OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

ayaghmour2 · 11-18-2020, 07:35 PM

I just finished a huge midterm and I feel like I absolutely killed it. So to celebrate, I'll be writing a piece I've been wanting to talk about for along time. In 1929, the Chicago Cougars finished 62-92 and as a team, had a 5.37 ERA. From 1930-1933, the Cougars never won less then 84 games and averaged 95 wins the past three seasons including team best 97s in back to back seasons. In 1933, the pitching staff had a 2.84 ERA. The 5.37 mark is the second worst in Continental Association history and the 2.84 ERA is the best leaguewide team ERA in over two decades while no team (and few players) have even flirted with a sub 3 ERA in recent years.

So what happened? How did we go from 1932 Tommy Wilcox to 1933 Tommy Wilcox in four seasons? This is going to be a way too long post, so buckle up, grab something to eat, and enjoy the show!

Even if you knew absolutely nothing about baseball, you would have to believe that the pitching staffs did not contain the same pitchers. Even if you knew absolutely nothing about how much I trade players, you would have to believe that the pitching staffs did not contain the same pitchers. And even if you knew absolutely nothing about the situation, you would probably believe that 2.84 per 9 and 5.37 per 9 were probably describing two different things. And even if you just took the test I did, you probably would've thought those were describing the Home and Foreign relative wage of high-skilled to lower-skilled labor instead of ERA's for a group of the same pitchers.

And you would be right. They are not the same pitchers.

Well, sort of...

To make things easier, I will be using the "Starters: Pitchers" OOTP area to compare the two staffs. Here is what we have:

The Wonderful 1929 Pitching Staff:
Dick Lyons: 16-13, 4.06 ERA
Dick Kadlec: 7-12, 5.64 ERA
Cotton Taylor: 7-10, 5.34 ERA
Charlie O'Hare: 7-8, 5.42 ERA
Johnny Douglas: 5-5, 5.66 ERA
Ace McSherry: 18 SV, 3.43 ERA

The Actually Wonderful 1933 Pitching Staff:
Tommy Wilcox: 21-11, 2.58 ERA
Dick Luedtke: 17-11, 2.87 ERA
Dick Lyons: 17-11, 2.83 ERA
Max Wilder: 15-10, 2.70 ERA
Jim Crawford: 12-9, 3.89 ERA
Chick Meehan: 13 SV, 1.74 ERA

If you squint, it looks like the pitching staff has two overlaps (would've been more confusing had Babe Wilder, who started in 1928, was also a starter in 1929), but the only hold over is Dick Lyons, obviously the best pitcher on that staff, but you can tell that we changed things up a bit.

Dick Lyons
But first, let's dive deeper into Dick Lyons, because I kind of did him dirty...

The biggest problem with stats only is that it's a little harder to tell when a really good player is stuck on a really bad team. Every scout I've ever had has been a huge Dick Lyons fan, and honestly, until this exact second (2:55 PM, 11/18/2020) I had no idea that I did not inherit Dick Lyons on the big league roster. I actually gave Dick Lyons his debut in 1926 (year 1) after he was 7-7 with a 2.97 ERA (153 ERA+), 1.22 WHIP, 30 walks, and 144 strikeouts in 145.1 innings pitched down with the Blues. He did have his struggles in the big leagues, going 0-3 with an 8.23 ERA (50 ERA+), 1.94 WHIP, 8 walks, and 8 strikeouts in 27.1 innings pitched. He didn't make the roster next year (not quite sure why I sent him down here...), but after 5 AAA starts he never went back. Before the 1932 season, Lyons was basically slightly above average and interesting enough, his 1929 season was his best season. He was 16-13 with a 4.06 ERA (113 ERA+), 1.46 WHIP, 79 walks, and 77 strikeouts in 257 innings pitched. Lyons was really the only bright spot on that team (I guess Ace McSherry was cool too), but 1929 was also the first year of this dynasty report. That means I actually have written things I can pull too and grade myself.

Other then the intro post, my first post was about the opening day roster. My ace was Dick Lyons, so Lyons was actually the first thing I ever wrote about.

"LHP Dick Lyons: A 28-year-old from Denton, TX, Lyons was the Cougars 2nd Round pick in 1921 out of Frankford State. It took him a bit to make the show, debuting at 25 in 1926 with a 27.1 inning audition that did not go to well. Last season was his second full season in the league and he has slowly blossomed into a dependable arm at the top of the rotation. He lead the league in HR/9 (0.3), even with the 300 feet fences down the line. He was just 9-18 (we had the worst record in the league last season), but had a solid 3.88 ERA (111 ERA+) with 81 strikeouts, 70 walks, and a 1.50 WHIP. If WAR is your cup of tea, his was an impressive 5.1 in 243.2 innings pitched. He's excellent and generating groundballs, so our fielders always have to be ready when he's on the mound." (Before the 1929 Season)

So other then the typo (at, not and...), I didn't really think too much of Lyons. I also was finally getting the hang of the stats only format, so I was really going of what my eyes were telling me. I knew he had talent, but I probably thought Lyons was a potential trade piece.

Here's the most recent piece on Lyons:

Of course, I also now have to talk about Dick Lyons. After beating the Kings to finish the week, the 33-year-old is 15-7 with a 2.68 ERA (147 ERA+), 1.10 WHIP, 32 BB, and 50 strikeouts in 198.1 innings on the year. He was a member of the inaugural All Star team and is the longest tenured Cougar. Way back in 1921, we took him in the 2nd Round (well, the AI) out of Frankford State (same school as Montreal's stud rookie Vic Crawford). He debuted in 1926, but it was a 6 game (4 start) sample that didn't go all that well. After 7 relief appearances in 1927, he's made 204 starts for the Cougars. He was relatively average from 1927 to 1931, but he really started to pitch better last season.

In 1932, Lyons was 17-7 with a 3.50 ERA (123 ERA+), 1.35 WHIP, 50 walks, and 68 strikeouts in 236.2 innings. It was the best season of his career, but he's always been a dependable big league arm. He's made 30 or more starts with 230 or more innings every year since 1928 and he's even led the league in HR/9 (0.3, 1928) and BB/9 (1.7, 1931). For his career, the lefty is 97-74 with a 3.92 ERA (113 ERA+), 1.42 WHIP, 377 walks, and 488 strikeouts. I'm actually really impressed by the record as he had to endure a stretch of seasons where we were really bad. OSA really likes Lyons now, and while the in game rankings do change a lot during the season based on performance, he is ranked the 5th best pitcher in baseball. He sits behind Wilcox, Rabbit Day, Roy Calfee (Detroit), and Jim Lonardo.

Lyons was a guy I tried to trade because I wasn't sure he'd be a long term piece and I had to decide between him and someone like Tommy Russel. If you don't remember him, he was actually really good for us. After three almost exactly league average seasons with Washington, I sent Gene Ross and Tex Young there for him. He had an excellent first season, going 13-11 with a 4.26 ERA (114 ERA+), 1.43 WHIP, 57 walks, and 51 strikeouts in 221.2 innings. Russel was known to be a guy who wasn't pretty great, but he could throw unlimited pitches. Well, that was until 1931. I moved him to the pen because I couldn't move any of my starters. He was doing great, 15.2 innings with 9 hits, 3 runs, 3 walks, and 3 strikeouts before shoulder inflammation cost him the season. Since then, he hasn't been the same, and is currently in Lincoln. Out of the pen he has a 4.91 ERA (82 ERA+) and 1.36 WHIP in 11 innings. (August 20th, 1933)

Now Lyons did not just magically become better. Dick Lyons went from looking worse then he really was, starting to get recognized for his talent, and now the pitcher who in 1933 was 3rd in the CA in WAR and tied for 5th in the entire league. I don't think Lyons is going to ever have another season this good. Despite being an extreme groundballer, he was able to survive the awful defense at shortstop this year. Lyons was able to succeed because he just didn't have to face that many batters this year. He never gives up home runs, a career average of 0.4 per nine including a league best 0.3 in 1928 while pitching at arguably the easiest park to hit a home run in.

