Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

rated R-1 to go 2/3 innings regularly?

Only if I under-resourced my relief corps needs.

It is not a winning strategy to force your R1s to consistently pitch at F0--which is what will happen. You will find that your rolls on hitter cards will be far out of statistical balance and it will be because dice rolls start getting flipped from the pitcher card to the hitter's card as fatigue mounts.

It is a little different on starters because they won't be allowed to be forced into a start in a fatigued state. But your relief corps can be pushed into that situation and it can become a chronic cycle.

Actually confirmed some of this while helping another manager who was using only R1s and couldn't figure out why their stud relievers were showing dice rolls that were favoring hitters 2:1.

Not a winning strategy IMO. The R1 prices reflect this. It is not a hidden value play.

Counterpoint:

$80 mil cap:
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1678710

$100 mil cap:
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1680635

Starters set on quick hook and max 6 innings. Relievers set to slow hook. Ratios were 1.20:1 and 1.05:1 for the hitter:pitcher rolls for the R1 relievers.

These were my first two (and only) attempts in ATG. I think there’s some room for improvement - you sometimes find opportunity where no one else is looking.

Also, I’m giving a lot more thought to stopping myself from imposing my will on HAL. The “Give HAL Lots of the Options He Wants” philosophy appears to have some merit.

This is also working in 200x.

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1688143

Very nice team design in that 80 million cap-J-Pav. With the better hitting in ATG smart to have a pitcher's park and good defense. And the R1s got used perfectly (as good as having R2 or higher while having better numbers for the price).

I think I'll try that at 80 million.

J-Pav--I may have missed it, but I didn't see that you were consistently getting 2-3 innings from the R1s. Your results are still within what I would call a reasonable envelope and certainly yet another potential success path. Nice.

Caveats?
Did you try it in any of your BS tour leagues? It didn't seem like it but I just did a quick scan.

I think it worth mentioning the 80M example seemed to have a high amount of pitcher parks? Was there a theme element? I ask because I haven't seen it successfully done in a barnstormers formatted team where maybe the competition might be different.

What I thought the OP was asking was how to get R1s "regularly with 2-3 innings" but in haste I may have misunderstood.
The examples from my experience were much more extreme on the roll ratios--and the relievers were regularly pitching 2-3 innings, predominantly at F0 from the moment they started every appearance. A team that was eating them up was mine actually but I tend to create lineups that will attempt to take advantage of that approach if I see it in my division. A balanced 1-9 lineup with high hits and OBA can create problems for teams that regularly have short starters and R0-entry relievers, but YMMV.

Certainly is no rule here I was stating, but my point to the OP is in general it is not a winning strategy which is different from "it can't be." Maybe the translation is If it can be applied, it does appear to have a narrow success envelope and maybe you are better at managing it than most.

I did not try it in Barnstormer’s, although I probably should have, because my teams have been largely underperforming and disappointing this go around.

All three teams I posted were standard autoleagues, no themes. Not sure I buy the “better competition” theory. I know I’ve said this before, but if autoleagues are soft, then racking up rings should be easy. But that isn’t the case. And “a balanced 1-9 lineup with high hits and OBA can create problems” for any team, not just against this particular type of team.

Regarding the innings pitched. All my relievers pitched 2 and 3 inning games “regularly”, which to me means every so often. Obviously they can’t pitch like that every game, because relievers don’t pitch 300+ innings. I think an average of an inning per game over a season (162) is getting pretty strong mileage. I think getting R1’s to do this means value added, because I’m getting R2 innings that I’m not paying up for. Hidden value play? If you squint a little, maybe kinda sorta.

I do think the strong defense is a plus, but more importantly, the starters should probably be SP/RP (generally) so they can be used in relief from time to time and take some of that F0 pressure off the bullpen.

I probably should fool around with this some more, and see what can be figured out, if anything, but I have to admit my enthusiasm has been in decline for awhile.

how did you setup the behind and late/mop up roles? those 2 plus middle man seem to be the real inning burners?

I didn’t. All roles were left blank. Again, the goal was to give HAL maximum flexibility. I found and continue to find that the more options HAL has if left to his own devices, the better the results just seem to work out.

IMHO, two things work. Four stud starters set to F0 with dialed in bullpen roles (ie, maximum me), or lots of matchup SP/RPs and quality relievers with no set assignments (ie, maximum HAL). It seems to me that the squishy middle is where most of the unhappiness is found.

J-Pav wrote:I didn’t. All roles were left blank. Again, the goal was to give HAL maximum flexibility. I found and continue to find that the more options HAL has if left to his own devices, the better the results just seem to work out.

IMHO, two things work. Four stud starters set to F0 with dialed in bullpen roles (ie, maximum me), or lots of matchup SP/RPs and quality relievers with no set assignments (ie, maximum HAL). It seems to me that the squishy middle is where most of the unhappiness is found.

Agree completely J-Pav. Much evidence points to this approach being successful over many leagues...or at least less heartburn over HAL when you just stop telling him what to do, as weird as that is. But I think you and I and a few others have had that discussion before and share similar evidence.
BTW--thanks for sharing your approach--always enjoy managers who go full-open-kimono to share their successes!

Scorehouse/Freeman, let us know if you replicate the success or if J-Pav is a Magic Man. Ha. Cheers

Trust me when I tell you, no magic man here, just a manager with more curiosity than brains!