The ones who should look at this ...
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:22 pm
... probably don't spend much time on the discussion boards.
But the way one manager in my league tackled the challenge we all have of using the same amount of salary cap available went horribly wrong, and I think it can be instructive especially for those new at this simulation game.
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of teams finish the season somewhere between 90 wins and 90 losses. If you happen to win more than 100 games, you're not only lucky but probably skilled at constructing a winning roster. On the other hand, if you team loses more than 100 games, you've probably done something wrong. Many times impatience kicks in and we churn through a multitude of add/drops trying to find a better combination of players when in the end all it does is leave us at a financial disadvantage with teams that left their opening day rosters mostly intact. But sometimes our concept of what we need to succeed here is poorly executed. I invite you to take a look at this roster as an example.
http://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/sim/1417071
This team is heading toward something in the ballpark of 50 wins. This team kept the same roster all year. You'll notice the four main components of his strategy:
1) Strong starting pitching in a pitchers park
2) Lights out relief pitching
3) Outstanding infield defense
4) No injuries
His plan succeeded in avoiding injury; only Carlton Fisk went down, 3 times for a total of 5 games. But his stellar RPs did not pitch many innings, and the one with the most IP had the lowest salary. Plus, the pitchers park and strong defense didn't seem to translate into a low ERA.
Some observations (for salary caps $100M or less):
1) Do not put too much of your salary into relief pitching, unless you also economize on the starting staff. A proven effective winning strategy is a quality RP rated at least R3 or R4 that pitches a ton of innings, backed up by a mid-priced R5 reliever to pick up the slack when your top guy is fatigued. But spending over $20M in a $100M league on 4 relievers on top of $30M for a starting staff is doomed to failure.
2) A few hitters without injury risk are great, but you'll also pay a premium built into their salary for the peace of mind knowing you won't have to rely on bench players. We are required to have a minimum of 13 hitters. In a DH league that means your 4-6 bench players are totally unnecessary dead weight. It's an effective strategy to have several 3- or 15-game injury risks in the starting lineup as long as you have backups that won't stink too bad if called upon to fill in for an injured player. You might as well have useful minimum salary players to back up the best players.
3) Strong pitching & defense teams can do well if they are paired with high value inexpensive hitters. Spending $50-55 million on pitching means you have to be very creative spending the remaining $45-50 million on 9 hitters and the bench. I've seen a lot of teams do really well with a similar strategy, the only difference being a greater investment in at least 3 top starting pitchers above $9-10 million each, and economizing on the relief corps. Starting pitchers in the $7-8 million range are more unreliable in a $100M league, and the cash spent on 4 excellent RPs that pitch only occasionally will cut into the amount of money available to spend on hitters who will play in every game.
I hope this helps those who need it the most ...
But the way one manager in my league tackled the challenge we all have of using the same amount of salary cap available went horribly wrong, and I think it can be instructive especially for those new at this simulation game.
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of teams finish the season somewhere between 90 wins and 90 losses. If you happen to win more than 100 games, you're not only lucky but probably skilled at constructing a winning roster. On the other hand, if you team loses more than 100 games, you've probably done something wrong. Many times impatience kicks in and we churn through a multitude of add/drops trying to find a better combination of players when in the end all it does is leave us at a financial disadvantage with teams that left their opening day rosters mostly intact. But sometimes our concept of what we need to succeed here is poorly executed. I invite you to take a look at this roster as an example.
http://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/sim/1417071
This team is heading toward something in the ballpark of 50 wins. This team kept the same roster all year. You'll notice the four main components of his strategy:
1) Strong starting pitching in a pitchers park
2) Lights out relief pitching
3) Outstanding infield defense
4) No injuries
His plan succeeded in avoiding injury; only Carlton Fisk went down, 3 times for a total of 5 games. But his stellar RPs did not pitch many innings, and the one with the most IP had the lowest salary. Plus, the pitchers park and strong defense didn't seem to translate into a low ERA.
Some observations (for salary caps $100M or less):
1) Do not put too much of your salary into relief pitching, unless you also economize on the starting staff. A proven effective winning strategy is a quality RP rated at least R3 or R4 that pitches a ton of innings, backed up by a mid-priced R5 reliever to pick up the slack when your top guy is fatigued. But spending over $20M in a $100M league on 4 relievers on top of $30M for a starting staff is doomed to failure.
2) A few hitters without injury risk are great, but you'll also pay a premium built into their salary for the peace of mind knowing you won't have to rely on bench players. We are required to have a minimum of 13 hitters. In a DH league that means your 4-6 bench players are totally unnecessary dead weight. It's an effective strategy to have several 3- or 15-game injury risks in the starting lineup as long as you have backups that won't stink too bad if called upon to fill in for an injured player. You might as well have useful minimum salary players to back up the best players.
3) Strong pitching & defense teams can do well if they are paired with high value inexpensive hitters. Spending $50-55 million on pitching means you have to be very creative spending the remaining $45-50 million on 9 hitters and the bench. I've seen a lot of teams do really well with a similar strategy, the only difference being a greater investment in at least 3 top starting pitchers above $9-10 million each, and economizing on the relief corps. Starting pitchers in the $7-8 million range are more unreliable in a $100M league, and the cash spent on 4 excellent RPs that pitch only occasionally will cut into the amount of money available to spend on hitters who will play in every game.
I hope this helps those who need it the most ...