If you make only one move, drop Nolan Ryan and spend the money to upgrade elsewhere. As mentioned in a previous, you should have four * starters.
You always want four * starters [i:c0c3e9e617]or[/i:c0c3e9e617] five non-* starters. An exception is if your best starter is a * and the other are non-*, that will work. (You let you *-stud pitch every four days in that case.)
First team ever. Update Final roster after waivers, advice?
34 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by Jake Squid » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:56 pm
[quote:465fae4145="coyote303"]If you make only one move, drop Nolan Ryan and spend the money to upgrade elsewhere. As mentioned in a previous, you should have four * starters.
You always want four * starters [i:465fae4145]or[/i:465fae4145] five non-* starters. An exception is if your best starter is a * and the other are non-*, that will work. (You let you *-stud pitch every four days in that case.)[/quote:465fae4145]
I disagree with both parts of this comment. IME, Ryan is a fantastic value and if I was in that league with you would pick him up as soon as you dropped him unless I was very happy with my 4 * starters.
Always having 4 * starters is too limiting. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad strategy. But limiting yourself to that will hurt you. I've gone with one, two, three and four * starters. With one, you do what coyote303 suggests. With two * starters, they should be your 2 most expensive starters and each of them starts every 4 games while you rotate your 3 non-* starters through the other two games. With three * starters, those 3 start every four days and you split the fourth game between 2 or more non-* pitchers. I've had success with each of those variants as well as with 5 non-* pitchers. Here are two examples from the '86 game:
2 * starters:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=146752
1 * starter:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=149882
You always want four * starters [i:465fae4145]or[/i:465fae4145] five non-* starters. An exception is if your best starter is a * and the other are non-*, that will work. (You let you *-stud pitch every four days in that case.)[/quote:465fae4145]
I disagree with both parts of this comment. IME, Ryan is a fantastic value and if I was in that league with you would pick him up as soon as you dropped him unless I was very happy with my 4 * starters.
Always having 4 * starters is too limiting. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad strategy. But limiting yourself to that will hurt you. I've gone with one, two, three and four * starters. With one, you do what coyote303 suggests. With two * starters, they should be your 2 most expensive starters and each of them starts every 4 games while you rotate your 3 non-* starters through the other two games. With three * starters, those 3 start every four days and you split the fourth game between 2 or more non-* pitchers. I've had success with each of those variants as well as with 5 non-* pitchers. Here are two examples from the '86 game:
2 * starters:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=146752
1 * starter:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=149882
- Jake Squid
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MrHacktastic » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:58 pm
[quote:67f9ab0042="Jake Squid"][quote:67f9ab0042="coyote303"]If you make only one move, drop Nolan Ryan and spend the money to upgrade elsewhere. As mentioned in a previous, you should have four * starters.
You always want four * starters [i:67f9ab0042]or[/i:67f9ab0042] five non-* starters. An exception is if your best starter is a * and the other are non-*, that will work. (You let you *-stud pitch every four days in that case.)[/quote:67f9ab0042]
I disagree with both parts of this comment. IME, Ryan is a fantastic value and if I was in that league with you would pick him up as soon as you dropped him unless I was very happy with my 4 * starters.
Always having 4 * starters is too limiting. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad strategy. But limiting yourself to that will hurt you. I've gone with one, two, three and four * starters. With one, you do what coyote303 suggests. With two * starters, they should be your 2 most expensive starters and each of them starts every 4 games while you rotate your 3 non-* starters through the other two games. With three * starters, those 3 start every four days and you split the fourth game between 2 or more non-* pitchers. I've had success with each of those variants as well as with 5 non-* pitchers. Here are two examples from the '86 game:
2 * starters:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=146752
1 * starter:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=149882[/quote:67f9ab0042]
Interesting, I just had to change my whole waiver list after reading this. I don't want to give away my plans in case league people see this thread but I appreciate the feedback guys. I am prepared to go with either a 4 man or 4 and a half man rotation depending on the waiver wire and frenzy results. I figure my biggest area of concern is my hitting and I could have bigger problems than being stuck with Nolan Ryan by the sounds of it.
Thanks again.
You always want four * starters [i:67f9ab0042]or[/i:67f9ab0042] five non-* starters. An exception is if your best starter is a * and the other are non-*, that will work. (You let you *-stud pitch every four days in that case.)[/quote:67f9ab0042]
I disagree with both parts of this comment. IME, Ryan is a fantastic value and if I was in that league with you would pick him up as soon as you dropped him unless I was very happy with my 4 * starters.
