I heard Sam Miller mention on a recent episode of Effectively Wild that you have to figure the WAR of a civilian would be considerably less than zero, possibly up to negative 20.
Let's do the math.
We'll assume a few things before we start. I am mandated by law to play every inning of every game. I am me, an overweight 30-year-old. This thought experiment doesn't put me on a specific team, just a general baseball season.
WAR is composed of six parts. Batting, fielding, baserunning, positional adjustment, league adjustment, and replacement level. I'm going to skip league adjustment because it requires me to do calculations for the whole league and it doesn't really change the player's final WAR that much. We'll assign values to these from simplest to hardest.

Fielding

I will not be allowed to take the field. This is simple. 0 runs.

Positional Adjustment

As I won't be taking the field, I'd be relegated the the Designated Hitter position. The positional adjustment for 162 games of DH is -17.5 runs.

Replacement Level

The formula for replacement level runs is Replacement Level Runs = (570 x (MLB Games/2,430)) x (Runs Per Win/lgPA) x PA
If I play 162 games and bat 9th (because duh) I figure I'd get ~600 PA. I came to this conclusion thusly: The two players with the most PA in 2019 were Marcus Semien with 747 and Whit Merrifield with 735. They were both leadoff hitters who played 162 games. So if I average that number, a leadoff hitter would get ~741 PA over the course of the season if he plays every game. The difference between a full season of a leadoff hitter and a number 9 hitter is 1 PA per game minus 1 PA every 9 games. This is because the leadoff hitter will always have one more PA than the number 9 hitter at the end of a game, unless the number 9 hitter wat the last batter to come up in the game. This would happen roughly once every nine games. So 741-(162-(162/9))= 597 PA. So let's do the calculation based on that. (We'll use 2019 numbers.) (570x(2430/2430))x(10.296/186516)x600= 18.9. This brings me up to 1.4 runs.

Batting

In response to a Chris Hayes tweet musing on whether or not he'd get a hit against a full season of Major League pitching, Eno Sarris wrote an article for Fangraphs discussing the idea. He concludes that Hayes would get about 2 hits in a season. If we assume I'm roughly at the level of Hayes (he's ten years older than me, but seems to be in better shape), I'm going to say nah. If they pitch to me like a regular Major Leaguer, there is no way in hell I would make contact, let alone get a hit. However, they will quickly realize they don't have to pitch to me like a Major Leaguer. This will change two things, to varying degrees, depending on how far they go with it. The first is whether or not I actually end up getting a hit. If I'm pitched somewhere around 70 MPH with few breaking pitches, I'm sure I'd get a couple of hits. However, I doubt this would happen, for a couple of reasons. This brings me to the second thing, walks. If I were pitched to as a big leaguer, I'd get on base via walks. It wouldn't be close to Major League average, as my eye is not close to Major League average, but at the same time I have much less incentive to swing, so I'd probably be doing that less. Which brings us back to pitchers throwing softer in order to avoid walks.
First, let's analyze how that works in real baseball. I think that while taking something off your fastball does improve a pitcher's control, it hits diminishing returns quite quickly. My reasoning for this is twofold. First, pitchers are conditioned to throw the way they throw. Slowing down too much changes everything. It messed with their mechanics in ways that wouldn't necessarily be positive. The second point is that throwing a ball from 60 feet six inches away into a box roughly 500 inches square is really hard, even for a Major League pitcher.
Take 2019 for example. In 2019, non-pitchers batted .256. Pitchers, on the other hand, batted exactly half that, .128. As a result of pitchers being that much worse at hitting, the average fastball thrown to them was 92.4 MPH, as opposed to 93.2 MPH thrown to non-pitchers. While their walk rates were only 3.1%, well below the non-pitcher rate of 8.7%, I believe this is due mostly to pitchers' ineptitude at taking walks. This is because the drop in velocity only improved their Zone% from 41.6% to 49.9%. Not an insignificant difference, but still really close in context. You'd think pitchers would take off even more than the less than 1 MPH they do when throwing to pitchers, all it does is improve Zone% by 8.3%, but they don't.
So let's assume the average fastball I see is 89 MPH. I still have a hard time believing I'd get a hit on one of the slower pitches in that range. If all I saw was the lower bounds of this range over the course of a full season, sure. But that wouldn't be the case. I'd be seeing very few of those lower bounds pitches, not to mention a nice amount of breaking balls to keep me honest. I'm going to stick with 0 hits. I'm going walk rate will probably be somewhere around pitchers' walk rates. Again, my guessing pitches would be abysmal, but if I'm smart, I'd swing as little as possible. Working the count won't be a thing, and I probably won't be able to stick to my 'swing as little as possible' rule as well as I'd like, so 3% seems reasonable. 3% of 600 PA is 18 walks.
That gets me to a .000/.030/.000 slash line. Yeah, that looks about right.
The first thing we have to do to determine my batting runs is calculate my wOBA. Using 2019 numbers, that would be (18^{^walks} x.69^{^walk} ^{^constant} +0^{^didn't} ^{^do} ^{^anything} ^{^else} )/600^{^PA} =.021 wOBA
We then determine wRAA ((.021^{^wOBA} -.320^{^lg} ^{^wOBA} )/1.157^{^wOBA} ^{^Scale} )x600^{^PA} = -155.2 wRAA
There is a further adjustment based on league, but since I won't be putting myself on any specific team, I don't need to do this part.
-153.8 runs

Baserunning

Well the good news is that I'd only get on base 18 times. Simulating baserunning stats isn't exactly easy. Luckily, I noticed that players' sprint speeds are fairly strongly correlated with their BSR. When I put all the 2019 sprint speeds and BSR into excel, the conversion equation it gives me is (Sprint Speed x 0.0086-0.2348)=BSTimes on Base
Great. So now all there is to figure out is my sprint speed. I asked my wife to clock me running down the block at full speed, but she didn't seem so jazzed about the idea. Well if you want something done, you gotta do it yourself. Before I get into the numbers, bear in mind I was running down a 40 ft driveway with a flip phone in my hand, only gave myself about 5 feet to get to full speed, pressed the button at the starting point, probably started slowing down early, and then pressed it again at the ending point. Science.
I clocked myself at 2.08 seconds. I measured out the distance and it came out to 485 inches. Which is 233.2 in/sec. Convert that to feet, and I was running at 19.4 ft/sec. Which was below Brian McCann's 2019 league minimum speed of 22.2 ft/sec, but not so far off that it would make me think I did something wrong. Good enough for me. So if we plug my 19.4 ft/sec into the equation, we get -0.07 BSR per times on base. I expect to get on base 18 times, so it comes out to a -1.2 BSR for the season.
-155 runs.

Conclusion

Finally, the last step is to convert runs to wins. The 2019 Runs/Win number was 10.296. So if I divide -155 by 10.296 I end up with -15.1 WAR. Yikes. Let's put that in context. According to Fangraphs, I would cancel out any season of any great player if we were on the same team and then some. 1923 Ruth? Gone. 2002 Bonds? We would net -2.4 WAR. 2013 Trout? Not even close. If I were were to replace Edgar Martinez on the 2001 Mariners, the winningest team in modern history, they'd only win 96 games, but hey, we'd still make the playoffs! Same with the 1998 Yankees. And this is the conclusion we should come out with. I would not necessarily ruin the greatest teams of all time. So I deserve a shot.
TL;DR -15.1 WAR, but I deserve a shot.

Some dps calculations for the new bp if anyone is interested.

All calculations are done using what I think most people would consider to be a standard gear setup, and you can judge for yourself if you agree with me on that.
Because it takes a while to do these, I will be periodically editing the post with new monsters. If you have anything you want to see calculations for, please comment and I'll try to get to it.

-- Inferno - Here I used dragon darts because that is the standard.
(I ignored bats and blobs because their total hp is so low.)
Jal-ImKot (melee) - New bp will be a 17.98% dps reduction, equating to roughly 1.25 seconds (or 1 extra hit) per kill.
Jal-Xil (ranger) - New bp will be a 16.67% dps reduction, equating to about 1.85 extra seconds per kill.
Jal-Zek (mage) - New bp will be a 21.96% dps reduction, equating to about 5.2 extra seconds per kill.
JalTok-Jad (Jad) - New bp will be a 32.89% dps reduction, equating to about 17.2 extra seconds per kill.
Jal-MejJak (zuk healers) - New bp will be a 17.52% dps reduction, equating to about 1.25 extra seconds per kill.
If you do a 3 set zuk, you will have to kill a total of 36 melees, 37 rangers, 36 mages, 4 jads (ignoring the zuk jad, since you can't bp that anyway), and 4 zuk healers. In terms of purely time lost, not including the fact that you will take more damage and potentially have to wait for extra shield cycles, you will have approximately 6 minutes and 15 seconds of extra time spent purely dpsing down monsters. In comparison, it currently takes 31 minutes total to dps down all of the listed monsters, meaning it will take just over 20% longer purely in terms of dpsing with bp (and of course not including thing like barraging nibblers, waiting for melees to dig, solving waves, and dealing with the two lower level enemies). This is obviously lower if you have a t bow.
Here are some calculations for inferno with rune darts instead. The TL:DR of it is that rune darts suffer less than dragon darts because dragon darts go from 30 max hit to 26, but rune go from 28 to 25.

-- Vorkath - Here I switched to rune/addy darts since dragon darts at vorkath are impractical.
With no defense reduction, the proposed bp has 31.52% less dps than the current one. This will add 22.7 seconds to each kill on average (not including interactions with vorkath's special attacks).
With 1 dwh spec, the new bp will have 25.12% less dps than the current one. This will add 16 seconds per kill.
With 2 dwh specs, the new bp will have 21.74% less dps than the current one. This will add 12.7 seconds per kill.
With 1 average bgs spec of ~35 damage, the new bp will have 27.74% less dps than the current one. This will add 17.8 seconds per kill.
I didn't bother with 2 average bgs specs because it comes out to basically the same defense as one dwh spec.
The new bp with rune darts surpasses a dragon crossbow with ruby dragon bolts (e) in dps after 56 defense reduction, which will usually take 2 bgs specs or 1 dwh spec. I don't know how to account for switching to diamond bolts at low hp, so in reality the point at which bp becomes better should be even more difficult to reach. You may still get faster kills though, because overkill dps punishes the crossbow more. This will be mostly avoided by switching to diamond bolts at low hp.
If you're using addy darts, you will not be able to out dps a dragon crossbow with ruby dragon bolts (e), even with 2 dwh specs (even without accounting for switching to diamond bolts). Again, overkill dps seems to favor the bp, but mostly because I can't switch to diamonds at low hp.

-- Shamans - I assumed anyone here would be using shayzien gear. I also switched from rigour to eagle eye, since it seems unreasonable to expect anybody doing shamans to have rigour. Similarly, I dropped the ranged level down to 90.
With addy darts, the new bp is 29.88% worse dps than the current one, which comes out to 5.88 seconds lost per kill. This is a 28.8% increase in time per kill, and if you go on rate for dwh it will cost you approximately 8.17 extra hours. This will also take about 25000 extra shots, which comes to 5000 extra addy darts and 16,667 extra scales.
The new bp with addy darts will still out dps the msb (i) with rune arrows by 14.69%, which should save 4.1 seconds per kill after accounting for overkill. It will still save about 5.7 hours over msb (i) if you go on rate for dwh.

-- Fight Caves - Tested on task with max gear, max stats, and addy darts.
Tok-Xil (ranger) - New bp is a 15.9% dps decrease, and takes on average 0.6 seconds longer per kill.
Yt-MejKot (melee) - New bp is a 16.96% dps decrease, and takes on average 1.2 seconds longer per kill.
Ket-Zek (mage) - New bp is a 19.56% dps decrease, and takes on average 3 seconds longer per kill.
Jad - New bp is a 27.9% dps decrease, and takes on average 9 seconds longer per kill.

-- Zulrah - Tested vs blue phase in armadyl and void.
New bp with addy darts is a 20.19% dps decrease compared to current bp, resulting in 12.6 extra seconds per kill if zulrah were always in blue form. Probably more like 5 seconds lost when you include the phases that you mage.
With rune darts its a 19.33% dps decrease, resulting in 11.6 extra seconds per kill if it were always in blue form. Again, probably only 4-5 seconds lost in reality.
The new bp with addy darts still beats out acb and diamond dragon bolts (e) in dps by 13.81% and beats out msb (i) with amethyst arrows by 15.46%, so even after these changes it will be worth using over them.
If you switch to void, the lost accuracy of the new bp really hurts you. With Adamant darts, the new bp loses out to the old bp in terms of dps by a whopping 40.05%. With rune darts, it's 32.76%.
Acb and diamond dragon bolts (e) actually beats out the new bp with addy darts slightly (6.7%) if you're wearing void for both setups.
Msb (i) and amethyst arrows comes very close to bp and void with addy darts, but still loses out by 2.36%.

-- Hydra - I calculated with crystal body/legs because it's very popular there for the prayer bonus. It has the same attack bonuses of blessed d'hide, so if you use that it will be exactly the same. Arma will be very slightly different.
The proposed bp has 18.3% less dps than the current one with addy darts, increasing kill times by 18.4 seconds on average.
The proposed bp has 22.14% less dps than a dhcb with ruby dragon bolts (e). It says the kill time is only increased by 5 seconds, but that's because I don't know how to switch bolts when hydra is at low hp. If you switch to dragonstone dragon bolts or diamond dragon bolts at 300ish hp, the kill time difference will be much larger.
An acb and ruby dragon bolts still loses out to the new bp with addy darts by 2.96% dps. Including overkill, this will increase slightly, but once again it will be less noticeable than the calculator shows if you're swapping bolts at low hp.
msb (i) and amethyst arrows still get destroyed by the new bp with addy darts, which beats it out in dps by 18.76%, or about 22 seconds per kill.
Zammy hasta and max melee goes dead even with the new bp and addy darts, with a 0.7% dps lead and less then 0.2 seconds between them in boss kill time.
A more accessible zammy hasta setup for ironmen starting hydra (no ferocious gloves, no avernic, no infernal cape) loses out to the new bp with addy darts in terms of dps by 6.49%, or about 9.8 seconds per kill.
Interestingly enough, this now puts ghrazi rapier above bp with addy darts in terms of dps on hydra by 3.75%, even with the more accessible setup.
Here is a comparison of rune darts. The current bp with rune darts beats out the proposed one by 17.43%. This puts it ahead of the zammy hasta setups, behind the dhcb/lance setups, and right about even with rapier and max gear.

-- Cerberus - All tested with addy darts. These all used rigour, so if you don't have that then the melee setups will lead by even more.
The current bp has 20.34% more dps than the proposed bp, which equates to an extra 12 seconds per kill.
A budget melee setup with hasta on crush beats the proposed bp dps by 12.16%, or 7 seconds per kill.
A budget melee setup with bludgeon beats the proposed bp dps by 15.61%, or 9 seconds per kill.
A budget melee setup with rapier and avernic (for ironmen who have done some tob) beats the proposed bp dps by 21.05%, or about 12 seconds per kill.
Here are some cerberus setups with the same basic gear, but using tent whip and sarachnis cudgel. Tent whip beats out the new bp with addy darts by 5.47% or about 2.7 seconds per kill, and cudgel beats the new bp with addy darts by 10.44%, or about 6 seconds per kill.

