Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

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:7dabeae259]100 HRs[/b:7dabeae259] and drives in almost [b:7dabeae259]300[/b:7dabeae259] [b:7dabeae259]Runs[/b:7dabeae259] 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?

Id like to save the environment by driving my Hummer. :shock:

[quote:1f8db5a9ae="El-Saltman"]Id like to save the environment by driving my Hummer. :shock:[/quote:1f8db5a9ae]

What tune are you Hummering now Salt? :P

I find super relievers more realistic than Mutants who hit 100 hrs and drive in 300 rbi. :shock: At least some old timers actually threw for 400+ innings back in the day. No steroids or Tommy John surgery then, just spit some tobacco juice on it and rub some dirt into it. :P

[quote:97a53bd70d="gfg001"]I find super relievers more realistic than Mutants who hit 100 hrs and drive in 300 rbi. :shock: At least some old timers actually threw for 400+ innings back in the day. No steroids or Tommy John surgery then, just spit some tobacco juice on it and rub some dirt into it. :P[/quote:97a53bd70d]

Soft toss to scrubs, work hard against the good bats. Mathewson said something to the effect that modern pitchers (in the 60's I guess) didn't know how to pace themselves with their best stuff.

You make a good point.

Personally view RPs being able to log 300-400 innings unrealistic. I also view triple digit HR totals by hitters to be unrealistic.

Suppose might be a little more bothered by super reliever because think fatigue rules should ding performance more for a reliever who is severely overused. So might be more likely to comment in a super reliever thread. Though as long as it does not cannot blame anyone for using the strategy. And do not feel anything beyond increased fatigue or increased odds of injury should be done to prevent it.

On excessive HRs have accepted that as a fact of life much like the sun coming up every morning especially in leagues with a lot of hitter friendly parks.

An additional head scratching moment for me similar to the apparent contradiction to the one you raise is PEDS. So many are impressed when the Bonds card hits triple digit HRs but are critical of him, Raffy, Braun, etc when they tested positive. :lol:

[quote:b1a7efbe34="PotKettleBlack"][quote:b1a7efbe34="gfg001"]I find super relievers more realistic than Mutants who hit 100 hrs and drive in 300 rbi. :shock: At least some old timers actually threw for 400+ innings back in the day. No steroids or Tommy John surgery then, just spit some tobacco juice on it and rub some dirt into it. :P[/quote:b1a7efbe34]

Soft toss to scrubs, work hard against the good bats. Mathewson said something to the effect that modern pitchers (in the 60's I guess) didn't know how to pace themselves with their best stuff.[/quote:b1a7efbe34]

Matty's book was called "Pitching in the Pinch", you are right that was the whole point,don't waste your arm on poor hitters save it for the good guys or the key out , "the Pinch".
I've heard some make the criticism of Nolan Ryan,that he never learned that lesson . Tried to strike out everyone.

I've also heard it said , that the quality of the average hitter has increased to the point that it might not be possible to take Matty's advice.Which why pitchers arm see more fragile now adays.

[quote:23d0db2d0e]Soft toss to scrubs, work hard against the good bats.[/quote:23d0db2d0e]
Think back in Mathewson's day scrubs were more common. Whether it is due to PEDS, better workouts, or video scouting more common for lineups to have few if any breathers you can soft toss to.

That meant starters did not have to focus as hard all day and could go deeper in games and/or start more often. So starter innings were much higher. But do not remember anyone who put up 300 or so innings strictly out of bullpen. Most I remember was Marshall's 208 and he was an exception to the norm. Still probably would consider someone using him for 400 innings to be reasonable as that would only be double his actual innings. But when a guy is used for 5 times his actual innings think fatigue or injury should be increase more than they do.

Bob Gibson has made similar comments as those by Mathewson. He emphasized bearing down once someone got on base. That is what the clutch pitching feature theoretically simulates. Unfortunately we do not have using that as an option here.

I also attribute that as part of the reason pitchers throw fewer innings these days. You better be bearing down on just about everyone these days or have a good retirement plan.

The problem is that we've all become used to the way relievers are used today. But...Nev and I are in the same league, both using super relievers. He's got Murray, I've got Wilhelm. Some numbers:

Murray has appeared in 65 of 96 games, or 67.7% of his teams games (appeared in 32 in his 1974 season)
Wilhelm has appeared in 55 of 96 games, or 57% of his teams games (appeared in 66 in his 1965 season)

Murray has 242 innings pitched (pitched 69 in his 1974 season)
Wilhelm has 175 innings pitched (pitched 144 in his 1965 season)


Mike Marshall has the real life career record for appearances with 106 games and 208 innings in that season (65.4% of the teams games).

Our two supers will both top the innings mark, but are right on track in terms of appearances. If you ask me, it's not quite as bizarre as than the 100 homer mark. But it is weird to see a reliever leading your team in innings pitched, wins, and saves. Very weird...