Super Reliever

[artie4121]

Two things:

Mathewson died in 1925, I believe. So any of his references to "modern pitchers," was at the beginning of the live-ball era, in which he never pitched.

And on the quote:

[quote:1b904ce9e5]I've heard some make the criticism of Nolan Ryan,that he never learned that lesson . Tried to strike out everyone. [/quote:1b904ce9e5]

Criticism of a guy who won 325 games and was still striking out a batter an inning at 45 (and who never, I don't believe EVER suffered from much arm trouble) is maybe picking the wrong example of someone who never learned to "ration" his pace.

Not meaning to be contentious here, truly.

[216 Stitches]

I think they are different issues (most probably). I don't
see why they should be linked.

Counting stats, like HR Bonds totals, are a function of extreme
environment choices, competition that may de-emphasize pitching
and luck. Its not an average season by any means, just an
extreme case. And part of playing the game is the "what-if"
factor. So, yeah, I too love seeing the extreme outcomes.

Super relievers IP totals are more reproducible. They don't bother
me much. Can't say I am excited to see them either. Can't even
say I am even in a rush to form an opinion. But if the case to
limit or eliminate a strategy is made, it better be a very good case.
We play the game to make different GM choices, so subtracting a choice
should not be something done lightly.

[Valen]

Huge Ryan fan here.

Those who think Ryan did not follow the cruise control until you get in trouble mantra always going for strikeouts might be referring to his walk rate. They may be thinking he should have let up on the fastball some to improve control and only break out the 100+ stuff when he had to.

I have heard same thing about most every hard throwing pitcher with high walk totals. Hard for me to be critical of Nolan given results he achieved over his career.

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:6df0478d37="Artie412"]Two things:

Mathewson died in 1925, I believe. So any of his references to "modern pitchers," was at the beginning of the live-ball era, in which he never pitched. [/quote:6df0478d37]

Might've been Walter Johnson... too lazy to google for it, since I don't remember the exact quote.

[dwightskino211]

We are like a rudderless ship, here in ATG SOM land. First the steroid boys get added (in the middle of existing seasons no less). I now have 6 McGwires to pick from but only (for example 2 bad Kalines). No fix for an incorrect Killebrew card, recently Gates Brown, and now Arky Vaughan as best player in the set, This week, almost two more fanta sim, nonsensical players added, who are better than Lou Gehrig. We are now voting on this.

The first topic, for most any league of SOM managers, is to eliminate the cards with stats that are blown up with fewer at bats. The statistical oddities, with partial seasons that are hugely out of whack.

This is done by ab plus walk limitations, IP limits for starters, relievers and s/r, and stiff penalties for going over. I have been in leagues where you could lose a player for the season through the injury chart. Leagues with 200 ab/walk minimums for Catchers, 175 IP for Starters etc. All put in place to make the body of cards more representative, fairer, and dare I say it to... produce more normal seasons.

Here it is almost the opposite. ATG is adding tremendous numbers of cards to the set, and each time we get further away from what the set is supposed to be about. All Time Greats to me is not 1990 and 2000 players. It is not steroid hr totals, .450 hitters from 1896, 450 innings pitchers from 1901. It should be about the best players, with several representative years from their careers. What we have now is something different, and I fear going the wrong way. SOM was about accuracy, research and playability. Wrong fielding ratings for Lou Brock, added homers for Arky, and now Eddie Mathews... please.

Soon it will be like What if Sports... where 3 Manute Bols will block 25 shots per game average. Some games 35 or more, and thus will be more valuable and produce higher numbers than a normal frontcourt. (Yes, I know that's basketball!!)

A good manager in SOM was always able to get overproduction out of the lineups. That was one reason it was so exciting to play the game. In addition if a manager could put in the time to study the cards and stats, he/she could come up with a competitive advantage when drafting a team. Today in ATG, in a 140M, or 100M draft, I believe a good ATG manager could field a representative team if he/she drafted after the other 11 teams took all of their 25 picks. That's how deep the player pool is.

Sorry to vent, but the recent goings on here are off base... a newbie has no chance here, and at $25/$99 a pop they won't pay for the 10-15 teams it takes them to learn.

