Quote:
Originally Posted by trevwilson
Legitimate question: do cards get "cursed" for lack of a better way to put it? At one time, I had Rizzo on two teams. They were both competing at the same leve and everyday starters. One card was very productive from year to year; the other was not. In fact, the better card's worst year was about on par with the lesser card's best. My initial thoughts were that this could be caused by lineup differences or some hidden mechanic. Is there an additional mechanic aside from rust that keeps a "bad" card down and a "good" card up? My gut says this is just an example of two small sample sets that will both regress to the mean eventually.
I guess this all comes down to - do you sit a player that is consistently underperforming or wait for that regression to the mean? Are there other, less obvious reasons, that will keep a particular card underperforming. Thanks for any guidance!
|
I have posted thread about this and posted in here about the same thing. I have GOT to think that the card performs as the card should. However, it's also true that some cards just don't perform as well as they should. I had a Freddy Lindstrom that never hit 100 OPS+ for me in like 10 years.
I knew he should have hit better but he just never did. Some people suggested replacing him, or if I liked him, selling that card and buying another one. That sounded sort of superstitious, so I just went ahead and replaced him.