--TOB - testing is done with no boots and with b ring (i) because bringing ranged switches in those slots is not really popular.
New bp at maiden with rune darts loses from 26.37% - 15.12% dps with 0-8 dwh specs respectively, following fairly linearly for any amount of specs in between.
New bp at maiden with dragon darts loses from 20.58% - 10.74% dps with 0-8 dwh specs respectively, following fairly linearly for any amount of specs in between.
New bp loses 16.79% dps on nylo boss with rune darts and 12.22% dps with dragon darts.
New bp with rune darts loses from 44.64% - 18.02% dps on xarpus with 0-8 dwh specs respectively, again being fairly linear for numbers in between.
New bp with dragon darts loses from 37.50% - 13.3% dps on xarpus with 0-8 dwh specs respectively, again being fairly linear for numbers in between.

--Grotesque Guardians
The current bp has 18.89% more dps than the proposed one with dragon darts.
The current bp has 15.99% more dps than the proposed one with rune darts.
The current bp has 16.59% more dps than the proposed one with addy darts.
I don't do the boss enough to know how this effects your chances at skipping the orbs.

-Olm - This is for non-cm head phase
The current bp beats out the proposed one with dragon darts by 22.3%, or about an extra 20 seconds in a solo.
The current bp beats out the proposed one with rune darts by 19.2%, or about an extra 18 seconds in a solo.
The dragon crossbow with ruby dragon bolts (e) beats out the new bp with rune darts at high hp, but starts to fall off as ruby specs get worse. In large groups, dragon crossbow will probably be overall better than bp with rune darts because olm has so much more hp.
Dragon crossbow with ruby dragon bolts (e) still loses out to the proposed bp with dragon darts.
Dhcb and t bow are still by far the best.

Reverse Engineering the ICC Test Batting Rankings

Who is objectively the most slept on player?

[OC] Why Paul Depodesta might be making the Browns the most efficient team in the league in terms of spending, talent, and wins.

We all know Paul Depodesta as the analytical "guru" that was brought in to change how the Browns process the game of football, and morph the way in which the Browns evaluate talent and success.

Depo is a pretty tight lipped executive, he likes to lurk in the shadows and does his work rather than live in the spotlight like other execs. Every indication from the team this year has pointed to Depo having a larger say in operational decisions and talent evaluation, as opposed to years past it seems (Looking at you Dorsey, Freddie, and Hue). But I really wanted to get a deeper understanding of what he was bringing to the table, so I did some research, read his quotes, watched his interviews, and gleamed what I could about his expertise and processes. I thought I’d share some of my key takeaways.
Paul learned from A’s GM Billy Beane and sabermetrics creator Bill James to challenge accepted trends and the inefficient understanding of sports. Our eyes deceive us when it comes to talent, we have inherent biases and an inaccurate understanding of what makes a team good. More specifically he challenges the notion of what makes an exceptionally talented team, and how/when/why you acquire the players that make up that team. What Depo has done in every other sporting franchise that he has been a part of, is to create and test a simple equation for wins. Actually wins added I should say. What can a team do to create wins through a player’s output? In baseball it has been relatively easy historically, more runs scored and less runs allowed = more wins. Over a long season and a large enough dataset you can almost predict these two things before you ever play a game just by looking at your players’ key sabermetrics (within a margin of error of course). Depo and Bill Beane did just that in the early 2000s and revolutionized the game of baseball. This is in my opinion Depo’s bread and better. He simplifies the grand scope of a sport into this easily digestible question. This is probably the question he posed to the Brown’s ownership on his first day. The mark for the A’s? 95 wins. That’s how many it takes to get to the playoffs on average in baseball. In the NFL it’s about 11 wins, and that’s the goal for the Browns.
The challenge for Depo back then was quantifying how runs came to be in a game. Was it RBIs? No. Was it Batting Average? Definitely No. Was it Walks? Yes, sort of. It was a combination of putting people on base in any way possible and then hitting them home consistently. Depo valued one stat over all others, OBPS (On Base Percentage Plus Slugging). It didn’t matter how the player got there as long as they put themselves in a place to score and the next person brought them home. The A’s went as far as to seek out laughably unconventional ballplayers as long as they filled this stat column (fat guys, old guys, short guys, slow guys, etc). And they told everyone from the minors up that they needed to walk more as well. The next question we might have at this point, is does a similar stat exist in football, or can we create an equation that produces a valuable football stat like OBPS to baseball? * Well no not really, at least it’s not a totally provable hypothesis as of yet. Notably because there are lot more positions in football and each position is graded on a different scale of course. Although organizations like Football Outsiders and Pro Football Focus do try their damndest to find these value stats for each position, nevertheless their methodology may still be flawed. DYAR and DVOA stats are a good jumping off point in this area as well https://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods.

*An educated guesser might speculate an indicator similar to OBPS for a team offense is a combination of scoring efficiency and ball control, for defense maybe a combination of turnovers created and red zone stops. But who knows honestly, smarter men than me have probably pondered this for much longer than I have and been paid very well for their thoughts. Paul has indicated in interviews though that he and the Browns front office may have found something similar to this treasured sabermetric in football but he’s very coy and hush-hush regarding tangible football stats the team looks for.

https://youtu.be/CGSDm-xQNlE?t=157 here’s just one example of him discussing draft indicators.
In football it’s increasingly more difficult to suss out indicators that player stats correlate with team success. First there's much less data to work with, the NFL has 16 games a year, college even less. The other challenge is that the game is played wholly differently depending on schemes, players, and situation. Think Air Raid vs. Power run. And thus the players in these systems must adapt to their surroundings. Lastly the talent pool is much smaller in football than in baseball, 40 rounds of drafting are more forgiving for finding talent than 7 rounds of course. Which leads to another Depo fact, Playing time and performance at the college level is much more valuable than raw potential and athleticism. He spells this out in Moneyball a lot. The A’s never drafted high school players, contrary to all other MLB teams they despised young five tool ballplayers. In fact they really only drafted college players with significant statistical output and playing time to back the data up. If you look at the Browns’ most recent drafts then you will notice this exact trend being used especially with top draft picks. Take a look:
Baker Mayfield: 4 year starter. NCAA record holder & Heisman Winner
Denzel Ward: 3 years of play, 2 years starting. All American
Nick Chubb: 4 year starter. SEC record holder
Jedrick Wills: 3 year starter. All American
Harrison Bryant: 3 year starter. All American. Mackey Award
Grant Delpit: 3 year starter. 2 x All American, Thorpe Award
Jacob Phillips: 3 year starter
Donovan Peoples Jones: 3 year starter
Outlier: Greedy Williams
These players simply produced in college and they produced over multiple years. Depodesta sees a correlation between on field production and future success for sure. Physical traits are always secondary in this regard.
I believe Depo values a few positions more than any other on the football field as well. Number one is The Quarterback (I know that’s obvious). They are the hitter in football. They control the offense, the majority of scoring, and the flow of the game. I think that Depo saw something in Baker Mayfield that lit up his talent indicator more than any other college player this decade besides maybe Mahomes and Burrow. He doesn’t just want a game manager; he wants an extra efficient game controller, somebody who puts their team in a position to score on every possible drive (similar to getting on base in baseball). College Baker is a stat nerd’s wet dream. The mixture of total yards, touchdowns, turnover efficiency, and completions is truly a sight to behold. Just take a look at these statistical comparisons before his draft https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/qbase-2018

Top QBASE Projections, 1997-2017

QBASE Players

Philip Rivers 1964
Carson Palmer 1916
Donovan McNabb 1799
Baker Mayfield 1480
Russell Wilson 1288
Peyton Manning 1279
Marcus Mariota 1277
Byron Leftwich 1216
Aaron Rodgers 1216
Ben Roethlisberger 1211
That’s rarified air Baker is put in there, and it was an important indicator for me to jump on his bandwagon early on. Although I will say don’t be totally surprised if the Browns move on from Baker if this year he doesn’t show better production in the second half. Billy Beane and Depo regularly traded or let walk great players if they felt they could find similar efficiency in the market or draft. Eg. Jason Giambi, Ben Grieve, Carlos Pena to name a few.
^Side ^note: Screw Freddie Kitchens and the rest of the former offensive staff for setting Baker back a year by the way. In my opinion, if we had Stefanski last year then Baker most likely wouldn’t have regressed as sharply as we saw.
Another position group he most likely values significantly is the O Line. Without them the offensive efficiency grinds to a halt both throwing the ball and running the ball. Expect lots of money and draft capital to be tied up in these guys every year. Lastly I think on the defensive side he values disruptive players, guys who grind the game to a halt and create offensive opportunities through turnovers. It also gives our "hitter" aka quarterback a chance to score immediately, and damn is our turnover rate good this year. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2020/opp.htm
The 49ers front office built their team around this concept as well last year. Defensive Ends and Cornerbacks come to mind immediately here as positons of importance. I don’t think the team expected Olivier Vernon and Greedy Williams to be out for as many games as they have been which may have thrown a slight wrench in the franchise’s plan sadly.
A point hammered home by Depo repeatedly this year is that Everyone in the organization from the top down has to be on the same page when it comes to macro strategies in sports. That includes the owner, GM, scouts, and coaches. Indicated by Depo here: https://youtu.be/JjFYRSikVEk?t=53 Depo expressed that's why he brought in Andrew Berry and Kevin Stefanski specifically this season. Depo and Haslam explained to them what system they were trying to build for the Browns and they needed everyone on board before signing off on their hires (Dorsey and Hue didn’t buy in totally). Billy Beane realized this organizational view early on and his disciple Paul definitely preaches this as well. Now they have a cavalcade of Ivy League economics majors running an NFL team with the same goal in mind, get more wins through any means possible.
In Oakland he was tasked with finding out how to add wins with talent that cost substantially less than his opposition. I mean we’re talking magnitudes less of capital ($40m vs $140m). It was thought impossible to compete with large team payrolls at the time. Baseball’s commissioner even put together a panel of economic experts that flat out told him that professional baseball was broken and that competitiveness relied solely on the amount of money spent on talent. Billy Beane and Depo scoffed at that conclusion and proceeded to drag a bunch of misfits and outcasts to Oakland’s best regular season ever. He also did similar with the Mets ten years later (RA Dickey anyone?).
Which brings me to the last and possibly most observable takeaway from the browns strategy this season. Homegrown talent is significantly cheaper than acquired talent and you should use that homegrown talent for as long as possible and for as little money as possible. The Browns have the lowest salary in the league right now and are the only team in the bottom 10 salaries to have 4+ wins. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/
It’s hard to say for certain if Depo is directly responsible for this but it’s safe to assume that he brought a little moneyball swagger to our beloved team.
The extensions of key players will be something to watch out for this season and next season as well (Myles is secured, Ward and Baker are next). The A’s were masters of replacing outgoing or expiring talent with cheaper players and regularly fleeced teams with trades that seemed insignificant and stupid at first glance. If the Browns make a trade this year then look for them to add a player with at least two years remaining on their contract and probably someone who isn’t flashy or raw but produces consistently in key categories.
It’s hard to tell how much of our success this year so far is due to Depodesta’s overall decision making and influence, or Dorsey’s drafting and player evaluation (mind you we have kept most of the scouting staff from the past 4 years as well). I lean towards the former personally. Really it’s the first time in forever that I’ve felt the team is in good hands and that we are working towards something exceptional with clear goals in mind. I love where the Browns stand right now in the division and I love where they could be in the next few years. I think we finally have a culture and strategy that is set to acquire and utilize talent like our franchise has never seen. Paul Depodesta might be the shadowy puppet master that some people imagine but I think simply he is man that is able to communicate clear and concise goals and make an exceptionally efficient plan on how to achieve them.
TLDR. I read Moneyball and had a wet dream about the Browns making the playoffs finally and then losing to New York.

A Quick Examination of Team/QB Performance on 3rd Down

How To Value A Stock (From Someone Who Has Beaten The S&P Almost Every Year Since 2008)

I recently wrote this up for my friends who asked me how I do what I do. I figured I'd share it here. This is freely available to anyone who wants it, though please credit me if you simply copy/paste. Nothing here is novel, and can be done by anyone. I am not a financial professional, and the example given below is only Abbvie because I forgot that Abbott Labs was alphabetically the first in the S&P 500 when picking an example.

