RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry


0 Subject: Sorry to bring up an old topic - Guru-Rotation vs.

Posted by: APerfect10 - [17272820] Tue, Apr 03, 19:16

Please someone help me out on this. I've pondered and pondered and its not making sense. Obviously i guess i'm dumb, and i cant refind where guru-rotation was argued against Randro. Here's my arguement and please someone pt. out my miscues.

The bottom line for the pitching game is to gain as many starts as possible. So both me and you start out with 5 PT.

I randro Randy>Pedro>Randy (burn 2 trades, and have 2 starts, and i'm left with 3 PT)
I then Maddux>Brown>Maddux (burn 2 more trades, i have 2 more starts, for a total of 4 starts and i'm left with 1 PT)
I then Mussina>Schilling (burn last trade, have 1 start, for a total of 5 starts and 0 PT)

Summary of me : Have 5 starts(not counting initial starts before trades), burnt 5 trades.

You Randy>Mussina>Brown>Maddux>Pedro>Randy, have 5 starts, burn 5 trades.

I understand how you are calculating your "efficiency" but is that really what matters?
It seems to me that what matters most is that you got the most amount of starts for your trades. And they both look 5:5 or 1:1 in that sense.

I'm probably dumb, so please someone pt me in the right direction! :) Thanks!
1 Nadim
      ID: 312533016
      Tue, Apr 03, 19:24
When you Randro, 1 extra start will cost you 2 trades.
2biliruben
      ID: 3502218
      Tue, Apr 03, 19:25
In any situation, you have to compare how many starts you will get with the trades to how many starts you would get without trading at all. This way, you calculate ADDITIONAL starts per trade.

In the first scenario you would get 3 additional starts for 5 trades, since you would have gotten the 2nd pedro and randy starts had you not traded at all.

In the 2nd scenario you get 4 additional starts for 5 trades. More efficient.
3APerfect10
      ID: 17272820
      Tue, Apr 03, 19:28
Yeah, but how is additional starts getting you more SWP? Total starts do. And either way its 5 starts. It just seems the number being calculated is a worthless number. Oh well. Thanks for the help guys...someday it'll hit me. Lol...hopefully soon! :)
4 Nadim
      ID: 312533016
      Tue, Apr 03, 19:33
If you start with Pedro and don't Randro, you'll get Pedro's starts without using a trade. If you want to Randro you need 1 trade to go Pedro -> Randy and another trade to go Randy -> Pedro. Now you used 2 trades and got 3 starts (2 Pedro and 1 Randy). That's 1 extra start for 2 trades.
5biliruben
      ID: 3502218
      Tue, Apr 03, 19:33
Well, assuming you have Randy, Maddux and Mussina (which is the only way the first scenario could actually work), you would have to use other intermediate studs in the 2nd scenario and hold Maddux and Mussina. If you ar holding Maddux and Mussina, you get their starts too, so you have to add those starts to the 2nd scenario, giving you 8 (5 + 2 maddux and 1 mussina) starts vs. 5.
6Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Apr 03, 20:00
This is probably the thread you are remembering: Pitcher Trade Strategy - A Comprehensive Intro

I agree that total starts is all that matters (well, not really, because a stud start is usually worth more than a cheapie start. But that's not the crux of your issue.)

But you have to look at total starts from your full staff, not just those from the slots being traded. And it helps to evaluate it over more than just one trading week, because some pitchers will get 2 starts on some weeks without any trading.

For those who remain confused, the best method is to plot out your total staff starts over a 5 week period, assuming pitchers work every 5th day. If you use no trades, you'd get 35 starts, because each pitcher would start 7 times in 35 days. Efficiency measures how many extra starts are gained (over the baseline of 35) per trade used.
7Narcolepsy
      ID: 23456415
      Tue, Apr 03, 20:11
Randy>Pedro
Maddux>Brown
Mussina>Schilling
Pitcher A
Pitcher B
5 trades, 8 starts, 5 days

Randy>Mussina>Brown>Maddux>Pedro
Pitcher B
Pitcher C
Pitcher D
Pitcher E
5 Trades, 9 starts, 5 days

8Chuck
      ID: 201412714
      Tue, Apr 03, 20:36
***WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD***

All right, I am just trying to justify the gurotation in my head and I have one concern that I am sure can be solved by the collective brain on the boards.