Always having 4 * starters is too limiting. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad strategy. But limiting yourself to that will hurt you. I've gone with one, two, three and four * starters. With one, you do what coyote303 suggests. With two * starters, they should be your 2 most expensive starters and each of them starts every 4 games while you rotate your 3 non-* starters through the other two games. With three * starters, those 3 start every four days and you split the fourth game between 2 or more non-* pitchers. I've had success with each of those variants as well as with 5 non-* pitchers. Here are two examples from the '86 game:
2 * starters:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=146752
1 * starter:
http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=149882[/quote:67f9ab0042]
Interesting, I just had to change my whole waiver list after reading this. I don't want to give away my plans in case league people see this thread but I appreciate the feedback guys. I am prepared to go with either a 4 man or 4 and a half man rotation depending on the waiver wire and frenzy results. I figure my biggest area of concern is my hitting and I could have bigger problems than being stuck with Nolan Ryan by the sounds of it.
Thanks again.
- MrHacktastic
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by apolivka » Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:22 pm
Totally agree with squid. It's much more important to have good pitchers for your team/park than it is to have the right number of * pitchers. IMO, in the '86 game, non-* pitchers are usually more available and thus easier to get lower in the draft and thus are a better value.
I like that 1st team there. Squid won almost 90 games with Evans hitting well under the Mendoza line and Bob Gibson on your staff!!!
I like that 1st team there. Squid won almost 90 games with Evans hitting well under the Mendoza line and Bob Gibson on your staff!!!
- apolivka
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by coyote303 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:43 pm
Anyone is welcome to disagree with my comment, but frankly I'm surprised.
If you have one good non-* pitcher, you have two choices. You can go to a 5-man rotation, or you can start the non-* every 8 games.
When you buy a *-starter, you are paying for his ability to pitch more often than a non-*. In other words, if there were two starters with identical cards except for the *, the * pitcher will cost more. So, if you go to a 5-man rotation, you are throwing away up to 20 percent of what you paid for your *-starters. If the *-starters are cheap, this might not matter. However, that is not the case here.
If instead you only start your one non-* pitcher every 8 games, you are essentially throwing away 60 percent of his cost.
A major skill to this game is spending money efficiently. Mixing * and non-* starters (with exception noted in my original post) is not being efficient.
If you have one good non-* pitcher, you have two choices. You can go to a 5-man rotation, or you can start the non-* every 8 games.
When you buy a *-starter, you are paying for his ability to pitch more often than a non-*. In other words, if there were two starters with identical cards except for the *, the * pitcher will cost more. So, if you go to a 5-man rotation, you are throwing away up to 20 percent of what you paid for your *-starters. If the *-starters are cheap, this might not matter. However, that is not the case here.
If instead you only start your one non-* pitcher every 8 games, you are essentially throwing away 60 percent of his cost.
A major skill to this game is spending money efficiently. Mixing * and non-* starters (with exception noted in my original post) is not being efficient.
- coyote303
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MrHacktastic » Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:49 am
[quote:70dc673401="coyote303"]Anyone is welcome to disagree with my comment, but frankly I'm surprised.
If you have one good non-* pitcher, you have two choices. You can go to a 5-man rotation, or you can start the non-* every 8 games.
When you buy a *-starter, you are paying for his ability to pitch more often than a non-*. In other words, if there were two starters with identical cards except for the *, the * pitcher will cost more. So, if you go to a 5-man rotation, you are throwing away up to 20 percent of what you paid for your *-starters. If the *-starters are cheap, this might not matter. However, that is not the case here.
If instead you only start your one non-* pitcher every 8 games, you are essentially throwing away 60 percent of his cost.
A major skill to this game is spending money efficiently. Mixing * and non-* starters (with exception noted in my original post) is not being efficient.[/quote:70dc673401]
I am trying to apply the math to this stuff myself since I'm new. I figure a * pitcher gets to start roughly 40 games. If I have one * pitcher he gets 40 games and the other 4 starters combine for 120 (eliminating the extra 2 games for easy math). So if you use 5 non-* pitchers you get 32 starts per starter. If you use 1 * and 4 non-* you get 40 out of the * and you get 30 out of the non-*. That doesn't seem like a big waste to me if your one * guy is dominant as you are only losing 2 games per starter compared to a regular five man rotation.
2 *'s would leave 80 games for your 3 non-* pitchers bringing their average down to just under 27 starts per pitcher. So now you are losing 5 starts per pitcher so you really need to factor that into the $'s spent.
If you use 3 *'s and 2 non-*s you have only 40 games between your 2 non-*'s to divide up so they average just 20 starts. 12 less than a regular five man rotation and they combine for only 8 more starts than a single pitcher in a 5 man rotation. I assume people that do this get two bargain guys to combine for that spot and use the quick hook relying more on the bullpen in that game.
Has anybody studied the cost of a quality start for the various rule sets on average. I have read on this site there is a rule of thumb that people break up the spending 50/30 in the 80 mill cap leagues. Is that something you guys believe in?