First, let’s come right out and say that if you do not have the time to do this, or do not find it enjoyable, just buy low-cost index funds that track either the total market or the S&P 500.
Second, let’s make an important distinction:
Investing – This is the act of purchasing assets for less than their intrinsic value. This PDF will focus on how to determine the intrinsic value of an asset that produces income. Note that for most assets, this is simply how much money you can extract from the asset over the period of time that you hold it for. There’s no other value than money in investing. Causes and emotions are what philanthropy is for.
Speculating – This is, at its core, the act of taking supply of an asset from the present to the future (by hoarding it). If there is more demand, lower supply, or both, this pays the speculator to take the asset from a period of low value to one of high value. It is not gambling, but is very difficult to do, since it entails taking on timing risk. It is not illegal, immoral, or impossible, but I have no special insight into it. I’ll leave it there.
Gambling – This looks a lot like speculation, but without any particular reason to believe the asset will be more valuable in the future. Speculators at least estimate the value of an asset to investors, as they are ultimately the end market for an asset. Do not gamble. Full stop.
Determining the intrinsic value of an asset
The value of an asset is simply the present value of all future income that asset can provide you. Since a dollar in five years is naturally less valuable than a dollar today, you have to discount future income against the opportunity cost of forgoing the dollars you invest today. When we get to the Present Value equation, this is represented by interest. It can also be thought of as the opportunity cost of investing in the asset instead of some other asset or simply consuming the dollars instead.
Here’s the actual math. Note that it’s not super hard, and while I will explain it, there are dozens of free websites that will quickly let you calculate this. The key phrase to Google would be “present value of a growing annuity calculator.”
PV = (C / i - G) * {1 – [(1 + G)/(1 + i)]^n}
PV = present value
C = cash flow per period
n = number of payments
i = interest rate
G = growth rate
The value for PV is your estimation of what the asset is worth today. If this ends up far higher than the market price, you are probably purchasing dollars for quarters. Avoid edge cases, as you are guessing about both the interest and growth rate.
C is the cash flow per period. If you have a high degree of confidence in the culture of the company and it has a long history of being good stewards of retained earnings, you can use the earnings per share (EPS). I usually use the dividend. It is impossible to fake or financially engineer a dividend, and requires less looking through financial documents to make sure it’s what it appears to be. But for, say, Apple or Microsoft or Chevron, feel free to use the EPS.
The number of payments is how many payments you expect while holding the asset. Dividends in American companies are typically quarterly (though some pay monthly or every six months, so check on that), so every multiple of four would represent one year if you choose to do it that way. If n = 16, then you’re expecting to hold the asset for 4 years. You can also put in a year’s worth of dividends and keep n = years rather than quarters.
I typically do n = 30, since 30 years is both a long time horizon that is realistic, and coincides when I will hit “retirement age.” You will have to decide how far ahead you’re planning. For most people, they are net purchasers of investments while working and net sellers while retired, so keep that in mind. Note that using years instead of quarters will lessen the amount of compounding, and will provide some cushion in case you’re wrong.
Interest is one of the two variables you have to guess at. Typically, one would put what you expect the actual long-run interest rate to average for this investment. Unfortunately, this is really difficult. Instead, I use a rate that represents my opportunity cost. There are any number of relatively safe ways to get a 5% yield on money invested, so I generally use i = 5% to represent that this asset has to perform better than a utility or telecom or real estate investment trust. Feel free to use what you feel is most appropriate for you. A higher interest rate will lower the value of the asset, so high-balling this number will provide some cushion in case you’re wrong.
The second variable you have to guess at is the growth rate. If you’re looking at the dividend, you want to know how fast to expect it to grow over time. If you’re using the EPS for C, then you want to see how quickly the total earnings are growing per share. This is extremely difficult to predict. I recommend taking the 5-year growth rate and halving it. Dividends will also be more predictable here, as most companies pay out far less than they make, which means even if EPS grows slowly, the dividend can still grow quickly for many years after a boom is over for the company. Note that lowering your estimate for G will lower the value of the asset, so low-balling this number will provide some cushion in case you’re wrong.
OK, so let’s walk through an example. I’ll use Abbvie, a biotech/pharmaceutical company. It has a quarterly dividend for the coming year of $1.30/share. Its dividend has an 18.5% growth rate over the last 5 years, and has grown it for the last 7 (it’s only been around for 8 years).
I assumed a growth rate (G) of 7%. I used $5.20 as the starting dividend this coming year and used years for my n = 30. As always, I used i = 5%.
This gave me an estimated present value of 1 share of Abbvie at $197.94. As of writing this, Abbvie shares are trading on the market at $103.43. This looks like a screaming buy, but first let’s look at why I have a high degree of confidence.
Note how the interest was higher than the going rate – I used my “low-risk alternative” as an opportunity cost. Abbvie has an extremely high rate of growth for its dividend, so I took less than half of its current rate. I also calculated annually rather than quarterly, which reduces the impact of high rates of growth. That’s three places in the equation where I consciously lowered the estimated value of a share of Abbvie, and it still came out as a strong buy – spending less about 50c for a dollar!
I do this because even if I’m wrong in some or all of my predictions, I now have quite a bit of room to be wrong and still make money. It’s like how you don’t walk next to a steep cliff, right? You should know how to walk where you want to, but there’s always the small chance something could cause you to slip or put a foot wrong. But if your plan is always to be 5 feet away from the edge of the cliff, the odds are that you’ll not go over the edge even if you fall down.
Many people feel this is over cautious. But let my portfolio speak for itself. I’ve beaten the S&P 500 index fund every year except one since 2008. My brokerage only keeps digital records back to Dec 2015, but the S&P 500 returned 101% since then – with dividends reinvested. My own portfolio has returned 256%.
So caution is still very high reward. In fact, if you just don’t lose, you’ll do better than the vast majority of professional money managers (about 85% of whom cannot even match the index funds).
Due diligence still has to occur
Now, we can’t just go straight out and buy Abbvie – though it’s a high profile company that receives lots of investor and regulator scrutiny so it’s less likely to have a landmine than most. Just to make sure, you’ll want to do the following before buying shares in this company:
-Check the debt load. If the debt is very high, has very high interest rates, or has a lot of it maturing very soon, then this is a yellow flag. It doesn’t mean don’t buy, but make sure you understand the structure of the company’s debt and make sure it won’t impair the company’s earnings going forward. This information is found on the balance sheet. Abbvie has $97.287 billion in long-term liabilities such as debt, pension liability, and deferred taxes. That’s a lot compared to their assets, but they also are owed some money, so it nets out about $90 billion.
-What’s the book value? Book value is fairly low at $8.65/share. This is pretty much the assets minus the liabilities. Abbvie is in a knowledge industry, however, so you shouldn’t expect their main assets to be physical capital that can be sold. It’s mostly organizational or human capital from their workforce, so this isn’t worrying. If Abbvie was, say, a retailer with stores and land and inventory, you’d want this to be much, much higher for the share price. There’s no easy way to judge this one, unfortunately, but it’s good to look it up and you’ll eventually get a feel for it. No red flags here.
-What are the catastrophic risks that even you or I could think of? For a company in the pharmaceutical space, the obvious answer is regulatory and political risk. Regulatory risk is just want it sounds like – more regulation which can be either costly to comply with or lower profits. This does have an upside, which is that it makes it harder for new competitors to enter a market, so I tend to be rather sanguine about regulatory risk. Political risk is much more severe. This is when politicians decide to either confiscate a company, target it specifically rather than the industry it’s in, or other ways in which the government is involved with taking rather than regulating. In Anglo countries (US/UK/Canada/Australia), the rule of law is typically strong enough that this doesn’t happen much, as there is usually some kind of due process. Places like China, Argentina, Russia, and the EU are much more likely to nationalize or otherwise capriciously penalize a company due to the prevailing political winds. Abbvie has a global footprint, but that also means it’s diversified against such risk. It’s headquartered in the US, so it’s unlikely someone will simply take the entire company.
-Payout ratio? Abbvie has a fairly high payout ratio (80% for the last completed fiscal year of 2019), as they have been aggressively growing the dividend. That’s another good reason to input a much lower G than the last few years. That being said, Abbvie has been around for 8 years (it was spun off of Abbott Labs) and has grown its dividend for the last 7 years and has announced it will this coming year as well. The payout ratio is pretty high, but not worrisome. It suggests a fairly mature company that’s now returning cash to shareholders. I’d say this is not nothing, but less than a yellow flag for me. Any company with 95%+ payout ratio is much more vulnerable to a dividend cut.
-Credit rating? S&P gives Abbvie a BBB+ grade for its unsecured debt. This is a slight downgrade because their balance sheet is currently digesting a big acquisition from early 2020 (Allergan). Moody’s gives it a Baa2 rating for unsecured debt. These are both good, solid, investment-grade credit ratings (if you were buying the bonds of Abbvie). This looks great.
-Does it need a genius? Some companies run on all cylinders because they have a genius at the helm – often a founder. But what you want is a company any dummy can run, because sooner or later any dummy will. Don’t plan to invest long-term in companies that require skilled management. Abbvie is fairly diversified and has an OK pipeline of research. They also can buy little biotech companies that invent something but can’t navigate the regulations to bring it to market. So pondering giants are actually a good thing. Means they’re hard to break.
So, given that there was nothing obviously treacherous in our basic due diligence, and the extreme discount at which our example is selling for, this would be one you might want to buy! This is what I do for all the companies I invest in.
Notice that there is no story, no excitement, no narrative, no counting on good or bad management. Emotion has no place in investing. You also will notice that we took every opportunity to reduce the risk of losing your capital by always sandbagging the estimated value of the company. You never want to pick up nickels in front of a steamroller. You want the investment to be so obvious it hits you in the face like a baseball bat. If you’re ever on the fence, don’t do it. You don’t have to hit home runs – just don’t strike out.
You can be even more conservative in your estimates than I am. If, for instance, you used 5% growth rate for Abbvie’s dividend, you’d still get a present value of $148.57/share vs the current market price of $103.43. Similarly, you could use a higher interest rate, which would also lower the estimated present value.
You may have to do this calculation with more companies to find one to buy, but even in a very expensive market like today’s, there is always an opportunity. You don’t even have to look at little companies. There’s around 500 companies in the S&P – just start with “A” and work your way through all of them.
A quick note about further reading: I very strongly urge most people to actually read as little as possible on this subject once they get the basics. That’s not because there’s not more to learn, but because I would sadly say the majority of what I see and hear is actively bad advice. But if you do want to keep up with financial news and books and chat boards, the best thing to do is find out what the historical returns of the person giving advice are.
Since WWII, the long-run return on the S&P 500 has generally been just a bit shy of 10% per year. If someone can’t beat that, year-in-and-year-out, then their advice is worthless. As in, you don’t want to accidentally absorb it. This is, unfortunately, true for most professionals. Over the last 15 years, 92.2% of actively managed funds have underperformed a simple S&P 500 index fund (and they charge you fees for the privilege). Beware anyone selling something. The advice here is given freely
That’s why I made a point of mentioning that I have and regularly outperform the standard fund almost every year. Granted, I don’t have many of the regulatory restrictions a public fund would have, but it shows how useful the advice I’m giving here is. You don’t need anything fancy. You don’t need anything high risk. I’ve done this through two deep recessions and the longest bull market in history.
If you want to learn more about investing in general and where I learned how to do this, you can read Benjamin Graham’s The Intelligent Investor. It was written in the 1930s, so much of the technical information is out of date. Skip over that and just read it for the concepts.
Even easier reading is to go online to Berkshire Hathaway’s website and pull Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger’s annual letter to shareholders. Almost all of them have something useful in them and don’t make you do equations.
I am available for questions in the comments

Calculating the Value of BA in Roto

A few days ago, someone DM'ed me a question regarding how to value rate stats like BA. This was in response to a comment that I had made regarding Josh Bell's overall value in an auction league not being all that dependent on whether he hit .269 or .251 (i.e., a difference of 5 hits). So this post goes into some detail with regards to one way of analyzing BA, which can also be applied to other rate stats like ERA, WHIP, OPS, etc.
Three quick preliminary notes:

The league structure assumed in this post's example is an Ottoneu 5x5 (i.e., $400 cap, 40 man rosters, 162 GS caps on 12 offensive slots). The actual numbers may change a little in different formats, but the overall framework presented should be generalizable to all roto formats;
I'm using a Standings Gain Points (SGP) approach so you might get different results using a different valuation method, like z-scores; and
None of this is especially groundbreaking but is aimed to address a question that I was recently DMed and thought that a more detailed response might be of broader interest.

Calculating the marginal value of an offensive counting stat (e.g., HR, RBI, R, SB) is relatively straight-forward: simply divide the hitter's total by an empirically derived divisor. For example, on average across my 5x5 Ottoneu leagues in 2019, 10.57 HR would have advanced me a full point in the HR categories (aka, 1 Standing Gains Point [SGP]). So if I had Matt Olson in 2019, his 36 HR alone would be worth 3.41 SGP (before adjusting for replacement) given that the SGP divisor for HR was 10.57.
Rate stats (e.g., BA plus ERA and WHIP) are a little less intuitive to calculate because the marginal effect depends on the denominator, AB (or IP in the case of pitchers). Also, unlike counting stats, the SGP for rate stats can be negative. Anyway, with some basic and simplifying assumptions, SGP_ba (i.e., the SGP derived from each hitter's BA) can be as straight-forward as a counting stat to value.
The basic intuition is to construct the answer to the counterfactual "What would my team's BA be in the absence of this additional player?" The starting point is what the rest of your team's expected BA would be. If you are maxing out your Game Start (GS) limits in an Ottoneu 5x5 on your 11 other roster slots, then you're probably averaging around 7200 total AB (call this Assumption 1). Let's further assume that the average BA in the league will be .265, so the baseline is 1910 Hits in 7200 AB (call this Assumption 2).
Imagine that I add a projected .265 hitter to my lineup. Specifically, he is projected to get 139 hits in 525 AB. So I add those 139 hits to 1910 (so 2,049 total) and 525 AB to 7200 (so 7725 total).
Unsurprisingly, the team BA doesn't change (at least not when rounded to three decimal places). That is, a league-average hitter has zero marginal impact. Without getting into the weeds on the math at this point, it also follows that the league average hitter will have SGP_ba=0. Similarly, any batter with a BA below .265 will have SGP_ba<0 and any batter with a BA above .265 will have SGP_ba>0.
Understanding the direction of SGP_ba is pretty intuitive, but what about the relative magnitude? .290 is clearly better than .265, but what is the value of that marginal difference? Moreover, how much better is a .339 hitter than a .290 hitter?
Before we calculate the value of that marginal difference, we need to make a third assumption: how large a change in team batting average does it take to advance a team one SGP? Based on my Ottoneu leagues, that historically been 0.0024 (call this Assumption 3).
Given Assumptions 1, 2, and 3 for each hitter:

SGP_ba=((H+1910)/(AB+7200)-0.26528)/0.0024 (Equation 1)

So say I have a .290 hitter (152 Hits in 525 AB), then (assuming I don't make any silly mistakes):

SGP_ba=((152+1910)/(525+7200)-0.26528)/0.0024
SGP_ba=(2062/7725-0.26528)/0.0024
SGP_ba=(0.26693-0.26528)/0.0024
SGP_ba=0.00165/0.0024
SGP_ba=0.6875

To put that into some context, recall that Olson's 36 HR in 2019 were worth 3.41 SGP. That is, a great HR hitter is worth substantially more than a great BA hitter.
Note that among fantasy-relevant players in an Ottoneu 5x5 in 2019, the standard deviation for BA was approximately 0.025 and the league average was .265, so we would expect about 95% of players to fall within two standard deviations of the mean: that is, a confidence interval of [.215, .314]. Furthermore, a 525 AB hitter, each standard deviation corresponds to 13 hits. Bearing that in mind, here is a handy chart for visualizing the marginal effect of players with BAs that are 3 standard deviations below the mean to those that are 3 standard deviations above the mean (all assume a player with 525 AB):

Standard Deviations	BA_player	H_player	BA_team	SGP_ba
-3	0.190	100	0.260	-2.1
-2	0.215	113	0.262	-1.4
-1	0.240	126	0.264	-0.7
0	0.265	139	0.265	0.0
1	0.290	152	0.267	0.7
2	0.314	165	0.269	1.4
3	0.339	178	0.270	2.1

To clarify the column headings:

BA_player and H_player are the BA and hits for that tier of player (e.g., a -3 standard deviation hitter is projected at .190, which corresponds to 100 hits in 525 AB);
BA_team indicates the BA of the team with that player (recalling that the assumed average is 0.265); and
SGP_ba is the SGP from BA of that player.