A note to all before I start: This makes sense in my head even if it doesn't come out correct as I type it. :-)

My questions: Is not Gurotation only efficient as long as you have the trades to do it?

Using Madman's example in one of the other threads, a Randro line-up would theoretically consist of:

Randro
3
4
5
6

or, Randro, and the next 4 best pitchers in the game.

A Gurotation would consist of:
1-5
6
7
8
9

Or, the top 5 pitchers in the game as well as the next 4, hence gaining you the starts of the 7-9th best pitchers. All follow?

What happens when one runs out of trades Gurotating? Say it happens while the #1 starter is on your roster (theoretically best case scenario-- correct?)

Your line-up would then be:
1
6
7
8
9

or: the top pitcher and the pitchers #6-9 in the majors. Even without putting values to each of the starts, which looks better? 1 and 6-9 or Randro and 3-6?

So maybe the Gurotation should be the opposite of how I have taken it all along.

What do I mean?
Hold:
1
2
3
4
and then rotate #5-9

No matter what, you will get all of the top 4 starters starts (good thing..) and at worst, you get stuck with a line-up of:
1
2
3
4
9
And if planned out properly, one could stay with:
1
2
3
4
5
and hold until enough trades were available to do a 5-6-7-8-9-5 rotation again.

Obviously this does not come into play until a few more dollars are collected, but wouldn't it be better to rotate the bottom starters and not the top ones?

I would say you sacrifice money this way, but for points, it looks like it is a whole lot safer.

I am not advocating a cheapie rotation, but a rotation of some of the best pitchers in the league, but not the top ones.

And even beyond this, say a Gurotation lasts for 2 weeks (5 trades + 1 for injury/repair):
You go
1-2-3-4-5
6
7
8
9
for 2 rotations and then hold

Or Randro:
Randro
3
4
5
6
In which you can Randro constantly and never be left holding a top spot without a trade.

It still seems like the flexibility is a truly added benefit.

Is my logic here totally wrong? I didn't feel like getting into stats with this (not my strong area) but logic tells me that Randro might be equal to Gurotating where trades are limited, and even if it is not, it is better to rotate 6-9 instead of 1-5.

So, where am I headed? I'm not quite sure, but I have 2 questions:

1. Based on the idea above, is it not better to rotate 6-9 when $$ is no longer an object?

2. With always rotating the top 2 pitchers, and always being able to Randro, Instead of holding for 2 weeks as more trades accumulate, does Randro = Gurotation in the short term?

I know this is kinda long, but just trying to figure things out...
9Chuck
      ID: 201412714
      Tue, Apr 03, 20:42
One additional thing came to mind:
With Randro, one uses 2 and at most 3 trades in a week. What if One Randroed, banking 2 trades or so every three weeks. Over a span of 9 weeks, 6 trades will have been banked where one can Randro and Gurotate in a span of 6 games. In which case both strategies are employed simultaneously. One benefit of Randro is the trade flexibility, so instead of using the extra trades to net a trade here or there, what if those trades were pooled. Then, theoretically, you could have the top 10 pitchers pitching in one week instead of the 6 with Randro. And yes, it is only once every 9 weeks, but 4 extra starts times 60 or whatever # you assume is another 240 points. Who wouldn't want it.

OK, I'm just gonna shut up now. :-)
10Chuck
      ID: 201412714
      Tue, Apr 03, 22:27
I think I scared everyone away... :-)
11biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Wed, Apr 04, 00:33
Yeah, chuck, I agree it appears that you are trading quality for quantity with the guru rotation.

That said, if you consider randy and pedro the top tier, I would say there are 10 pitchers that it would be hard to differentiate between underneath 'em - with the exception of Kevin Brown of course!

Schilling, Wells, Mussina, Maddux, Glavine, Park, Hampton - hard to differentiate who's a 4 and who's a 9.

