guys use these teams' postseason rosters/lineups as the benchmark, with the understanding that:

...

(2) You'll use pitching rotations that reflect regular season as opposed to postseason practice (i.e. modern teams will have 5 man rotations, not 3 or 4)

Shoot. I was hoping to give the 1910 A's the first two man rotation.

In all seriousness, if anyone knows a great deal about the 1910 Athletics, especially the on-field managing style of Connie Mack (which appears to be pretty hands-off) or the best way to handle a 7 man pitching staff in DMB, that info would be appreciated.

Also, thanks to SG in Atl as well. This simulation is turning into quite the feat.

I absolutely agree; SG in Atl needs the patience of a saint and the judgement of Solomon, not a common combination!

or the best way to handle a 7 man pitching staff in DMB, that info would be appreciated.

I'm managing a 6 man staff. It was suggested that I go with a three man rotation. The 1910 A's look like a god candidate for that treatment as well.

At least you've got a bench. My bench consists of a second catcher, a super utility guy, and a guy who batted .180 in 50 AB's

You guys are going to need the project's time machine to go the other way and pick up some 22nd Century sports medicine so Matty and Plank's arms don't fall off!

You guys are going to need the project's time machine to go the other way and pick up some 22nd Century sports medicine so Matty and Plank's arms don't fall off!

At a quick glance, if I were choosing, I don't think Plank would be one of the three starters.

Actually, I was thinking about putting Matty in the pen, and having him come in in the 6th of any close game. I figure 120 games, 4 innings per, that's about the same as 54 starts. I think it would be fun to try that ; )

Miserlou,

Yeah, it looks like you have quite the challenge in assembling the 1905 Giants. At least the A's can squeak together a 25 man roster. And I have Plank as the number 4 guy right now. Interestingly, he also "saved" 2 games in 1910. Closer anyone? Eckersley, watch out.

On the plus side, it looks like Hooks Wiltse put together an OPS+ of 106 for the Giants. There's your DH.

It should be interesting to see how these deadball teams perform against the competition.

In all seriousness, if anyone knows a great deal about the 1910 Athletics, especially the on-field managing style of Connie Mack (which appears to be pretty hands-off)

Connie Mack & his starting pitchers. . . .

Eddie Plank was more likely to be used against the best opposing teams. Morgan against the weakest. Plank had 16 of his 32 starts against the three other teams with winning records. Coombs had 14 of 38, Bender 10 of 28, and Morgan 9 of 34. I have a stat called AOWP - Average Opponent Winning Pecentage (the name describes what it is) - the 1910 A's as a team had an AOWP of 474 (had a few extra starts against some teams due to ties, and under 22 versus others so it isn't perfectly symmetrical). Compare that to the Big 4:

Plank AOWP: 485
(team AOWP: 474)
Coombs AOWP: 471
Bender AOWP: 469
Morgan AOWP: 453

I have no idea if DMB would let you rig it so that a pitcher starts more often against good teams (my guess is that it doesn't), but it looks like Mack considered Plank to be the ace. Back then it was common to use your best pitcher a disproportionate (pretend I can spell) amount of time against the best teams. Morgan had the most starts against Cleveland (10!), the dead last Browns, & tied Coombs for most starts aginst the Senators.

Plank also faced off against Ed Walsh 5 times that year. The A's went 2-3 in those games as Walsh held the best offense to a total 14 runs in those contests. Walsh faced the other three guys two times. That's not two apiece, but two times total.

Despite starting fewer games against the Senators (3) than the others, Plank faced off against Walter Johnson twice. The others faced the Big Train three times in their combined 14 starts. Johnson & Walsh had the top 2 ERA+s in the league, so yea, I'd say Plank was considered to be the ace.

On the plus side, it looks like Hooks Wiltse put together an OPS+ of 106 for the Giants. There's your DH.


Except that he's 1/2 of my bullpen. He is useful as a PH who can then come in to pitch though.

I'm planning on DHing Bresnahan. Get his bat into the maximum number of games without racking up a ridiculous number of games caught.

The 1910 A's?
I don't think our demographic stretches that far.

Didn't see them but my great uncle Bill's brother played first base for them.

Didn't see them but my great uncle Bill's brother played first base for them.

Interesting. Are you referring to Harry Davis?

(out of order) - very interesting and insightful analysis - especially for a team that existed almost 100 years ago. You've convinced me of the importance that Eddie Plank played to Mack, it appears he was more important to him than Morgan.

But, the question remains, will Diamond Mind be able to recognize this fact about Plank?

I'm finishing this up for the Cubs, but just to be clear -

We're not using playing time restrictions? I had set my rotation using the "time" function, so that everyone would get approximately the right number of starts, and ditto for playing time and position players.

So the simulation is 1000 seasons? Pardon me if that sounds less gripping than one season. So the 1906 Cubs win 16 virtual pennants and the 1998 Braves 30. Whoopee.

Play one season, then there is interest in following the standings, seeing which teams start hot and which go on a tear later. There's a good chance the pennant comes down to a game or two. That's excitement. 1000 seasons? not so much.

SdeB, there's going to be one season that I will follow and post about in detail for those who find that kind of thing interesting, and then 999 other seasons that will run when that's over. I think that's a reasonable compromise.

Looks good, SG. You can't get even an approximate read on quality doing only 1 season simulation, it's almost as limited a sample as 1 game (a .300 team won't win, as it might 1 game, but there's no way 1 season distingushes between a .650 team and a .700 team, which is what we're talking about here.)

If the DM were perfectly accurate (which of course it's not) 1000 seasons would have each team playing 162,000 games which (correct me if I'm wrong more recent math majors) would give a 95% confidence limit of twice the square root of 1/162,000 or 2/402.5 or .005-- in other words, you'd be 95% confident that a .680 team was better than a .670 team. With 1 season, your 95% confidence limit would be 2/13.5, in other words, you'd only be 95% confident that a .648 team was better than a .352 team.

km --

95% CI for 162,000 games is +/- 0.0025 and for 162 games is +/- 0.079 at .500 ... half of what you calculated, as the SE of a B(1,0.5) rv is .5 not 1. The numbers decline as the teams get better. However, comparing two rv's you have to do a little math (also, the teams' wpct are not independent, but let's ignore that for now)

For a 162 game sample, you can say with 95% confidence that a 0.610 team is better than a 0.500 team.

For a 162000 game sample, you can say with 95% confidence that a 0.5035 team is better than a 0.500 team.

The fact that the teams play each other should slightly reduce the widths of the confidence interval. However, if you're doing multiple comparisons (we have 28*27/2 = 378) you'll have many errors using a 95% confidence level for each individual comparison.

Using a standard multiple comparison procedure, at 5.9*SE we can be confident of all 378 comparisons at 5% instead of 2*SE for an individual comparison, or just under 3x the spread. So in this experiment, we should be able to say that every team which comes out 0.010 better than another, we have 95% confidence that team (or at least that team's DMB translation) is better than the other.

Again, I'm pretty sure that negative correlation between team wpct would serve to slightly narrow the width of the confidence interval, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to calculate it.

Great! I knew somebody would be able to do that calculation correctly, and by doing it wrong I could encourage them to do so!

Thanks!

Looks good, SG. You can't get even an approximate read on quality doing only 1 season simulation

Isn't the prime purpose entertainment? I'd have been satisfied with doing an elimination tournament consisting of 7-game series. I already know the 1906 Cubs are the best team of all time, 162,000 or 1,620,000 DMB games aren't going to change that. ;-)

I would be interested in managing the 1909 Pirates

Go for it, WahooSam. I already submitted to SG an 1909 Pirates MP based on their WS roster, but haven't sent him an MP based on their regular season lineup and rotation construction and tendencies.

Swinging A's Report

I've just submitted the profile for the 1974 A's. Someone mentioned in a previous post that they'd like to see the teams they remembered, and that swayed me to be as true as I could manage to the historical record (I'm sure you don't care where I think Gene Tenace should have batted or whatever). This was of course an entirely painless decision given the makeup of the team (front line talent, no great depth).

I based the batting order on the postseason, and let North lead off against lefties (this was not absolute, but he led off of a portion of the season and against a couple of lefties in October and I thought I should reflect that).

I tried to reflect the A's style of play. They led the league in steals and caught stealing, so I let them run a lot even with guys who hurt the team. Even still, I'm not sure if you can really explain Herb Washington to Diamond Mind.

The A's led the AL in releivers used, so I made them a go-to-the-bullpen team. This is based not on what they look like compared to the 1906 Cubs and the 1995 Indians, but how they played relative to their peers. A previous post mentioned that the game would only make a starter durable in the context of his era, so this seemed the appropriate way to go.

There's no perfect way jam the Oakland pitchers into the established game roles, but I did my best after going through their games on retrosheet.org. For anyone who hasn't done their profile yet, I found this to be an instructive way to get to know a famous team better, and a lot more valuable exercise to me than just making my own best guess as to how the A's would play in an elite league.

They used their best relievers all the time, ahead, behind, mopping up, you name it. They threw their top three starters pretty much every four days, and let two other guys pick up the spot starts. I'm not sure this helped them (see loss totals for Holtzman and Blue). Later tonight, I'll say a few more things by way of previewing the A's for the sim. Thanks again to SG for collecting and entering the profiles.

Isn't the prime purpose entertainment? I'd have been satisfied with doing an elimination tournament consisting of 7-game series. I already know the 1906 Cubs are the best team of all time, 162,000 or 1,620,000 DMB games aren't going to change that. ;-)

But they're hamstrung by having me at the helm, though I did the bare minimum of managing. I set the big three up in the rotation (and spot started a couple of the other guys for when Brown et al wear down a bit), and set Kling up for 90% of the starts behind the plate. Beyond that, it's all them.

"SdeB, there's going to be one season that I will follow and post about in detail for those who find that kind of thing interesting, and then 999 other seasons that will run when that's over. I think that's a reasonable compromise."

I would suggest the opposite if possible.

Run your 1000 seasons (don't tell us what happened).

Then 'report' on the one season that most closely matches the results of the 1000 season average (you could use some kind of statistical test, with the caveat that the pennant winners have to be the same or something like that to choose which season gets reported). This will give us the ups and downs that make any random season great, but with 'accuracy' that the 1000 season people want to see.

DM makes it fairly easy to filter reports with date ranges, so you can sim an entire season and still go back and give league leaders as of a certain date, etc..

You'll be amazed at how much variation you will get in a season like this, especially with evenly matched teams, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the pennant winner from the random season ended up being one of the worst overall teams in the 1000 sim run.

*******

I'm not going back and reading 235 posts, so forgive me if I touch on something not mentioned already, but just a few tidbits of advice as an experienced DM solitaire simmer :-)

You are going to want to do a few test runs to find quirky things in the MPs that wouldn't look obvious at first. Like some guy you have slated as the top PH getting 120 PH AB when he batted 35 times in real life, stuff like that. I assume you are shooting for realism here. I'd suggest making all of the sim GMs test and tweak their MPs until the playing time comes out realistic.

I wouldn't worry about the 'Eddie Plank' problem with spotting guys against the best teams. All of these teams are loaded. There is miniscule variation in the quality of these teams compared to that of the 1910 AL. Not worth the trouble.

Do you still need any managers? I could take on a team if you need one still. Just no Mets, Red Sox or Dodger teams :-)

The other thing with injuries - DM has a real life injury log, I this can be edited and you can have players injured on the actual dates they were out in real life in the sim. That would be supercool IMO.

It's a pain in the butt to do this for a league (16-30 teams), but it's pretty simple to do for a team, with the Proquest function that SABR members have access too, the old NY Times have all of the boxscores pre-retrosheet and it's easy to see when a guy missed a week or two, and there's usually an explanation as to why if you read the articles. Heck for just about every season from the early 1970s forward, Diamond Mind already has this info built into the disks.

My problem, I'll admit is that I get to anal about the realism, and spend too much time 'preparing' and not enough time 'playing'.

How are you going to handle the different eras? Like when a 1910 team plays a 1986 team, what will determine which era is used for pitcher fatigue, HR tendencies of the league, etc.?

"It should be interesting to see how these deadball teams perform against the competition."

They are going to have serious power issues.

Try taking the 2000 season sometime, and turn the 'era' to 1917. Giambi is going to hit about 30-33 HR instead of 43. He's not going to hit 12 (unless you only play until the middle of June and stop).

Then try taking the 1917 season (there's free user-made disk out there for pre-1927 seasons), and play in the 2000 era. Gavy Cravath might hit 20 HR instead of 12, he's not hitting 35 unless you make the schedule 300 games.

DM goes on the theory that the game adjusted some, but the players changing from fast guys to powerful guys is what mainly drove the power boom. They cite Babe Ruth hitting a boatload of HR in 1919 (he hit 20 on the road that year, Fenway was an awful HR park then), before the power boom as an example of this and justfication for using 'raw' total adjustments instead of 'percentage' total adjustments.

So IMO, the deadball teams are going to far somewhat more poorly than you'd expect, because they aren't going to get enough of a power boost, and that's going to make it harder for them to compete.