Even better, as Lyons aged, he really perfected his control. After a career high 2.8 in 1929, he never had a season with more then 2.1 and he led the league in 1931 and 1933 with 1.7 and 1.3.

Currently, Lyons ranks as the 6th best pitcher in the FABL and honestly I'd say he's number four. I can't believe I just wrote that, but I think Dick Lyons is the fourth best pitcher in baseball:

1. Tommy Wilcox (okay, sure I'm biased)
2. Rabbit Day
3. Jim Lonardo
4. Dick Lyons

The only difference between my list and the in game list is Detroit's Roy Calfee is 4th and champion Ed Baker is 5th.

Here's my case for Lyons:

1. He doesn't allow home runs
2. He doesn't walk batters
3. He's a double play machine
4. He's a lefty

And let's get back to why Dick Lyons was so successful: he really doesn't have to pitch that much. In 1929, he threw 257 innings (1,150 batters faced). In 1933, he threw 248.1 innings with just 1,019 batters faced. That's 4.47 batters per innings versus 4.11 batters per innings. To show how impressive that is, last season (a really strong year for Lyons) he threw 236.2 innings, but faced two more batters (4.32) then this year.

This may sound very elementary, but pitchers pitch better when they face less batters. They aren't as tired, there are less people on base, and your day is less stressful. Lyons was the only guy I never set a pitch count on (Wilcox only got one for game 7) because I knew he was never going to pitch too much. Batters could not hit Lyons plain and simple. Opposing hitters batted .248/.276/.327 with only 8 homers. This was obviously elite, but his career .294/.333/.402 line is more or less equivalent to a league average hitter. When you factor in the formerly awful Cougar defenses (remember John Dibblee, Vince York, second base Bill Ashbaugh, any one of our multiple mediocre shortstops, I could go on for ever...), the extremely difficult park factors, and overall bad Cougar teams in the first three seasons of his career, I think should have treated Dick Lyons like I did Tommy Wilcox.

Obviously, I'm spending a lot of time on Dick Lyons so far (there will be other things, I promise), but as the only similarity, he's almost a perfect case study. Especially because players generally do not get better from the ages of 28-33. I wouldn't usually call this the peak, but in our league, player seemed to develop slower out of feeder leagues. This may be when most pitchers start to find themselves (I haven't dived into this, don't quote me on it), but at least off memory it seems to be the pattern. There are always going to be the guys way better then everyone else at a young age. Whether it's Tommy Wilcox (absolute beast since day 1 with humungous potential), Rabbit Day (top prospect who just decided to go God mode and strike everyone out), or Milt Fritz (random late round prospect who breaks out really early and somehow dominates at 19), but this is not the norm in the FABL. Lyons seems to me a more regular prospect. He was a second round pick (expected to be good, not great) who had a pretty regular development path. Based on past OOTP experience, there really should not be much difference in ratings for a 28 year old pitcher and a 33 year old pitcher. Especially with someone who has as long of an injury history as Lyons does:

05/20/1930: Injured (Cold), day-to-day for 1 day.

Yeah, that's it! No injury has done anything to degrade Lyons' talent and he really shouldn't have begun to see side effects from age. Obviously, it was something more then just a change in the pitching staff. There has to be something else that changed. There are a few things I want to take a look at: defense, coaching staff, offense

The Defense
Without trying to beat a dead horse, the 1933 Chicago Cougars defense was elite. The outfield is on another level and no CA team had a better zone rating (+65) or efficiency (.713). And this includes the atrocious shortstop play of Russ Combs (-14.5 in 409.1 innings...) and Arnold Bower (-11.1 in 952 innings). I don't think we'll ever see an outfield defense as good as ours. Even including next season, as we'll see less Cy Bryant, who's +23.4 zone rating was the best of any non shortstop. Bobby Sprague (+20.4) and Tom Taylor (+18.0) are basically center fielders in left and right. Here's a look at the starters in 1933 (and 1929 below):

1933 Starters by Position
C: Mike Taylor
1B: Bill Ashbaugh
2B: Slim Bloom*
3B: John Kincaid
SS: Arnold Bower*
LF: Bobby Sprague
CF: Cy Bryant
RF: Tom Taylor

*Honorary shoutout to the oft-injured Russ Combs who split time between these two positions

1929 Starters by Position
C: Fred Barrell
1B: Luke Nixon
2B: Bill Ashbaugh
3B: Mack Deal
SS: Harry Simmons
LF: Dick Fessel
CF: Bob McCarty
RF: Art Panko

Right off the bat, it's a huge plus that Bill Ashbaugh moved from second (-14.1) to first (+2.1). Starting with a few similarities, Fred Barrell and Mike Taylor are both top defensive catchers and both Harry Simmons and Arnold Bower are basically average shortstops. Bower's numbers look worse just because rookies George Dawson and Harry Barrell are two of the best defensive shortstops the league has seen in awhile. And with Ashbaugh mentioned, even if Bloom and Combs (combined) didn't have a 8.3 zone rating, they would still be a million times better then Ashbaugh was.

More discrepancies occur when you look to the outfield. Bob McCarty was a solid defender, but Dick Fessel (-1.6) and Art Panko (+2.1) pale in comparison to Sprague and Taylor. And of course, no one compares to Bryant, so he has a huge advantage on McCarty who's never topped +10 in his career. The last position is third base. Now, Mack Deal is one of the best defensive third basemen. In 1929, he was a shortstop that wasn't good enough to stay at short so I tried to move him to second or third. Third ended up sticking, and while 1929 wasn't a good defensive season, he picked it up really quick. Kincaid, however, finished second to Deal this year in zone rating.

So basically at every position, we were either just as good or much better defensively in 1933 compared to 1929. This makes sense, as a big part of pitching is really just defense. It's no surprise that the best pitching staffs tend to have the best defenses. I'm not trying to claim that the 1929 team would have been over .500 with our 1933 defense or that we'd win the pennant this season with the 1929 pitching staff, but I know for a fact that we don't make the playoffs this year with the 1929 defense. There is no way. Even if the Taylors, Combs, etc. still got to hit, but their defense was swapped with their counterparts, we'd be lucky to win 80. My pitchers are top 20 in the league, there's no denying that, but it is very uncommon for four pitchers on the same team to preform at an elite level at the same time.

Case Study: 1933 Chicago Cougars and 1998 Atlanta Braves

I did a little research into the real life equivalent of our pitching staff. A lot of people look to the 1998 Atlanta Braves. Here's their top five versus my top five:

Greg Maddux (32): 18-9, 2.22 ERA (187 ERA+), 0.98 WHIP, 251 IP, 45 BB, 204 K
Tom Glavine (32): 20-6, 2.47 ERA (168 ERA+), 1.20 WHIP, 229.1 IP, 74 BB, 157 K
Denny Neagle (29): 16-11, 3.55 ERA (117 ERA+), 1.22 WHIP, 210.1 IP, 60 BB, 165 K
Kevin Millwood (23): 17-8, 4.08 ERA (102 ERA+), 1.33 WHIP, 174.1 IP, 56 BB, 163 K
Jon Smoltz (31): 17-3, 2.90 ERA (144 ERA+), 1.13 WHIP, 167.2 IP, 44 BB, 173 K

Tommy Wilcox (26): 21-11, 2.58 ERA (154 ERA+), 1.02 WHIP, 286.1 IP, 43 BB, 113 K
Dick Leudtke (32): 17-11, 2.87 ERA (138 ERA+), 1.22 WHIP, 270 IP, 61 BB, 89 K
Dick Lyons (33): 17-11, 2.83 ERA (140 ERA+), 1.11 WHIP, 248.1 IP, 37 BB, 63 K
Max Wilder (36): 15-10, 2.70 ERA (147 ERA+), 1.22 WHIP, 63 BB, 102 K
Jim Crawford (28): 12-9, 3.89 ERA (102 ERA+), 1.42 WHIP, 58 BB, 68 K

So yeah, these are pretty similar. Both Maddux and Wilcox led their respective leagues in ERA+, ERA, and WHIP, but Wilcox was able to take home an Allen Award while Maddux somehow finished 4th. The biggest difference is we had four top guys while they had just three. Leudtke is much closer to Smoltz then Neagle while Crawford and Millwood are both about equal. Of course, the era and setup is much more different, so we need to look at things more closely.

