1908 - 1909 Mordecai Brown. These two seasons of ole three finger are almost carbon copies. Does consistently out perform the other?

The problem I see with the '09 version is his 6.85 IP/G to go with 363 total IP. If you plan on a strict 3 man rotation, then you'll either not meet his IP, or have him perform with less quality after he hits his pitch per game allotment.

For my money, I'd rather go with the '08 version...he's cheaper per IP and has better normalized stats IMO.



Good luck with the version you choose!

^^^This man knows^^^of what he speaks^^^

I agree as well. I just made up a team a couple weeks ago and wanted to use 1 of them and ended up picking the '08 version.

Quote: Originally posted by grizzly_one on 3/07/2010One has more innings and costs more. Which would benifit you most. Those extra innings or the extra cash.

Also true. And it matters what the rest of your staff will look like. If your #2 starter is Mike Hampton then you want as many IP out of Brown as possible. If it's Matty or Clemens then maybe you want more quality.

Quote: Originally Posted By bebechacha on 3/07/20101908 - 1909 Mordecai Brown. These two seasons of ole three finger are almost carbon copies. Does consistently out perform the other

Every player has a feature called 'performance history'. Just click on their name.

I have Brown `08 in an $80 MM OL and, 35 games into the season, he is performing pretty well. He is 5-2 with a .242 OAV and a 2.20 ERA, generally in line with his performance history. But his 7.10 IP/G isn't that much better than `09 Brown. I have him in a 3-man rotation with Addie Joss `08 (the gold standard) and Vic Willis `09 (big mistake).

Even this early in the season, Brown will go into his next start at 96%, and that number will come down further unless I rein in pitch counts or throw a AAA pitcher to the wolves as a spot 4th starter. The lesson learned is that really cheap big inning guys like Vic Willis (or even Ed Summers, who has a better performance history) who deliver 300+ innings for $7 million and change usually aren't worth the trouble.

The always awesome and acerbic Boogerlips is contradicting his own advice from a previous thread with his latest caustic comment. Performance histories are one of a number of tools that are a useful guide but by no means a bible. I prefer to use them only in conjunction with anecdotal observations. They typically represent a pretty small sample and can be easily skewed by 10 idiot owners who use and abuse a given pitcher or 10 brilliant owners who use them in a context most mere mortals could only hope to achieve and, except for the high/low, you never know which is the case.

If I were smarter than I am, I would designate a total throwaway team and load it with all my favorite players and use them very badly to skew their performance histories and make them less desirable to other owners.

Current open league team stats through 62 games:

Brown '08 = 1.90 ERA - 0.98 WHIP - .204 OAV and .500 OPS against

Joss '08 = 1.55 ERA - 0.80 WHIP - .203 ERA and .464 OPS against

Joss has also been able to eat up 19 more Innings so he's clearly better, but '08 Brown is quite good as well.

'08 Brown....not even close

Quote: Originally Posted By thunder1008 on 3/07/2010

The always awesome and acerbic Boogerlips is contradicting his own advice from a previous thread with his latest caustic comment. Performance histories are one of a number of tools that are a useful guide but by no means a bible. I prefer to use them only in conjunction with anecdotal observations. They typically represent a pretty small sample and can be easily skewed by 10 idiot owners who use and abuse a given pitcher or 10 brilliant owners who use them in a context most mere mortals could only hope to achieve and, except for the high/low, you never know which is the case.

I've never contradicted myself on the topic of performance history. Its quite useful, especially for starting pitchers. Given enough sample size (and its less than most think) all variables cancel themselves out except one: the pitcher's effectiveness. An "idiot" owner is a variable, so given enough seasons of usage, the same percentage of "abuse" can be expected. Of course, when talking about a pitcher with 7IP/G and 300 innings, it's pretty tough to imagine any significant abuse. Pitching at 85% all year? Pitching 120 pitches per game instead of 110? The P.H.'s have a 'worst' season of record. Usually (and this is especially useful when looking at relief pitchers or pitchers with only a few uses) if the worst season doesn't look unreasonable, then you know you have a fair sample.

And the idea of me (immortal) somehow magically getting a better ERA out of a pitcher than you (mortal) is absurd. All we can do is manipulate fire. We can't create it, and even that manipulation is recorded in the P.H. If you select a pitcher with a HR problem and put him in the astrodome (OH THE GENIUS!) it will be reflected in the 'park factor' part of the P.H. If all the park factors in the P.H. read '0' (like most do after 10 seasons or less), then its just another variable that has canceled itself out.

In life, some people will tell you you're awesome. Some will tell you you're acerbic. Some will make you feel glad. Some sad. Some mad. But those things all cancel themselves out over time, eh? And you're just going to feel how you're determined to feel. Emo kids don't feel like there is a hollow pit of despair in their souls because idiot owners abused them. They feel that way because they are determined to feel so.

The '08 Brown hasn't done very well for me of late in high caps for what it's worth.