For those of you who cancelled your seasons

[Ken]

guys, get a room. We were trying to have a public conversation here.

Good to know I have *some* friends...

[The Feral Slasher]

I'd remind you that with a short season both of those are actually stats that you could quickly make up, but I don't think it would help.

RIP Feral's slashers of the year 2020, you guys are losers

well a short season actually makes them much more difficult to make up. But, appreciate the RIP and kind words ! : )

[The Feral Slasher]

Good to know I have *some* friends...

They only pretend to like you for your crappy dressing

[Ken]

well a short season actually makes them much more difficult to make up. But, appreciate the RIP and kind words ! : )

6.00 ERA in 1/3 of a 162 game season requires a lot more IP at 3.00 ERA to get back to a competitive than a 6.00 ERA in 1/3 of a 60 game season but I'm not sure you really were actually interested in the math here.

[Ken]

They only pretend to like you for your crappy dressing

If it was so crappy then they wouldn't have to do that. Did you think about that? Huh? Huh?

[The Feral Slasher]

6.00 ERA in 1/3 of a 162 game season requires a lot more IP at 3.00 ERA to get back to a competitive than a 6.00 ERA in 1/3 of a 60 game season but I'm not sure you really were actually interested in the math here.

6.00 era after 3 weeks is much more difficult to recover in a 10 week season than a 26 week season. But I am screwed so no use crying over spilled milk

[The Feral Slasher]

6.00 ERA in 1/3 of a 162 game season requires a lot more IP at 3.00 ERA to get back to a competitive than a 6.00 ERA in 1/3 of a 60 game season but I'm not sure you really were actually interested in the math here.

I never would have had a 6 era after 50 games in a normal season. Already down to 5 and some change. That was one of my points.....3 weeks matter a lot more this year

[The Feral Slasher]

I never would have had a 6 era after 50 games in a normal season. Already down to 5 and some change. That was one of my points.....3 weeks matter a lot more this year

I think we would both agree that if I have three weeks of crappy pitching a 162 game season makes it easier to recover than a 60 game schedule.

[The Feral Slasher]

If it was so crappy then they wouldn't have to do that. Did you think about that? Huh? Huh?

Full disclosure....i did not think about that

[Ken]

I never would have had a 6 era after 50 games in a normal season. Already down to 5 and some change. That was one of my points.....3 weeks matter a lot more this year

.... nevermind, I should have learned a while back that this was never really about statistics.

[Ken]

I think we would both agree that if I have three weeks of crappy pitching a 162 game season makes it easier to recover than a 60 game schedule.

You could reasonably have a span that's 1/3 of your season where your pitchers pitch < 2.00 ERA in a 60 game season whereas that's basically impossible across 162.


.... why am I still trying, you've successfully trolled me you jackwagon.

[The Feral Slasher]

.... nevermind, I should have learned a while back that this was never really about statistics.

it is absolutely about statistics. my team had an ERA of 6 after 3 weeks. Why would you assume I would have a 6 era after 50 games. It is already down to 5.3 or something. you can't assume that because my team sucked for 3 weeks that it would suck for 8 weeks. The actual performance has already shown that is not a valid assumption.

Again if a team has a 6 era after 3 weeks, is it easier to improve that in a 60 game schedule or a 162 games schedule ? My team already lowered the era from 6 down to 5.3, why assume that it would be 6 after 50 or more games. Doesn't make sense

[The Feral Slasher]

it is absolutely about statistics. my team had an ERA of 6 after 3 weeks. Why would you assume I would have a 6 era after 50 games. It is already down to 5.3 or something. you can't assume that because my team sucked for 3 weeks that it would suck for 8 weeks. The actual performance has already shown that is not a valid assumption.

Again if a team has a 6 era after 3 weeks, is it easier to improve that in a 60 game schedule or a 162 games schedule ? My team already lowered the era from 6 down to 5.3, why assume that it would be 6 after 50 or more games. Doesn't make sense

It's a simple question, if you have a horrible ERA after 3 weeks, is it easier to improve in a 10 week season or a 26 week season ?

[Ken]

it is absolutely about statistics. my team had an ERA of 6 after 3 weeks. Why would you assume I would have a 6 era after 50 games. It is already down to 5.3 or something. you can't assume that because my team sucked for 3 weeks that it would suck for 8 weeks. The actual performance has already shown that is not a valid assumption.

Again if a team has a 6 era after 3 weeks, is it easier to improve that in a 60 game schedule or a 162 games schedule ? My team already lowered the era from 6 down to 5.3, why assume that it would be 6 after 50 or more games. Doesn't make sense

Short term positive results are just as likely as short term negative results. That's the nature of small sample size. So being down by a lot in the short term isn't as harmful. 1/3 of the season bad in a 60 game season is much easier to come back from, all you need is a few GOOD results in another short term sample. But you already know that.

[Ken]

It's a simple question, if you have a horrible ERA after 3 weeks, is it easier to improve in a 10 week season or a 26 week season ?

If you have a horrible ERA in 1/3 of the season it's easier to improve in a short season than in a long season.