Rethinking the *

The old practice of automatically tacking a * on pitchers who exceed 200 IP needs to be reconsidered. With very few exceptions, pitchers with 210-220 innings can be started as often as pitchers with 275, 300 innings. This, even though , in real life, they started 30-33 times. I realize the innings total could be mitigated by the earlier chance at weakness (most modern SP's are 7's). But a 7* pitcher like Arrietta, set on slow hook, with a few switches thrown about when to replace, is going to probably still get 300 innings. I would therefore like to see Strat consider the * ratings based on number of starts, rather than IP, with 36 starts being the minimum required to get it. This would make the * an actual advantage. You'd have to think about plunking down 9M on a starter who's going to give you 33 starts, versus, say, 7M, for someone who's out there every 4th day. Further, it would reflect how pitchers these days are actually used. Zach Grienke is awesome. But he shouldn't be out there 40 times, even in a simulation, especially a competitive one.

If I remember right, there's supposed to be an effectiveness drop built in to reflect over usage. if there is, then perhaps it should be more pronounced. Or...more significant pitcher injuries.

It's neither here nor there, I suppose, but I'd just like actual horses to be horses. No offense to today's stellar pitchers, who have to log multiple playoff starts, but none of them will ever log 275 inns in the regular season, then go out and pitch 3-4 more games in the post season. That ability deserves more respect, IMHO.

I guess the same could be said when you have Gates Brown bat 450 times

Well...I didn't want to go there, but yeah, I agree. You can set usage limits in the computer game, as well as "daily injuries," which would force low usage players to the bench. But you need a bigger roster to accommodate it.