Percent Tier ERA+ 1998 Atlanta Braves (97 Qualified MLB Pitchers)
Greg Maddux: 1% (1/97)
Tom Glavine: 4.1%
Jon Smoltz: 8.2%
Denny Neagle: 31.9%
Kevin Millwood: 58.8%

Percent Tier ERA+ 1933 Chicago Cougars (67 Qualified FABL Pitchers)
Tommy Wilcox: 1.4% (1/67)
Max Wilder: 4.4%
Dick Lyons: 7.5%
Dick Leudtke: 10.4%
Jim Crawford: 47.7%

Now this looks a little different. We both have the best pitcher in the league (by ERA+), but we have 1, 3, 5, 7, and 32 compared to 1, 4, 8, 30, and 57. This makes things look better for me, but that's why I like the percentages. I shouldn't get credit for less qualified players/teams so the percentages even the playing field. I'd do this with multiple other stats (especially BB/9 where all five guys are top 40% including two of three and three of six) we wipe the floor with the Braves. Our pitcher's weren't just good at one thing (like preventing runs), they were good at a lot of things. A lot of this I have to give credit to the defense. Unfortunately, defense stats before like the 2010s aren't too helpful. Obviously, Andruw Jones was elite defensively, but are you going to tell me that Ryan Klesko and Michael Tucker were the best LF and RF in 1998? Not sure about that one.

I do have to give the Braves a little credit, however, as they play in a much different era. I don't have to worry about contracts or free agency or really pitching strategy of any sort. I just have to set up my rotation (although, we probably had the best pen ever) and watch them throw 9 full innings. And this is not a claim that the 1933 Chicago Cougars pitching staff would wipe the floor with the 1998 Atlanta Braves (although this would be a cool thing to test), but it is cool seeing the similarities and differences between the two teams.

The Coaching Staff
In 1931, I hired pitching coach Eddie Williams, and I have to give him a ton of credit. He was pitching coach for three teams before Chicago and after the 1930 season with the Louisville Derbies (Keystones AAA), I signed him to a five year contract set to expire (definitely will be renewed) in 1935. Not sure what he was rated when I signed him, but for 1933 he is "Excellent" and works with all pitchers well. He seems to have found his next project, Rule-5 Pick Mike Knight, who for some reason he thinks is better then Jim Crawford (my old scout, my new scout, OSA, BNN, myself, FABL statistics, and probably 15 other FABL GM's would likely disagree) which gets me excited that he will work his magic again.

Now 65, Williams spent 1890-1894 in the FABL. He played with the Keystones, Saints, Sailors, and Kings across 511 innings. He was 34-27 with a 3.21 ERA (107 ERA+), 1.30 WHIP, 172 walks, and 132 strikeouts. He hung around independent ball for awhile before eventually retiring in officially in 1903. His first coaching job professionally came in 1925, so this will be year nine for him. According to his page, "[he] can turn a No. 2 starter into a No. 1 and help a prospect develop into an All-Star. He understands every facet of pitching." Of course, it did not say that in 1931, but Williams looks to be a huge reason for the success of guys like Dick Leudtke and Dick Lyons. They had the talent to succeed, but hadn't quite got everything to click. Tommy Wilcox must have listed to him too much last year, and adjusted how he pitched when he came over. Once it clicked, Wilcox looks like even more of a #1 then he already was.

It will be interesting to see what Williams can do with prospects. He did seem to help Murphy and Barrell get their careers started and while both are young, they still have a chance to blossom into the aces they should. I haven't had any other top pitching prospects for him to work with, but Bill Kline, Claude Purvis, and Norm Stewart have turned into randomly excellent relief pitchers. Mike King may be on that same path (or the #4 my scout thinks) as could Gordie Thompson. I hope he can turn Johnny Walker into the ace I think he can be and in a few seasons he'll get to hopefully see Sullivan, Pearce, and Ross flourish under his tutelage.

I try to keep the system strong coaching wise, but there aren't all that many available coaches. You really have to develop a staff and find the diamonds in the rough. My AA and AAA pitching coaches are really strong too, so once the guys get their feet of the ground, they really get polished in the upper levels.

Even though the pitching coach more directly effects our pitchers, I should also look at my current manager. After winning the 1929 World Series with the Detroit Dynamos, Pozza let go. He signed with us, replacing manager Hank Sims who was then moved to (and still is) bench coach.

This might actually have been a mistake...

Dick Pozza has an awful relationship with Tommy Wilcox and Jim Crawford, my ace and leader and the budding young arm I thought was a future ace. Perhaps Pozza and Wilcox didn't mesh at all in 1932 and that's why he struggled so much with us. Everyone loves Hank Sims. That's just who he is. He's fun, he's cool, he was a crappy journeyman reliever. Even so, he's very calm and he sticks to his plan.

And honestly, I don't have a good relationship with Pozza. I will not be renewing his contract at the end of the year, but with all the success we have had there was no way I could have fired him (although I really considered it last season). What annoys me is he seized control of nearly everything (shoutout Legacy Mode ft. 7-Day Lineups) and his strategy settings continuously cost us games. I feel like we're stuck in the old-school vs. new-school battle and it's best to just let things finish out.

I actually might go to Sims as the replacement. He's managed both us and the Foresters in the past (and unlike Pozza and Williams understands Jim Crawford is better then Mike Knight...), but I think he may be better with bad teams. He's laid back and won't hurt feelings, creating a fun environment in the clubhouse. Of course, I don't know what other options will be available, but I'm also not quite sure what I would want in a replacement manager (other then being able to stop him from doing the same idiotic thing over and over again...).

Offense
I know offense doesn't have anything to do with pitching, but I have to imagine it makes this a little easier when you have a capable offense giving you run support. In 1933, we actually hit lower (.281) then we did in 1929 (.302) which goes to show how overrated average is. We had a lot of light hitters in that lineup who really didn't do much. Remember this?