This site is great by the way and I am so glad I finally found it. Thanks for the responses fellas. I have my waiver deadline and frenzy tonight at 5pm eastern. I attempted some major changes through the waivers and depending on which ones go through I may be really screwing up. But if it all goes well I am hoping people think I made real progress with my team.
If you have one good non-* pitcher, you have two choices. You can go to a 5-man rotation, or you can start the non-* every 8 games.
When you buy a *-starter, you are paying for his ability to pitch more often than a non-*. In other words, if there were two starters with identical cards except for the *, the * pitcher will cost more. So, if you go to a 5-man rotation, you are throwing away up to 20 percent of what you paid for your *-starters. If the *-starters are cheap, this might not matter. However, that is not the case here.
If instead you only start your one non-* pitcher every 8 games, you are essentially throwing away 60 percent of his cost.
A major skill to this game is spending money efficiently. Mixing * and non-* starters (with exception noted in my original post) is not being efficient.[/quote:70dc673401]
I am trying to apply the math to this stuff myself since I'm new. I figure a * pitcher gets to start roughly 40 games. If I have one * pitcher he gets 40 games and the other 4 starters combine for 120 (eliminating the extra 2 games for easy math). So if you use 5 non-* pitchers you get 32 starts per starter. If you use 1 * and 4 non-* you get 40 out of the * and you get 30 out of the non-*. That doesn't seem like a big waste to me if your one * guy is dominant as you are only losing 2 games per starter compared to a regular five man rotation.
2 *'s would leave 80 games for your 3 non-* pitchers bringing their average down to just under 27 starts per pitcher. So now you are losing 5 starts per pitcher so you really need to factor that into the $'s spent.
If you use 3 *'s and 2 non-*s you have only 40 games between your 2 non-*'s to divide up so they average just 20 starts. 12 less than a regular five man rotation and they combine for only 8 more starts than a single pitcher in a 5 man rotation. I assume people that do this get two bargain guys to combine for that spot and use the quick hook relying more on the bullpen in that game.
Has anybody studied the cost of a quality start for the various rule sets on average. I have read on this site there is a rule of thumb that people break up the spending 50/30 in the 80 mill cap leagues. Is that something you guys believe in?
This site is great by the way and I am so glad I finally found it. Thanks for the responses fellas. I have my waiver deadline and frenzy tonight at 5pm eastern. I attempted some major changes through the waivers and depending on which ones go through I may be really screwing up. But if it all goes well I am hoping people think I made real progress with my team.
- MrHacktastic
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by the splinter » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:26 am
[quote:46a8b25e57]A major skill to this game is spending money efficiently. Mixing * and non-* starters (with exception noted in my original post) is not being efficient.[/quote:46a8b25e57]
This is true...however, in 100M+ leagues it is a moot point. Put the best arms on the mound.... * or no *.
Also, a 3 man SP* with 2 non * as match up guys can be used very effectrively by a GM who actively manages his team.
FYI...I remember several years ago a well researched post(Luckyman perhaps) stating that the * for SP was worth an additional 1M to salary on average.
This is true...however, in 100M+ leagues it is a moot point. Put the best arms on the mound.... * or no *.
Also, a 3 man SP* with 2 non * as match up guys can be used very effectrively by a GM who actively manages his team.
FYI...I remember several years ago a well researched post(Luckyman perhaps) stating that the * for SP was worth an additional 1M to salary on average.
- the splinter
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by coyote303 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:49 pm
[quote:397508026e="the splinter"][quote:397508026e]A major skill to this game is spending money efficiently. Mixing * and non-* starters (with exception noted in my original post) is not being efficient.[/quote:397508026e]
This is true...however, in 100M+ leagues it is a moot point. Put the best arms on the mound.... * or no *.
Also, a 3 man SP* with 2 non * as match up guys can be used very effectrively by a GM who actively manages his team.
FYI...I remember several years ago a well researched post(Luckyman perhaps) stating that the * for SP was worth an additional 1M to salary on average.[/quote:397508026e]
In a 100M+ league, I agree.
Actively managing your starters can pay off against unbalanced teams. IMHO, it can also be done to excess where it hurts.* So depending on the league, the manager, and the starters, this might justify some of the waste. However, you are introducing another source of waste: an additional (nonminimum) salary.
If the average starting pitcher costs $5M, then paying the extra 1M for an unneeded * would be spending 20 percent too much. Since 1M is average according to the quoted research, Clemens and Ojeda would certainly cost more than 1M extra.
*Your best point is #2, so I want to clarify how I think actively managing starters to excess could hurt:
1. Would you be better off combining the two salaries and simply getting a better regular starter? (If most teams and stadiums you play are balanced, the answer is 'yes.')