As hinted at before, a hitter with an elite BA is not as valuable as a hitter with an elite skill in a counting stat. The reason is that an individual player can only help (or hurt) your team's BA so much. For example, Joey Gallo hurts you with a 0.211 BA as much as Luis Arraez's .312 helps you. Another way to look at it: the net difference between the projected very worst BA in baseball and the very best is 2x|1.4|=2.8 SGP, whereas Olson's 36 HR are worth 3.41 SGP_hr (before adjusting for replacement-level).
Finally, what's the auction value of that SGP_ba? For the sake of brevity, I'll skip over a few steps, but the equation that I use for converting SGP to auction values is:

$Value=0.8184 x SGP² + 0.1673 x SGP + 1.0762 (Equation 2)

Note: I'll probably address why the value curve should be nonlinear in a subsequent posts--many places use a linear equation, which doesn't take into the roster constraint. But that's a subject for another post.
Anyway, using Equation (2) the difference between a .240 and .290 hitter (i.e., 1.4 SGP) is just $2.91; meanwhile, the value of those 3.41 SGP from Olson's 36 HR was $11.16 or nearly four times as valuable.
So what about Josh Bell and .269 vs .251 (i.e., 9 hits in 525 AB)? Using Equation 1, we can calculate that the difference is about half a SGP (specifically, 0.485). Plug that into Equation 2 and you get $1.35, which is non-trivial as Bell only projects as a $12-14ish player. But at the same time, it just doesn't represent that much total value.
To summarize, BA takes an extra step or two to figure out how to value, but it's straight-forward enough. The basic intuition is that you need to interrogate the data to answer the question, "What is the marginal effect of a particular player's BA on my teams BA compare to a league-average hitter?"
As illustrated earlier, the difference in value between a .290 hitter and a .240 hitter (i.e., one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below) is not as large as one might expect. It is about the premium that one would pay for a 36 HR hitter over a 23 HR hitter. Also worth bearing in mind that of all the offensive 5x5 statistics, BA is the least reliable (i.e., highest variance and the most difficult to project) because BABIP is such a noisy measure.
FWIW, my advice is to generally steer clear of guys whose primary attribute is a projection for above-average BAs, because they tend to command an undeserved premium and their skill is the most difficult to project.
tldr; Before you bid aggressively on a guy with an empty elite BA (e.g., Arraez), do a little bit of math to double-check the actual value of a projected BA, which you may want to discount further due to the uncertainty related to BA projections compared to other offensive categories. Also, low BA players typically provide some of the best values in most drafts. You will need to make some assumptions regarding how many AB and H the rest of your team will produce as well as the SGP divisor (which should be empirically derived).

Why kirakira precure a la mode is great and doesn’t deserve all this slander!

Out of any of the post go princess series, this seems to be the one that gets dragged the most. I’ve seen some mahoutsukai and star twinkle slander but it seems like people are looking back on these more fondly and mostly hated them upon release. I’d love the same treatment for a la mode. I have staked my claim and I am writing a whole essay on why kira kira precure a la mode is one of my all time favorite precure series and why you should love it too. Also, warning! this post does contain spoilers for this series.
IS IT A MASTERPIECE?
So, right off the bat, I will admit that this series doesn’t have as deep of a message or themes as something like Go Princess, Heartcatch, or Huggto. So to anyone who says the show isn’t deep and therefore not worth praise, I ask you this; is every series that’s not trying to create deep and mature storytelling automatically bad? Of course not. Do you think futari wa precure was created because they had a deep message to convey? No, it’s a show about best friends kicking villain’s butts and living their daily life. The core friendship between Nagisa and Honoka is what makes futari wa precure so great and why it became a hit. And it’s not like there’s nothing to analyze with a la mode, I will talk about kirakiraru and why I don’t get the complaints about it later, but first I want to talk about all the good this series has to offer outside of its messages.
THE GOOD SURFACE-LEVEL STUFF
First off, the designs and art style are super underrated. Everything is so cute and vibrant, and the cure costumes combine animals and sweets in such an elegant and cute way. The only one I really have a gripe with is Gelato’s due to the big boots and gloves, but even the rest of her outfit is really cute. All of the civilian outfits absolutely slap as well. This show really embraced the cartoony kiddish vibe with its art and I can’t help but love it for that. The kirapati was a really great idea for the show and gives a logical reason why the girls would be baking together so often. I also love me a main base/clubhouse kinda place for the cures, and this is definitely that. The sweets pact and candy rod are two of my favorite items in the series. I love the candy rod so much I even bought one. 3 2 wonderful a la mode is one of the most spectacular group attacks and I will hear no argument to the contrary. The music in this show also slaps. I adore the OST and all the character songs, with my favorites being cat meets sweets and macaronage of love and excitement (of course).The opening, while not having great visuals, is such a banger, and shubidubi sweets time is one of the best dance endings of them all; like those girls just reinvented the art of dance in front of our very eyes and we are not worthy! The biggest reason why I love this series is nothing aesthetic, it’s the cures. I will be giving sections to each of them right now...
CURE WHIP
Ichika is frequently dragged. In my recent pink cures poll, she came third in least favorite pink cure behind only heart and lovely, which is kind of insane to me. In my eyes there is a lot to really like about Ichika. If you personally didn’t find her interesting, that’s fine, I’m just here to explain why I love her. I’ve heard people call her a Mary Sue, which may be the funniest and most illogical character critique I’ve heard in precure. Her entire character is that she’s not good at sweets at first and has to learn to be better at it. In general she learns a lot about many different things from the people around her; how to slow down, how to learn to perfect things, how to put your effort in the right place. I really like seeing the genkiness of a genki pink leading to failure that needs to be overcome. By the end of the episode she makes the sweet, sure, but her perseverance is admirable. She has the upbeat likeability and admirable perseverance of any other pink cure, so I just don’t get why whip specifically gets the hate. I think as a lover of art who had to work really hard to be even decent at it all my life, I find Ichika really relatable. Even the idea of when you make something great, the next day you may be back at square one with a different type of art, sweet in Ichika’s case, is intensely relatable to me, so the episode to episode trial and error resonated a lot more with me than it might with others.
CURE CUSTARD
I think even amongst people who don’t love this series, Himari is the agreed upon best cure in it. I don’t personally agree with this, but I think it’s very similar to Yayoi in that there is a reason why the general fanbase loves her. She’s freaking adorable first of all, but I didn’t need to tell you that. In my eyes, what sets Himari apart from other shy characters (in all media, not just precure) is that her love of the series theme, sweets, is very much a scientific one. It’s a fascinating view that makes perfect sense. Baking is precise, and the most like science of any of the types of cooking. It really makes sense that an intelligent person like Himari would be drawn to it. She works as a foil to both Ichika and Aoi in the way that she's about doing things the right way, being methodical and logical; and Ichika and Aoi are very much extroverted trail blazers.
CURE GELATO
Out of the cures in this series, Aoi is the only one who I feel like doesn’t have as much of a connection to the others and to the themes of the series. That’s not to say I don’t like her, in fact, I adore this character. This is an example of a character not having to tie in to the series themes to be great. I love how Gelato is a subverter of expectations when it comes to blue cures. Many blue cures are rich. Never has the conflict been ‘I don’t want to have this responsibility’ before. It’s always been ‘I have to choose between different aspects of my perfect life’ or something like that. Sometimes this can be a really great thing, I loved it with mermaid. But with Gelato they didn’t pull a marine and made her completely divorced from the blue norm, rather they just presented a very different type of rich girl blue and as someone who's seen all of the series I really appreciated it. I think some might take umbrage with the fact that she ends up not having to do her duties and gets to be a regular girl, but after that happens she doesn’t lose what makes her her, so I give it a pass.
CURE MACARON
Yukari is my favorite cure from a la mode and my all time favorite purple cure. I know this is very high praise, so I will explain. There has never been a cure like Yukari before and there probably won’t be one like her again. This absolutely fascinating enigma of a character. Like your stereotypical blue, she is admired and praised for being good at everything. Unlike them, though, she’s not prone to be outwardly appreciative of or sentimental towards stuff. Like our purples of old, she’s not exactly a nice person most of the time. It makes her a really interesting foil to Ichika and thus the core values of the series. Having to work to be good at something you love is totally alien to her. In her life she’s been good at everything and doesn’t like many things in her life, let alone loving things. From very early on, Ichika is a notable exception to Yukari not liking stuff, which is something I also really like. Yukari is drawn to how opposite to her Ichika is, because she’s craving mental stimulation. I think Yukari is a really good example of a highly intelligent and capable person who often feels bored as a result of these abilities, which for a franchise with so many ‘perfect’ characters before her, isn’t something we’d ever had. In general I also love her attitude, disposition, fashion, cunning, and even occasional flirtiness. And don’t get me started on how much I adore her relationship to Akira, who is basically her wife and nobody can tell me different.
CURE CHOCOLAT
As much as I adore Akira, this is probably the cure in this series I have the hardest time defending because her not getting enough focus and thus people viewing her as uninteresting is a really valid critique of her character. So, like Ichika, I guess I will explain why I personally love her. I think the strong part of Akira is her relationships and not her as a character specifically. Most of her episodes are about her relationship with her sickly little sister, Miku. This leads to Akira not feeling like her own character a bit but it is a really touching and sweet relationship that shows how admirable of a person Akira is. She seems very masculine and tough (the most of any cure in the franchise for sure), but she’s actually really soft and caring, which I love. I also adore her relationship with Yukari in the series. These two are such a good couple, I adored every moment they were together on screen. Akira really brings out the best in Yukari and that’s one of the reasons why I love macaronage of love and excitement. The lyrics are so mature and touching for precure (which is great since they’re much older and more mature than your average cure), with Akira seeing through Yukari’s constant façade and wanting to love her for who she is. In terms of gay shit in precure, this is peak gay and I adore these two as a couple so damn much.
*SPOILER TERRITORY, BE WARNED!\*
CURE PARFAIT
Ciel is probably my personal least favorite from the series, but that doesn’t mean she’s bad by any means. In fact, she’s quite a unique and interesting character. Someone as young as her being such a fantastic patisserie already, her use of French, and of course her super dynamic and unique cure design really cement her place in this series. In terms of its themes, a la mode is a pretty simple series, which I really like in some respects. And for how simple the narrative of one sibling succeeds and leaves the other in the dust is, it works really well given what we know about Ciel and Julio before the episode where it really comes together. We know Julio hates sweets and that Ciel has given a lot of her passion and talent to being such a successful pâtissière at a young age; so this story transpiring between them and then their reconciliation as siblings is actually really touching, especially on my rewatch of the series.
THE FAIRIES AND VILLAINS
Despite there being a whole colony of fairies in this show, they don’t really matter so I won’t talk about them. The elder doesn’t do anything in the show. He doesn’t negatively impact the show for me, just worth noting that he’s not worth noting. Before the eleventh hour becoming a cure stuff, Pekorin was actually a better fairy than most give her credit for in my eyes. Her albert einstein hair is really weird but makes her unique and funny to me. For what she is, I enjoy her. In terms of villains, for the first few episodes we have the thieves. They aren’t super special but they have some weird and fun designs and they are really in the story super early on. My gripes with them are minimal. I usually hate characters like Julio/Rio, but I think he was really well-handled in the show and I ended up liking him and his story with his sister, as I mentioned earlier. Bibury is absolutely awesome, so much so that she made my top 20 villains list. Elisio got a mention there, because he’s cruel in a way I like to see with precure villains. I love his design and how much of a strategist he is, and his schemes lead to really good moments for the girls. Grave is also a cool villain who Isn’t one I’d often point out as being notable but I enjoyed in the show. I liked his design and his car. I will say that the big bad kinda sucks in this one, though. He’s one of the one-dimensional and just blah male big bads that I always hate. I think a good big bad can enhance a series, but this guy sucking really doesn’t make the show any worse for me.
KIRAKIRARU- WHAT IS IT?
This is something I often hear people ask about. Like, ‘what is kirakiraru, why doesn’t the show explain what it is’? So I’m going to share my interpretation of it and even why I don’t think the series explicitly tells us what it is. I will say first of all, it’s not something specifically quantifiable. It’s not something scientific or something with a clear definition. I would equate it to something like the force in the original star wars movies. It’s an unexplainable force that determines a lot of what is important to the story and the values of our characters. The show tells us it’s the energy stored in sweets. What kind of energy? You could say that it’s a concrete energy or a representation of the ingredients, since when kirakiraru is extracted from sweets, it makes them gross gray lumps, but I think it’s an emotional energy. The time, love, energy, and effort someone puts into making and loving sweets. It’s the reason why the villains have to steal it and can’t produce their own; because they have no love or passion for baking. For our cures, it’s the force that unites them, the thing that all these very different girls have in common. When you think about it, it’s surprisingly powerful. The villains are essentially stealing love. Ichika’s love of sweets even if she’s not good at making them; Himari’s love of science being expressed in something delicious and tangible; Akira’s love for her little sister; Aoi’s love of individuality and creativity (this isn’t always sweets related but it can be); and Yukari’s interest in everyone else and why they love making sweets so much. It may be a simple series, but I really don’t see any lack of passion or emotions here. Why doesn't the show rigidly define it? Because baking in this series is a deeply personal experience. It can be shared with others for sure, but it's an essence of you in sweet form. Bearing your soul to the world can be really difficult, and in this series when you create kirakiraru that's what you're doing. That's why they don't really really show us, because they want you to find out what it means for yourself.
THE OTHER MOST COMMON CRITIQUE
Ok, so as I’m basically done talking about a la mode now, before I end this post I wanna talk about the biggest and most common critique lobbed by certain haters of this series that I haven’t touched on yet, and that is the lack of good fight scenes. And this is the part of the essay where I explain one of the reasons why precure is a great franchise. It’s because every series is offering us something different. Instead of complaining that the fight scenes aren’t as action packed as other series, why not praise how unique and vibrant they look? If you want good fight scenes go watch another series, there have been plenty before and will be plenty in the years to come. I’m just saying to discount a series by one quality not being as good as others when it clearly wasn’t a priority of the series makes absolutely no sense to me. If it was a priority and they did it wrong, I’d be a bit more ok with this critique. Bottom line, they aren’t called legendary warriors in this series, they are called legendary pâtissières. I rest my case.
OK, THE ESSAY IS OVER NOW
If you actually read all this, first of all thank you for hearing me out. Second of all, if you disagree and still hate it, that’s valid, although it does make me a little bit sad. I know there are others like me who stan this series and I can only hope that in the future the fanbase looks back on it more fondly than they do right now. Obviously, this series isn’t perfect, but it’s very enjoyable despite its flaws and I wish overall we were nicer to it.
Also, before you leave, please leave me any seasons you’d want me to write about like this in the comments!

What resulted in the Rockies demise?

The Rockies are at the cusp of something big. No, it's not making the playoffs, it's figuring out the direction of their franchise. Do they still have the belief they can get back to the promised land? Or do they want to rebuild? Well... Chances are it's neither since this team is led by Jeff Bridich and thus all the trade rumours surrounding Nolan and Story will be for nothing.
Though ignoring the fact they will probably do nothing, I just want to encapsulate what have the Rockies done to get themselves in this terrible situation?