12Ender
      ID: 13443221
      Tue, Mar 25, 2003, 19:47
butt
13MyDodgers
      ID: 180471720
      Wed, Mar 26, 2003, 13:02
Butt,,so I can read it again and hope it clicks
14icer
      ID: 15331119
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 04:33
1 month span:

Randy (Day 0)->Pedro (Day 3)->Randy (Day 5)->Pedro (Day 8)-> Randy (Day 10)->Pedro (Day 13)->Randy (Day 15)->Pedro (Day 18)->Randy (Day 20)->Pedro (Day 23)->Randy (Day 25)->Pedro (Day 28)->Randy (Day 30)

Pitcher B (7 starts)
Pitcher C (7 starts)
Pitcher D (7 starts)
Pitcher E (7 starts)

Total: 41 starts, 12 trades


Guru 1->Guru 2->Guru 3->Guru 4->Guru 5->Guru 1->Guru 2->Guru 3->Guru 4->Guru 5->Guru 1->Guru 2->Guru 3->Guru 4->Guru 5->Guru 1->Guru 2->Guru 3->Guru 4->Guru 5->Guru 1->Guru 2->Guru 3->Guru 4->Guru 5->Guru 1->Guru 2->Guru 3->Guru 4->Guru 5->Guru 1

Pitcher B
Pitcher C
Pitcher D
Pitcher E

Total: 59 starts, 30 trades

Hopefully, you can now see that the reason guru works better is that even if you "Randro'ed" with 3 other spots to give you a total of 59 starts, you would be burning a total of 48 trades, far more than the 30 guru requires.

There's just one problem, the one I have with all this. This is a span of a month. In a month, you will receive approximately 12 trades (rounding off to a 4-week month even though this scenario assumes 31 total days). As you can see, Randro requires those 12 trades, while guru needs 30. I'm not sure where one is supposed to obtain such a vast amount of trades. Even if you assume the player has 3 trades to begin with, 15 is not nearly 30.

(Note: I know this is somewhat irrelevant now since Randro'ing doesn't work for money the way it did before.)
15Scarecrow
      Donor
      ID: 5010232617
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 12:15
ICER,

Here's a little more data which may clarify it for you. Instead of looking at it for 1 month (4-weeks), look at the scenario for 3 months (12-weeks).

Scenario 1 has you getting 41 starts every month using all 12 pitching trades. So for 3 months you have 41+41+41=123 starts.

W/ the guru rotation you need to conserve trades to make it work effectively. So you make no trades the first 2 months. Doing so you will get 7 starts (same as in scenario 1) out of each pitching slot which is 35 for the month. The 3rd month you do the guru rotation and get your 59 starts. W/ scenario 2 then you are going to have 35+35+59=129 starts, plus you have carried 6 extra trades. (12 per month = 36 trades - 30 used in guru rotation.)

That's the whole idea w/ the guru rotation is that using trades in bulk is better than flip flopping between any two pitchers. Over 3-months (12 weeks) you would have 6 more pitching starts w/ 6 trades banked.

Scarecrow
16Stuck in the Sixties
      Leader
      ID: 184391212
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 12:29
My math is horrendous but ... aren't matchups equally important? And all these Randy-Pedro-Brown scenarios assume that you can actually switch among them. Sometimes that's not possible.

As a mathematically challenged gurupie, I like to hoard some PTs, then establish pitchers who have a good 3-4 week cycle, then roatate studs by matchup. When two studs oppose each other, I pass since both of them can't win.

Don
17Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 44450814
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 12:39
Don't look at starts/trade
Look at extra start/trade

Pitchers BCDE cancel each other out. No need to bring them into the example.

In example 1, Randro, you gain 6 extra starts w/ 12 trades. Hence, the efficiency is .5 (6/12)

In example 2, just using the first 15 trades, you gain an additional 12 starts. 12/15= .8, the greatest efficiency.