Additionally. I realize Bernie is putting in the time and representing us well on several fronts, but we are going to hit the rocks soon...

[RangerJoe]

[quote:42d6c3b1c6="nevdully's"]To those that complain about the super reliever strategy and how unrealistic it is....How do you feel about todays post of an incredible offensive team (I love em) where Bonds hits over [b:42d6c3b1c6]100 HRs[/b:42d6c3b1c6] and drives in almost [b:42d6c3b1c6]300[/b:42d6c3b1c6] [b:42d6c3b1c6]Runs[/b:42d6c3b1c6] and the fantastic platoon of Mazz/Smith (two cards some might say shouldn't even be in the set) scoring 192 Runs.

These teams and those posts seem to draw nothing but praise, (and rightly so imo) but nary a peep of cries calling these numbers "unrealistic".

Thoughts?[/quote:42d6c3b1c6]

I agree. And it isn't limited to slugging and relief-inning stats. Many of us have done the same with stolen bases, and recently somebody posted a team they put together that ended the season with only 12 errors by selecting E-0 (or E-1to 2) position players. As far as I'm concerned if you are doing what the game allows, no foul. Now if Bernie and the strat folks wish to create a game with more realistic stats, fatigue factors, clutch situations, etc. that would be fine with me as well. 8-)

A little off topic, it seems the 20XX games (at TSN-Strat) have been much more realistic statistics-wise the past few years favoring great pitching. I've found the same with the 70s or 80s games. But even in those games super relievers and 70-plus home runs happen on occasion.

[Stormcrow2012]

NevDully said:[quote:2e37d398f3]To those that complain about the super reliever strategy and how unrealistic it is....How do you feel about todays post of an incredible offensive team (I love em) where Bonds hits over 100 HRs and drives in almost 300 Runs and the fantastic platoon of Mazz/Smith (two cards some might say shouldn't even be in the set) scoring 192 Runs.

These teams and those posts seem to draw nothing but praise, (and rightly so imo) but nary a peep of cries calling these numbers "unrealistic".

[/quote:2e37d398f3]

Good point!

[macnole]

[quote:7674bd4e85="River Field View"]I think they are different issues (most probably). I don't
see why they should be linked.

Counting stats, like HR Bonds totals, are a function of extreme
environment choices, competition that may de-emphasize pitching
and luck. Its not an average season by any means, just an
extreme case. And part of playing the game is the "what-if"
factor. So, yeah, I too love seeing the extreme outcomes.

Super relievers IP totals are more reproducible. They don't bother
me much. Can't say I am excited to see them either. Can't even
say I am even in a rush to form an opinion. But if the case to
limit or eliminate a strategy is made, it better be a very good case.
We play the game to make different GM choices, so subtracting a choice
should not be something done lightly.[/quote:7674bd4e85]

Agree completely...was going to mention the same thing. These are different cases. On e is controlled by the environment and the other is controlled by the manager.

Same sentiment--meh.

[The Last Druid]

Bonds would have hit a lot more than 100 homers if they actually pitched to him.

I'm not quite so thrilled with the 282 r.b.i', mostly because that's unattainable for me.

I think we need to start drug testing Frank Zappa Lives.

[rburgh]

One great stat about Barry's 73 HR season. He hit 35 HR at home in what was then Pac Bell Park. All other LH batters, including teammate J.T. Snow, hit a total of 1. Yes, that's correct. (Source: Bill James' Stats Annual, or whatever he called it - I'm not at home to check.)

And, as noted above, he was probably only getting 7 or 8 pitches a week that he could put the bat on by the end of the season. And he was hitting half of them out of the ballpark. Merely great hitters often don't put half of the hittable balls they see in play. How often have you seen a great hitter foul off a pitch and then walk out of the box shaking his head. Barry never did that, that I can recall, that year.

Whatever you think of Barry (and I don't think very much of him as a person - I'd pay big money to see a 40 year-old Barry against a 40 year-old Cobb in an MMA cage match, if there is such a thing), he was the greatest hitter ever during his steroid years.