Mickey Mantle connects during the 1964 WS
“The Twilight of the Gods” the 1964 AL for Statis-Pro Baseball
Mickey Mantle connects during the 1964 WS
“The Twilight of the Gods” the 1964 AL for Statis-Pro Baseball
2020-21-Eastern-Conference.pdf
2020-21-Western-Conference.pdf
Other Statis-Pro Basketball Links
3 and D Rules and Small Ball Guidelines
“Further Ado”, the SOM Forum’s Choice
Pdf version - 2026-Kentucky-Derby.pdf
Needless to say, a small sampling of what could be a wide open field. Renegade is the favorite, but there are several excellent horses in this field.
Pedigree: Into Mischief — Spice Is Nice by Curlin.
Foaled: Jan. 25, 2023.
2026: 2 starts. 2-0-0, $952,500.
2025: 5 starts. 2-2-1, $1,031,500.
Albus:
Pedigree: Yaupon — Adream by Bernardini.
Foaled: May 15, 2023.
2026: 2 starts. 2-0-0, $419,200.
2025: 4 starts. 2-0-1, $436,288.
Commandment:
Pedigree: Into Mischief — Sippican Harbor by Orb.
Foaled: Feb. 23, 2023.
2026: 3 starts. 3-0-0, $943,020.
2025: 5 starts. 4-0-0, $1,017,339.
So Happy:
Pedigree: Runhappy — So Cunning by Blame.
Foaled: April 26, 2023.
2026: 3 starts. 2-0-1, $444,000.
2025: 4 starts. 3-0-1, $480,000.
The Puma:
Pedigree: Essential Quality — Eve of War by Declaration of War.
Foaled: Feb. 7, 2023.
2026: 4 starts. 1-2-1, $442,280.
2025: 4 starts. 1-2-1, $442,280.
Wonder Dean:
Pedigree: Dee Majesty — Wonder Siang Praw by Wonder Acute.
Foaled: March 25, 2023.
2026: 2 starts. 1-0-0, $655,000.
2025: 6 starts. 2-2-0, $770,541.
Chief Wallabee:
Pedigree: Constitution — A La Lucie by Medaglia d’Oro.
Foaled: Feb. 6, 2023.
2026: 3 starts. 1-1-1, $216,600.
2025: 3 starts. 1-1-1, $216,600.
Further Ado:
Pedigree: Gun Runner — Sky Dreamer by Sky Mesa.
Foaled: March 15, 2023.
2026: 2 starts. 1-1-0, $825,625.
2025: 6 starts. 3-1-1, $1,146,328.
Fred Bobberts
-Original Date of Publication 5/1/2026
Strat-O-Matic College Football Posts on this Blog:
Below are a few of his brilliant efforts:
1977-NC-STATE-FINAL-SOM-Cards.zip
The 1977 NC State Wolfpack football team, coached by Bo Rein, finished with an 8-4 record (4-2 in ACC), culminating in a 24-14 victory over Iowa State in the 1977 Peach Bowl. Led by quarterback Johnny Evans and running back Ted Brown, the team ranked 19th in the final Coaches Poll.
1977 Texas Tech
1977 TEXAS TECH FINAL-SOM-Cards.zip
The 1977 Texas Tech football team, led by coach Steve Sloan, finished fourth in the SWC with a 7-4 record and played in the 1977 Tangerine Bowl, losing 40-17 to Florida State. A key moment included star quarterback Rodney Allison breaking his leg in the third game of the season, which hindered the team's high expectations after a strong 1976 campaign.
1977 Kentucky
1977-Kentucky-Final-SOM-Cards.zip
One of Chris’s favorite teams in the set. The 1977 Kentucky team under Fran Curci was one of the best, clearly, and had some iconic moments throughout. A 10-1 record reflects just how good the team was, but it doesn’t just stop with the record. One of the most stand-out moments of the season was the Border Battle game against Tennessee when the Cats defeated the Volunteers 21-17. Kentucky was ineligible to play in a bowl game due to being on NCAA probation, so with a rival game like Tennessee for their last game of the schedule, the Cats wanted to go out in style.