2018-2019 Offseason:

Not Re-Signing DJ LeMahieu:
This is the most obvious one but I want to give a little more context. At first glance at his stats with the Rockies, you may actually notice that DJ only had one season with an above-100 OPS+ with the Rockies. He won three gold gloves in the same span, so you'd think that the importance of DJ LeMahieu on the Rockies came mostly defensively, and then he developed into an offensive stud as a Yankee.
Though in this case, OPS+ is actually pretty misleading. DJ LeMahieu suffered like many Rockies players from the Coors Field effect, which is not shown in OPS+. Though that's not the main point, rather what he DOESN'T gain from Coors itself. As a hitter, DJ LeMahieu had an average launch angle that was at MOST, 5.2 with the Rockies. That equates to a groundball percentage of 53.4% overall, and even with the Yankees, he was still hitting more groundballs compared to the average. With how Coors Field causes flyballs to carry out more for home runs, you can logically put together that groundballs do NOT get this benefit. If you look at simply his triple slash, .329/.386/.447 was his slash at Coors Field, which is considerably worst than how he's performed at Yankee Stadium, .359/.414/.628. Yankee Stadium doesn't have the Coors Field air, but rather it has much smaller dimensions that cause DJ to be able to hit more home runs simply off of exit velocity.
So really as a hitter, DJ LeMahieu gained pretty much nothing from Coors Field but still had to deal with the Coors Field effect lessening his road stats. This is also why Ian Desmond struggles so much as a Rockie, but that's for another post. Throughout his time in Colorado though, he still constantly hit for high averages and good on-base ability, which made him such a valuable player to the Rockies, along with his fielding. If the Rockies wanted a sure-fire option to get the bats going, re-signing DJ LeMahieu would have been the best option. DJ didn't magically become a good hitter because of Yankee Stadium, he just always was but had a better fit in New York.
Though if they didn't re-sign DJ for the sake of a different, better signing... Maybe it would make sense to let go. Unfortunately,
Re-Signing Daniel Murphy to more money:
So DJ LeMahieu would go on to sign a contract with the Yankees, $24m/2yrs. Maybe the Rockies simply didn't have that money, you may say. But nope, the Rockies decided to sign Daniel Murphy to basically the same initial contract, $24m/2yrs but with a 6m OPTION after those 2 years were up. It's not like Murphy was younger or better than DJ either, he was already established as a terrible defensive dude and was 3 years older, that should 100% be cheaper.
But maybe the Rockies were really high on his bat, after all, he did hit for an OPS+ of 107 the year prior. Though he was heading into his age 34 seasons, where his OPS+ was dropping from year-to-year. They also literally JUST had an example the season prior with Chris Iannetta, about how trusting late-career solid offensive seasons was not a good idea. Iannetta had a 116 OPS+ with the DBacks in his age-34 season and then had marks of 85 the year after with the Rox. If it was a cheap contract, taking a flier on Murphy maybe made sense. To the same contract as DJ? It was gonna be predictably bad.
So what did Murphy hit after this contract? Predictably very poorly, hitting .269/.316/.426 for an OPS+ of 81 the next two years with poor fielding, nowhere CLOSE to DJ. Obviously, that hurt the Rockies with him being a starter, but there was another unintended consequence...
Failing to give Brendan Rodgers playing time:
Heading into 2019, MLB Pipeline rated Brendan Rodgers as the 10th best prospect in all of baseball. In his draft class, Pipeline actually rated him the BEST player in the 2015 draft. If they wanted to let go of DJ LeMahieu for the sake of letting this star prospect play, that would make a lot of sense. Even if the Rockies didn't see B-Rod as someone who could contribute immediately to their window, they could easily trade him for another star that would, like how they were rumoured in talks for JT Realmuto.
Instead, they signed Daniel Murphy. The Rockies had to decide between playing RyMac or B-Rod at second base, and since manager Bud Black likes experience much more, RyMac got the job. B-Rod went on to mash in triple-A with a line of .350/.413/.622, but when he got playing time in the MLB he hit a poor .224/.272/.250 line. Though B-Rod had an insanely short leash in this time. The most games he started in a row were five, and even then he managed to turn around any early struggles. Yet they kept starting him off and on again, which caused his numbers to dwindle. Struggled for two games? Too bad, no third game for you. In 2020, it was very similar but also B-Rod was coming off a shoulder injury so not quite the same.
Why does it actually matter that we play him though? After all, in baseball first-round “busts” happen quite a lot, and that could apply to B-Rod as well. Funny enough, that’s exactly why we need to play him. Since B-Rod gets such inconsistent playing time, we STILL don’t know in 2020 what B-Rod truly is as a player. Is he a bust? Well, he hasn’t even reached a lot of rookie seasons in terms of PA so we really can’t see if his mediocre triple slash is for real. Does he still have what it takes to be a star? We only have his AAA stats to go off of, which indicates yes. Though AAA is much different from the MLB level, and once again, we hardly have anything to go off of. So we’re at a point heading into 2021, where we truly do not know if B-Rod is good or not. That’s a terrible limbo to be in, he doesn’t quite have as much value as a prospect, but also we don’t know if he’s good enough to start for us.
Giving Nolan Arenado an unnecessary opt-out:
This won’t be as long of a section as the other ones, simply because it’s so self-explanatory. Nolan Arenado was eager to keep being a Rockie, as long as he was getting paid as he was deserved. He did get that, being paid $260m for 8 years. He got a NTC, and he was very much at the time, happy to be in Denver for the next 8 years. He loves his teammates, he loves the fans, he loves that the Rockies could contend for the future.
So Jeff Bridich decides that he should give him an opt-out, just in case NOLAN ever changes his mind. Player opt-outs pretty much never benefit the team, and it's paired with the NTC from earlier, meaning the Rockies get not much leverage in potential trades. Though Nolan still loves his teammates and the fans. As long as the Rockies just keep him happy, Nolan’s staying 100%.

2019-2020 Offseason:

The Rockies piss off Nolan Arenado:
It takes one year for the Rockies to piss off Nolan. The Rockies struggled in 2019, but that could just be a fluke year. Arenado’s disappointed, but oh well that’s just baseball. What he IS pissed off about, is that the Rockies really didn’t do anything to set themselves as contenders again. At the all-star break, the Rockies were still 44-45, not that far behind the Phillies' wild-card spot at the time (47-43). It was a good opportunity for the Rockies to flip some pieces and re-insert themselves back into the race.
The Rockies did nothing at the deadline. Though maybe this would change come the offseason? Well, that’s what Nolan Arenado is REALLY pissed about:
The Rockies do (basically) nothing in the 2019-20 Offseason, and involve Nolan in rumours:
As the title said, the Rockies basically did nothing. You can’t make any bad moves if you do nothing, I suppose!
Except for the fact that the Rockies still managed to fuck up doing nothing. You know how this title also involved Nolan in trade rumours? The thing is, Nolan never publicly demanded a trade or anything like that, the Rockies just struggled last season. He was maybe a little upset that nothing was done, but even if that caused some minor stirs it would just be easy to deny any trade rumours. Jeff Bridich straight up, never addressed these rumours. Denied it? Nope. Admitted it? Nah. Did he actually say ANYTHING other than he may talk about it with Nolan? Definitely not. He never even got around to doing it either.
Other than pissing Nolan off, Jeff Bridich only did one thing, and that was sign Jose Mujica to what I THINK might be an MLB contract? MLBTR says it basically was, but then he did not make the opening day roster for the Rockies and had to be called up. So I guess you could call it a minor league deal that was really an unnecessary MLB deal. Jeff Bridich is familiar with unnecessary, after all.

2020-2021 Offseason:

The Rockies let go of David Dahl:
This is recent! Of course, nothing has actually happened as a result of this, but it’s pretty clear that the Rockies probably won’t look good either way non-tendering David Dahl. Why? For one simple reason: his projected salary for 2021 was ONLY 2.6 million. Even with the context of the pandemic, $2.6m is what you would pay for a bench player. Even with all the injuries David Dahl has had, that price is so cheap it’s easily worth it for a former all-star. There was essentially no risk with this arbitration number and yet the Rockies managed to fuck that up too. Now they had into 2021 with an OF of Tapia-Hilliard-Blackmon, which admittedly, is not a strong group. Even as a 4th OF, Dahl would have been valuable. Instead, they get disappointment.
Going Forward:
The Rockies have already pissed off Nolan, and he won’t be changing his mind any soon with Bridich still at the helm. Of course, the Rockies are also going down the same route with Trevor Story, as rumours circle around him, and Jeff Bridich refuses to deny it or even address it. Hell, the Rockies refuse to acknowledge ANYTHING this offseason and will not address anything until something big happens. Unlike Arenado though, Story simply hits free agency instead of opting-out, he has much more to gain by leaving. At the same time, he does not have an NTC so the Rockies do have some leverage.
Though as we’ve seen the last two offseason… The Rockies hardly do anything, and even when they do, it’s not smart. So will the Rockies blow it up this offseason? Probably not. If they do, will they orchestrate it well? Probably not. The Rockies did make one trade but it’s a very lateral move.
The Rockies have essentially got themselves into a situation in which they should have never been under a decent general manager. There’s absolutely no confidence in the fanbase that this situation can even be navigated out of since Jeff Bridich has failed to inspire any hope in that regard. There is no hope under Jeff Bridich. The best-case scenario for the Rockies is honestly, Trevor Story and Nolan Arenado leaving, sending harsh messages to the clueless Monforts.
Then again, we all know that they will somehow praise Jeff Bridich for something minimal like “freeing financial room”. After all, they did praise Jeff Bridich for 2 playoff appearances and 8 above!.
Let’s just ignore the fact that the Rockies went from 8-above to 4-below, and that Jeff Bridich was hardly responsible for those playoff teams.

Better Know the Ones Left Off the Ballot #21: Aaron Harang

RIP Hank Aaron. I unintentionally picked a fortuitous name to discuss today, but here we are. I think out of respect for the man, and all he did for baseball, I'll only post one today to keep the focus on him as much as possible. In that way, I'm kind of glad they share such similar names. Anyway, if you don't know what this is, it's a series about players who qualified for the Hall of Fame ballot, but were cut. The rest are at the bottom.

