Anyone know why

the highest salary for a pitcher is less than the highest salary for a hitter? Shouldnt the pitcher be worth more? since you only need 6 regular pitchers (4 starters and 2 relievers) compared to 8 or 9 hitters (with DH).

Does it mean a hitter has more importance in a win that a pitcher?

The Hitters are more valuable than the pitchers.
Hitters play every day.
Maddux only starts 41 times.

Rolling the dice will lead to 216 chances. 108 on the hitters card, 108 on the pitchers.

HITTERS CARD
103 of these results are from the hitters performance and 5 are ball park singles.

PITCHERS CARD
73 of these results are from the pitchers performance and 5 are ball park singles
30 of the 108 chances on the pitchers card are defensive plays.

ok I cant argue with that.

so to even it out you would need 8 players with 1e0 on defence and no hitting? so those salaries would need to be included?

meaning, if every X chance on the pitchers card was an automatic out, then the pitcher's card and the hitters card would be worth the same?

this is in worth or salary, meaning the reason why a great pitcher would be 11mil and a great hitter would be 13mil, the reason for the extra 2 mil is because of the X's on the pitcher's card, in order to make them outs you would need to factor in a 1e0 for that defensive position, and since two players with the same stats but one being a 4 on defence and the other being a 1 on defence turns the player from a 13mil player into an 11 or 10mil player. Meaning the defence worth of a player adds another couple of million to his salary.

I wonder how you would test it?

as for the player playing everyday, I find that a fallacy.

if a player plays every game, which is rare, he will accumulate approx. 750 plate appearances, so he will affect the game 750 times. a starting pitcher will accumulate 250 innings, on avg. if he pitches every fourth game and affect the game approx. 1000 times. If you factor in defence for 30% up or down, that's still the around the same amount of effect.

or to put it another way...

for the 750 plate appearances a players makes, a great one will have 250-300 hits and walks with 450-500 outs

for the 250 innings a great pitcher will give up 200-250 hits and walks, and get 500-550 outs.

even those out and the pitch will have 250 non-outs with 500 outs, and so will the hitter. so they affect the game the same, give or take a bit.

So even though a player plays every day, he has less of an affect over the games he plays than a pitcher who affects all of the game when he pitches.

but perhaps i'm missing something.

does anyone know why a pitcher must give up 5 or more run and many walks before he is replaced?

the highest salary for a pitcher is less than the highest salary for a hitter? Shouldnt the pitcher be worth more? since you only need 6 regular pitchers (4 starters and 2 relievers) compared to 8 or 9 hitters (with DH).

Does it mean a hitter has more importance in a win that a pitcher?

The answer is the hitter also has value for defense and base running.

:? does anyone know why a pitcher must give up 5 or more run and many walks before he is replaced?

it's the secret "clutch" rule for pitchers.

[quote="Scottbdoug" Meaning the defence worth of a player adds another couple of million to his salary.

I wonder how you would test it?
.[/quote]

Make 2 identical teams except for CF.
On one team put Hack Wilson in CF, the other Joe Dimaggio. They are arguably even offensively.
See how many extra hits you allow and how many innings are extended because of that 3 in CF.
See how many opponents advance the extra base because instead of the -4 gun, you have a 0.
And perhaps a few times when Wilson is held at 3rd or thrown out because he is a 14 runner, Dimaggio may be waved home or not thrown out because he is a 16.

Nothing is purely simple (for example even if there were such a thing as a 1e0 first baseman, he would still not be 100% out for Gbx to him, because a few times he would be holding a runner and become a 2e0)

That said, there are MORE rolls on the pitching cards with a * starter than you estimate.
example my last completed team (a very mediocre one at 82-80) had 4 SP*
Camnitz faced 1429 batters
Grove 1313
Veale 1321
and Higbe 1055

so my average SP* saw 1280 batters over the season and roughly 36.1% were not x-rolls and off the pitchers card (13.9% are x-rolls)
so----462 rolls per season on the SP* card that fielding does not come into play

My best starting batter had 726 plate appearances (0 injury Frank Thomas) - roughly half of those rolls were off his own card (363 rolls over the season)

So - my average SP* got to play more rolls off his card that did not involve fielding than my BEST PA batter (with 0 injury possibility) got off his hitter card and impacted 27% more rolls than the hitter.

my best SP* contributed even more - 42% more rolls than off my best starting batter

FWIW

So I looked at one of my teams.
My pitchers had 3,148 rolls on their cards.
My hitters had 3,168 rolls on their cards.
My fielders had 866 X chances.
That means the results of 2,282 came from my pitchers card. (Pitcher X is not included, under construction by SOM).
So a lot more results come from the hitters than the pitchers.
Are the majority of these from my 4 SP's. YES 2,750 of the 3,148
But if you give every pitcher a 50% raise, nobody will use them.
This is an offensive game because there is too much weight given to the ball park effects. That's why a guy like Milt May can pop 35 HRs. Usually, hitters will hit below average, but most will hit more HR's. Having Greg Maddux give up 76 HR's is very unrealistic.
Because it is a HR dominated game, the hitters have to be priced more than the pitchers.

....This is an offensive game because there is too much weight given to the ball park effects. ...

you speak truth danielz