Tons o' starters

[honestiago1]

One of the folks in my ATGII league has 4 starter who are *'s, and three who are pure starters (but will never start). This means he can immediately shorten up his relief staff to accomodate a "big three." Has anyone ever tried this in the 80s game? I would think the mystery card would preclude that. However, once you're sure of what you got, what's to stop anyone from dropping a mediocre reliever, then grabbing a straight SP to hold down a roster slot so that relief pitchers like Lee Smith end up with 200IP? (There REALLY needs to be a usage rule).

[seanreflex]

Honest,

I'm not the sharpest picket on the fence, but I really don't understand at all what you are referring to .....

do you mean he has 4 *SP that are also relievers; then 3 more SP only (no RP), but he puts only his 4 *SP in the rotation; hence his bullpen is shrunk to only 2 or 3 guys; he can play with the settings on 2 of his relievers (avoid Lefties, avoid righties, mopup only, quick hook, max 1-2 IP, don't use before 9th inning), hence all the innings go to 1 stud reliever??

If that is what you mean, I don't know why I'd want to do that. Also, what about the fatigue factor for that reliever? Also, how many SP are there (in ATG or 80's) that are are SP only, no RP, that are affordable?

I think this is somewhat of an anomaly, and I would imagine it could work in ATG, but no way in 80's. In ATG, get 3 or 4 DOMINANT SP, and it could work ... I'd rather build a complete team than to try and trick the system.

Good luck in your league.

Sean

[baracus68]

"so that relief pitchers like Lee Smith end up with 200IP?"

I came across the team linked below while looking at the all-time records for the '80s game. The manager swung it--presumably by plugging in almost every other pitcher into a per-game starter slot--so that Orosco pitched until his arm must have been hanging to his ankles. Mixed results, I'd say, though clearly the manager was focused on the home run record, and not on pitching. As seanreflex predicted, the fatigue factor must have been in effect for poor ol' number 47.

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/80s/team/team_other.html?user_id=45518&stats=sim

[honestiago1]

Yes, Sean, that's exactly what I meant. Four starters, then, say, 3 SP onlies who never pitch, so that the other 3 relievers get ALL the innings. And, yes, it is in an ATG league. Just wondering if anyone had ever bothered to try it. I agree, it wouldn't work well in 80s league, not knowing how many IP you got from some relievers.

Maybe I'm way off on this, too, but I'd like to see the closer rating restored. This increases the value of those pitchers, and makes it less likely that managers will simply draft various relievers, hoping to get a stopper performance from a pitcher who hardly, or perhaps never, functioned as a stopper. It would make ECK, Smith, Sutter, etc., more valuable, and force more decisions during the drafting sequence. Plus, it might increase trading. A person might have a pair of good stoppers, and be able to move one to a team not so lucky.

Just my 3.45 cents.

[Paul5757]

I'm not sure if the 3 stud relievers theory works in the 80s because the mystery card could leave you with a expensive clunker, especially when considering that there are plenty of effective $.75 relievers, so it's not really necessary. I don't think spending $10 million in your bp is a winning strategy when others will be spending less than $5 million and getting basically the same mileage.

[Paul5757]

[quote:c02d86d776]Maybe I'm way off on this, too, but I'd like to see the closer rating restored. [/quote:c02d86d776]

That could be interesting. They'd have to make the closer ratings part of the mystery, though, because some relievers were legit closers some years and not others (e.g., Bob James).

I believe the closer ratings were implemented by S-O-M sometime in the late 80s or early 90s, so there might not be closer ratings for all years.

[honestiago1]

You're right. The ratings did come later. Guess that explains why they can't use them. I agree that making the closer rating a part of the mystery would be interesting, much more of a gamble. Think I'd rather that rating be disclosed, though, as an average, perhaps, of the closer's overall performance. This would make someone like Lee Smith a "6" at closing (I would imagine all of his cards were big years), whereas someone like Bob James might be "2." You'd still get the closer rating, but not necessarily the card.

Then again, having a unexpected big year out of a reliever is rather interesting. Saw a team that got the Dawley lights our year, and he just crushed, got the saves.

What I'd really like to see is a sort of "clutch pitching" rating, where, prior to point of weakness, some pitchers are tougher to hit. I mentioned this before, but how much of a bulldog was Jack Morris with the game on the line. Dave Stewart, in his prime, could get that big out, as well. I suppose the "clutch" rating has to do with strategic placement of Gb-X's, K's, and the proliferation of popouts, lineouts, etc., in lieu of flyball-B's, but that seems to me merely a reflection of low-ERA cards. Wouldn't it be nice if, with men in scoring position a couple of, say, Morris' hits allowed turned to popouts? It might add another factor to consider besides WHIP, WHIP, WHIP (yeah, I just adore needless complication) :)