Aaron Harang

Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor: 12 Career bWAR (14 years): 20.1 (23.9 w/o batting) Stats: 128-143, 4.26 ERA, 97 ERA+, 381 GS, 2322.0 IP, 1852 K, 712 BB, League Leading Stats: Wins (16, 2006), Losses (17, 2008), Complete Games (6, 2006), Strikeouts (216, 2006), Batters Faced (993, 2006), Wild Pitches (12, 2007), K/BB (4.192, 2007) Awards: None Teams Played For: Athletics (2002-03), Reds (2003-10), Padres (2011), Dodgers (2012), Mariners (2013), Mets (2013), Braves (2014), Phillies (2015)
The dictionary defines the word “harangue” as “a speech addressed to a public assembly,” and then secondly as “an angry speech or writing.” Allow me to deliver my harangue on Aaron Harang: he deserved to be on the Hall of Fame ballot. When I look at the story of Aaron Harang, I see a theme. Over the majority of his career, things did not end up the way they should have. The biggest injustice of that sort, in my opinion, is that he finished his career worthy of an appearance on the Hall of Fame ballot. And yet, that didn't happen. Normally, having a three-year stretch where you average over 5 WAR a season and being an Opening Day starter five years in a row would result in a last hurrah on the ballot, even without anybody voting for you. But that’s not how it ended. Let’s explore why I believe that should have been the case for this absolutely terrifying giant of a baseball player.
After going from a 22nd round draft choice out of high school to a 6th round draft choice out of college, Harang's professional career began on the Texas Rangers’ rookie-ball affiliate, the Pulaski Rangers. His first time in a professional setting netted him a 9-2 record, a 2.30 ERA, and an Appalachian League Pitcher of the Year award. His next year, in high-A, he joined the Port Charlotte Rangers. Those Rangers affiliates sure have creative names now don’t they. He tossed well enough for a 13-5 record, a 3.32 ERA, 137 strikeouts, and a Florida State League All-Star selection. Success like that should translate into top-prospect status, and perhaps even a high price on the trade market. But Aaron Harang is one to defy expectations, and so in the 2000 offseason, Texas flipped him with a career minor leaguer to the Athletics for Randy Velarde. Velarde was a 38-year-old middle infielder who had just finished 2000 with an OPS of .754. While the Rangers certainly needed infield help, they had only two starting arms and two bullpen arms with ERAs below 5. Also they did this thing that winter where they signed a guy named Alex Rodriguez. He helped ease their middle infield woes a teensy bit more than Velarde. No matter. Harang would continue pitching well, though he'd encounter a bit of trouble in Oakland's AA affiliate. Still, 10-8 with a 4.14 ERA is better than I'd've done. The trouble he encountered only made him stronger as the next year he'd get promoted to AAA after just three starts. Probably helped that those three starts had a combined two earned runs and 21 strikeouts. After a couple starts for the Sacramento River Cats went well, a struggling A's team accepted Harang into the fold. His first start, on May 25th, would show them they were right to do so.
The first Major League start of a pitcher who, less than a year ago, was struggling in AA, should probably be out of necessity, and go rather poorly. Especially if, like Harang, the pitcher in that situation is young, having just turned 24 not two weeks ago. And yet, those expectations got dashed, because Aaron Harang enjoys doing that. Seven strong innings of shutout ball. Three hits, three walks, and ten strikeouts. A Gamescore of 78 in his first major league start (for reference, Stephen Strasburg's first start was a 75). All 6 feet and 7 inches of Harang dominated. Granted, his opponent was the 16-30 Tampa Bay Devil Rays, but still. That seemed like the sort of spark the 2002 A's needed, as they would go on to lose just 5 of their next 27 games. Oakland’s record was 22-26 before Harang's first start, and had blasted off to 42-31 once he finished up his fifth. With that kind of launch, which saw the league’s worst offense through its first 50 games score 5 or more runs in seven consecutive contests, you'd expect Harang would have a pretty good record. And yet, he suffered two of those five losses, and after his fifth start, he was 3-2. Expectations had been subverted once again. Two weeks later, after his ERA was 2.84 through eight starts, you'd expect he'd keep his spot in the rotation. Alas, Oakland picked an interesting time to trade for Ted Lilly, and Harang, once again performing the unexpected, was a River Cat once more. Then, only three weeks after the trade, Lilly got injured, and Harang was back in the rotation. Seems he left some of his stuff in Sacramento, because over the next two months, his ERA ballooned to 4.83, even after starting a couple times during the 20-game win streak. He got left off the playoff roster, and despite some early noise, showed up on zero Rookie of the Year ballots. The A's, hoping he could find what he left in Sacramento, started him down there for the first two months of 2003. Coming up after an injury to one of their pitchers, Harang made a nice relief appearance where he pitched four scoreless innings. That was enough for Art Howe to put him back in the rotation. He promptly lost three of his next six starts, threw up a 6.15 ERA, and got sent back down to the minors to make room for Rich Harden. Billy Beane was then caught salivating over rightfielder Jose Guillen of the Cincinnati Reds. Up to that point in the season, Guillen’s On-Base Percentage was .385, much higher than the .261 of the Athletics’ RF, Jermaine Dye. When Guillen became available, and Harang was one of the pieces demanded, Beane gritted his teeth and pulled the trigger. Perhaps he assumed, correctly, that a rotation with prime Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Ted Lilly would be good enough to make the playoffs. And as a result, Aaron Harang, along with fellow pitchers Joe Valentine and Jeff Bruksch, headed to Cincinnati. Hopes were high for him in a Reds uniform, but we all know his relationship with expectations. How’d he do?
The Reds team Harang joined would win just 20 games while he was part of the team. He entered their starting rotation, and in nine starts, put up a 5.28 ERA. One might expect that wouldn’t be an ERA worth keeping on the staff. However, this is Aaron Harang we’re talking about. The 2003 Cincinnati Reds were so starved for good pitching that only a month-and-a-half after the draft, the pitcher they selected 13th overall had already made a relief appearance in the majors. In fact, of the 17 pitchers that started games for the Reds that year, only 4 had an ERA lower than Harang’s 5.28. Kinda makes sense that he got traded with two other pitchers now. He stuck around on the staff for 2004, putting up a perfectly mediocre ERA of 4.86 in 28 starts. In a year where Doug Davis’ 3.39 ERA resulted in a 12-12 record, one might think Harang’s record was shot. But you forget who this is. His 10-9 record wasn’t even the best one on the team, one that finished 76-86 despite allowing over 150 more runs than they scored. Guess Harang’s career-long stunt of defying expectations inspired the whole team that year. One particular start stands out, in which the eventual NL pennant winners and their newfound ace pitcher Chris Carpenter took on Harang and the Reds near the end of August. The Cardinals had won over 80 games by that point. The Reds had just scraped together to win their 60th two days prior. One would expect Carpenter’s hot starter and a 3-4-5 of Pujols, Rolen, and Edmonds to cruise to a win over Cincinnati. And wouldn’t you know it, Aaron Harang decided that was the day he’d pitch is first career shutout. 9 innings, 3 hits, 1 walk, and 6 strikeouts from Harang later, the Reds had finished the game with a final score of 1-0. Sure, the win didn’t make much of a difference in the grander scheme of things, but it showed just what one particular Aaron Harang was capable of. And he’d show just how far he could go in the coming years.
2005 was a banner year for Aaron Harang. His best year in the Majors so far saw career bests in Wins with 11, ERA with 3.83 (good for another best 112 ERA+), strikeouts with 163, and innings pitched with 211. Best of all, he gave the Reds something they had lacked for several years: a consistent starting pitcher. Pity he seemed to be the only one, as Brandon Clausen was the only other pitcher in Cincinnati to regularly start games without an ERA over 5. Even if you have an outfield with Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn combining for 75 home runs, if Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz combine to allow 74 dingers, you’re gonna finish 73-89. Heck, even the offense was inconsistent, seeing as how Harang lost 13 games, 4 of which were Quality Starts. No matter, the next year would be better. And better it certainly was. Aaron Harang, a pitcher on the hapless Cincinnati Reds, led the league in wins, with a record of 16-11. His strikeout total, a new career high at 216, also stood atop the league. This had only been accomplished by one other Reds pitcher in history: Bucky Walters in 1939. He won the MVP that season. In fact, every single NL pitcher who had ever finished the season leading the field in both those categories had won the Cy Young award at year’s end. One might fully expect the same pattern to hold here. However, this would be another addition to the long list of expectations Harang would subvert. He did not win the Cy Young award. He wasn’t even in the top 5. Aaron Harang did not appear on a single ballot for the NL Cy Young. Didn’t even make the All-Star team despite a 9-6 record and 120 Ks at the break. While many of the trends Harang had been bucking were positive in nature, this one would probably be one where he’d prefer not to defy expectations. Now, how did that happen, you may ask? Well, there were several factors. One was his ERA, which was 3.76. Not bad at all, especially with an NL best 35 games started, another NL best 6 complete games, and yet another NL best 993 batters faced in 234.1 innings. However, it was far from the best. Wasn’t even the best in his rotation. The Reds had struck gold yet again with a new starting arm named Bronson Arroyo, who came over from Boston less than two weeks before the season started. Arroyo finished the year with a 3.29 ERA, unheard of for a Reds pitcher in the past five years, and he rode that to an All-Star appearance and even showed up on an NL MVP ballot. Another factor was the Reds, who missed the playoffs with an 80-82 record after their previously effective offense failed to capitalize on some finally good starting pitching. Catcher David Ross was the only member of the lineup to have an OPS north of .900, and their 749 runs scored was over 50 fewer than they’d had the year prior. Thus, Aaron Harang was the second best pitcher on a sub-.500 team. His numbers were disregarded due to lack of team success, and he found himself without any of the expected respect given to his achievements. All he could do after that was show that the men in charge of such things had made a mistake. And the next year, he did just that.
Harang would start his second straight Opening Day game for the Reds, facing the Cubs and Carlos Zambrano. Zambrano had appeared on several NL Cy Young ballots the previous year, despite walking almost twice as many batters as Harang, and having worse stats in practically every category that weren’t ERA or losses. Starting as he meant to go on, Harang pitched 7 innings, allowed just one unearned run, and struck out 5, securing the win. Zambrano allowed 5 runs and took the loss. That was the first of 20 Quality Starts Harang had in 2007, as well as the first of 16 wins, duplicating his total of the previous year. While it wasn’t the most in the league this year, it was still able to turn some heads. His 3.73 ERA was another improvement, as was his 218 strikeouts. While some might expect improving on a strikeout total that led the league would result in another year with the most Ks in the NL, Jake Peavy decided to take the pitching Triple Crown that year with 240 strikeouts, so that didn’t happen. The biggest improvement voters saw, I suspect, was none of that, but the significant lessening of losses, from 11 in 2006 to just 6 in 2007. He also did that amidst a team that lost 90 games after Bronson Arroyo was only the second best pitcher on the team and a lineup with names like Josh Hamilton, Adam Dunn, and Edwin Encarnacion had trouble plating runs. Still, Aaron Harang performed admirably among that team, and even scored a 4th place finish in NL Cy Young voting. Still no All-Star appearance despite a 9-2 record at the break (come ON), but there was still time to establish the clear and present truth that he belonged there. Please fulfill my expectations there, Aaron.
One might believe that after such an extraordinary past three seasons, which had consistency the likes of Brandon Webb or Johan Santana, the next logical step would be continued dominance and an eventual Cy Young trophy. However, the expectations proved faulty once again with Aaron Harang. He had just finished a three year stretch going 43-30 with a 3.77 ERA and 597 strikeouts. His next three years would watch him go 18-38 with a 4.71 ERA and 377 strikeouts. His WHIP went from 1.226 in 05-07 to 1.442 in 08-10. He’d go from leading the league in wins in 2006 to leading it in losses with 17 in 2008. He was still a fine starting pitcher, don’t get me wrong, but Aaron Harang from 2005 to 2007 was an ace. His performance over that time was the sort that gave a team hope for the present and the future. The kind that inspires the thought “we may suck right now, but Harang will be around, and since he’ll keep it up, who knows just how good we can be.” He didn’t keep it up, because men are fallible creatures, and the only thing predictable about life is its unpredictability, doubly so when that life is Aaron Harang’s. The worst part of all this? In 2010, the Reds were actually good. Like really good. They won 90 games and the division, with the help of flashy second baseman Brandon Phillips, star third baseman Scott Rolen, eventual MVP Joey Votto, newcomer Jay Bruce, and, of course, pitching. Bronson Arroyo had a bounceback year, and four pitchers under the age of 25 named Johnny Cueto, Homer Bailey, Mike Leake, and Travis Wood contributed massively by filling important gaps in the rotation. All this while, Aaron Harang was doing his best, but after having had his previous season cut short by an emergency appendectomy, he just wasn’t up to his usual standards. He finished the season 6-7 with a 5.32 ERA, the worst of his career. After giving the team so much for so long, one might think that despite his inconsistency as of late, since he’s been around and contributed a great deal, there would still be a playoff roster spot saved especially for him, for old times’ sake. After all, despite his dismal numbers, the team had allowed him to start the last game of the season having clinched the division. Yet, this was another expectation Harang would defy, as not only was he left off the playoff roster, but he had to watch his team get no-hit in their first playoff game in 15 years. The Reds were quickly pushed aside in a 3-game NLDS sweep, and once the season was over, Aaron Harang was given the news that he was a free agent that winter. A 32-year-old in search of a new team following his worst season. The same situation would eventually end the career of Carlos Zambrano. Would Harang bow out in the same fashion?
Being that his worst seasons had just befallen him back-to-back-to-back, one might expect a minor league offer that blossoms into a spot on the roster to be the next logical course of action in this story. You’re not gonna believe this, but that is not what happened. The San Diego Padres called Harang in early December, offered him a $3.5 million contract with a mutual second-year option, and he said yes. He’d finish the 2011 season as one of the brighter spots on a team that didn’t have very many of them. His 3.64 ERA would actually be a new career best, his 14-7 record would show he had returned to form, and his 1.365 WHIP was his best since he had earned Cy Young votes. However, his strikeout total of 124 was his worst over a full season of work, his walk total of 58 was another new career worst, and his team went 71-91 after at one time having the NL’s best record late in the previous year. Both parties decided it was best to part ways, and Harang once again became a free agent. His recent re-ascension helped the overall feeling around him, and he was ranked 40th in MLB Trade Rumors’ best free agents available. The Dodgers liked the sound of that, and so signed him for 2 years and $10 million. He’d once again achieve a new career best ERA at 3.61 in 2012, and allow just 14 homers, his lowest total of any season since 2003. He’d also go 10-10, and walk an even higher career worst 85 batters, but that still equated to the third best member of the Los Angeles rotation not named Clayton that year. You might think they like what they see and intend to keep him around except this is Aaron Harang so they dealt him to the Rockies on the fifth day of the 2013 season. You might think he’s staying there but this is Aaron Harang so he gets dealt again to the Seattle Mariners of all places on the 10th day of the 2013 season. Did he at least keep up the trend of pitching pretty well despite his age? Who do you think this is? No, he went 5-11 in 22 starts of 5.76 ERA ball before getting released at the end of August. Oh gosh, I guess he just sucked the whole time he was in Seattle. NO ACTUALLY BECAUSE HE THREW TWO COMPLETE GAME SHUTOUTS AS A MARINER BECAUSE THIS IS AARON HARANG AND NOTHING MAKES SENSE. For the sake of my sanity, I’ll wrap this up quickly. The Mets signed him on September 1st, he started four games for them, and then rode off into the sunset after they missed the playoffs. A spring training invite from Cleveland shortly followed, was declined by the Indians before the season started, and so he was scooped up by the Braves. Defies expectations (shocker), 12-12, new career best ERA at 3.57 in his age-36 season because of course, 161 strikeouts was the most since his Cy Young vote-getting year, but no playoffs. Back on everyone’s radar, Philadelphia signs him to a $5-million contract, he goes 6-15 with a 4.86 ERA and just 108 strikeouts, and he hangs it up after that. At least I didn’t defy my own expectations.
Aaron Harang was, in my humble opinion, the best player this year to not make the Hall of Fame ballot. His ever-interesting journey through 14 years of playing in the MLB was not only fascinating, but extraordinary. In terms of sheer odds-ignoring work, Harang’s resume is unmatched by any player we have so far covered. His career reminds me of another player, who in fact showed up on the ballot two years ago: Rick Ankiel. Ankiel pitched very well his rookie year, but a bad case of the yips seemed to have completely derailed his hopes of ever succeeding at the Major League level. And yet, he defied expectations to come back as an excellent outfieldier, putting together an amazing highlight reel of outfield assists and hitting prowess. While Aaron Harang may not have been that, he was still an oddity. His career trajectory went all over the place, from unassuming prospect-in-disguise to unquestionable staff ace to a shell of his former self to a reversal of fortune, Harang deserved to be remembered, and it seemed the Selection Committee didn’t consider him worthy of a checkbox on their special piece of paper.
Aaron Harang would visit the Hall of Fame in a Cincinnati Reds hat for his 75-80 record, 4.28 ERA, and 1125 strikeouts with the team. With any luck, he wouldn’t defy any expectations by showing up in any other team’s hat.
And the rest
#1: Randy Choate
#2: Kevin Gregg
#3: Dan Uggla
#4: Josh Hamilton
#5: Delmon Young
#6: Willie Bloomquist
#7: Grady Sizemore
#8: Kevin Correia
#9: David DeJesus
#10: Rafael Betancourt
#11: Clint Barmes
#12: Adam LaRoche
#13: Grant Balfour
#14: Randy Wolf
#15: Rafael Soriano
#16: Chris Denorfia
#17: Bruce Chen
#18: Cody Ross
#19: Scott Baker
#20: Jeff Francis

Last Post Before Winter : Chosen Axes for Direchasm Beginners

Hi everyone ! Every 6 months it's the same story... This week, let's go back to our general strategic post.

Because of their reputation for being a kind of hard-mode warband, Chosen Axes can deter many newcomers from playing them. Which is a bit sad, as they can be really fun and very rewarding to play...
Because I am a sort of all-time / die-hard Chosen Axes player, some time ago, I wanted to wrote this short guide for new players.
Now Season 4 has begun and Direchasm has been released, here it is again in an updated version : some very simple advice for this nice finesse warband !

1/ SEAZING THE SUBSTANCE : Strenghts and Weaknesses of a Challenging Warband
Here's the most obvious part, and many people have said it before.
So let's try to put it in one single sentence : with Chosen Axes, your warband will be strong but slow, and can be a bit fragile until your dwarves are Inspired – which takes time and can be quite difficult to achieve ; however, with a good deck and some very simple strategic guidelines in mind, it's also quite easy to make them work and to turn them into a very solid warband, that excels at one-shoting enemies.

2/ KNOWING YOUR NEW FRIENDS : Basic Knowledge About your Fighters
Note : here ° / °°/ °°°/ °°°° mean relative strenght

°°°° FJUL GRIMNIR : Your Leader is a very impressive fighter, mainly because of his Wound total and of his Damage output, before and (of course even more) after Inspiration. From the very first Round, Fjul Grimnir is very hard to one-shoot and can be very dangerous. However, most of the time, this won't be enough to ensure you victory. Firstly and obviously, as he can't be everywhere at the same time (and clever opponents will always play around it)... Secondly, as he lacks accuracy : his 2 Hammers 4 Damage with Cleave Attack when Inspired is good but not great, especially with of all these 2 Dodge Defense fighters that wander throught the Mirrored City by now. However, playing around your opponent's fear of him becoming a beast can be very useful...
°°°° TEFK FLAMEBEARER : In the minds of many dwarf players, he is the best warrior, or at least, on average, is he considered as good as Fjul Grimnir. When he's Inspired, his 3 Hammers 3 Damage with Cleave on Crits Attack is tremendous. Because he's only 3 Wounds right from the bat and 4 Wounds when inspired, he is the one you want to protect the most.
°° VOL ORRUKBANE : In general, the Chosen Axes dean will appear to be the less interesting one late game. When it comes to Chosen Axes sidekicks, damage output is often less useful than accuracy (which is the very thing he lacks, contrary to Maegrim). So most of the time, you will use him as a early hitter, or as a bait – but of course, depending on which warband you face, you might also use Maegrim or even Fjul for this. When he's inspired, note that he can drive back ennemy fighters on distant lethal hexes, but is that enough to make him shine ?
°°° MAD MAEGRIM : For a long time, no one seemed to know his name except we die-hard dwarf players, but now the card pool has grown bigger, his qualities seem more obvious. When Inspired, his 3 Swords 1 Reroll 2 Damage Attack make him the Chosen Axes hidden gem... Especially with the right Upgrade or versus low Wounds warbands...

