Super Reliever "phenomenon"

It's really hard to believe they tried to fix the supposed super reliever and used so little common sense.

Because of a few whiners, we have less control over our bullpens than ever.

They went from allowing relievers to appear in 12 different roles to two different roles? And no one sees a problem with that??? How many relievers in real life can only appear in two different situations?

What they should have done is forced us to carry a minimum of 14 pitchers and maybe limited pitchers to four or five roles.

Again they went from 12 roles to 2 roles. And people/ someone actually thought this was a good idea???

It makes me angry how little common sense was used.

I actually heard a manager suggest leaving ALL ROLES BLANK FOR BEST RESULTS.

And oh by the way, R1s can still pitch 170+ innings, you just don't control any of it ANYMORE. GREAT JOB GUYS.

I want to know who thought giving up ALL CONTROL of the pen was worth it to not even stop super relievers?

Also who thought going from 12 roles to 2 roles was a good compromise?

Also if a modicum of bullpen realism is the goal, WHICH MLB team made it through a 162 game season with less than 14 pitchers over the last two decades?

And which MLB RP only pitched in two roles for an entire season?

And who thought going from 12 to 2 was a good compromise instead of say 12 to 4 or 5?

Is it really that hard for them to use just a little common sense?

Meanwhile I guess no one has a problem with 100 HR seasons or starters pitching 350 innings.

It seems to me a few whiners really screwed up the entire game, with a big assist from someone at Strat-O-Matic.

All that I ask is that they use a dash of common sense!

Thought I'd address your points. These are just my opinions.

Because of a few whiners, we have less control over our bullpens than ever.

Yes, you cannot get as many IP from your RPs now. Less control? Yeah, you can't abuse a pitcher like you used to. I think that was one of the goals.

How many relievers in real life can only appear in two different situations?

Most have one role in real life. A closer is a closer, not a closer and a setup guy. A setup guy is a setup guy. Middle is middle. I would have argued for three roles, but two limits the abuse more.

carry a minimum of 14 pitchers and maybe limited pitchers to four or five roles.

This would be a big change to the way the game is played on-line AND, if you end up with 4-5 roles, the bottom 3-4 pitchers will be < $1 guys who don't get any IP while your big money guys suck up the innings. This is a big reason WHY you only have two roles. This would be a big change to how the game is played and a route they didn't want to take.

I actually heard a manager suggest leaving ALL ROLES BLANK FOR BEST RESULTS.

Eh, not sure *I* would try that. You have to REALLY trust Hal and have an easy to manage pen to do that effectively.

R1s can still pitch 170+ innings, you just don't control any of it ANYMORE

You get fewer IP than you used to. Again, the decision was made to not completely change the pens to make them work like real life. It was deemed too big of a change for the player base. I think this is an understandable decision. You don't have to agree with it to see where it a valid approach to take. So, the goal was to cut down on the number of IP you can get AND to price the RPs who can get a lot of innings more appropriately not make it realistic to current MLB.

not even stop super relievers?

Guess it depends on what you mean by "super relievers". It did cut down on the IP for those guys and made the high inning guys more expensive.

lso who thought going from 12 roles to 2 roles was a good compromise?

Well, I would have given 3 roles, but I think it's a MUCH better solution than letting ONE guy have every role in the book. Talk about unrealistic!

Code: Select all

Also if a modicum of bullpen realism is the goal,

Obviously the goal wasn't to force MLB sized pens. So, there ya go. The idea was to cut down the IP, price them correctly and keep the strategy changes to a smaller scale. The goal was NOT to force 8-9 man pens.

Code: Select all

And which MLB RP only pitched in two roles for an entire season?

Uh, pretty much every closer in MLB has one role and one role only.

was a good compromise instead of say 12 to 4 or 5?

I think they REALLY wanted to cut down on the number of IP you could get. Limiting to two roles puts a tighter lid on IP than 4/5 would have.

use just a little common sense?

I think they did. Just their goals were different than what you wanted or thought best. Again, you don't have to like it, but if you see what the aim *actually* was, I think it makes more sense than you're giving credit for.

starters pitching 350 innings.