Looking more recent, in 1932 three players hit 10 or more homers for us. They were Tom Taylor (30), Bill Ashbaugh (13), and Mike Taylor (10), with Taylor hitting all ten of those after the trade. We scored 903 runs as a team, but with just 87 homers. That was good for fourth, about average, but considering how homer friendly our park is, not too impressive. Again in 1931 we had three players, Tom Taylor (29), Vince York (11), and Bill Ashbaugh (11). We scored 809 runs, won the Continental Association, and won a World Series. And we did it with 66 homers. That's it. We've almost passed that now. 1930 had three (the magic number?), Bill Ashbaugh (16), Vince York (15), and Fred Barrell (10). We finished 4th in the league (our pitching was terrible...) and scored 964 runs. We hit just 68. 1929, the first year of this dynasty report, we were terrible. We were 62-92 and just Bill Ashbaugh (23) hit more then 6. Without him, we hit just 44 homers. From 1929-1931 we ranked in the bottom half of the CA despite having the easiest stadium to hit homers at. Brooklyn is the only other CA team to have an overall HR rating above 1 (and both LHB and RHB above 1). (August 14th, 1933)

In 1929 we had just 44(!) home runs which is one less then Rankin Kellogg hit this year. And Bill Ashbaugh was more then half of them. Of course, Ashbaugh is still on the team, but let's take a look at the rest of the starters both years:

The 1929 Chicago Cougars Power Packed Lineup
C Fred Barrell (23): 79 G, .247/.337/.387 (89 WRC+), 6 HR, 48 RBI
1B John Dibblee (40): 124 G, .346/.385/.464 (121 WRC+), 3 HR, 76 RBI, 7 SB
2B Bill Ashbaugh (25): 124 G, .346/.399/.577 (147 WRC+), 23 HR, 101 RBI, 13 SB
3B Mack Deal (22): 149 G, .304/.367/.387 (99 WRC+), 5 HR, 77 RBI, 23 SB
SS Harry Simmons (25): 145 G, .315/.360/.414 (103 WRC+), 2 HR, 74 RBI, 20 SB
LF Dick Fessel (25): 108 G, .306/.365/.394 (92 WRC+), 2 HR, 40 RBI, 13 SB
CF Bob McCarty (27): 137 G, .304/.369/.429 (110 WRC+), 3 HR, 51 RBI, 13 SB)
RF Art Panko (30): 112 G, .318/.381/.437 (108 WRC+), 3 HR, 60 RBI, 11 SB)

The 1929 Chicago Cougars Actually Power Packed Lineup
C Mike Taylor (27): .282/.366/.438 (124 WRC+), 21 HR, 76 RBI
1B Bill Ashbaugh (29): .291/.344/.453 (124 WRC+), 11 HR, 75 RBI, 6 SB
2B Slim Bloom (27): 73 G, .292/.373/.407 (121 WRC+), 3 HR, 33 RBI
3B John Kincaid (28): 153 G, .321/.367/.417 (120 WRC+), 2 HR, 9 SB, 64 RBI
SS Arnold Bower (29): 112 G, .268/.340/.341 (87 WRC+), 5 SB, 39 RBI
LF Bobby Sprague (26): 153 G, .300/.359/.394 (108 WRC+), 5 HR, 61 RBI, 13 SB
CF Cy Bryant (27): 148 G, .264/.327/.361 (90 WRC+), 6 HR, 76 RBI, 15 SB
RF Tom Taylor (28): 150 G, .292/.346/.438 (124 WRC+), 17 HR, 15 SB, 87 RBI
2B/SS Russ Combs (29): 87 G, .326/.364/.440 (129 WRC+), 3 HR, 36 RBI, 9 SB

Alas! Another single repeat! It's not a perfect case, but it's Bill Ashbaugh. And again, on first glance, it is really easy to tell that the 1933 offense is about 100 times better. 1929 is basically just Bill Ashbaugh and a 40-year-old John Dibblee (who somehow still raked). The rest of the guys look decent, but don't forget, Chicago is a really easy place to hit.

Guess which year we scored more runs?

193-- Wait... What?

(checks notes)

1929?

The 1929 Chicago Cougars scored scored 794 runs while the 1933 Chicago Cougars scored 724. So the offense of scrubs scored 55 more runs then the stacked lineup. We even scored more runs per game (5.2) in 1929 then 1933 (4.7) and I have no idea how we scored so many runs with such an awful team. We did steal a lot of bases and manufacture a lot of runs, but maybe it's because we didn't play any close games? Somehow, we managed to allow 979 runs in 1929, almost double the 526 from 1933. Our offenses were built completely different, but the one with better players actually scored less runs.

Is there an explanation for this? I do think some of it has to do with the quality of pitching we faced. We got to face a lot of scrubs because we sucked. This year, we had to deal with a lot of top pitchers. I think the competition this year was tougher too as the 1929 Philadelphia Sailors were in a class of their own. They did lose to the Dynamos in the finals, but they were 103-51 in the regular season. After a little more digging I found out the leave average ERA was almost a full point lower in 1933 then 1929, which would account for why run totals were very similar.

Another interesting 1929/1933 parallel is these are the only two seasons in the past six where the Fed won the World Series.

What is nice is we do have an overlap here, Bill Ashbaugh! Let's take a look:

Bill Ashbaugh
In 1929, there's no doubt who our best offensive player was. That would be Bill Ashbaugh. The former 4th Overall Pick had his best year to date, batting .346/.399/.577 (143 OPS+) with 23 homers, 13 steals, and 101 RBI's. This was pretty similar to the previous year where he hit .287/.358/.483 (125 OPS+) with 25 homers and 101 RBI's. He then followed up the excellent 1929 with a strong 1930. Ashbaugh hit .321/.414/.531 (134 OPS+) with 16 homers, 13 steals, and 131 RBI's. He hasn't had a year like this sense, but he's still a quality hitter and now defender.

1933, however, was his worst offensive season. At 29 he hit .291/.344/.453 (112 OPS+) with just 11 homers, 75 RBI's, and 6 steals, nothing close to what he did in that three year period (if you started a Figment historical league in 1929 Bill Ashbaugh probably would've been a first ballot hall of famer). For his career, Ashbaugh has a robust .316/.382/.498 (129 OPS+) line with 114 homers, 72 steals, and 651 RBI's across 4,139 plate appearances. My first ever Figment pick, there's no doubt he's the most successful draftee of mine and he already sees his name on Cougar all time leaderboards. He's 8th for average, 5th for OBP, 2nd for slugging, 3rd in OPS (.880), 7th in walks (406), and 1st in homers (114). He's done all this in just 4,139 trips to the plate. He's been above average or better every season of his career and he's become a quality first basemen. He will turn 30 in February, so he may be on the back nine of his career, but he's a team leader who's worshipped in the clubhouse, beloved by his fans, and respected by his competitors. He's one of the few prospects I've allowed myself to develop and I think I'll always find a way to keep him in the lineup.

One last thing before I (finally) stop. On accident, I clicked on my team leaderboards. To my dismay, I realized that Vince York was on the career leaderboards. Because he has 2,121 plate appearances he qualifies for rate stats even though he really shouldn't. He hit .347 for us in three seasons. Unfortunately, this means John Dibblee's .346 batting average is no longer the team best. He did it in 13,260 plate appearances and 58 seasons with the Cougars. This means that I need to make sure Vince York bats again for the Cougars and make sure that he gets enough outs to fall out of first.

If you made it this far, hope you enjoyed! If you didn't make it, I don't blame you. I just love writing and finally had a nice chunk of time to write and once I started I just kept on going.

A little TL;DR: the 1929 Chicago Cougars were really bad. The 1933 Chicago Cougars were really good. And I should have realized Dick Lyons, not Bill Ashbaugh was the franchise player stuck on a terrible team.

Edit: Editor's Note: I guess I should also add that this is sort of a preview for what I am planning to do during the offseason. I'll try to do what I am going to call "Reviewing Year 1: Who Really Were the 1929 Chicago Cougars" to take a look back at my first season covered in the dynasty report. Unless I mention it in a post, I have never looked back on my past writings so I could eventually get to the point where I would forget what I wrote. It really all started with Dick Lyons, who as I've mentioned, I had no idea wasn't on the 1926 Chicago Cougars. In my 1929 posts, I wrote about Lyons' trip to the majors and when I brought him up. I really hope there are some things I was spot on accurate about, but I have a feeling I made a lot of rather bold claims that probably couldn't be further from true that I can laugh about now. I also think I had a "plan" to suck in 1930 and we instead just decided to win a lot. I will only look back to 1929 posts for the 1929 series. Eventually I will want to look back at the 1931 World Series year, but we have to win another (and hopefully a lot more) title. And then probably have a drought that makes me want to reminisce about the good 'ol days. I may also do draft reviews, and in that case I will reference old draft writeups as well. I've done it a few times with prospect reports already.