2. If you bump a Clemens or Ojeda, they could end up losing at least a start. If they miss only one start, it will be game 161 or 162 if they are your #1 and #2 starters.
3. Schedules can be cruel. If you start a non-* in game 4 and game 8 calls for his type again, you may be stuck starting your other non-*, presumably the wrong type of pitcher.
However, the with the right league, starters, and manager along with a little bit of luck, I concede the 2 non-* starters could work.
This is true...however, in 100M+ leagues it is a moot point. Put the best arms on the mound.... * or no *.
Also, a 3 man SP* with 2 non * as match up guys can be used very effectrively by a GM who actively manages his team.
FYI...I remember several years ago a well researched post(Luckyman perhaps) stating that the * for SP was worth an additional 1M to salary on average.[/quote:397508026e]
In a 100M+ league, I agree.
Actively managing your starters can pay off against unbalanced teams. IMHO, it can also be done to excess where it hurts.* So depending on the league, the manager, and the starters, this might justify some of the waste. However, you are introducing another source of waste: an additional (nonminimum) salary.
If the average starting pitcher costs $5M, then paying the extra 1M for an unneeded * would be spending 20 percent too much. Since 1M is average according to the quoted research, Clemens and Ojeda would certainly cost more than 1M extra.
*Your best point is #2, so I want to clarify how I think actively managing starters to excess could hurt:
1. Would you be better off combining the two salaries and simply getting a better regular starter? (If most teams and stadiums you play are balanced, the answer is 'yes.')
2. If you bump a Clemens or Ojeda, they could end up losing at least a start. If they miss only one start, it will be game 161 or 162 if they are your #1 and #2 starters.
3. Schedules can be cruel. If you start a non-* in game 4 and game 8 calls for his type again, you may be stuck starting your other non-*, presumably the wrong type of pitcher.
However, the with the right league, starters, and manager along with a little bit of luck, I concede the 2 non-* starters could work.
- coyote303
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by durantjerry » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:47 pm
[quote:05053fb61c]However, the with the right league, starters, and manager along with a little bit of luck, I concede the 2 non-* starters could work.
Display [/quote:05053fb61c]
I agree with this but I think a factor you left out is the ballparks, which goes a long way to creating the unbalanced teams you would want to match up against and protects the unbalanced pitcher. In the 1986 game, the parks are extremely balnced(I think the biggest split is 3 between LH/RH #HR's for any park), with the only real factor being hitting park vs pitching park. Of course, there could be an unbalanced team or two, but for the most part the teams should be fairly neutral, reflecting the parks available to use. Thus, I do not think matching up starters is a major skill or a major advantage that is of much use in the 1986 game unless it's hitting park vs pitching park.
Display [/quote:05053fb61c]
I agree with this but I think a factor you left out is the ballparks, which goes a long way to creating the unbalanced teams you would want to match up against and protects the unbalanced pitcher. In the 1986 game, the parks are extremely balnced(I think the biggest split is 3 between LH/RH #HR's for any park), with the only real factor being hitting park vs pitching park. Of course, there could be an unbalanced team or two, but for the most part the teams should be fairly neutral, reflecting the parks available to use. Thus, I do not think matching up starters is a major skill or a major advantage that is of much use in the 1986 game unless it's hitting park vs pitching park.
- durantjerry
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MrHacktastic » Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:42 am
To anybody who saw my initial roster, did I salvage it or is it still extremely weak? Where should I improve next time? My bullpen is pretty weak but my starters mostly have strong stamina so I'm hoping to limit their use. Powell hopefully can hold his own as a lefty specialist and Worrell seemed like a solid closer for his price.
one lineup idea I have is:
LF Raines
2b Larkin
3b Boggs
RF Evans
1b Horner
DH Baylor
CF McGee
SS Templeton
C Boone
Until the 7th spot in the order I have average to great OBP at each spot and decent power 4 through 6. I realize this is only a 12 team league so perhaps that is still a really weak order. I haven't seen other people's batting orders yet.
I'm considering a rotation with:
Clemens 41 starts
Ojeda 41 starts
Ryan 27 starts
Morris 27 starts
Langston/Rijo combining for 26 with most starts going to Langston
one lineup idea I have is:
LF Raines
2b Larkin
3b Boggs
RF Evans
1b Horner
DH Baylor
CF McGee
SS Templeton
C Boone
Until the 7th spot in the order I have average to great OBP at each spot and decent power 4 through 6. I realize this is only a 12 team league so perhaps that is still a really weak order. I haven't seen other people's batting orders yet.
I'm considering a rotation with:
Clemens 41 starts
Ojeda 41 starts
Ryan 27 starts
Morris 27 starts
Langston/Rijo combining for 26 with most starts going to Langston
- MrHacktastic
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
34 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball Online 20xx
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests