Strat-o-matic should do away with the * pitcher rating

[tersignf]

all good points. I agree that the rules should first and foremost enhance the enjoyment of the game. That's the thing I like about not following a typical strat-o league rule on AB limits. It makes it more fun to play different combinations of players based on your personal analysis of matchups. Limiting the ABs would limit a degree of freedom in the game that actually makes it very enjoyable.

The only thing I'd like to see changed is incorporating super HAL bullpen logic. What we have now can really be a drag on the fun of the game.

[geekor]

What people are asking for in something that SOM would have to change (not TSN). But the fact remains that no pitcher in the last 20 years (I'm guessing here) has pitched 300 innings. No pitcher has been pitching every 4 days anymore, none. How does the current * give anything even close to realism? 1 pitcher who pitched 204 innings in the game can now pitch 300 where as another who pitcher 198 innings can only achieve about that amount? It isn't consistant across the board, therein lies the problem.

[Jerlins]

I'll take up a wager with anyone who desires that 300 innings pitched will be reached before 96, 92, 89, 86, and 85 home runs in a season that is currently on the record boards for strat 2005. The game is what it is, if you don't want to sacrifice your #'s 1 through 3 draft rankings on getting a * pitcher, then you run the risk of taking whats left. I haven't had a problem filling my staff with 4 * pitchers in any league when I've chosen to go that route.

Again, the point made is that it is not realistic, which, I agree. But neither is any other part of the game as presently constructed. And I'm guessing that a pitcher goes 300 innings before a catcher catches 162 games straight too (Kendall anyone?). I repeat, you can't have it both ways.

[milezd]

while I agree that the use of a player like Burke is a bit out of the norm,
players like this are prone to extended injuries and lesser at bats in the game, strat-o-matic is trying to lend some realism to the use of such a player

as for Jerlins arguments of 96 homeruns being unrealistic, I disagree, in my lifetime I've seen 64, 70, and 73 homeruns in MLB, given the extreme amount of games played in each strat season the statistical probability of someone hitting that many homeruns is greatly increased, while I am amazed at the numbers I am not surprised

but as for starters starting on 4 days rest I totally disagree, I have had 1-3 starters get close to or over 300 innings on just about every team I have had (I almost always try to get * starters)

given what I have said above I don't think the "you can't have it both ways" argument applies

I would also like to add some data to further help my cause. Below you will see the 10 top HR and innings pitched for 3 leagues I have competed in in 2005.

The HRs look relatively normal to me, where as the innings pitched makes my case. In those three seasons you have 10 players OVER 300 innings and 7 more within 20 innings of that.

[code:1:fc3e711c04]
52 320.1
48 320.0
42 316.2
39 310.1
37 302.2
37 299.0
35 282.0
35 271.0
34 270.0
33 269.1
33 269.1
33 245.0

62 331.0
58 306.1
47 299.1
45 291.0
43 290.2
41 282.0
39 278.1
39 278.0
37 276.2
36 267.1
36 251.1
35 245.0

60 312.1
52 309.1
49 301.2
47 287.1
45 267.0
42 258.1
42 244.1
41 238.0
41 236.1
40 234.1
37 229.0
36 227.2
[/code:1:fc3e711c04]

I will also give you this to look at (if you have read this far, hehe).

[url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/IP_leagues.shtml]Year-by-Year League Leaders for Innings in MLB[/url]

this gives you an idea of what the innings pitched numbers are for the modern baseball era and how much * starters are grossly over used in strat-o-matic

[cummings2]

I agree with both sides of the argument...but ultimately it's up to you, if you don't like a 4 man rotation don't get *SPs...if you like the fact that this is a simulation and a game which is supposed to be played for fun not for accurate statistical analysis then play the game with the rules that are in play.

Now, I know that some might say that if they like a straight 5 man rotation for the "realism" of the game, they are at a disadvantage with other players that play with stud *SPs, however those other teams are paying a heavy premium for that luxury, the fact that you don't pay for that allows you to have money that you allocate elsewhere, this adds up for some sense of balance. I have been running numbers to figure this out (pricing of *SP vs. non *SPs) and the difference is quite noticeable -maybe I should post some of the numbers in the strategy forum.