Kentucky entered the game with seven injured starters who were unable to play, and Tennessee had lost five of its six prior games. With starting quarterback Derrick Ramsey out, backup Mike Deaton completed a 36-yard pass to Felix Wilson before the injured Ramsey made a comeback and let the Cats to a score. All-American defensive end Art Still forced a fumble, which was recovered by Kelly Kirchbaum to seal the win for the Wildcats.
Kentucky defeated two ranked teams that season in no. 4 ranked Penn State and no. 16 ranked LSU. In their first game of the season, the Cats were unranked, but by their third game against West Virginia, they sat at no. 17. By the time the season was all said and done, the 1977 team finished no. 6 in the country with one loss and an unblemished SEC record. Their only loss was to Baylor in Waco, Texas.
Okay, so we follow the steps. He’s a right hander so we pull the splits for each season for right handed pitchers versus both left handed and right handed batters, so we can rate him similar to a ball park rating.
1979: Rhp:(from batter’s splits)
.Vs LHB 318 / 22961 = 0.01391
Vs RHB 637 / 28892 = 0.022048
1980 Rhp:
Vs LHB 365 / 24594 = 0.01484
Vs RHB 554 / 29649 = 0.018685
1981 Rhp:
Vs LHB 236 / 17105 = 0.013797
Vs RHB 315 / 19598 = 0.016073
The first thing you notice is this is not a big era for left handed power in the National League, and the strike year wasn’t brilliant for right handers either, Schmidt and Dawson both not withstanding. So while Minton’s streak is long, the underlying league stats were also favorable. Let’s use the 95 percent calculation:
Ln(1-0.95) / lb(1- frequency above) = sample size
1979: vs LHB : 213.9 vs RHB: 134.4
1980: vs LHB: 200.4 vs RHB: 158.8
1981: vs LHB: 215.6 vs RHB: 184.9
Almost there. Now we use the Favorite Toy to impose a probability distribution on the data strand from above:
1979:
LHB: (213.9 / 132 - 0.5) * 20 = 22
RHB: (134.4 / 182 - 0.5) * 20 = 5
1980:
LHB: (200.4 / 154 - 0.5) * 20 = 16
RHB: (158.8 / 223 - 0.5) * 20 = 4
1981:
LHB: (215.6 / 172 - 0.5) * 20 = 15
RHB: (184.9 / 187 - 0.5) * 20 = 10
So these results are pretty interesting, obviously the 20 sided dice adjustments are less for left handed batters than right handed batters because left handed batters had less power in this era in the National League. It takes more batters to be significant for zero home runs when their incidence is lower. Clearly his performance is much more significant against right handed batters.
Minton Vs LHB Vs RHB
1979: Auto 1-5
1980: 1-16 1-4
1981: 1-15 1-10
1980 in this context was his best season for avoiding home runs.
Fred Bobberts, copyright 2026
Original Date of Publication 3/15/2026
So now you have two choices:
A) level of confidence (90 percent, 95, 98, 99), in which case if you selected an outcome at that confidence you could be wrong on the cause Les and less frequently. 90 pct would be 1 in ten times, 99 pct would be one in 100.
B) which of the above instances are the right percentages. Since we are looking at a right handed pitcher versus left handed batters I’ll choose 0.016138
Okay now let’s calculate the zero defects sample size, or the number of plate appearances with 0 HRA where we start to look at significance. Note that it’s about 4.2 PA per IP as a rough estimate; this is easily calculated from the league’s summary data.
90 percent = ln(1-.90) / ln(1-0.016138) or 142 (dimensionless)
(we don’t have a specific IP for Abernathy versus just left handers but if we did, this is about 34 IP with 0 HRA)
95 percent = ln(1 - 0.95) / ln (1-0.016138) or 184
98 percent = ln(1/0.98) / ln (1-0.016138) or 240
99 percent = lb(1/0.99) / ln (1-0.016138) or 283.
As you look at higher significance the pitcher needs to face more and more batters in order for the 0 HRA to be significant at any given home run rate.
