Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

Curious if people have had success with the five man rotation in the ATG 9. Clearly lots of value in those non asterisk starters, but is it effective cost effective given the overall IP for each also drops by eight starts? Dying to try 2000 Pedro.

I seldom use a 5-man rotation because of the injury risk. * starters can get injured, but will only miss the rest of that start. Non-* can go down for 15 games and miss 3 more starts. I think the cards are generally appropriately priced for 32 vs 40 starts though.

sjudd wrote:I seldom use a 5-man rotation because of the injury risk. * starters can get injured, but will only miss the rest of that start. Non-* can go down for 15 games and miss 3 more starts. I think the cards are generally appropriately priced for 32 vs 40 starts though.

Thanks-did not know that about the injury risk. That’s a big consideration.

A not very succesful 84-78 five-man rotation team is linked below, including the 2000 Pedro. I had two pitcher injuries--a 3 game injury to Harvey and an 8 game injury to Kershaw. So I lost, what, 1 start? Yes, that could be just lucky but having used many five man rotations in 20XX I havent noticed pitcher injuries being that big of a deal. You might get a cheap under 1 million starter you like to protect against it. There is a risk but I dont think it is likely to significantly hurt your team even if you get unlucky.

My problem with that team (I think) is I went too cheap with the starters. Pedro was great.

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1585553

Here's a link to the Standard Injury System used in ATG9:

https://stratomatic365.fandom.com/wiki/ ... r_injuries

I'm not sure if the listed 0-199 and 200-299 IP ranges correspond exactly to non-* and *, but I was unaware until I looked this up that 300+ IP is supposed to limit injuries to remainder of game - but this is effectively the same as 200-299 since no starts will be missed in either case.

freeman wrote:A not very succesful 84-78 five-man rotation team is linked below, including the 2000 Pedro. I had two pitcher injuries--a 3 game injury to Harvey and an 8 game injury to Kershaw. So I lost, what, 1 start? Yes, that could be just lucky but having used many five man rotations in 20XX I havent noticed pitcher injuries being that big of a deal. You might get a cheap under 1 million starter you like to protect against it. There is a risk but I dont think it is likely to significantly hurt your team even if you get unlucky.

My problem with that team (I think) is I went too cheap with the starters. Pedro was great.

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1585553

Impressive you got 250+ innings out of three of them. What F setting did you use to achieve that, F0?

Had to chuckle at the idea of Pedro giving up 35 HR’s. I did a random sample of 20 game stretches from a few different ATG seasons I was in, and consistently 75-80% of the HR’s come off the hitter’s card.

F6. Nowadays it would be F0 and almost no relief....

freeman wrote:F6. Nowadays it would be F0 and almost no relief....

Interesting--thanks!

The F0 setting kind of frightens me, but it seems fairly popular, so I might give it a try.

I used a cheap 5-man rotation in a no-DH league for Barnstormers with an 80M cap and it went pretty well:

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1634043

86-76 with a loss in the finals.

The 5-man rotation strategy hasn't worked any better or worse for me than a 4-man. I think the pricing difference between * and non-* works out pretty evenly on a per inning basis (that is, it is about a 20% difference in price for the same quality player, but you need 20% more of them, so that makes sense).

I have a couple other active teams with 5-man rotations, but the leagues are often themed leagues, so those results are maybe not representative of a "normal" league setup.

Usually 5-man just doesn't have as many good options as 4-man. The exceptions I've found are at $200+, where you can afford to mix * and non-*, and $100, where there's parity at least in lefty parks. Otherwise there's just more value to be had with asterisks.