Yes, you used your trades over a longer period of time w/ Randro, but you're still using the same amount of trades. Time is irrelevant in these examples, b/c just as you can start/stop Randro at any time, you can start/stop Rotating at any time.
18icer
      ID: 15331119
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 15:28
Time is not irrelevant. In that case, you are assuming that you can just sit there with the same pitchers for 2 months. Thats a nice theory but it doesnt work in the real world unless you can afford 5 guys like Randy and Pedro (unlikely unless its August). You will lose massive money, and you will probably get nearly equal points since trading all along will allow you to select good matchups.
19Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 44450814
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 15:45
Remember, you can rotate out of any of your pitchers. you don't have to use just one slot. When Randro was in effect, you actually had less flexibility, b/c you could only do it out of one spot. You can rotate out of any of your pitchers if they have a rough start.

The discussion about rotation disregards $$. That doesn't matter in this discussion. Pure rotating is how you get the most extra starts for trades. You other points are valid, but not relevant in the discussion of efficiency.
20icer
      ID: 15331119
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 16:15
Money is irrelevant in the Randro vs. rotation debate, I agree... but when deciding if it is a good strategy or not, money is quite important. And I'm sorry but this sounds like a crock to me, the only worthwhile thing here is the idea of trading pitchers the day after they pitch to maximize starts.
21beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 3531815
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 16:33
Money making is important at the beginning of the game but each passing day it becomes less important. The million that is made in March is a lot more important then the million made in July or August. Personally, I try and stay near the top of RV's the first 2 months of the season, often sacrificing PT's to make some extra cash. Now I'm setting up for what you call a crock strategy, the guru-rotation. Come August, my teams might have a little less cash then most teams but they'll be loaded with PT's to make the final push.
22Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 44450814
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 16:38
Another thing with the crock strategy is that you need less $$ this way b/c you don't have to hold 5 top $$ guys b/c you are rotating through them. It should help your hitters.

the only worthwhile thing here is the idea of trading pitchers the day after they pitch to maximize starts.

Don't you get it-- that's the point of this! Regardless of whether it is a full Gurotation or just a short rotation or trading out of a guy who pitched today into a guy who pitches tomorrow-- it's all about efficiency. I don't know who put a chincilla in your shorts, but you're making a fight where a fight doesn't even exist.

How you apply this varies from team to team-- as does every strategy.
23icer
      ID: 15331119
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 16:46
Me? I'm not the one writing patronizing posts... you guys got all offended when i said your strategy was a crock. And it is. Not because it's inaccurate, but because you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, selling guys for a guy who pitches the next day is smart, most managers can probably figure that out. I don't see why such a "strategy" deserves to be immortalized as a "guru rotation", especially since what you are advocating is not at all a rotation, except everyone once in a while when you can stockpile a bunch of trades.

Basically, I just think you're making this much more difficult for others to understand than it needs to be. All you're saying is, after a guy pitches, sell him for someone going the next day. Who wouldn't understand that?
24ukula
      Donor
      ID: 12462213
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 17:16
Forget about looking at the guru-rotation for one week, or one month, or 3 months. Let's instead look long term and look at it over a period of one century. Say in 1905 you had a rotation of Joss-Matthewson-Three Finger Brown. Then in 1918 you had Ruth-Cowboy Jones-Sheriff McCoy in your rotation but that didn't work because Ruth turned into a hitter and screwed you big time. If I calculate correctly, if you had banked trades through 1935 you'd have 2,730 PTs banked while you had a rotation of Big Spike McNeely-Lefty Grove-Fat Ass Wilson (assuming you could rollover the trades through the years). By the time 2003 rolled around you'd have over 8,000 PTs banked and your team would be virtually unstoppable!! Of course you'd also be over 100 years old and probably couldn't even feed yourself so you wouldn't feel much like celebrating. Not to mention how long you'd have to wait for TSN to pay you the $50 for winning your division. Odds are that you'd be taking a dirt nap before you'd ever see the prize money. What was the point? Who knows.




25Rendle
      Donor
      ID: 189102723
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 17:53
I agree with ukula.
26Micheal
      ID: 412281014
      Thu, May 22, 2003, 21:00
Speaking of old topics, can someone nuke that damn "85 million" thread. No matter how much you ignore it, some dumbass just has to post in it bringing it back to the top. At least lock the damn thing so noone can post in it.
27icer
      ID: 15331119
      Fri, May 23, 2003, 00:16
lol

three finger brown
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.

If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.

If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.

RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days44
Last 30 days99
Since Mar 1, 20079231915