3/ NOT MISUNDERSTANDING YOURSELF : A Matter of Playstyles and Stategies

INTRODUCTION - All of us begun this way...
As almost everyone I suppose, I begun my Chosen Axes career playing with Objectives like Hold Objective 1-5 or Supremacy, trying to make my warband work from this starting point. Because Objective n°3 will often be on the bad side of the board, because with Supremacy in hand, you'll frequently have only 2 dwarves left, or more simply because it's always harder to go after objectives and to have a good fight at the same time... You will very quickly find that the problem with the classic Hold-Objective approach is that most of the time you will have dead cards in your hands... Not good at all. Dwarves are slow and can't afford this.
And indeed, when you have a closer look at the Chosen Axes fighter cards, this idea of polyvalence, or of finesse aggressiveness if you prefer, becomes quite logical :

with accurate attacks and some pretty insane damage output, their stats want to fight, which means Aggro playstyle... even if it's obvious that they aren't fast enough to fully rely on it,
their inspiration condition leads them towards holding Objectives nonetheless, which means a more Passive approach... but again, they aren't fast enough to fully rely on it.

After a Season 3 where Hold-Objective approach was made a bit easier (Hold 2 Objectives help a lot), Direchasm brought two mains things that put a renewed emphasis on the Aggressive side : the Primacy rules, that definitely help our favourite warband as it excells at one-shooting enemies, and (very) good new cards.
So again, by now, with your Chosen Axes, the best way to go is to play a mix of both approaches - which could be called Aggro / Flex. So in general, carefully playing around objectives, move forward and be as agressive as you think you can. This way, you'll score Glory passively and for one-shot kills, while strongly disrupting your opponent's plans. But at the same time, don't rush too early at the enemy because...
Because when playing with Chosen Axes, one thing is of utmost importance : Inspiration. If you want to win, you must ensure that your dwarves get inspired as fast (or as efficiently) as possible.
So let's begin with setting-up :

SETTING-UP - The right distance for the right strategy

First of all, and this could be my most important advice, don't systematically chose to go 1st on boards. Imho, this is another trap. Indeed, very often, you won't really need 3 Objectives on your side in order to inspire your key fighters, and, as you're slow, you will benefit more from chosing the boards orientation. In particular when you face Aggro warbands, or others like The Grymwatch, Cursebreakers, Profiteers, Mantrappers or Lady Harrow's Mournflight.
Be very careful about distances when you chose the Board itself : in order to set up multiple inspirations, use one that allow you to group your dwarves as much as possible. It's very helpful if you can reach at least 2 objectives with each fighter, and it's even better if it can be achieved by a single push... For instance, the Mirror Well, the Kathophrane Reliquary, the Cursed Oubliette, Abandoned Lair and the Hive of Sacrifice are nice Boards to achieve this.
Then, don't lose too much time : put your Objectives next to you / just in front of you near the middle of the board and play as aggressivley as you think you can - the precise degree of middleness / aggressiveness you'll show depending on your match-up.
If you face Hold-Objective horde warbands such as Thorns of the Briar Queen, The Grymwatch, The Sepulchral Guard or Grashrak's Despoilers, everything will depend on the number of Objectives you'll have. With 2 objectives on your side, go straight forward and deliver your uppercuts as quickly as you can. With 3 objectives on your side, most of the time your opponent will have to come to you to score his hold-objective cards, so take your time. In any case, try to read and to disrupt their nasty scoring-passive-glory-plans. Here, remember that you can use some of your fabulous ploys to achieve this, and that killing a fighter sitting on a Objective is worth twice the Glory... Against Zarbag's Gitz, the same advice apply, but everything will depend on Snirk's position : don't feed him - kill him while he's uninspired if you can or ignore him all game.
If you face Control warbands, magical bastards such as Cursebreakers or Eyes of the Nine, trouble masters such as Spiteclaw's Swarm or the Dread Pageant, or ranged traitors such as Thundrik's Profiteers – most of the time, agress them as fast you can... and don't let them dictate your path. But at the same time, don't give them too early / too many free targets for their ranged attacks if they have some... A fairly complex equation.
Don't be affraid when you face Aggro warbands, as you will have some great advantage over your enemies : unlike them, your Inspiration condition will not rely on fights, which means that you will have a chance to be inspired before them. In that case, you can be a bit more defensive in your set-up and let your enemy come to you.

EARLY GAME - Get in motion and find Inspiration

Round 1, try to inspire as many dwarves as you can, using every single tool available to you : moves, your various push-ploys, Regal Vision, Blazing Soul... For that reason, mulligan your first power cards hand if you don't have at least : Regal Vision, Blazing Soul, good drawing-ploys or several good push-ploys. Even if your first hand is good, consider drawing one card if your opponent does'nt threat you too much Round 1, in order to get momentum as early as possible.
In general, unless you believe that your opponent will rush on the Obectives that are on your side or unless you have Frenzied Search in hand and want to draw early, use mid-late Round 1 move actions to reach the nearest Objectives tokens with 2 or 3 of your dwarves and save your own push-ploys in order to counter his tricks. If your opponent doesn't do anything to ruin your plans, you can use these Ploys to inspire additional fighters in last power phase of the round, oand save the remaining ones to help you in the coming fights. When you play Chosen Axes, because inspiring your fighters is so important, it's very easy to feel upset when your opponent counters some of your Round 1 moves. Here, the key is to never be surprised or destabilized by anything (see section 6 for a more detailed approach about this issue). Don't be afraid : good things are coming.
Of course, from time to time and depending on your match-up, it can be relevant to make Round 1 attacks, to get the first kill, charge on an objective, score early glory and lure your opponent while you inspire your fighters.
In general, you'll end your 1st Round with 1 or 2 Inspired fighters and a total between 1 and 5 Glory points, which should be enough to launch your dwarven landslide successfully.

MID/LATE GAME - Go get that gold

This leads us to one of the most important questions : timing. If you want to improve your odds of winning your Chosen Axes games, you need to use your fighters and their respective qualities (Fjul's damage output or Cleave ability for instance, or Tefk's accuracy) at the right time and in the best possible order. In order to achieve this myself, I use key concepts such as "Bait", "Early hitter", "Late hitter","Specific Counter", "Objective Scorer" or "Primacy Taker". Very often, winning games will requiere a lot of patience. Unless you gain a decisive advantage, deny your opponent an important move or score tons of glory, never use your key fighters too early in a given round.
Because relying on Fjul only is risky (because he can die early, because he can't be everywhere at the same time, and because using him only is also a kind of telegraphed strategy), also use your other dwarves, especially Tefk (very strong and very reliable) and Maegrim (against low wounds warbands)... In general, as he lacks accuracy, Vol is very unlikely to become your MVP, but can be quite useful right from the bat (use him as a bait, or for early attacks against low wound / defense fighters if needed, if the odds are good enough). As said above, note that his Driving Back ability when he's inspired can be useful sometimes (in particular in a Season where there are Lethal Hexes everywhere !).
For your opponent, multiple threats are harder to counter - in your games, always try to use your 4 dwarves as a pack, hunting in concert within a 2-3 hexes range, and moving forward together to one-shoot enemy fighters on their way.
When you finally reach the enemy, do not be misled by your own agressiveness. In particular, learn when to stop, and when to make strong and calm moves : very often, those are the hardest to counter for your opponent.
Morale now. Of paramount importance in this game, as it is short and brutal. You have to be prepared for anything - and when this anything happens, you have to keep your fighting spirit... With Chosen Axes, that's not the hardest thing to do. Always remember that your warband is rock solid and that you have 4 good fighters : even if you lose two of them early, and even if Fjul or Tefk are one of them, don't panic, you still can win games.
One last advice : as always, be sure to know your decks by heart. Every single card and every effect...

4/ BUILDING FROM THE CORE : Your Best Faction Cards
Note : here °/ °°/ °°°/ °°°° refer to comments I make about specific cards. See below.
Chosen Axes have access to some very good faction cards – maybe above average if you compare them to what the other warbands have access to. Here are the most remarkable of them :

Objectives / Good cards or cards you should try first :
Score Immediately : Ferocious Charge, Scion of Grimnir
Passive : Unstoppable Advance °
Hold Objective : A Claim Retaken°°

Ploys / Good cards or cards you should try first :
Movement : The Earth Shakes, Treasure Lust, Living Wall °°°°°
Combat : Oathsworn °°°, Indomitable °°°, Piercing Stare °°°

Upgrades / Good cards or cards you should try first :
Movement : Grimnir's Speed °°°°
Combat : Activated Runes, Grimnir's Fortitude °°°°, Grimnir's Blessing °°°/°°°°

The remaining cards seem either too bad or too situational to find their way in most of the decks you'll build... but who knows...

° Only if it fits your playstyle – here I mean if you enjoy playing aggressive-invasive dwarves.
°° This one can be quite hard to score, but since the return of Hold-Objective playstyle in Season 3, it is much more easy to make it work...
°°° In a way or another, all these cards are situational. At least at the beginning, don't take too much of them, because they could slow your deck too much. To begin, 1 or 2 seems to be the ok spot. Choose well ! Oathsworn and Indomitable are probably the best this early Season...
°°°° To begin, don't take too much of these, unless you really want to build some kind of heavily-Fjul -Grimnir-dependent deck... Which I think is very appealing but risky.
°°°°° A somehow underrated card that I learned to love, because it has a great Round 1 utility. Not good enough to make the cut in any of my recent decks though. Only if you own few sets.

5/ GATHERING THE POWER : Universal Cards and Buying Order Choices
Note : this time ° means Restricted...

Here I need to make dictinction between two game modes :

Mode 1 / CHAMPIONSHIP
Where you only play Season 3 & 4 (Beastgrave & Direchasm) Universal Cards and not Season 1 & 2 ones (Shadespire & Nightvault)

From an Aggro/Flex Chosen Axes point of view, I would approximately rate the available sets this way :

Best picks / Sets including several great cards :
#1 DIRECHASM CORE SET mainly for Dominant Position / Awesome Predator / Surge of Agression / Intimidating Display / Savage Strenght / Savage Speed / Slickrock / Soultooth Spear
#2 BEASTGRAVE CORE SET mainly for Great Strenght / Great Fortitude / Sidestep / Confusion / Conquest / Great Speed / Supremacy (even I don't like or play Supremacy myself, I must admit there are games when it can give you a kind of nice early lift - use it only if you don't have better choices!)
#3 THE GRYMWATCH mainly for Restless Prize° / Path to Victory / Swift Capture° / Larval Lance / Survival Instincts° / Fateful Strike
#4 GIFT PACK mainly for Distraction / Spectral Wings / Mischievous Spirits / Jealous Defence / Daylight Robbery° / Guardian Glaive / Bold Conquest / Steadfast Defender / Victorious Duel
#5 MORGWAETH'S BLADE COVEN mainly for Hidden Purpose ° / Quick Search ° / Glorious Triumph / Amberbone Mace° / Ahead of the Hunt / Absolute Stillness / Victimize

Good picks / Sets including several very good cards :
#6 ARENA MORTIS mainly for Vision of Glory ° / Gauntlet of Command / Crown of the Dead / Gauntlet of Dominance ° / Deserved Confidence
#7 HROTHGORN'S MANTRAPPERS mainly for Team Effort / Cryptic Companion° / Victor's Speed / Buried Instinct° / Blindside / Amberbone Spear / Uncontested
#8 RIPPA'S SNARLFANGS mainly for Gathered Momentum / Sting of the Ur-Grub / Temporary Victory ° (Note : you'll notice that I don't value Tempory Victory that much, mainly because it's too unreliable imho with Chosen Axes.)
#9 MORGOK'S KRUSHAS mainly for Show of Force / Strenght of Terror° / Amberbone Sword / Over my Dead Body

Honorable Mentions / Sets including one or two good cards at best :
#10 THE WURMSPAT mainly for Nightmare in the Shadows° / Frantic Exchange

Conclusion 1 : Now Season 1 Universal Cards are gone, Power Unbound card set becomes very, very interesting... So I'd say that if you take any combination of #1 and any other between #2 and #6, you should have a good base, maybe not completely competitive, but quite good for sure.
Conclusion 2 : With Chosen Axes set (faction cards) and all sets from #1 to #5, you already have at least : 15 good objectives, 12 good ploys, 10 good upgrades - which means that you already have a lot of choices...
Conclusion 3 : Of course you have to adapt to your own playstyle and to your own meta - some sets favor Aggro builds a bit more, others are more Flex friendly... Always consider this !

