Monday, June 21, 2010

week 10 rotating league name

Rules updates first:

By a margin of 5-2 with 5 abstaining, we're keeping Net SB. The 6 hitting categories next year will be the same as this year (R, HR, RBI, NSB, -K, OBP).

This week we'll vote on pitching changes.

Not sure what are alternatives are, so I'll put out a yes or no poll for switching K/9 back to K and instituting a 5GS minimum to qualify for pitching categories.

Voting on those will close next week, at which point we can vote on whether a weekly acquisition limit is necessary to prevent pitcher streaming, whether a rule that just says "no pitcher streaming" is adequate, or whether we're okay with streaming so no rules against it.

On to analysis - which I largely phoned in this week and still got them up late, stupid work to do at work:

Below is real simple weekly wins chart. A W means you had more W than L that week, a T means W=L that week. A more refined approach might look at 5-6-1 like a tie, but that's more work, so you get the simple.


Jay Hey and Pawn Sho are on the Just Win Baby track, with Blazing not far behind. Half the league has won and lost roughly half their games, with a few ties thrown in for good measure. It looks like Van Ho managed to build up a nice early lead, but has been slipping a bit as of late. Of course, there are 3 teams on the bottom that have not been doing so well.

Here's another table:


Left column are the number of possible Wins or ties in a given matchup. Middle column shows how many times a team ended a week with that many W, right column shows the same for ties. Important note is that each matchup is counted twice in both columns (a 9-3 end result counts toward both the 9 and the 3), and the ties are counted twice (so there's been 33 matchups that resulted in 1 tie for each team).

5 and 7 wins are the most common (which makes some sense since they complement each other). I'm surprised by the amount of 9's and 2's. Also, we haven't had more than 3 ties, which is not surprising since it is very difficult to tie a rate category.

No comments: