Page 1 of 1

4 aces strategy vs. low cost, match-up starters

PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:10 pm
by Hack Wilson
I've found the 4 aces strategy incredibly more boring than the low-cost match-up starter strategy. The latter certainly depends on a super reliever. With the 4 aces, it's autopilot, very few lineup changes and no real pitching changes. On the other hand, the match-up approach leaves more money for hitting (big advantage) and requires a quick analysis of approaching teams and ballparks for the starter per-game function. My experience is that the right type of match-up starter teams win bigger than 4 aces, which tend to win, but not at a high rate. I've had many tams of both types.

Recent 4 aces teams:
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1528859
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1538567 (underway now)

Match-up starter teams:
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1530691
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1534968

Re: 4 aces strategy vs. low cost, match-up starters

PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:27 pm
by bcousy57
I’m too lazy to dig up team links, but I rarely employee the four-aces strategy because of the level of fun. I just started a league using such a team, and I, too, find it to be incredibly boring. I’ve had reasonable success with five-man budget rotations — although not always all budget, often top-heavy with one or two aces. And it’s more fun to manage the pitching staff, unless you have too many teams and not enough time.

Re: 4 aces strategy vs. low cost, match-up starters

PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:39 pm
by FrankieT
Agree with the comments on the fun part...though if you have a lot of teams, which I never have had more than 2 or so until recently with 8. and it's a chore, especially with 24 team leagues.

But the thing I usually find troublesome is having to avoid some of the great S7*/S8* cards because otherwise the bullpen will get smoked every now and then. And always the chance to have lots of hitter parks. So I usually wimp out, lose faith, and go traditional staff.

I recently tried a redux on 4 aces--4 mediocre of similar ability with high endurance, Mickey lolich types, and a moderate bullpen of 1-2M types. Results were decent and I spent less. Team was decent, a mediocre 85-ish win wild card, but not outstanding.

Re: 4 aces strategy vs. low cost, match-up starters

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:31 am
by RiggoDrill
4 Aces strategy leverages the two of the three biggest gaps in the current pricing structure, namely: (#1) top-end starters are way too inexpensive relative to mid-range starters and (#2) there is a sharp drop-off in position-player salaries around 3.00-4.00M, making it easy to scoop up bargains below that price point. Simply stated, 4 Aces teams are the easiest to build.

Cristano's innovation wasn't exactly that he invented the strategy, rather, he calculated that in a Finals league, where most managers were using some version of match-up starters approach, he could gain a competitive advantage by leveraging S9* starters who had been ignored by other managers.

Hack's teams are loaded with super high-value position players. However, in a Barnstormer's finals draft, you're not going to be able to put all of those cards on a single team.

Re: 4 aces strategy vs. low cost, match-up starters

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:01 pm
by FrankieT
Well some of us will be watching the finals league with great interest