Beef Supreme Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said: You know as much as I do. I figured it was close to on topic. I would say it was close to on topic. I think that the roster changes must have been made concurrently. What blows me away is that one of these simulations resulted in the Royals winning 95 games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsFanSinceThe80s Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said: I would say it was close to on topic. I think that the roster changes must have been made concurrently. What blows me away is that one of these simulations resulted in the Royals winning 95 games! Now if any of them had the Orioles winning 95 games it would be time to check the code. Royals winning 95 games this season, what are the odds of that 1-500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Supreme Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said: Now if any of them had the Orioles winning 95 games it would be time to check the code. Royals winning 95 games this season, what are the odds of that 1-500? My question is: Who were the Royals beating in that simulation that they were not beating in real life playing in a division that featured two other sub .400 winning percentage teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsFanSinceThe80s Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said: My question is: Who were the Royals beating in that simulation that they were not beating in real life playing in a division that featured two other sub .400 winning percentage teams? The only good team in the AL Central is the Indians. Maybe the Twins could be decent, I don't know enough about their 2019 squad. If the Indians took a step back and the Royals beat up on the Tigers and White Sox. No, I can't talk myself into this. Royals farm system doesn't have the prospects to pull off a 37 game improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony-OH Posted March 26, 2019 Author Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Beef Supreme said: I was really surprised to see Luis Ortiz as the WAR leader among Pitchers. Was Cobb injured most of the season? Also, what is the difference between 0.0 WAR and -0.0 WAR? Cobb was on the IL like 4 or 5 times. Ortiz was pitching well in AAA so i brought him up and he pitched decently. No idea on the WAR thing. Might be just a small weirdness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frobby Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 10 hours ago, Beef Supreme said: Also, what is the difference between 0.0 WAR and -0.0 WAR? 8 hours ago, Tony-OH said: No idea on the WAR thing. Might be just a small weirdness. I assume it’s because the numbers are rounded off. -0.0 might actually be -0.02 if you took it out another digit, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thats Baseball Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 I guess the simulator doesnt measure heart. Go Orioles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TouchemAll Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 On 3/25/2019 at 4:49 PM, Tony-OH said: I'm not going to lie, but I think the days of Bundy ever being a top pitcher are gone. Right now, I'm just hoping he can be serviceable. The days of him sitting in the mid-90s are long gone and his fastball never had much movement, which is he gives up homers like Grandma gives out cookies! the slider and changeup when it's on can keep him in games if he's spotting the fastball, but he doesn't have the stuff to make too many batters miss his mistakes. Yup I agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpstateNYfan Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 On 3/26/2019 at 8:43 AM, Frobby said: I assume it’s because the numbers are rounded off. -0.0 might actually be -0.02 if you took it out another digit, for example. Still, even when rounding is involved 0.0 is never a negative rational number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.