Super Reliever POLL

The key to remember here is that, unlike most other "debatable" issues, the SuperReliever problem is a Pricing issue.

The Dale Murray card, for example, should cost about 18.00M (because of total and 'high-leverage' innings) given usage patterns.

This Pricing "glitch" throws off the salary structure (the key to the game) is a major issue for new players who are discouraged when they see themselves getting beaten by teams using RPs for 300+ innings.

For anyone who wants to see movement on this, send an email to SOM Support (365support@strat-o-matic.com). This mailbox is monitored and if it starts getting flooded with "Fix the SuperReliever Problem," that enhancement will get into the development queue.

$18 M is a bit high. He should be priced somewhere in the area of the Babe Adams card that often gets used as a super reliever. I voted no btw, I think the whole set needs repricing so attacking it one piece at a time is a wasted effort.

I stated earlier I believe that Murray should be the most expensive pitcher in the entire set, whatever that price be.

I stated earlier I believe that Murray should be the most expensive pitcher in the entire set, whatever that price be.

Murray is only a .187 OBP card against righties with his E38 that makes him even worse against righties and in a park like Cleveland ’57 all of his advantages go poof. He is a good offset to the lefty teams that can be very difficult to beat. Tim Burke in many cases is a better pitcher. Haven’t heard many complaints about him yet, guess will take a year or so until people realize how to properly “use” him. With the 6,575 parks to choose from pricing is a bit relative

$18 M is a bit high. He should be priced somewhere in the area of the Babe Adams card that often gets used as a super reliever. I voted no btw, I think the whole set needs repricing so attacking it one piece at a time is a wasted effort.

I also voted no, because sometimes the solution can be worse than the problem. I want to know what the solution is going to be prior to asking for it to be implemented.

Also, re-pricing alone isn't the complete answer in my opinion. Do we really want Dale Murray to be priced like he's Koufax? I would like to see the pure relievers capped at R2, then re-priced as warranted.

Just my two cents worth...

I stated earlier I believe that Murray should be the most expensive pitcher in the entire set, whatever that price be.

Murray is only a .187 OBP card against righties with his E38 that makes him even worse against righties and in a park like Cleveland ’57 all of his advantages go poof. He is a good offset to the lefty teams that can be very difficult to beat. Tim Burke in many cases is a better pitcher. Haven’t heard many complaints about him yet, guess will take a year or so until people realize how to properly “use” him. With the 6,575 parks to choose from pricing is a bit relative

Not to mention those potentially "bad" outs (flyball b and gb c).

I stated earlier I believe that Murray should be the most expensive pitcher in the entire set, whatever that price be.

Murray is only a .187 OBP card against righties with his E38 that makes him even worse against righties and in a park like Cleveland ’57 all of his advantages go poof. He is a good offset to the lefty teams that can be very difficult to beat. Tim Burke in many cases is a better pitcher. Haven’t heard many complaints about him yet, guess will take a year or so until people realize how to properly “use” him. With the 6,575 parks to choose from pricing is a bit relative

2 BP singles on the RH side. None of the left, and an R4. Small chance of a double on the left side (1-4, with a flyout). Burke's card is probably just as good, but he's an R3. Negligible, I suppose, but you gotta figure you'll get another 30-40 IP out of Murray, just because of that?

Between the Super Relief fiasco and bomber ball, feels like we're one step from constant video game results (what am I saying? we're already there).

On pricing, seems like we went through this once, which resulted in lowering cost of pitchers, relative to hitters (or bumping hitters--I can't remember which). I'm still on board with pricing NOT being the issue, but rather, usage switches and fatigue. At some point, a guy's arm's gonna fall off. Using "Daily Injuries" from the computer model might also make a difference, because a way overused Murray would be available less often. (but, again, people would complain, because, evidently, when you spend $20 on something, you should get whatever you want, when you want it, how you want it).:-/

(but, again, people would complain, because, evidently, when you spend $20 on something, you should get whatever you want, when you want it, how you want it).:-/

Yeah, that's me! Well, not the entitlement so much as the preference for maximum flexibility in how the game is played.

What I think would be ideal would be a list of options during league setup, similar to the PC game, where the commish can manipulate settings on things like usage. That would be a more efficient way to accommodate different sensibilities than the current gentleman's agreements.

But let's face it boys, this is the game we've got!

(but, again, people would complain, because, evidently, when you spend $20 on something, you should get whatever you want, when you want it, how you want it).:-/

Yeah, that's me! Well, not the entitlement so much as the preference for maximum flexibility in how the game is played.

What I think would be ideal would be a list of options during league setup, similar to the PC game, where the commish can manipulate settings on things like usage. That would be a more efficient way to accommodate different sensibilities than the current gentleman's agreements.

But let's face it boys, this is the game we've got!

I think this would be ideal.