Invitational league: Weinberg vs Petrosian

[Salty]

[quote:14d22eedab="weinberg"]saltman: just take any one of the big S9 star starters. assume 350 ip. you can easily back into exactly how many ip murray sutter slutz smith etc were priced at.

making the gates brown comparison is not the same. again, gates was priced at 350ab versus righties.[/quote:14d22eedab]

Are you telling me that a reliever who pitched 60 innings and is an RP3 is priced very diff than a 30 inning RP3 reliever?

[cristano1]

exactly. if murray was priced at 300ip then it is fair to use him at 300ip. i dont care what someone did in real life. i only care what that person was intended to be used at in the game, or if some cheater found a loophole to exploit.

[The Last Druid]

[size=18:8a89daada4][color=red:8a89daada4]Cheater, you mean like... you?

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=368805

Here you have Murray currently on track to pitch 188 innings. Hmm. Could you be whining so loudly and incessantly because you can't get him to pitch with an era under 5.00

And aren't you gaming the game by only using three relievers. Tch tch tch.[/color:8a89daada4][/size:8a89daada4]

[Salty]

But thats simply not true...
Look at the relievers-
RP3 is RP3;
there might be a variation because of injury (hint hint, similar to Gates)
but the price is pretty similar.

[cristano1]

it just puts everyone in an uncomfortable situation. either we are all forced to cheat and super relieve. or we are forced to give petro a 6-8 million dollar cap advantage in an 80m league.

[motherscratcher]

Could you get money back to use on your next team if he only pitched 90 innings?

[cristano1]

saltman: all of the RP3 were priced assuming they would pitch 165 ip. it has nothing to do with what they pitched in real life. the strat pricing algorithm assumes an R3 or R4 will pitch 165 ip. when someone implements a loophole and i sit back and allow it, i am giving that person a 6+ million dollar cap advantage. i think super reliever cheating is deplorable to do in any competitive league, especially the barnstormers semis. but to give someone an 88m cap when im using an 80m cap, and playing the game as it was intended to be played, thats absurd.

[The Last Druid]

Well let's see. Bbrool sets the prices. Why don't we ask him about your brilliant assumption that r3 are expected to pitch 165 innings. By that logic, though wouldn't an r4 be priced to pitch an expected 220 innings? :idea:

Oops, sorry. I'm confusing you with logic.

[Salty]

HEH-
but thats exactly the point.

Gates Brown is priced to only bat 100 times a season?
really?

...and now IM most curious-
How do you know the pricing algorhithm?

[nels52]

[quote:65d51311a4="weinberg"]explanation for saltman: gates brown is priced to play the number of plate appearances that he will play. murray is priced to pitch 165 ip.

using the super reliever cheating method is the equivalent of somehow getting gates brown to bat 1100 times per season versus righty pitching.[/quote:65d51311a4]

Come on Weinberg, I KNOW you're a good player and all but do you listen to yourself? It's one thing if you think the super-reliever strategy is stupid but to say it's "cheating" is another. There are numerous seasons in modern baseball where managers got 150+ innings from relievers (M. Marshall is one that comes to mind). Certain relievers HAVE logged big innings whereas a baseball team has never remodeled their park every year to fit perfectly to their roster. When the stars aligned for Bonds in '01 he hit 73 homers. In strat he's only used in parks that are infinitely more hitter friendly than SBC or whatever it was called. EVERY team in ATG gets a custom ball park to exploit the game to go along with its 10+ hall of famers. Exploiting is winning as you well know.

Now I'll admit relievers getting 400+ innings is kinda cheap/ridiculous but there's no way Petro's gonna do that and if he does.....his team might suck.

I've used Sutter plenty and he really never goes over 150.



But then again you wouldn't be *Whine*berg* for nothing

*