OK, the first simulation is up and running. This is for the actual playing time batch, for those who prefer historical accuracy. I am thinking of doing updates by week, every day or two, with the standings and assorted information like below. Leagues are split up into pre 1960 and post 1960 because of the restrictions on league size in Diamond Mind, but there will be only one pennant winner. If anyone wants more details than what you see here, let me know.

Week 1 Standings



Batter of the Week:
1948 Indians - Ken Keltner: 7-14, 4 HR, 10 RBI, .538/.632/1.462

Pitcher of the Week:
1927 Yankees - Waite Hoyt: 2-0, 0.64 ERA, 14 IP, 3 hits

Game of the Week:

Well, there goes Goose's shot at the HOF.

Awesome, SG! Looking forward to more results.

I'm not sure about Sparky's decision to bat Rod Allen for Kirk Gibson in the 8th inning... as I recall Gibson had pretty good success off Gossage in 1984.

Ah well, nobody's AI is perfect.

Batter of the Week:
1948 Indians - Ken Keltner

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball?

For one week, he was the best player on the best team in the best league that was ever conceived of.

1948 Indians - Ken Keltner

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball?

For one week, he was the best player on the best team in the best league that was ever conceived of.

And if you can slip Denny Galehouse onto the rosters of a few of those other teams, you never know...

If the 1984 Tigers run out to another 35-5 start, I'll be mighty impressed.

I'll have you know as the manager of the 1978 Yankees, there's nothing else I could've done. Except I wouldn't have batted Rivers second

Can we get a btf section for this, so I can see who the 1939 Yanks are losing too? they are a juggernaut!

SJ (and anyone else who's interested),

I made a website and am posting the full results there. All team batting and pitching stats, leaders, standings, game results and box scores can be found there.

The 1939 Yanks were swept out of St.Louis by the greatest juggernaut of all time!! By the grand total of 3 runs, incl. 2 Ex. INN losses. Go Cards!!

SJ (and anyone else who's interested),

I made a website and am posting the full results there. All team batting and pitching stats, leaders, standings, game results and box scores can be found there.

I'm a little confused. You have team batting stats for what looks like a full season, but pitching stats for only one month, and the standings and leaders boards are for an even smaller time period. I assume this is a work in progress, but have you really simmed the entire season?

Awful first month for Matty; 1-4 5.91 ERA

Miserlou, it is in progress, although I'm a month in and only reported on the first week. I was playing around with some other seasons to get the web formatting right and must have uploaded the wrong batting file. Consider the pitching stats you saw a preview of what's to come I guess. I think it's all fixed now, reports should all show through 4/11.

OK, I get it.

The batting stats are still for a full season BTW, and an interesting one it was. The 1905 Giants out slugged almost every other team, including the 1929 A's, the 1939 Yankees, the 1946 Red Sox, 1955 Dodgers, and the 1961 Yankees! by 32 points. The only teams who bested their .423 mark were 1927 Yankees .445, 1948 Indians .426, and the 1995 Indians .430. The only team who topped, or for that matter even came close to their team OPS of .785 were the 1927 Yankees .786.

Odd, they look like through 4/11 for me. Maybe you have to refresh?

Yeah, refresh worked.

Still was an interesting season you inadvertantly uploaded. Ruth hit 62 HR, but batted a measly .270. DiMaggio had a pretty pedestrian season.

Looking forward to more results

Way to go Charles Gipson--a 4.000 OPS. Of course, that's in one AB, but still . . . .

Wow, it really is Detroit's week.

Game of the Week:
4/6/2006, NYA78-Det84, Tiger Stadium

SG,

That's a really "cool" idea.
I Like It! :) ...

--------
trevise

I made a website and am posting the full results there.

SG,

The website is pretty class too. I've forgotten what the timetable on the 'sim' is supposed to be but I would almost wish that "this" season could be played in conjunction with the regular upcoming MLB season.

Hmmm... Too much excitement.
Some of 'us' oldsters might have heartattacks or strokes. ;) ...

--------
trevise

That website is great. Thanks for doing all that work, SG.

OK, I messed up with my program that automates Diamond Mind and accidentally reset the season. Sorry for the hiccup, I expect smooth sailing from here on out. Apologies to Tigers fans and Charles Gipson too. Anyway, Week 1, redux. Also, for more details, you can go to this link.

Week 1 Standings


Batter of the Week
2001 Mariners - Mike Cameron: 13-19, 4 2B, 1 HR, .684/.700/1.053

Pitcher of the Week
1946 Red Sox - Ted Hughson: 2-0, 2.25 ERA, 17.2 IP, 14 K

Game of the Week