11-18-2020, 07:35 PM	#274
ayaghmour2 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 3,020	A Tale of Two Staffs I just finished a huge midterm and I feel like I absolutely killed it. So to celebrate, I'll be writing a piece I've been wanting to talk about for along time. In 1929, the Chicago Cougars finished 62-92 and as a team, had a 5.37 ERA. From 1930-1933, the Cougars never won less then 84 games and averaged 95 wins the past three seasons including team best 97s in back to back seasons. In 1933, the pitching staff had a 2.84 ERA. The 5.37 mark is the second worst in Continental Association history and the 2.84 ERA is the best leaguewide team ERA in over two decades while no team (and few players) have even flirted with a sub 3 ERA in recent years. So what happened? How did we go from 1932 Tommy Wilcox to 1933 Tommy Wilcox in four seasons? This is going to be a way too long post, so buckle up, grab something to eat, and enjoy the show! Even if you knew absolutely nothing about baseball, you would have to believe that the pitching staffs did not contain the same pitchers. Even if you knew absolutely nothing about how much I trade players, you would have to believe that the pitching staffs did not contain the same pitchers. And even if you knew absolutely nothing about the situation, you would probably believe that 2.84 per 9 and 5.37 per 9 were probably describing two different things. And even if you just took the test I did, you probably would've thought those were describing the Home and Foreign relative wage of high-skilled to lower-skilled labor instead of ERA's for a group of the same pitchers. And you would be right. They are not the same pitchers. Well, sort of... To make things easier, I will be using the "Starters: Pitchers" OOTP area to compare the two staffs. Here is what we have: The Wonderful 1929 Pitching Staff: Dick Lyons: 16-13, 4.06 ERA Dick Kadlec: 7-12, 5.64 ERA Cotton Taylor: 7-10, 5.34 ERA Charlie O'Hare: 7-8, 5.42 ERA Johnny Douglas: 5-5, 5.66 ERA Ace McSherry: 18 SV, 3.43 ERA The Actually Wonderful 1933 Pitching Staff: Tommy Wilcox: 21-11, 2.58 ERA Dick Luedtke: 17-11, 2.87 ERA Dick Lyons: 17-11, 2.83 ERA Max Wilder: 15-10, 2.70 ERA Jim Crawford: 12-9, 3.89 ERA Chick Meehan: 13 SV, 1.74 ERA If you squint, it looks like the pitching staff has two overlaps (would've been more confusing had Babe Wilder, who started in 1928, was also a starter in 1929), but the only hold over is Dick Lyons, obviously the best pitcher on that staff, but you can tell that we changed things up a bit. Dick Lyons But first, let's dive deeper into Dick Lyons, because I kind of did him dirty... The biggest problem with stats only is that it's a little harder to tell when a really good player is stuck on a really bad team. Every scout I've ever had has been a huge Dick Lyons fan, and honestly, until this exact second (2:55 PM, 11/18/2020) I had no idea that I did not inherit Dick Lyons on the big league roster. I actually gave Dick Lyons his debut in 1926 (year 1) after he was 7-7 with a 2.97 ERA (153 ERA+), 1.22 WHIP, 30 walks, and 144 strikeouts in 145.1 innings pitched down with the Blues. He did have his struggles in the big leagues, going 0-3 with an 8.23 ERA (50 ERA+), 1.94 WHIP, 8 walks, and 8 strikeouts in 27.1 innings pitched. He didn't make the roster next year (not quite sure why I sent him down here...), but after 5 AAA starts he never went back. Before the 1932 season, Lyons was basically slightly above average and interesting enough, his 1929 season was his best season. He was 16-13 with a 4.06 ERA (113 ERA+), 1.46 WHIP, 79 walks, and 77 strikeouts in 257 innings pitched. Lyons was really the only bright spot on that team (I guess Ace McSherry was cool too), but 1929 was also the first year of this dynasty report. That means I actually have written things I can pull too and grade myself. Other then the intro post, my first post was about the opening day roster. My ace was Dick Lyons, so Lyons was actually the first thing I ever wrote about. "LHP Dick Lyons: A 28-year-old from Denton, TX, Lyons was the Cougars 2nd Round pick in 1921 out of Frankford State. It took him a bit to make the show, debuting at 25 in 1926 with a 27.1 inning audition that did not go to well. Last season was his second full season in the league and he has slowly blossomed into a dependable arm at the top of the rotation. He lead the league in HR/9 (0.3), even with the 300 feet fences down the line. He was just 9-18 (we had the worst record in the league last season), but had a solid 3.88 ERA (111 ERA+) with 81 strikeouts, 70 walks, and a 1.50 WHIP. If WAR is your cup of tea, his was an impressive 5.1 in 243.2 innings pitched. He's excellent and generating groundballs, so our fielders always have to be ready when he's on the mound." (Before the 1929 Season) So other then the typo (at, not and...), I didn't really think too much of Lyons. I also was finally getting the hang of the stats only format, so I was really going of what my eyes were telling me. I knew he had talent, but I probably thought Lyons was a potential trade piece. Here's the most recent piece on Lyons: Of course, I also now have to talk about Dick Lyons. After beating the Kings to finish the week, the 33-year-old is 15-7 with a 2.68 ERA (147 ERA+), 1.10 WHIP, 32 BB, and 50 strikeouts in 198.1 innings on the year. He was a member of the inaugural All Star team and is the longest tenured Cougar. Way back in 1921, we took him in the 2nd Round (well, the AI) out of Frankford State (same school as Montreal's stud rookie Vic Crawford). He debuted in 1926, but it was a 6 game (4 start) sample that didn't go all that well. After 7 relief appearances in 1927, he's made 204 starts for the Cougars. He was relatively average from 1927 to 1931, but he really started to pitch better last season. In 1932, Lyons was 17-7 with a 3.50 ERA (123 ERA+), 1.35 WHIP, 50 walks, and 68 strikeouts in 236.2 innings. It was the best season of his career, but he's always been a dependable big league arm. He's made 30 or more starts with 230 or more innings every year since 1928 and he's even led the league in HR/9 (0.3, 1928) and BB/9 (1.7, 1931). For his career, the lefty is 97-74 with a 3.92 ERA (113 ERA+), 1.42 WHIP, 377 walks, and 488 strikeouts. I'm actually really impressed by the record as he had to endure a stretch of seasons where we were really bad. OSA really likes Lyons now, and while the in game rankings do change a lot during the season based on performance, he is ranked the 5th best pitcher in baseball. He sits behind Wilcox, Rabbit Day, Roy Calfee (Detroit), and Jim Lonardo. Lyons was a guy I tried to trade because I wasn't sure he'd be a long term piece and I had to decide between him and someone like Tommy Russel. If you don't remember him, he was actually really good for us. After three almost exactly league average seasons with Washington, I sent Gene Ross and Tex Young there for him. He had an excellent first season, going 13-11 with a 4.26 ERA (114 ERA+), 1.43 WHIP, 57 walks, and 51 strikeouts in 221.2 innings. Russel was known to be a guy who wasn't pretty great, but he could throw unlimited pitches. Well, that was until 1931. I moved him to the pen because I couldn't move any of my starters. He was doing great, 15.2 innings with 9 hits, 3 runs, 3 walks, and 3 strikeouts before shoulder inflammation cost him the season. Since then, he hasn't been the same, and is currently in Lincoln. Out of the pen he has a 4.91 ERA (82 ERA+) and 1.36 WHIP in 11 innings. (August 20th, 1933) Now Lyons did not just magically become better. Dick Lyons went from looking worse then he really was, starting to get recognized for his talent, and now the pitcher who in 1933 was 3rd in the CA in WAR and tied for 5th in the entire league. I don't think Lyons is going to ever have another season this good. Despite being an extreme groundballer, he was able to survive the