Mode 2 / RELIC
Where you still play Season 1 (Shadespire) Universal Cards

Here you have the choice between ALL the cards from Seasons 1, 2, 3 and 4. Which means a lot of cards.
In your Chosen Axes set, you already have very good universal cards, mainly Ready for Action / Trap / Fuelled by Fury / No Time / Earthquake / Light Armour / Precise Use of Force / No Remorse
For the rest, I would approximately rate the available sets this way :

Best picks / Sets including several great cards :
#1 THE FARSTRIDERS mainly for Change of Tactics / Advancing Strike / Inspiration Strikes / Defensive Strike / Spectral Wings / Concelead Weapon / Frozen In Time
#2 DIRECHASM CORE SET mainly for Dominant Position / Awesome Predator / Surge of Agression / Intimidating Display / Savage Strenght / Savage Speed / Slickrock / Soultooth Spear
#3 STEELHEART'S CHAMPIONS mainly for Strong Start / Regal Vision / Haymaker / Potion of Grace / Tome of Glories / Combination Strike
#4 POWER UNBOUND mainly for Blazing Soul / Quickening Greaves / Prized Vendetta / Two Steps Forward / Spiritbond / Inspired Attack / Shortcut
#5 SPITECLAW'S SWARM mainly for Escalation / Master of War / Rebound / Awakened Weapon / Alone in the Darkness / Sprinter / Spoils of Battle
#6 BEASTGRAVE-NIGHTVAULT-SHADESPIRE CORE SETS mainly for Great Strenght / Great Fortitude / Sidestep / Confusion / Conquest / Denial / Great Speed / Supremacy (even I don't like or play Supremacy myself, I must admit there are games when it can give you a kind of nice early lift)
#7 GIFT PACK mainly for Distraction / Spectral Wings / Mischievous Spirits / Jealous Defence / Daylight Robbery / Guardian Glaive
#8 MORGWAETH'S BLADE COVEN mainly for Hidden Purpose / Quick Search / Glorious Triumph / Amberbone Mace
#9 ARENA MORTIS mainly for Vision of Glory / Gauntlet of Command / Crown of the Dead / Gauntlet of Dominance / Deserved Confidence

Good picks / Sets including only one great card and several very good cards :
#10 THE GRYMWATCH mainly for Restless Prize / Path to Victory / Swift Capture / Larval Lance / Survival Instincts
#11 MAGORE'S FIENDS mainly for Hidden Path / My Turn / Second Wind / Dark Darts / Mischievous Spirits / Tethered Spirit / Deathly Fortitude
#12 IRONSKULL'S BOYZ mainly for Superior Tactician / Distraction / Duel of Wits / Ploymaster / Victorious Duel
#13 EYES OF THE NINE mainly for What Armour ? / Fired Up / Irresistible Prize / Sudden Growth / Countercharge
#14 ZARBAG'S GITZ mainly for Potion of Rage / Faneway Crystal / Fighter's Ferocity
#15 MORGOK'S KRUSHAS mainly for Show of Force / Strenght of Terror / Amberbone Sword
#16 HROTHGORN'S MANTRAPPERS mainly for Team Effort / Cryptic Companion / Victor's Speed / Buried Instinct / Blindside / Amberbone Spear
#17 RIPPA'S SNARLFANGS mainly for Gathered Momentum / Sting of the Ur-Grub / Temporary Victory (Note : you'll notice that I don't value Tempory Victory that much, mainly because it's too unreliable imho with Chosen Axes.)
#18 THUNDRIK'S PROFITEERS mainly for Branching Fate / Blessing of Hydragos / Shifting Reflection / Crown of Avarice
#19 GARREK'S REAVERS mainly for Gloryseeker / Opening Gambit / Potion of Constitution / Centre of Attention

Honorable mentions / Sets including several very good cards :
#19 LEADER PACK mainly for Quick Advance / Shining Example / Rising to the Challenge / Hero's Mantle
#20 MOLLOG'S MOB mainly for Commanding Stride / Transfixing Stare / Tome of Vitality / Shadowed Step / Bag of Tricks
#21 SEPULCHRAL GUARD mainly for Mighty Swing / Helpful Whispers / Crushing Force / Soultrap

Only if you really plan to play these warbands / One or two very good cards at best :
#22 YLTHARI'S GUARDIANS mainly for Duellist Speed
#23 GODSWORN'S HUNT mainly for Tome of Offerings
#24 THE WURMSPAT mainly for Nightmare in the Shadows

Conclusion 1 : If you play casual Relic mode and can have access to it, The Farstriders' universal card pool is very, very interesting... So I'd say that if you take any combination of #1 and any other between #2 and #8, you should have a good base, maybe not completely competitive, but quite good for sure.
Conclusion 2 : With Chosen Axes set (both faction and universal cards) and all sets from #1 to #8, you already have : 15 very good objectives, 16 very good ploys, 19 very good upgrades - which means that you already have a lot of choices...
Conclusion 3 : Of course you have to adapt to your own playstyle and to your own meta - some sets favor Aggro builds a bit more, others are more Flex friendly... Always consider this !

6/ BEING PREPARED FOR ANYTHING : What to expect Round 1 while you try to inspire
When you play Chosen Axes, because inspiring your fighters is so important, it's very easy to feel upset and to lose all your morale when your opponent counters some of your Round 1 moves. Here, the key is to never be surprised or destabilized by anything, and to achieve this, you need to know exactly what can happen and when...
So in early game, mainly round 1, while trying to inspire your dwarves, whatever you do (move, push) or feel (safe or not, because of threat ranges), always remember the following things can happen :

Your opponent using PUSH PLOYS, such as :
DISTRACTION / NIGHMARE IN THE SHADOWS : to simply move your fighter from the objective at the very end of the last power phase. Simple but very powerful. Distraction is a common ploy that many Aggro and Control warbands use in their decks... So painful for Chosen Axes players ! That's the reason why taking at least 3 or 4 good push ploys in your deck is always a good idea.
OTHER DISTRACTION-LIKE PLOYS : … However also note that many warbands have their own faction specific version of it : Steelheart's Champions, Sepulchral Guard, Spiteclaw's Swarm, Magore's Fiends, Mollog's Mob, Ironsoul's Condemnors, Lady Harrow's Mournflight, The Grymwatch, The Dread Pageant and of course Chosen Axes themselves do. Don't forget that Thundrik's Profiteers and Myari's Purifiers also have a similar way to move one of your fighters from your beloved objectives with Toxic Gases. So when you face these warbands in Championship mode, always be prepared for this kind of cruel moves.
CENTRE OF ATTENTION : to use one of your nearby dwarves to move another fighter who's already holding an objective. In this case, be also prepared for some very nasty scything attack - Mighty Swing or very Aggro Sepulchral Guard (I've seen some !) for instance.
MIRROR MOVE : to counter one of your previous push or move, pushing back one of your fighters who was already sitting on an objective.
SIDE STEP / SPECTRAL WINGS : to reach your fighters early, before they can inspire and get to 4-5 wounds. By the end of the game, you will lose some of your fighters anyway, so don't despair and try to protect your most important fighters, for instance using Vol as a screen.
EARTHQUAKE : to move all your fighters from the objectives at the same time. Even in Relic mode, very few people play Earthquake now but again, who knows ?

Your opponent using OTHER PLOYS, such as :
MISCHIEVOUS SPIRITS : to mess up with your plans if some of your dwarves are already on objectives. When you face Control warbands, always expect that kind of plays... Some Chosen Axes players use this ploy with a certain success, but if you want to play it yourself, always remember it also allows your opponent to move 2 objectives : so if you already have a fighter sitting on an objective, your will lose it.
RESTLESS PRIZE : to push one of the objectives your dwarves are sitting on - or more simply to mess with your plans early game by increasing distances between your fighters and the nearest objective. Note that because it's a 2-hex push, most of your own push-ploys won't be enough to counter it. Here, apart from using this ploy yourself, my main advice would is to avoid placing your objectives behind your dwarves, or even sometimes to avoid placing them on the same line they sit, because if your opponent drives them away from the center of the board, you will lose a lot of time... When you only have 2 objectives on your side, this can kill your Round 1.
CONFUSION : to simply steal your place.
NO TIME : to prevent you from using your own precious ploys in the last activation of the round. Also quite rare.
TRANSFIXING STARE : which can be a very nasty move Round 1 (see below). When you don't have any push-ploys in hand, Transfixing Stare on Fjul or Tefk can be particularly upseting...
SHIFTING REFLEXION : in order to teleport your still weak Tefk behind his own line, shutting him down quickly before he has a chance to become a killing machine at the end of the round. Most of the time, even if he loses a fighter, this kind of trade will be very good for your opponent.
LETHAL WARD : to deal 1 damage to your holding objective fighter.
ENCROACHING SHADOWS / COLLAPSE : to deal 1 damage to your fighter holding that fifth objective you put on an edge hex.
LEAVE NOTHING TO CHANCE / FROZEN EARTH / PILLAGE / LEECH POWER / DESECRATE... : to remove an Objective from the battefield or turn it into a lethal hex...

Your opponent using SPELLS, such as :
ABASOTH'S UNMAKING : to remove one of the objectives your dwarves are sitting on. Note that the (brave & gambler) caster must be within a 4 hexe range, so unless you have push-ploys, if your inspiration fails you won't be able to reach him...
SEGGUT'S SALVO / IRRESISTIBLE VISION / HOWLING VORTEX / HORRIBLE LEER : to push one or more of your fighters.

Your opponent using ACTIONS, such as :
CHARGES / ATTACKS : in order to drive your fighters back from the objectives they're holding (with the new Beastgrave rules, this is not possible if you're on Guard...). Always expect ranged warbands like Samson's Farstriders, Stormsire Cursebreakers, Thundrik's Profiteers or even Godsworn and Wild Hunts to try to shoot at you when you're on an objective... In particular, fear ranged attacks with knockback (Enrik Ironhail's for instance), as a single push ploy like the Earth Shakes would'nt be enough to help you move back. Using (quite) late activations to move on objectives will limit the number of attacks they can make...
MOVES : in order to sit on the objectives with their own fighters before you can reach them yourself, making you lose time with early less efficient attacks... Some of the meanest warbands (I look at you, Spiteclaw's Swarm player with Transfixing Stare and Martyred in hand...) were already doing this from time to time, but now with Beastgrave new Guard rules and Upgrades you'll see it very often... So be prepared.

Your opponent using SPECIAL ABILITIES, such as :
STALAGSQUIG PLACEMENT : again, in order to make you lose time. Maybe you'll never see this, as many Mollog players just don't want to give you easy glory, but who knows... like I said before, you need to be prepared for anything.

Your opponent using SET-UP TRICKS, such as :
LETHAL HEXES PLACEMENT : always expect your opponent to do that kind of move - placing a lethal hex in the middle of your set-up formation, making access to the objectives harder. However, if your set up is good, you'll see that it will be quite hard for him to ruin your plans, as you'll always have a way to reach any objective with most of your dwarves without moving through the lethal hexe, whatever its position.

7. SO MANY WAYS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE : Good Advices All Over the Mirrored City
To go beyond my mere analysis, here are some examples of very nice decks and advanced strategic considerations from very good players. From the newest to the oldest, see...

May 2020 PATH TO GLORY podcast with Zack Newcome
October 2019 Tome Deck Guide by Khel from the WELL OF POWER website
June 2019 Aggro Deck by Chad Lathrop from the BATTLECAST - see recent Reddit post & Youtube video
December 2018 Aggro Deck by Jamie Giblin from KATOPHRANE RELIC - see post called Chosen Axes Deck and Tech
December 2018 Aggro/Flex Deck by John Rees from CAN YOU ROLL A CRIT - see post called Weekend Tournament Round Up 17

8. ONE OTHER WAY TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE : How I play Chosen Axes myself
Finally, as a conclusion, here's a short deck guide I made some time ago on the Well Of Power website to explain how I play myself : The Chosen Axes Hammer
While a few cards have changed due to the most recent releases, the main strategies remain pretty valid and still wins many games, even in competitive contexts.

CONCLUSION
If you like challenges, subtle moves and one-shot axe blows, you'll have some great chance to enjoy the Chosen Axes. So good luck with your new favourite warband !

And have a nice time playing Chosen Axes in Direchasm !

batting average equation video

A player’s batting average is calculated as the ratio of the number of hits a player makes divided by the number of times the player has attempted to hit the ball or in other words, been “at bat.” Sean Lahman reported the batting averages of several professional baseball players in the United States. What is Batting Average in Baseball? A baseball batting average is a percentage ranging from 0.000 to 1.000 that indicates a batter’s success in terms of number of base hits compared with how many at bats the player had over a certain period. The batting average can be computed by starting with the number of base hits, and then dividing it by the number of at bats. Because the number of at bats always is higher, the result is a percentage. By accumulating the expected outcomes of each batted ball with actual strikeouts, walks and hit by pitches, Expected Batting Average (xBA), Expected Slugging (xSLG), and (most importantly) Expected Weighted On-Base Average (xwOBA) tell the story of a player's season based on quality of and amount of contact, not outcomes. Baseball data Question options: Batting Average = 0.0171 + 0.1096(RS/Times at Bat) + 0.3131(Doubles/Times at Bat) + 0.5807(Triples/Times at Bat) + 0.1693(HR/Times at Bat) + 0.5177(SO/Times at Bat) Batting Average = 10.6855+ 4.07425(RS/Times at Bat) + 3.1695(Doubles/Times at Bat) + 1.0704(Triples/Times at Bat) + 1.6164(HR/Times at Bat) -5.4965(SO/Times at Bat) Batting Average = 0.1832 + 0.4467(RS/Times at Bat) + 0.9909(Doubles/Times at Bat) + 0.6216(Triples/Times at Bat) + 0.2737(HR/Times at Definition – What is Batting Average? Batting Average is the percentage of at bats that result in a hit. A higher batting average is seen as the player being a better hitter. It is a very popular metric for measuring the performance of a batter. Formula – How to Calculate Batting Average. Batting Average = Hits ÷ At Bats. Where: Historically, the batting average has been considered the most important offensive statistic. To define this average, we define a hit (H) and an at bat (AB). Singles, doubles, triples, and home runs are hits. The fifth way to be successful, BB, is not a hit. An AB is the number of times you either get a hit or make an out; BBs are excluded. The batting average is simply H/AB and is considered Batting Average (BA) = (Number of hits) / (Number of official at bats) What is a Batting Average? It is a statistic in sports such as cricket, baseball, and softball which measures the performance of batsmen. It can be estimated by placing a player's number of runs in comparison with their number of times they have been out. Number of (Singles + [2 x Doubles] + [ 3 x Triples] + [4 x Home Runs]) When calculating batting average, every hit simply counts as one. Total bases places a "weight" on each base hit and according to The Baseball Dictionary "computes his worth as a batter." Batting average = (Number of hits)/ (Number of official at bats) As you can see, the batting average is just a ratio of the "number of times the player hit the ball" to "at bats" The higher this average or the closer the average is to 1, the better the player hits. Therefore, the formula above is a measurement of how well the player hits. Divide the number of hits by the number of at-bats. The answer tells you the battering average, or the fraction of the time that a batter turned an at-bat attempt into a successful hit. For example, if a player had 70 Hits and 200 At-Bats, his Batting Average is 70 ÷ 200 = 0.350.

Baseball Batting Average Calculator - Baseball Scouter

batting average equation

batting average equation - win

2012 World Series: BABIP and Defense

How much (negative) WAR would I accrue playing on a Major League team for a full season?

Fielding

Positional Adjustment

Replacement Level

Batting

Baserunning

Conclusion

Some dps calculations for the new bp if anyone is interested.

Reverse Engineering the ICC Test Batting Rankings

Who is objectively the most slept on player?

Introduction

Methodology

Prediction and Actual Placement Data

Placement Difference Average

Conclusion

[OC] Why Paul Depodesta might be making the Browns the most efficient team in the league in terms of spending, talent, and wins.

We all know Paul Depodesta as the analytical "guru" that was brought in to change how the Browns process the game of football, and morph the way in which the Browns evaluate talent and success.

Top QBASE Projections, 1997-2017

QBASE Players

A Quick Examination of Team/QB Performance on 3rd Down

How To Value A Stock (From Someone Who Has Beaten The S&P Almost Every Year Since 2008)

Calculating the Value of BA in Roto

Why kirakira precure a la mode is great and doesn’t deserve all this slander!

What resulted in the Rockies demise?

2018-2019 Offseason:

2019-2020 Offseason:

2020-2021 Offseason:

Better Know the Ones Left Off the Ballot #21: Aaron Harang

Aaron Harang

Last Post Before Winter : Chosen Axes for Direchasm Beginners

batting average equation video

batting average equation top