Super Reliever POLL

Hey, let's put it to a vote?

Simple YES or NO question ... Do you think Strat needs to stop the use of Super Relievers?

Not necessarily asking how they would do it, just simply do they need to do something to prevent the use (or should I say OVERUSE) of Super Relievers?

I voted no because I think it's a matter of setting peramiters as you have done in a couple of leagues. If people want to use it I'm ok with it, but also like to play in leagues where it is more or less impossible to make it work.

Mike

I voted no because I think it's a matter of setting peramiters as you have done in a couple of leagues. If people want to use it I'm ok with it, but also like to play in leagues where it is more or less impossible to make it work.

Mike

I think as has been said, in higher cap leagues it's not an issue, but as Petro has pointed out, I typically play in 80 mill leagues. Wouldn't it be great if there were an option to turn it on or off like the DH rule. Never happen.

And simply setting parameters in advance is a good way to deal with it.

The results of this poll so far are exactly as I suspected. I would imagine that if we were to poll the SOM community on any random issue the results would be similar. This is part of the reason we have no leverage with SOM, the community is completely divided on just about everything.

The results of this poll so far are exactly as I suspected. I would imagine that if we were to poll the SOM community on any random issue the results would be similar. This is part of the reason we have no leverage with SOM, the community is completely divided on just about everything.

Couldn't be more on the money. I'm sure Strat's contention is that if there is no consensus, then there is no problem.

I actually thought it would be slanted in favor of doing something to control it.

This has never been a factual game. It is a game of what ifs. If a manager wants to deploy the super reliever, why shouldn't that manager be able to do such? Is it not the same as a manager who wants to try for 1000 SB, or 500 HRs?? I will say that no team in history has had that many SBs or HRs. However, there has been pitchers in the history of the game with 400+ IP.

I'm using the super reliever in a 24 team 60 mill cap league as we speak. Yes, I have Murray. No, he does NOT lead the league in IP from a reliever. Yes, he does lead the league in MVP and CY at the moment. I also have McGwire and Bonds too. Is it not my choice, to spend 10% of my cap space on 1 RP? or, 40some% on 3 total players??

You want a factual recreation of baseball, buy the cards, and roll your own games at home.

A more precise complaint which I think we would agree with is why some pitchers are rated R3 or R4 if a substantial majority of their appearances were less than that. Eg 53/62 for 1977 Sutter were below 3 innings (his median was 1.2 innings per appearance). 29/32 for 1974 Dale Murray were below 4 innings (his median was 2 innings per appearance).

1. Ratioman is correct on the ratings being the actual issue rather than the fact that they can go lots of innings.

2. Its not just that the community is divided-- im shocked this many people responded at all actually, because there is generally so little convo here now a days.

BUT its simply that it takes a large number of people complaining vociferously before anything seems to EVER get done if it does at all.
You wanna know when the next overdue card add will happen?
Just see when people start complaining enough that someone thinks they have to throw us a piece of a bone.

A more precise complaint which I think we would agree with is why some pitchers are rated R3 or R4 if a substantial majority of their appearances were less than that. Eg 53/62 for 1977 Sutter were below 3 innings (his median was 1.2 innings per appearance). 29/32 for 1974 Dale Murray were below 4 innings (his median was 2 innings per appearance).

Good point here.
And I think the larger point is that the more realistic the game is, the more interesting it is to play.
There are many players who say "it's a game and don't expect realism' yet how many would play if almost all hitters had 108 HR' on their card?- hitting 300-400 HR a year-- or pitchers with relief ratings of 7 and would pitch over 1000 innings- or how many would play if all the great names were erased and cards had numbers instead?
You would draft number 245 instead of Ruth. Or how many would play if Mario Mendosa hit 100 HR and Ruth batted .120?

I believe almost all of us play because of the semblance of reality ,and knowing that every aspect can not match total realism, the more obvious anomalies should be addressed.

The Super Reliever is why I hardly ever play DH leagues. I'm also tired of 300+ HR teams being common. But, that's all part and parcel of the game. People spend money to play, and can basically recoup their investment. So they want what they want, because they're shelling out $$.

The best response for those who seek something else from ATG is for players to create more theme leagues, lower the cap, or limit the player pool. We're currently organizing our 6th season of a 1,000-card player pool, randomly assigned ballpark league. I've had exactly one good season in the first 5 years, but I've used players and (especially) parks I'd never pick. The downside to this, of course, is that not everyone wants to spend their dough to play with limited choices. That's not my personal mindset, but I understand it.

That said, I'll rant a moment:

I'm so sick of seeing Dale Murray. But then I'm also tired of seeing Joel Pineiro as staff ace. What I'd like to see is a minimum innings switch, where folks have to draft pitchers who eat innings. Either that, or switch on the advanced injury tool that's in the computer game, where pitchers are injured more often, and can be lost for up to 60 days. When I do replays on my home computer, using this switch, 7-day injuries are fairly common among starters with less than 150IP. Forces more use of spot starters and middle men, and your horses are much more valuable. You can clearly see the difference between running a modern season (in this case, I've been playing 2016) and older seasons (just started a 1985 league). My old school starters (and elite relievers) have more IP. I've had one injury of more than 3 games exactly once in 40 games. My 2016 team? I've had at least one pitcher on the DL most of the season (also around 50 games).

This, to me, is the great imbalancer. Players have proper ratings and systems for injury propensity and length of time out. Without the injury or usage switches, pitchers do not. I know there's supposed to be a penalty for overusage, but it doesn't come into play enough to be a factor. Which is rather strange, because it sure seems like pitchers go on the DL a lot, IRL. Use the advanced injury switch. Increase the overuse penalties. Make managers weigh the consequences of drafting a great arm that isn't a workhorse. Make it more risk/reward.

Of course, this will never happen, because people pay money, and they will bitch about losing their expensive cards. My view is, "go ahead and pay 5.99M for Murray, but expect that he may have couple of stints on the DL." You pays your money, you takes your chances.