awful defense at shortstop this year. Lyons was able to succeed because he just didn't have to face that many batters this year. He never gives up home runs, a career average of 0.4 per nine including a league best 0.3 in 1928 while pitching at arguably the easiest park to hit a home run in. Even better, as Lyons aged, he really perfected his control. After a career high 2.8 in 1929, he never had a season with more then 2.1 and he led the league in 1931 and 1933 with 1.7 and 1.3. Currently, Lyons ranks as the 6th best pitcher in the FABL and honestly I'd say he's number four. I can't believe I just wrote that, but I think Dick Lyons is the fourth best pitcher in baseball: 1. Tommy Wilcox (okay, sure I'm biased) 2. Rabbit Day 3. Jim Lonardo 4. Dick Lyons The only difference between my list and the in game list is Detroit's Roy Calfee is 4th and champion Ed Baker is 5th. Here's my case for Lyons: 1. He doesn't allow home runs 2. He doesn't walk batters 3. He's a double play machine 4. He's a lefty And let's get back to why Dick Lyons was so successful: he really doesn't have to pitch that much. In 1929, he threw 257 innings (1,150 batters faced). In 1933, he threw 248.1 innings with just 1,019 batters faced. That's 4.47 batters per innings versus 4.11 batters per innings. To show how impressive that is, last season (a really strong year for Lyons) he threw 236.2 innings, but faced two more batters (4.32) then this year. This may sound very elementary, but pitchers pitch better when they face less batters. They aren't as tired, there are less people on base, and your day is less stressful. Lyons was the only guy I never set a pitch count on (Wilcox only got one for game 7) because I knew he was never going to pitch too much. Batters could not hit Lyons plain and simple. Opposing hitters batted .248/.276/.327 with only 8 homers. This was obviously elite, but his career .294/.333/.402 line is more or less equivalent to a league average hitter. When you factor in the formerly awful Cougar defenses (remember John Dibblee, Vince York, second base Bill Ashbaugh, any one of our multiple mediocre shortstops, I could go on for ever...), the extremely difficult park factors, and overall bad Cougar teams in the first three seasons of his career, I think should have treated Dick Lyons like I did Tommy Wilcox. Obviously, I'm spending a lot of time on Dick Lyons so far (there will be other things, I promise), but as the only similarity, he's almost a perfect case study. Especially because players generally do not get better from the ages of 28-33. I wouldn't usually call this the peak, but in our league, player seemed to develop slower out of feeder leagues. This may be when most pitchers start to find themselves (I haven't dived into this, don't quote me on it), but at least off memory it seems to be the pattern. There are always going to be the guys way better then everyone else at a young age. Whether it's Tommy Wilcox (absolute beast since day 1 with humungous potential), Rabbit Day (top prospect who just decided to go God mode and strike everyone out), or Milt Fritz (random late round prospect who breaks out really early and somehow dominates at 19), but this is not the norm in the FABL. Lyons seems to me a more regular prospect. He was a second round pick (expected to be good, not great) who had a pretty regular development path. Based on past OOTP experience, there really should not be much difference in ratings for a 28 year old pitcher and a 33 year old pitcher. Especially with someone who has as long of an injury history as Lyons does: 05/20/1930: Injured (Cold), day-to-day for 1 day. Yeah, that's it! No injury has done anything to degrade Lyons' talent and he really shouldn't have begun to see side effects from age. Obviously, it was something more then just a change in the pitching staff. There has to be something else that changed. There are a few things I want to take a look at: defense, coaching staff, offense The Defense Without trying to beat a dead horse, the 1933 Chicago Cougars defense was elite. The outfield is on another level and no CA team had a better zone rating (+65) or efficiency (.713). And this includes the atrocious shortstop play of Russ Combs (-14.5 in 409.1 innings...) and Arnold Bower (-11.1 in 952 innings). I don't think we'll ever see an outfield defense as good as ours. Even including next season, as we'll see less Cy Bryant, who's +23.4 zone rating was the best of any non shortstop. Bobby Sprague (+20.4) and Tom Taylor (+18.0) are basically center fielders in left and right. Here's a look at the starters in 1933 (and 1929 below): 1933 Starters by Position C: Mike Taylor 1B: Bill Ashbaugh 2B: Slim Bloom* 3B: John Kincaid SS: Arnold Bower* LF: Bobby Sprague CF: Cy Bryant RF: Tom Taylor Honorary shoutout to the oft-injured Russ Combs who split time between these two positions 1929 Starters by Position C: Fred Barrell 1B: Luke Nixon 2B: Bill Ashbaugh 3B: Mack Deal SS: Harry Simmons LF: Dick Fessel CF: Bob McCarty RF: Art Panko Right off the bat, it's a huge plus that Bill Ashbaugh moved from second (-14.1) to first (+2.1). Starting with a few similarities, Fred Barrell and Mike Taylor are both top defensive catchers and both Harry Simmons and Arnold Bower are basically average shortstops. Bower's numbers look worse just because rookies George Dawson and Harry Barrell are two of the best defensive shortstops the league has seen in awhile. And with Ashbaugh mentioned, even if Bloom and Combs (combined) didn't have a 8.3 zone rating, they would still be a million times better then Ashbaugh was. More discrepancies occur when you look to the outfield. Bob McCarty was a solid defender, but Dick Fessel (-1.6) and Art Panko (+2.1) pale in comparison to Sprague and Taylor. And of course, no one compares to Bryant, so he has a huge advantage on McCarty who's never topped +10 in his career. The last position is third base. Now, Mack Deal is one of the best defensive third basemen. In 1929, he was a shortstop that wasn't good enough to stay at short so I tried to move him to second or third. Third ended up sticking, and while 1929 wasn't a good defensive season, he picked it up really quick. Kincaid, however, finished second to Deal this year in zone rating. So basically at every position, we were either just as good or much better defensively in 1933 compared to 1929. This makes sense, as a big part of pitching is really just defense. It's no surprise that the best pitching staffs tend to have the best defenses. I'm not trying to claim that the 1929 team would have been over .500 with our 1933 defense or that we'd win the pennant this season with the 1929 pitching staff, but I know for a fact that we don't make the playoffs this year with the 1929 defense. There is no way. Even if the Taylors, Combs, etc. still got to hit, but their defense was swapped with their counterparts, we'd be lucky to win 80. My pitchers are top 20 in the league, there's no denying that, but it is very uncommon for four pitchers on the same team to preform at an elite level at the same time. Case Study: 1933 Chicago Cougars and 1998 Atlanta Braves* I did a little research into the real life equivalent of our pitching staff. A lot of people look to the 1998 Atlanta Braves. Here's their top five versus my top five: Greg Maddux (32): 18-9, 2.22 ERA (187 ERA+), 0.98 WHIP, 251 IP, 45 BB, 204 K Tom Glavine (32): 20-6, 2.47 ERA (168 ERA+), 1.20 WHIP, 229.1 IP, 74 BB, 157 K Denny Neagle (29): 16-11, 3.55 ERA (117 ERA+), 1.22 WHIP, 210.1 IP, 60 BB, 165 K Kevin Millwood (23): 17-8, 4.08 ERA (102 ERA+), 1.33 WHIP, 174.1 IP, 56 BB, 163 K Jon Smoltz (31): 17-3, 2.90 ERA (144 ERA+), 1.13 WHIP, 167.2 IP, 44 BB, 173 K Tommy Wilcox (26): 21-11, 2.58 ERA (154 ERA+), 1.02 WHIP, 286.1 IP, 43 BB, 113 K Dick Leudtke (32): 17-11, 2.87 ERA (138 ERA+), 1.22 WHIP, 270 IP, 61 BB, 89 K Dick Lyons (33): 17-11, 2.83 ERA (140 ERA+), 1.11 