I am using this week to test the system. This time I am attempting a full set of MLB/EFL standings, and a day-to-day update. I don’t have an easy way of tracking every player’s daily box score lines (AB, hits, etc.). So we aren’t quite back to that level of rich daily detail we had for several years with Dave’s amazing database.
Here are today’s EFL standings, followed by today’s updated weekly results. They overlap a lot because this is still the first week; later they won’t seem so redundant.
EFL standings as of the morning of April 12
Weekly results for week 1, as of day 4
Note that the weekly results are always going to be in alphabetic order, while the standings are in normal order of best record (in terms of games behind). Also notice the significant effect on our standings caused by the difference in our opponents. We have only 4 teams who would be above .500 against average MLB competition. A fifth and sixth team are above .500 thanks to facing MLB teams having a bad start to the season.
Going head-to-head against MLB teams has exaggerated the range of outcomes for those of us in the EFL. Against neutral competition we’d range from an .836 winning percentage (presented as 3 – 1) to a .166 winning percentage (presented as 1 – 3).
I expected our results to be more volatile, with bigger swings from week to week. I expect the effect to moderate overall, as we each catch teams going through ups and downs in their own fates. We may react to this volatility differently. I think it will be exciting. Others might prefer more predictability, or a clearer link between how their own team plays and its week-to-week fate.
I recommend giving it a couple of weeks and then I’ll survey folks to see how they like this “feature.”
Finally, for today, here’s an experimental version of the entire MLB/EFL standings:
I appreciate your feedback on any of this. Can it be improved to make the league more fun? Kindly let me know.
Can you explain the Raw % number? For instance, the Tornadoes (with an E) have a Raw % near .500, but a winning % of .140. Are those related? Are our opponents scores actually suppressing our EFL standings, though earlier I thought you had said they would not suppress them? I am confused, as you can see.
I do have a suggestion — a plea, almost. I would enjoy reading about your team’s highlights and lowlights. Any time in the week!
Like you’re probably glad to hear about Matt Manning’s brilliant 6 ip, 1 h, 1 er debut as a Wolverine (the only blemish being a fifth-inning solo homer surrendered to JD Martinez, just after I had tuned in to watch).
After Manning left, Rafael Devers singled and doubled, so Manning didn’t even ruin Devers’ day, nor vice-versa. We’ve been coaching Wolverine players about this for years. Maybe they’re catching on.
Aggh — I just wrote an answer to your question, Jamie, and posted it (I thought) — but it has disappeared. Let me try again, from scratch.
In any given week our head-to-heat competition might have the effect of suppressing our w/l records, boosting them, or not having much effect. Over the entire season the effects should cancel out, assuming we play a group of teams whose average member is about average for MLB.
This week the Dragons have scored 19 runs and allowed 23.4. If they continued that trend over 1000 seasons, facing average MLB competition, they would (on average) end up with a .478 winning percentage.
This week the Dragons are facing a struggling Detroit Tiger team which has, so far, scored 11 runs and allowed 20. That kind of ratio will generally produce (on average) a .232 winning percentage.
The Dragons’ .478 is a lot better than the Tigers’ .232, so we would expect the Dragons to win most of the games between them. In fact, mathematically we could expect a .4789 team to win 69.5% of its games against a .232 team. Which is why the Dragons sport a .685 winning percentage so far this week.
Here’s another example: the Tornados. They aren’t playing too badly, scoring 16.6 but allowing 17.4 runs. That ratio over time should produce a .478 winning percentage (their “raw” winning percentage). Unfortunately, the Tornados drew the White Sox as their opening week opponents, who have started pretty hot, outscoring their foes 19 – 8. That would be good for an .849 winning percentage against .500-level competition. The Tornados are just under .500, so the White Sox are credited with an .860 winning percentage against your team, leaving the Tornados with a .140 percentage and a dismal record of 1 – 3 (rounding the wins up to get to 1).
But after this week you never have to face the White Sox again. They are probably the third or fourth best team in baseball, and the rest of us still have to run that gauntlet! If your team plays .500 -ish ball, by the end of the season they should end up around .500.
I feel like my first response did a better job of addressing the confusion. Let me know if I need to cover it again, better.
Correction: we could expect a .4789 team to win 68.5% of its games against a .232 team, not 69.5%.
So this year, it seems, there is more luck (bad and good) involved in our EFL records than in previous season, yes? We don’t play 1000 seasons, only one. So instead of like past seasons, which were purely based on Runs created and runs allowed, this season will also include random events of an opponent either suppressing or elevating our records based on their weekly performance, yes?
Yes, this is correct. But we’re assuming (and I think it’s correct but we may need to reassess at the end of the season) that over the course of 27 weeks it will all even out so that we’ll all face roughly equal runs scored and runs against over the course of a full season (and we should probably track this if possible).
Yes, there is potential for random luck to affect our results. There always HAS been such potential — injuries, for example, or fortuitous MLB trades. Even the supposedly hard reality of players’ actual performance has a significant random element in it.
Head-to-head leagues add more vulnerability to the randomness affecting one’s opponent in a particular week — everything from a hit falling between fielders who would normally catch it, to whether you face the Mets the week before or the week after deGrom gets injured. We insulated ourselves from half that kind of randomness when we played no one in particular, since we were only vulnerable to what happened to our own players. Now we’re also vulnerable to what happens to our opponents.
Maybe we will end up not liking this approach. Some might think it is more fun to have less randomness. Going head-to-head isn’t strictly necessary under a spreadsheet system. I proposed it to add some zest to a season where (despite what I’ve done this week) we cannot expect daily update entertainment. (Also, my updates this week have not been classics). I thought it would give a weekly update cycle some added meaning.
I also think it will be more realistic. We are now exposed to randomness on a scale more similar to MLB teams — vulnerable to our own fates, and the fates of our specific opponents.
I’ve also been disappointed with our last several pennant races. Last year’s was pretty good, but from 10 out of 11 perspectives it could have been better had the paths of the top few teams not been so predictable. We spent two months basically running in lanes 2 to 5 games apart, that seldom or never intersected. I enjoyed it, but everyone else would have enjoyed it better had our records crossed paths more often.
Each of these arguments for our new system has potential counterarguments. I am happy to answer as many questions as necessary to make sure everyone understands the system, so please ask away!
I plan to keep a copy of every weekly update, all 27 of them, so we can definitely check how close we come to facing an equal ratio of runs scored/runs against from our opponents.
I thought of two more things today in regard to this change:
1) Our set up isn’t like other fantasy head to head leagues, because those players aren’t playing the same team like we are doing. Thus, it does minimize the luck (bad and good) involved in a daily outcome.
2) There is a possibility, maybe even a decent possibility, that someone can win the EFL and not have the highest winning percentage of all the EFL teams.
Should be an interesting experience!