Now let’s see what we get when we use my favorite toy to convert these findings to look at possible 20 sided die results for each level of significance. The favorite toy is an estimator that is going to place the probability of the adjustment at 50 percent for the first point that is significant at 95 percent confidence, and it can estimate the surrounding data based on that midpoint:
At 90 percent confidence:
Opp BFP with 0 HRA :
50 : (142 from above /50) minus 0.5 = 2.33 times 20 = 47
47 is greater than 20, no adjustment to batter’s cards
This would be only 12 IP with no HR
100: ((142 /100) - 0.5) = 0.915 times 20 or 18.
You would use 1-18 as an adjustment at 90 percent confidence for a pitcher with 100 homerless BFP. Thus is about 24 homerless IP.
143: ((142/143) -0.5) = 0.489 times 20 or 10.
Ted Abernathy would be a 1-10 adjustment at 90 percent confidence
200: ((142/200) - 0.5) = 0.208 times 20 or 4
A pitcher with 200 BFP would use a 1-4 adjustment
A pitcher with 250 BFP with 0 HRA would be 0.066 times 20 or 1. The adjustment would be 1 in 20 on a 20 sided die.
Let’s try 95 percent confidence, often used as a standard
50: (184/50 - 0.5) = 3.18 times 20 equals 64
No adjustment
100: (184/100 - 0.5) = 1.34 times 20 equals 27
No adjustment
143: (184/143 - 0.5) = 0.788 times 20 equals 16
Ted Abernathy versus LHB would use a 1-16 adjustment at 95 percent confidence. Note the adjustment is higher (more favorable to a batter) at 95 percent confidence, but the chance there is another special cause would be half what it was at 90 percent.
200: (184/200 - 0.5) = 0.421 times 20 = 8
A pitcher with 200 BFP versus lhp with 0 HRA would be 1-8 for an adjustment to batters
250: (184/250 - 0.5) = 0.236 or 5; 1-5 on a 20 sided die.
Let’s try 98 pct confidence:
50: (240/50 -0.5) = 4.31 times 20 = 86 no adjustment
100: 1.90 times 20 = 38 no adjustment
143: 1.18 times 20 = 24 no adjustment
200: 0.702 times 20 = 14 1-14 on a 20 sided die
250: 0.461 times 20 = 9 1-9 on a 20 sided die.
Using this very high bar Abernathy would have no correction.
99 pct: (Abernathy only)
283/143 - 0.5 = 1.48 times 20 no adjustment
So which one should you use? I think this is up to the user, but an interesting result happens if we use the 184 figure- this is the minimum level where significance could be presumed under this model.
At 90 percent
142// 184 - 0.5 equals .269, times 20 equals 5 1-5 on a 20 sided die for a batter home run- this is a pretty strong offset. It reduces batters card home runs by 75 percent.
At 95 percent:
184/ 184 - 0.5 or .5 times 20 = 10. What this is saying is a significant result should mean a 1-10 adjustment, a 50 percent reduction. This is the reference model for the Favorite Toy, the first significant point is a 50 percent reduction or 1-10. But it’s up to the user what their comfort level is.
At 98 percent:
240/ 184 - 0.5 or 0.806 times 20 = 16. The first level at which significance is observed results in a mild offset of a 20 percent reduction of the batter’s numbers (1-16).
At 99 percent:
283/184 - 0.5 or 1.04 times 20 = 21. 184 homerless BFP provides no adjustment but a slightly higher number would.
If it was me, I would calculate the 98 percent numbers and use them to calculate my offsets. This way you can be reasonably sure the significance limits are met. For the Abernathy case it would be no adjustment. But I could also see using the 1-16 adjustment of the 95 percent confidence level calculation.
Review- Steps:
Calculate the HR/PA fur the scenario you wish to adjust;
Select significance, 90, 95, 98 or 99
Calculate the sample level (ln 1- significance) / (ln 1- hr/pa)
Calculate the 1-20 twenty sided die adjustment
((Sample level / BFP with 0 HRA) - 0.5) times 20
Fred Bobberts 3/12/2025