WHIP, 248.1 IP, 37 BB, 63 K Max Wilder (36): 15-10, 2.70 ERA (147 ERA+), 1.22 WHIP, 63 BB, 102 K Jim Crawford (28): 12-9, 3.89 ERA (102 ERA+), 1.42 WHIP, 58 BB, 68 K So yeah, these are pretty similar. Both Maddux and Wilcox led their respective leagues in ERA+, ERA, and WHIP, but Wilcox was able to take home an Allen Award while Maddux somehow finished 4th. The biggest difference is we had four top guys while they had just three. Leudtke is much closer to Smoltz then Neagle while Crawford and Millwood are both about equal. Of course, the era and setup is much more different, so we need to look at things more closely. Percent Tier ERA+ 1998 Atlanta Braves (97 Qualified MLB Pitchers) Greg Maddux: 1% (1/97) Tom Glavine: 4.1% Jon Smoltz: 8.2% Denny Neagle: 31.9% Kevin Millwood: 58.8% Percent Tier ERA+ 1933 Chicago Cougars (67 Qualified FABL Pitchers) Tommy Wilcox: 1.4% (1/67) Max Wilder: 4.4% Dick Lyons: 7.5% Dick Leudtke: 10.4% Jim Crawford: 47.7% Now this looks a little different. We both have the best pitcher in the league (by ERA+), but we have 1, 3, 5, 7, and 32 compared to 1, 4, 8, 30, and 57. This makes things look better for me, but that's why I like the percentages. I shouldn't get credit for less qualified players/teams so the percentages even the playing field. I'd do this with multiple other stats (especially BB/9 where all five guys are top 40% including two of three and three of six) we wipe the floor with the Braves. Our pitcher's weren't just good at one thing (like preventing runs), they were good at a lot of things. A lot of this I have to give credit to the defense. Unfortunately, defense stats before like the 2010s aren't too helpful. Obviously, Andruw Jones was elite defensively, but are you going to tell me that Ryan Klesko and Michael Tucker were the best LF and RF in 1998? Not sure about that one. I do have to give the Braves a little credit, however, as they play in a much different era. I don't have to worry about contracts or free agency or really pitching strategy of any sort. I just have to set up my rotation (although, we probably had the best pen ever) and watch them throw 9 full innings. And this is not a claim that the 1933 Chicago Cougars pitching staff would wipe the floor with the 1998 Atlanta Braves (although this would be a cool thing to test), but it is cool seeing the similarities and differences between the two teams. The Coaching Staff In 1931, I hired pitching coach Eddie Williams, and I have to give him a ton of credit. He was pitching coach for three teams before Chicago and after the 1930 season with the Louisville Derbies (Keystones AAA), I signed him to a five year contract set to expire (definitely will be renewed) in 1935. Not sure what he was rated when I signed him, but for 1933 he is "Excellent" and works with all pitchers well. He seems to have found his next project, Rule-5 Pick Mike Knight, who for some reason he thinks is better then Jim Crawford (my old scout, my new scout, OSA, BNN, myself, FABL statistics, and probably 15 other FABL GM's would likely disagree) which gets me excited that he will work his magic again. Now 65, Williams spent 1890-1894 in the FABL. He played with the Keystones, Saints, Sailors, and Kings across 511 innings. He was 34-27 with a 3.21 ERA (107 ERA+), 1.30 WHIP, 172 walks, and 132 strikeouts. He hung around independent ball for awhile before eventually retiring in officially in 1903. His first coaching job professionally came in 1925, so this will be year nine for him. According to his page, "[he] can turn a No. 2 starter into a No. 1 and help a prospect develop into an All-Star. He understands every facet of pitching." Of course, it did not say that in 1931, but Williams looks to be a huge reason for the success of guys like Dick Leudtke and Dick Lyons. They had the talent to succeed, but hadn't quite got everything to click. Tommy Wilcox must have listed to him too much last year, and adjusted how he pitched when he came over. Once it clicked, Wilcox looks like even more of a #1 then he already was. It will be interesting to see what Williams can do with prospects. He did seem to help Murphy and Barrell get their careers started and while both are young, they still have a chance to blossom into the aces they should. I haven't had any other top pitching prospects for him to work with, but Bill Kline, Claude Purvis, and Norm Stewart have turned into randomly excellent relief pitchers. Mike King may be on that same path (or the #4 my scout thinks) as could Gordie Thompson. I hope he can turn Johnny Walker into the ace I think he can be and in a few seasons he'll get to hopefully see Sullivan, Pearce, and Ross flourish under his tutelage. I try to keep the system strong coaching wise, but there aren't all that many available coaches. You really have to develop a staff and find the diamonds in the rough. My AA and AAA pitching coaches are really strong too, so once the guys get their feet of the ground, they really get polished in the upper levels. Even though the pitching coach more directly effects our pitchers, I should also look at my current manager. After winning the 1929 World Series with the Detroit Dynamos, Pozza let go. He signed with us, replacing manager Hank Sims who was then moved to (and still is) bench coach. This might actually have been a mistake... Dick Pozza has an awful relationship with Tommy Wilcox and Jim Crawford, my ace and leader and the budding young arm I thought was a future ace. Perhaps Pozza and Wilcox didn't mesh at all in 1932 and that's why he struggled so much with us. Everyone loves Hank Sims. That's just who he is. He's fun, he's cool, he was a crappy journeyman reliever. Even so, he's very calm and he sticks to his plan. And honestly, I don't have a good relationship with Pozza. I will not be renewing his contract at the end of the year, but with all the success we have had there was no way I could have fired him (although I really considered it last season). What annoys me is he seized control of nearly everything (shoutout Legacy Mode ft. 7-Day Lineups) and his strategy settings continuously cost us games. I feel like we're stuck in the old-school vs. new-school battle and it's best to just let things finish out. I actually might go to Sims as the replacement. He's managed both us and the Foresters in the past (and unlike Pozza and Williams understands Jim Crawford is better then Mike Knight...), but I think he may be better with bad teams. He's laid back and won't hurt feelings, creating a fun environment in the clubhouse. Of course, I don't know what other options will be available, but I'm also not quite sure what I would want in a replacement manager (other then being able to stop him from doing the same idiotic thing over and over again...). Offense I know offense doesn't have anything to do with pitching, but I have to imagine it makes this a little easier when you have a capable offense giving you run support. In 1933, we actually hit lower (.281) then we did in 1929 (.302) which goes to show how overrated average is. We had a lot of light hitters in that lineup who really didn't do much. Remember this? Looking more recent, in 1932 three players hit 10 or more homers for us. They were Tom Taylor (30), Bill Ashbaugh (13), and Mike Taylor (10), with Taylor hitting all ten of those after the trade. We scored 903 runs as a team, but with just 87 homers. That was good for fourth, about average, but considering how homer friendly our park is, not too impressive. Again in 1931 we had three players, Tom Taylor (29), Vince York (11), and Bill Ashbaugh (11). We scored 809 runs, won the Continental Association, and won a World Series. And we did it with 66 homers. That's it. We've almost passed that now. 1930 had three (the magic number?), Bill Ashbaugh (16), Vince York (15), and Fred Barrell (10). We finished 4th in the league (our pitching was terrible...) and scored 964 runs. We hit just 68. 