Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

Looking to see if there is potential for consensus on this topic. Does the community support a request to Strat for allowing a third role for relievers in ATG9?

I believe adding a 3rd role would strike the right balance between limiting the super-reliever strategy and getting some value out of the better relievers at the higher ATG9 prices.

Thanks,
Bill

I'd vote for keeping the repricing and go back to the old BP logic.

Something has to be done. The way it is now, no reliever over $5 will ever be used at caps of $100 and less

STEVE F wrote:Something has to be done. The way it is now, no reliever over $5 will ever be used at caps of $100 and less

Yes

bkeat23 wrote:I'd vote for keeping the repricing and go back to the old BP logic.

Yes--or anything in between

to be honest, I think they should totally revamp the pitching pricing and rostering rules (not directly related to this poll but relevant to the grander issue). It seems to me that there are a lot of pitchers that are essentially unusable because of how the pricing is connected to the S*/S or R rating and endurances. There are also a lot of pitchers which seem to me to be mislabeled (maybe that's by design) with regards to their s or r rating. I don't know if they keep data on the actual usage of pitchers (that is how many times a pitcher actually is rostered) but it would probably be revealing. I also don't really understand why I have to draft Randy Lerch if my entire pitching strategy is designed to avoid using him. That just seems silly.

goffchile wrote:I also don't really understand why I have to draft Randy Lerch if my entire pitching strategy is designed to avoid using him. That just seems silly.

That may be the only thing about their entire pitching staff logic that makes sense ... The need for a 5th starter, just in case of injury. If all your pitchers are over 200 innings, then you're fine and don't even need him.

Bump

The roles don't matter, it is the usage rules that have demolished any semblance of a bullpen usage availability equal to the amount of innings the game implies you should allow. I have had Dizzy Dean with no roles come into 7 games in a year resulting in his pitching 328 innings and apparently that is all Kosher. Put in a bunch of 9L and 9R guys with him have good starters with an R in their rating, which are much cheaper than expensive bullpen pitchers and besides that can start and you can save a lot of money on the bullpen in lower league levels.

The game continues to devolve less as a baseball simulation and more and more into a contrived computerized valuation modeling exercise. As valuation models take over, competing baseball strategies become uncompetitive because the vast value modeling capabilities overwhelm any strategy implementation. Another role for relief pitchers is not going to change the destruction of the game that is evolving as a result of the massive valuation change. That Kent Tekulve is one point one million dollar salary and is far more productive against right handers than the 7.7 million dollar relief villians Bruce Sutter and Dale Murray is a mystery to me as to what the pricing model is trying to accomplish, but Tekulve's ilk is the type a park and hitter valuation model can impact.

The best teams even in 140 million dollar leagues are built on the value of 4 9 inning starters under the most expensive range, because their value is better than other ranges and you can get 103 wins with less than 40 innings of bullpen in our simulation now.
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/sim/1595811

Adding another role to the bullpen is not going to have any impact on the game and is equivalent to adding another attractive magician's assistant to a magic show.

Personally I would like to see a limit of 12 imposed on the total bias of the composition of teams for both pitchers and hitters to eliminate this valuation strategy. This would make the drafting of Mariano Duncan and Tekulve as needed as part of a strategy of the game and less of a valuation tool based on the ballpark effects.

gkhd11a wrote:Personally I would like to see a limit of 12 imposed on the total bias of the composition of teams for both pitchers and hitters to eliminate this valuation strategy. This would make the drafting of Mariano Duncan and Tekulve as needed as part of a strategy of the game and less of a valuation tool based on the ballpark effects.

Not sure if I follow what your are saying here. Limit of 12?

goffchile wrote:

gkhd11a wrote:Personally I would like to see a limit of 12 imposed on the total bias of the composition of teams for both pitchers and hitters to eliminate this valuation strategy. This would make the drafting of Mariano Duncan and Tekulve as needed as part of a strategy of the game and less of a valuation tool based on the ballpark effects.

Not sure if I follow what your are saying here. Limit of 12?

For hitters a 9R hitter specialist such as Gates Brown would consume 9 of 12 of your bias, and would make you have all E or 1R or 1L for the remainder of your team and prevent platoons and mechanisms to prevent pitchers from being used. Limit I suppose could be higher to as much as 20 but the 140 champion team posted above had a pitcher bias of 37 and a hitter bias of 32.

Bruce F had a 110 win team with a pitcher bias of 39 and a hitter bias of 32. These biases are used to generate value in a player like Tekulve who for 1.1 million pitches like a 12 million dollar pitcher against righties. This would not prevent anyone from using these players but there would be much more strategy that could be employed by implementing a bias limit.
The top 20 salary pitching cards have a combined bias of 14. The bias is used to take a bad pitcher with a real weakness on one side for BP homers and hits and put them in a park with no BP homers and hits. For instance the cheap Don Sutton card.