Closer rules option

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:9817768df8="Ragnarok69"]I agree, but he is asking whether it should be an option, not a requirement.

I agree with a lot of what I've heard. I don't like the modern system where guys come in to face one batter, or pitch just one inning. Still, if someone wanted to play a league using expansion era guys . . . I don't see why they shouldn't have the option to use closer rules. Maybe it'll be something to implement when they finish the site redesign.[/quote:9817768df8]

Settings:
Closer: Ace Guy
Set Up: #2 guy
Set Up: #3 Guy
Tied + Late: #2 Guy
Behind + Late: #2 guy or #3 guy
Lefty Specialist: LOOGY
Righty Specialist: ROOGY

Team settings: Maximize Closer

Individual settings:
Ace Guy: 1-2 innings, Not before 8th, Not in blowout
#2 guy: 1-2 innings, not before 7th, not in blowout, quick hook
#3 guy: 2-3 innings.
LOOGY: Not before 6th, 1-2 innings, Avoid RHB, Quick hook
ROOGY: Not before 6th, 1-2 innings, Avoid LHB, Quick Hook

Should note, would be useful to have an R3+ guy for the sixth bullpen arm, do mopup and secondary middleman, be allowed to pitch in blowouts, no innings limit, No hook setting.

That should produce a modern pen. Or at least a 1995 style pen. You'd need a 7 guys to make a modern pen, 8 for a playoff type pen. That's beyond starters. A Larussa/Torre style pen requires a lot of resources. That really, the TSN/SOM engine doesn't support within a 25 man roster.

[1787]

I vote leave it off. One of the charms of ATG is getting to use old time players of different eras in modern ways. The restriction of going with the advanced closer rating de-values too many of the old timers. I love that Milgus or Brandon can lead the league in saves not to mention guys like Hernandez or konstanty who really were closers and would be punished by using the advanced closer rating. The great closers of today still get used as closers with the current system so if its not broken dont fix it.

[Valen]

[quote:4d5e1c2b98]That really, the TSN/SOM engine doesn't support within a 25 man roster. [/quote:4d5e1c2b98]
Why would it matter what the engine can support within a 25 man roster when our rosters can have 28 and still be legal?

[quote:4d5e1c2b98]Veteran

PostPosted: 27 Oct 2011 15:13 Post subject:
I agree, but he is asking whether it should be an option, not a requirement. [/quote:4d5e1c2b98]
You get the award for reader comprehension. Indeed, I was asking whether it should be an option. I even emphasized it. But majority of responses have seemed to answer whether it should be a requirement. An interesting study in communication this thread has turned out to be. :lol:

[Salty]

If the question is:
Should it be an option- then my answer is still no-
To me, its just not desirable and...

There are probably 20 options I would put on the table as more pressing for many folks than the C ratings including:
(some of which Bernie has said are being worked on)

Flexible Caps
Trading options
Waiver Time Options
Post Draft Ball Park choice
BP 3
etc.

BUT- I am always glad that folks are asking for people's opinions so we can get an idea of what seems to be desirable.
Problem is that its hard for the community to reach on consensus on most things. :shock:

[scorehouse]

i wish we had for the rhrp/lhrp specialist role, an absolute do not face lhb/rhb option. that's the way it works in the majors. bring him in, gets the out, he's done!

[scorehouse]

in fact, call it the one and done box. :D