1929, the first year of this dynasty report, we were terrible. We were 62-92 and just Bill Ashbaugh (23) hit more then 6. Without him, we hit just 44 homers. From 1929-1931 we ranked in the bottom half of the CA despite having the easiest stadium to hit homers at. Brooklyn is the only other CA team to have an overall HR rating above 1 (and both LHB and RHB above 1). (August 14th, 1933) In 1929 we had just 44(!) home runs which is one less then Rankin Kellogg hit this year. And Bill Ashbaugh was more then half of them. Of course, Ashbaugh is still on the team, but let's take a look at the rest of the starters both years: The 1929 Chicago Cougars Power Packed Lineup C Fred Barrell (23): 79 G, .247/.337/.387 (89 WRC+), 6 HR, 48 RBI 1B John Dibblee (40): 124 G, .346/.385/.464 (121 WRC+), 3 HR, 76 RBI, 7 SB 2B Bill Ashbaugh (25): 124 G, .346/.399/.577 (147 WRC+), 23 HR, 101 RBI, 13 SB 3B Mack Deal (22): 149 G, .304/.367/.387 (99 WRC+), 5 HR, 77 RBI, 23 SB SS Harry Simmons (25): 145 G, .315/.360/.414 (103 WRC+), 2 HR, 74 RBI, 20 SB LF Dick Fessel (25): 108 G, .306/.365/.394 (92 WRC+), 2 HR, 40 RBI, 13 SB CF Bob McCarty (27): 137 G, .304/.369/.429 (110 WRC+), 3 HR, 51 RBI, 13 SB) RF Art Panko (30): 112 G, .318/.381/.437 (108 WRC+), 3 HR, 60 RBI, 11 SB) The 1929 Chicago Cougars Actually Power Packed Lineup C Mike Taylor (27): .282/.366/.438 (124 WRC+), 21 HR, 76 RBI 1B Bill Ashbaugh (29): .291/.344/.453 (124 WRC+), 11 HR, 75 RBI, 6 SB 2B Slim Bloom (27): 73 G, .292/.373/.407 (121 WRC+), 3 HR, 33 RBI 3B John Kincaid (28): 153 G, .321/.367/.417 (120 WRC+), 2 HR, 9 SB, 64 RBI SS Arnold Bower (29): 112 G, .268/.340/.341 (87 WRC+), 5 SB, 39 RBI LF Bobby Sprague (26): 153 G, .300/.359/.394 (108 WRC+), 5 HR, 61 RBI, 13 SB CF Cy Bryant (27): 148 G, .264/.327/.361 (90 WRC+), 6 HR, 76 RBI, 15 SB RF Tom Taylor (28): 150 G, .292/.346/.438 (124 WRC+), 17 HR, 15 SB, 87 RBI 2B/SS Russ Combs (29): 87 G, .326/.364/.440 (129 WRC+), 3 HR, 36 RBI, 9 SB Alas! Another single repeat! It's not a perfect case, but it's Bill Ashbaugh. And again, on first glance, it is really easy to tell that the 1933 offense is about 100 times better. 1929 is basically just Bill Ashbaugh and a 40-year-old John Dibblee (who somehow still raked). The rest of the guys look decent, but don't forget, Chicago is a really easy place to hit. Guess which year we scored more runs? 193-- Wait... What? (checks notes) 1929? The 1929 Chicago Cougars scored scored 794 runs while the 1933 Chicago Cougars scored 724. So the offense of scrubs scored 55 more runs then the stacked lineup. We even scored more runs per game (5.2) in 1929 then 1933 (4.7) and I have no idea how we scored so many runs with such an awful team. We did steal a lot of bases and manufacture a lot of runs, but maybe it's because we didn't play any close games? Somehow, we managed to allow 979 runs in 1929, almost double the 526 from 1933. Our offenses were built completely different, but the one with better players actually scored less runs. Is there an explanation for this? I do think some of it has to do with the quality of pitching we faced. We got to face a lot of scrubs because we sucked. This year, we had to deal with a lot of top pitchers. I think the competition this year was tougher too as the 1929 Philadelphia Sailors were in a class of their own. They did lose to the Dynamos in the finals, but they were 103-51 in the regular season. After a little more digging I found out the leave average ERA was almost a full point lower in 1933 then 1929, which would account for why run totals were very similar. Another interesting 1929/1933 parallel is these are the only two seasons in the past six where the Fed won the World Series. What is nice is we do have an overlap here, Bill Ashbaugh! Let's take a look: Bill Ashbaugh In 1929, there's no doubt who our best offensive player was. That would be Bill Ashbaugh. The former 4th Overall Pick had his best year to date, batting .346/.399/.577 (143 OPS+) with 23 homers, 13 steals, and 101 RBI's. This was pretty similar to the previous year where he hit .287/.358/.483 (125 OPS+) with 25 homers and 101 RBI's. He then followed up the excellent 1929 with a strong 1930. Ashbaugh hit .321/.414/.531 (134 OPS+) with 16 homers, 13 steals, and 131 RBI's. He hasn't had a year like this sense, but he's still a quality hitter and now defender. 1933, however, was his worst offensive season. At 29 he hit .291/.344/.453 (112 OPS+) with just 11 homers, 75 RBI's, and 6 steals, nothing close to what he did in that three year period (if you started a Figment historical league in 1929 Bill Ashbaugh probably would've been a first ballot hall of famer). For his career, Ashbaugh has a robust .316/.382/.498 (129 OPS+) line with 114 homers, 72 steals, and 651 RBI's across 4,139 plate appearances. My first ever Figment pick, there's no doubt he's the most successful draftee of mine and he already sees his name on Cougar all time leaderboards. He's 8th for average, 5th for OBP, 2nd for slugging, 3rd in OPS (.880), 7th in walks (406), and 1st in homers (114). He's done all this in just 4,139 trips to the plate. He's been above average or better every season of his career and he's become a quality first basemen. He will turn 30 in February, so he may be on the back nine of his career, but he's a team leader who's worshipped in the clubhouse, beloved by his fans, and respected by his competitors. He's one of the few prospects I've allowed myself to develop and I think I'll always find a way to keep him in the lineup. One last thing before I (finally) stop. On accident, I clicked on my team leaderboards. To my dismay, I realized that Vince York was on the career leaderboards. Because he has 2,121 plate appearances he qualifies for rate stats even though he really shouldn't. He hit .347 for us in three seasons. Unfortunately, this means John Dibblee's .346 batting average is no longer the team best. He did it in 13,260 plate appearances and 58 seasons with the Cougars. This means that I need to make sure Vince York bats again for the Cougars and make sure that he gets enough outs to fall out of first. If you made it this far, hope you enjoyed! If you didn't make it, I don't blame you. I just love writing and finally had a nice chunk of time to write and once I started I just kept on going. A little TL;DR: the 1929 Chicago Cougars were really bad. The 1933 Chicago Cougars were really good. And I should have realized Dick Lyons, not Bill Ashbaugh was the franchise player stuck on a terrible team. Edit: Editor's Note: I guess I should also add that this is sort of a preview for what I am planning to do during the offseason. I'll try to do what I am going to call "Reviewing Year 1: Who Really Were the 1929 Chicago Cougars" to take a look back at my first season covered in the dynasty report. Unless I mention it in a post, I have never looked back on my past writings so I could eventually get to the point where I would forget what I wrote. It really all started with Dick Lyons, who as I've mentioned, I had no idea wasn't on the 1926 Chicago Cougars. In my 1929 posts, I wrote about Lyons' trip to the majors and when I brought him up. I really hope there are some things I was spot on accurate about, but I have a feeling I made a lot of rather bold claims that probably couldn't be further from true that I can laugh about now. I also think I had a "plan" to suck in 1930 and we instead just decided to win a lot. I will only look back to 1929 posts for the 1929 series. Eventually I will want to look back at the 1931 World Series year, but we have to win another (and hopefully a lot more) title. And then probably have a drought that makes me want to reminisce about the good 'ol days. I may also do draft reviews, and in that case I will reference old draft writeups as well. I've done it a few times with prospect reports already. Last edited by ayaghmour2; 11-18-2020 at 08:17 PM.