Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

I'd endorse a reduction in the number of * starters, definitely, as long as the salary reduction is commiserate.

But the bigger deal to me is the ridiculous overuse of relievers. No guy came out of the bullpen for 100+ innings last year, but some managers grind 200+ innings out of a reliever with amazing regularity. That is the most glaring weakness of this game, IMHO, and the first thing that should be addressed (though the *starter situation is probably easier).

tws

[quote:9ce70bbbe7="TomSiebert"]I'd endorse a reduction in the number of * starters, definitely, as long as the salary reduction is commiserate.

But the bigger deal to me is the ridiculous overuse of relievers. No guy came out of the bullpen for 100+ innings last year, but some managers grind 200+ innings out of a reliever with amazing regularity. That is the most glaring weakness of this game, IMHO, and the first thing that should be addressed (though the *starter situation is probably easier).

tws[/quote:9ce70bbbe7]

Excellent point.

I agree with your point about the over use of relief pitchers. I can appreciate the fact that some of these players are clever enough to have learned that overusing their relievers is a successful, winning strategy. After all, isn't winning the objective of the game? To me, however, this is nothing more than "gaming the system." More importantly, it ruins the realism of the baseball simulation. It may be within the letter of the law (rules of the game) but it certainly isn't within the spirit of the law.

Over the years, I've enjoyed playing the board game because of the realism factor. Oh sure, some players (player cards) might perform much better than their actual statistics, but that's what made the game fun. When we played the board game as kids, we'd sort of police one another so we didn't overuse a player card that was highly effective but only based on a rather limited number of at bats or innings pitch.

It's too bad the computer game doesn't contain a feature to limit the overuse of a player card. It wouldn't have to strictly limit the use of a reliever to the actual amount of innings he pitched. For example, it could permit him to throw 15% - 20% more innings than he actually pitched. That would permit a player to use the card, but it would stop some people from overusing particular player cards.

To me, it's completely unrelastic and ruins the baseball simulation when you see a reliever, particularly an R2 or closer, with more innings pitched than the majority of the starting pitchers on a team. Hopefully, this can somehow be addressed in the future.

Tom, you make a good point, but I am a little confused by it. You have used Kuo for 168 IP, Giese 192 & Papelbon 106 IP on the same team, Betancourt 184 IP, Percival 151 IP, M. Rivera 111 IP & Jenks 107 IP on the same team.

I had a team where 3 of my SP went 230+ IP and 1 went 311 IP with 2 RP, Bruney 116 IP & Madson 105 IP with Downs getting 49.2 IP with a 0-0-35-3 Closer Role. I was amazed that Bruney and Madson recieved that many IP with the SP going deep into games.
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=204606

:? SGT D

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=148452

This team other than Peavy was the closest to as realistic that I could find of my teams that the Pitching close to real as possible. SGT D

I feel differently about the super relief problem than the starter problem. I think the starter * issue is about realism, but i makes for good game play.

I think super relievers cheapen game play, and I would like to see something changed to eliminate this strategy. The super reliever strategy actually makes making a good bullpen less creative, In real life, if a manager overuses a reliever he often gets tired arm at the end and either has his performance go down, or goes on the DL.

One option to would be that once a RP has exceeded his IP by 20, he enters games at F4 for the rest of the year.

Another option would be once a pitcher has reached his IP for that year, in addition to the regular pitcher injury, he gets injured on any roll of 4-4 on the pitcher's card

The most effective way to stop the overuse and limit the effect of the short cards in the game is to mirror the actual ab's and Ip's on the card. Once you use up the ab or ip of the player they can no longer be put in the game and you then have to replace them with a drop penalty or not use them. This would put the emphasis back on the guys who actually played full time and also make the short cards pinch hitters or platoons.

Of course, since our game doesnt have a minor league system to call up players you might have to allot for an extra maybe 10% abs or ips for each player since we are limited to a 24 - 27 man roster.

Probably not easy for TSN to do but certainly solves most of the realism problems.

All I know is you can't address one side without addressing the other...

Example....in 99...for every Rich Garces getting 250 IP there is a Terry Shumpert getting 600 PA's

Overuse of relief pitchers and overuse of position players are both similar and [i:99198a77b8]very[/i:99198a77b8] different.

They are similar because some position players will get used far more than they did in real life as will relief pitchers. However, they are different because some position players in real life play 162 games or close to it. There are no relief pitchers who pitch 200+ innings--not even close.

So, I accept that it's part of the game that little used position players become studs in TSN. It's not as easy to accept the super-reliever phenomenon, however.

Couple points:

1- SGT D, you're totally right that I've used the SuperReliever strategy. I don't like it, but I've used it. Since it is well within the rules of the current game, it would be self-destructively stubborn to eschew the advantage it can bring a team. I'll compare it to the DH -- if you were an AL manager back in the 70s when the DH was brought aboard and you hated the DH, you would still use it because it gave you a competitive advantage. Similarly, in more recent years, when MLB executives, sportswriters, owners and fans all turned a blind eye to steroids, many players took them because they felt they needed to level the playing field against their competition. [b:c2769cb13e]The SuperReliever is the steroid of Strat O Matic[/b:c2769cb13e]. I'm not proud to say that I've done it, but I have and I've won using it. I'd rather see steps taken to have it better controlled, however.

2- I also agree with coyote303's point about hitters' AB and RPs' innings. Apples to kumquats, It's not the same -- the role of daily players has many who reach 550-650 ABs, even if they didn't in their most recent Strat season. But no RP puts up even half the innings we see regularly from the cadre of SuperRelievers in every season. Additionally, more realistic bullpen performances would greatly escalate the strategy needed to manage a team, while changing hitters' roles would raise it less so.

3- I think litangel's suggestion sounds the best to me -- after an RP has exceeded his innings by 20%, he's an F4 for the rest of the year. I'm sure there are other ideas, though, too.

I appreciate the discussion about this. To me, it is the #1 priority that the Strat/Sporting News Godz should be seeking to address.

Happy New Year! And can we all agree that it should be pronounced "twenty-ten" and not "two-thousand-and-ten" ? :)

tws