Is the 4 SP* set-it-and-forget it rotation dead?

Fortunately, probably not. I must admit my feelings were not positive on a first glance at the new ratings guide. However, we do have the same number of SP* rated pitchers (44) as we had in last years set. The cast of characters has changed, largely based on innings pitched, with some exceptions (What, no Kershaw?). Recent years were 36 (2012), 50 (2011), 51 (2010) and 45 (2009).

Based on a quick look at the numbers, I suspect some of the new 4th choice SP* with be as flaky as some of last years, but still workable to those committed to the 4 SP* strategy. It should be an interesting season, as always.

I like to go with three SP* pitchers and then mix and match for the 4th spot with S/R based upon opponent etc

I would like to see an option created for the online game where all starters must use 4 days rest between starts, not 3, just like real life. Perhaps exceptions could be made for postseason. That way you could set up a league with the * non * distinction, but also have more realistic leagues too. Although I recognize that would require two pricing systems. Still, one can dream.

For that matter just call it "realism" league and also use playing time restrictions for offensive players as well that mirror their real life usage

I have no problem with a 4-day-rest option, but you'd be asking SOM to create an option to which all league members would have to agree. Considering how rarely that would occur, you probably would have to dream for your option.

Also, the current difference between 3-day rest pitchers and 4-day rest pitchers is meant to replicate the difference between SPs throwing many and SP's throwing not-so-many innings. If you take away that difference, pitchers like '13 Sonny Gray could end up pitching as many innings as '13 Clayton Kershaw. So, if you want more realism, having all SOM SP's throw on 4 games rest probably isn't the way to do it.

Disagree that there wouldn't be sufficient demand for these leagues, particularly if you gave consumers the choice between the traditional leagues with 4 mans and a new realistic option with universal 5 mans. I agree that it would require a separate pricing system although I suspect that's easier to implement that you might think; there is probably a standard "penalty" for being a non star pitcher, and I think some of the regs on here have reasonably calculated the value of the penalty by comparing similar quality pitchers in star and non star pairs. I forget the figure though.

But I don't see how going to universal 5 man rotations would reduce realism. Right now you regularly have star pitchers throwing 260-320 IP a season. Nobody does that any more. Maybe in one year every few years you'll get someone approaching 260, but certainly not many do so, and not by a lot of innings.

It's also the sort of thing where they could try it out, and if demand sucked over a season or two, they could jettison it.

If SOM could and would actually lower the prices of *SPs to accommodate their loss of endurance, it would obviously be more attractive to players. We both, however, agree that's not feasible or likely. Even if they do, I still don't see many players wanting to completely re-evaluate the *SPs just to play in a league with all SPs on 5-days rest. If many people chime in differently, I will stand corrected.

As to the realism, you'd be opting for a particular drop in realism to enable a particular raise in one. Yes, your proposal would enhance realism by cutting down unrealistic IPs totals of many starters. However, you would also be reducing realism by having SPs who pitched much fewer innings than other SP's pitching a similar amount of innings to those SPs. So, your proposal doesn't enhance total realism for SOM, it just preferences one unreality over another.

As I said before, though, I have no problem with the suggestion.

I. Strether makes a lot of good points. It is not going to happen. Besides who is to say that pitchers could not pitch 250 or 300 innings today? Pitchers could also probably pitch on three days rest (and occasionally still do). This is the "what if factor". What if I managed my 2014 team the way managers did in the 1980s or even 1990s. That was not that long ago....

If you want realistic usage limits you have to create your own theme league with such restrictions. Parsing out even more options, especially one like this, would just further fragment the player pool and slow down the filling up of leagues...

Does anyone know what the standard penalty is. In other words, if two pitchers' cards were exactly the same only one could go every 4 days and one had to go every 5th day, what would the price difference be? 5.00 million & 4.00 million or a 20% drop??? Thanks for any insight.

I think any easier realistic fix would be to make sure no relief pitchers were rated higher than R2 or R3. This would cut back on the super reliever concept some people have a problem with. Relievers would not be able to go 300 innings. Though, it is NOT a big deal to me really.

I'd rather the game mimic the "what is" factor than the "what if" factor. 4 man rotations and 300 inning seasons were abandoned in real life because of the shortened pitching careers. No sign of returning to that any time soon. Whether that was a good development or a bad development I'd like baseball simulation to more realistically simulate the actual baseball being played. I agree with you that the game also needs stricter usage limits imposed on relievers too, as well as position players. I'm calling for the choice of a more realistic simulation option, not the replacement of the current one. You are correct that custom leagues can impose some additional degree of realism on things, but it only goes so far. Cards don't "tire" between relief appearances and long outings like pitchers actually do. Just hoping for more game options is all, not asserting that it's coming to SOM any time soon, just that I wish it would.

Strether: you can impose realism on the "innings gap" question by limiting the number of innings a 50 IP starter can throw in a season. But that's another subject.