Anyway, my point is that I personally agree with the anti *argument but it doesn't bother me at all, you have to be more carefull than what people think when using the *SPs. In fact, unless you are using the top studs it is really not worth it IMO. -It's a mirage- If you don't believe me, try looking at the cards of two pitchers like Clemens and Oliver Perez...are the extra 8 starts worth the 2.5 mil?

Now, you want to argue even more realism? Don't dump players because they have a bad 21 game streak to start the season :!: How many times have you seen actual clubs dump 5,6 players during the season? You want even more realism? Limit Juan Pierre so that he doesn't get the average 85-90 steals he gets in SOM? Even more? Alter the reliever settings so that there is no possible way that you end up with relievers with 160-190 innings pitched, can you imagine what would happen to real closers if they were used the way they are in SOM? their arms would disintegrate before the make it to game 81.

I think that the way you play and enjoy the game is up to no one else but you, the pricing seems to be done in a way that you do pay a heavy price for the so called "tricks" and at the end there is a sense of balance. Of course these are just my 2 cents and as I said before I agree with all the POVs that have been expressed here.

[IrishJoe]

I also would not be upset with eliminating or changing the use of the * rating on pitchers. If it were jacked up to 250-260 IP, a * sp would be a real commodity. Off days, are a nice twist but only if they are in theory, I go through withdrawl if I can't see how badly my teams got whumped on a given day.

I played in a league where managers could not exceed a players actual abs buy more than 10% but I don't see that here. If I can't get HAL to properly use a bullpen, how can I rely upon it to properly handle conserving ABs?

Joe

[rgimbel]

although i agree that * is unrealistic it doesnt take away from the enjoyment of the game. the biggest problems i see are as follows.
1. Hals crazy use of subs esp for defense
2. Hals insane use of relievers
3. in a simulation game one of the most fun things to do is make trades the way the game is setup trades are almost impossible to make, also with the 20% rule if u have made mistakes in setting up your team you have no recourse because you cant fix it with the 20% penalty you just have to sit back and lose 90 games.
4.how come my players get injured more than anyone elses( well that one maybe paranoia)

[JohnnyBlazers]

I've just started playing this game and I enjoy it very much. But I have to keep it in perspective that it is a simulation game and that it has some idiosyncracies that although far from reality, it does make the game interesting. I find that the game has some aspects that are pretty real and others that are sort of nutty. The 90-100 hrs in season or the Joe Mauer-type players who play the first two weeks of the season and miss the rest due to injury putting up all star numbers, or the closer who pitches 200 innings-those are things that I'd like to see corrected because they make a mockery and farce out of the game. I think the game gives to much credence to the ballpark factor when it comes to rating HR's. It operates under the assumption that if Pujols played his games at Coors he's have 95 hrs. C'mon! If that was the case, he'd get walked as much as Bonds and would finish with 70 instead. Babe Ruth played at Yankee Stadium with a short porch in RF of 297 feet and all the he ever hit was 60 hrs - and he had Gehrig protecting him at that. HAL needs an in-game logic built in to simulate some real baseball situations, i.e. runner on 2nd, first base open, you normally see a Pujols or a Tejeda get pitched around or walked (does the IBB more option in the strategy settings foresee this?) .

[Jerlins]

Well, the playing field is the same for everyone so there really nothing to gripe at, other than the fact that folks want a more "realistic" approach, which is fine. Before "fixing" these little quirks, TSN needs other fixing first, weighted draft and individual game settings come to mind. But, these issues are for yet another board.

[geekor]

Jerlins... your problem is you are confusing things. I agree, those are things [b:8164c6981e]TSN [/b:8164c6981e]should take care of. the elimination of the * raitng would be something [b:8164c6981e]SOM [/b:8164c6981e]should do, a completely different entity.

I personally would love to see an injury roll on the pitchers card as well, and then just dump the entire * rating. that would help limit tose just like hitters. Also no releiver should be higher than an R1, better yet their rating shouldn't be by innings, but battes they can face (i.e. B3). That would make things a lot more realistic.