I have argued to get rid of * pitchers for awhile now, but SOM seems determined to stick with it. Dumb, NO ONE ever uses a four man rotation in real life. That would limit the number of IP you could get significantly. Another factor that will naturally limit the IP is the dearth of 7 SR SPs. Lots of 5-6 and many more 4's than you ever saw before. In fact, 4's didn't even exist until a couple years ago.

screwed up the entire game,

A bit strong here. Personally I found ways to work around the challenge and use a pen effectively. It's not as much control as I would like, but I think, objectively, you'd be hard pressed to REALLY think the game is now screwed up.

Just one guy's opinion.

I actually heard a manager suggest leaving ALL ROLES BLANK FOR BEST RESULTS.

I assign VERY few roles for my pen, Closer, Setup and a LH and/or RH specialist if I'm carrying one, otherwise i let Hal handle it. Sometimes, I get odd results, but for the most part I'm okay with it. You do have to understand how HAL uses the pitchers to make this work though. For example, an R3 will enter the game before n R2 even when the R2 card is significantly better. so you have to be careful building your staff.

Even with the changes it's still pretty easy to get 150+ innings from a reliever so while it may be a little better it's still unrealistic. In the computer game there is an option to limit over usage for both pitchers and position players that works pretty well. They could have just applied that to 365 if they were looking at making the game a realistic simulation. Granted doing so would require some sort of minor league system but that would be fairly easy to accomplish.

But that's the thing, the 365 game is not a replay simulation like the the computer game. It's a fantasy game. If we are going to have an issue with super relievers we should an even bigger issue with players that had less than 100 AB's in real life getting 600 AB's in 365 and hitting 60 HR's. Why no issue with 12 teams dividing up the best players from all 30 MLB teams? Starting pitchers getting 40 starts and pitching 300+ innings?

Maybe the solution is for Strat to offer players the choice of simulation type version or a fantasy type version of 365. That would be a lot better than the upcoming choice between the real and imagined game.

There is no way to have realism and a playable game. Sometimes manipulations of the game are too extreme and changes have to be made (like the super-reliever problem). Otherwise, it is a game with a set of rules where you try to optimize the value of your players/team so you beat everyone else. We're not trying to reproduce the results of a season so the game is not and cannot be 100% realistic. I dont think really the areas where there is a lack of realism affect the game's appeal. That's just aesthetics. "The game needs to be more realistic!" Ok then...but then you dont have as good a game.

There is no way to have realism and a playable game. Sometimes manipulations of the game are too extreme and changes have to be made (like the super-reliever problem). Otherwise, it is a game with a set of rules where you try to optimize the value of your players/team so you beat everyone else. We're not trying to reproduce the results of a season so the game is not and cannot be 100% realistic. I dont think really the areas where there is a lack of realism affect the game's appeal. That's just aesthetics. "The game needs to be more realistic!" Ok then...but then you dont have as good a game.

Exactly! You really want Hal trying to manipulate a 7-8 man pen? Ugh.

The argument regarding super relievers comes down to desire to win. Many players want to win above all else. They don't want any rules that might hinder that objective. Winning is more important than a realistic major league baseball simulation. Strat o matic 365 is a great game. Which has design modifications to improve a realistic time frame. There is no way currently to play a season. While giving complete control of the game over to a human manager. I for one, do not want to sit on line playing games. Taking the time to play virtually against another human. The time frame would be to long and arduous. Therefore a manager must select options giving the computer directions. Which inform the computer on how the manager would like the game to be managed. Just like in real life. The owner or general manger, even fans. Suffer through times when we do not agree. With how the manager controlled the game. Therefore, the owners make counter decisions trying to control the outcomes. The owner in baseball does not get to be either the general manager or the manager. That is clearly defined in major league baseball rules. Rightfully so, I should add. I have been playing on this sight only about four years now. I have seen many attempts to improve this game by Strat during this time frame. I applaud their efforts. I do have some modifications. That I would like to suggest. Regarding the super reliever controversy. I would add one change to the current rules. A reliever cannot have more than one role. I would like to see this rule programed into all simulated seasons. Because some current Strat managers want to win above all else. They try and win the game with a starter and one reliever. This forces all manager wanting to compete. To use this unrealistic strategy in order to compete effectively. If your not winning as often as you like. Quit complaining about the framework. All of us our using the same system. Change your decision making processes instead.

last year we used the 2019 season and it restricted you to 2 roles per pitcher.

this year we are using 2018 because we didn't want the 2020. I was just able to assign relievers to more than 2 roles