ATG VII is here.

As far as "shuffle the deck", I would have to assume that the deck is shuffled before you draft, making a "Shuffle the Deck" league a private league/password type league that you join first/draft later as opposed to the way we do it now.....

And they might want to rethink the pricing as most of the other iterations did. Farming that task out to Bbrool may have been okay when the only other choice was Bernie (however I think Adrian, Janssen, Nev and I did a good job on the revised pricing for ATG III-R but we weren't consulted subsequently) but now that we have a whole SOM team working on ATG maybe they could update the pricing. At least it gives us the chance to unearth new great values and we can stop drafting Kirby freaking Higbe and Claude freaking Hendrix as way under-priced supervalues at the current pricing. Player pricing changes impact the game more than any other variable and really need to be looked at by SOM.

It seems to me that Mr. Richman takes a very paternalistic approach to 'his' game where community input is not valued unless we protest vociferously and his bottom line gets adversely impacted --then we get heard. I do applaud him for reaching the accommodation that he eventually made with the transition fiasco, but I think his bottom line would be better served by asking us what we want rather than just announcing fait accompli changes.

IMHO.

Gents-
Im sorry to say, but as Nev has suggested, its still bernie pulling the strings.

Waaaaay too much evidence to suggest otherwise. Things still get done the same way- meaning when we complain about stuff.

I am actually very happy for the most part that the site has been more stable- that seemingly things are generally running a lot smoother.
The thing Im not seeing is business really being proactively done; this is exactly how the old site was run gents.

Now, Im saying that- and I do hope we get live drafts back.

Okay- sorry to be a curmudgeon- but only a little sorry.

Also these new 'sanitized' (controversy free) forums don't seem to be generating much interest. There doesn't seem to be much of a community anymore, just a bunch of guys filling leagues, half of whom I don't even recognize the names of. Manager ratings really do help us sort out who is who etc.

I MUST also 1000% agree with the artist formerly known as Petrosian on that last statement (assuming he doesnt change it when Im not lookin )

I havent said much- in fact much of whats being said dont mean much- the community just aint the same without the heated discussions we all took part in.
A lot of that comes from the fact that its really not an open space for good discussion anymore- and really, If Im gonna curse someone out- please let me do it properly- as in, oh I do believe so and so is a Mother*UC*ER!
or that dammmed Carlos Ruiz is taking Roids!
BTW- so are a large percentage of pro athletes...

Are we sure the boards are being "sanitized"? Or is it just that the bungled transition is finally over and people have piped down?

I agree that "ATG VII is coming!!!" is a grandiose headline, when really they're adding some new cards. (And it's kind of ridiculous that the card-shuffling thing is being peddled as a major innovation -- theme leagues have been finding creative ways to limit the player pool for years.) But it's also clear that there are a lot of new managers here, and those guys are just starting to become familiar with ATG6, the pricing structure, bargains and busts, etc. It's probably foolish, business-wise, to give your new customers a couple of months to try to learn the nuances of a complex game, then when they're still getting their footing, smack them with a new pricing structure.

They really need to reduce the RP innings and eliminate or raise the price on the extreme platoons. I am glad to see the fantasm cards re-calculated.

I agree wholeheartedly about the relief pitcher situation. Take a look at Sutter's ridiculous numbers on the team below:

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/806717

In the modern baseball era, to the best of my knowledge, the most innings pitched in relief is 208 by Mike Marshall in 1974 and even that was an anomaly. Yet, relief pitchers routinely pitch 200+ innings in our leagues, with 300+ innings being not uncommon.

Now I can't blame people for taking advantage of a loophole in the rules in an effort to win, but Dale Murray dominating in an ATG league? The guy made 32 appearances and pitched 69 innings in 1974 (how he got a 4 inning endurance is beyond me). Except for 1974, Murray never had a season with an ERA under 3.00 in any season in which he pitched more than 30 innings. In his 12 big league seasons, Murray pitched just 902 innings in 517 relief appearances and 1 start. Yet, he could easily exceed the innings in just 3 seasons here. Moreover, it's not unusual to see Murray pitch 3-4 times as many innings in a season here than he did in 1974, the year on which his card is based.

I'd like to see relief pitchers limited to a max of 110% of real life innings pitched (with S/Rs being limited to 150 relief innings or 110% of real life innings, whichever is less), with the penalty for exceeding such being that he pitches at F0 for the remainder of the season AND playoffs, as it is generally acknowledged that overuse of a relief pitcher reduces effectiveness. Yes, I know that there are managers who would just cut the relief pitcher and pick up another one but at least there would be a drop penalty and the 110% rule would be a good start.

Hopefully, relief pitcher overuse will be addressed sooner rather than later.

i would be fine with them eliminating the super reliever option, but in that case they would need to reprice ALL RPers. otherwise they will not be priced accordingly.

-steven

Way back when -- maybe it was in ATG1, when Woody Fryman was king -- they made a serious effort to stamp out the "superreliever strategy." There was a ton of complaining on the boards about relievers throwing 200+ innings, and they responded. I wish I could remember exactly how they did it, but it worked. Then they started to add the Sutters and Murrays, and there wasn't that much complaining. Maybe because it's simply one strategy you can choose among many ways to build your team; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It would be interesting to know if Murray really gives a team an unfair competitive advantage. For instance, if you use him in an $80 mil league, you're going to have to scrimp somewhere else -- likely on starting pitching, so you're still going to get hammered for a few innings. There's no guarantee you're going to win. In your link above, the crappy starting pitchers went 40-53. It's a calculated risk to use Murray, and it can backfire.

Guys...

Ya can't just look at the RP's and draw the line there.

Especially when a number of hitters seemingly hit well above their cards. Especially in the right ballpark.

Personally, I don't care when Sutter or Murray throws a ton of innings. Since hitters like Milt May can hit 50+ HR's and we don't even blink an eye...

visick