Apologies please

Janssen 3.0 IP and a few 2+IP
Miller 2.2 IP and multiple 2+
Chapman 2.2 IP

To all folks who whine about Strat managers using the super-reliever strategy:
Apologies would be welcome.

If Miller & Chapman have a year where they go 250 IP while no starter on the team has over 200 I will apologize.

I really don't have a problem with people using that strategy as it is allowable but I do think it is unrealistic and should be fixed somehow.

please send the link would love to see the whole team makeup.

JT

I've been on record in the past that it doesn't bother me about the Jarrett Parkers hitting 80 HRs or a super-reliever pitching 250 innings...........as long as they are Valued that way.

My only complaint about the super-relievers tossing 250 innings who had a sub-2 ERA and a 1.00 or better WHIP, is they need to be valued at $7M to $9M salary instead of a $4.0M to 5.5M salary.

Great thread! Agree Marc!

The very cool thing about strat-o-matic is that it might be prophetic, in the sense that it calls into question the conventional wisdom in real baseball, every now and again.

not to say that major league relievers are going to have 200 innings, but it's cool to see real life RPs getting 2+ innings in a game, and being used in non-save situations. If the world series is on the line, why not!


Geoff

No apologies here. Chapman was clearly running out of gas in that game 7. And there is a huge difference between doing this in playoffs or world series when you have more frequent travel days and doing it during the regular season when you routinely play 6 games every 7 days and sometimes go 10 to 20 games with no days off.

Mike Marshall and what he did a couple years might make me relent but he stands out so much as an exception to the norm that he actually emphasizes how unrealistic the super reliever is. However, having said that given the online strat makeup the super reliever is a winning strategy and that is the goal so I have no problems with anyone who uses it.

Gee, if we had to give up unrealistic strategies (4-man rotation, 150 at bat players who can play full-time, super-relievers, 9 lefty line-ups in Petco, road/home pitchers or line-ups, etc)...what would we do?

I'm with Valen on this one.

+1

No apologies here. Chapman was clearly running out of gas in that game 7. And there is a huge difference between doing this in playoffs or world series when you have more frequent travel days and doing it during the regular season when you routinely play 6 games every 7 days and sometimes go 10 to 20 games with no days off.

Mike Marshall and what he did a couple years might make me relent but he stands out so much as an exception to the norm that he actually emphasizes how unrealistic the super reliever is. However, having said that given the online strat makeup the super reliever is a winning strategy and that is the goal so I have no problems with anyone who uses it.

And I concur with these excellent points, despite my earlier comments.

I guess I have nothing to add on this topic which was discussed many times, but just to put my own opinion on boards...

First, let's agree on a few things

1) It's a shame that SOM has still not enforced in its internet game the 27.65 rule that was introduced in 2011 for the board game and is apparently automatically enforced in its computer game if you select the super-advanced rules

http://www.strat-o-matic.com/community/ ... hing-abuse

A R1 pitching a 3-inning stint would automatically be on the bench for the next game. This rule would certainly reduce by 20-30 innings the number of innings by R1 reliever.

2)The overusage of relievers is an even worse problem in ATG than in 20XX. Again, rule 27.65 should be applied, but moreover, Strat should either have the option of using the closer rule in ATG or use two different sets of rules about relief usage, one for 20XX and one for ATG, to compensate for the absence of the closer rule in ATG. The absence of the closer rule should be accompanied by some rules that precipitate the fatigued state if a reliever accumulates the innings---say, a reliever in his "last" inning (eg. a R3 in his third inning) becomes fatigued immediately after allowing a walk/hit. This rule would mimic somewhat the impact of the closer rule on usage (where a R1/C6 or even a R2/C6 who enters the game in 7th inning becomes fatigued in a closer situation as soon as he allows a walk/hit since his 6 outs allowed were depleted in the 7th and 8th).

So yes, ATG allows the Sutters and Murrays to pitch 250-300 good innings, and it's a problem, but I would treat this situation as a different problem than in 20xx.

In 20xx, because of the closer rule, all relievers not being R3 will be in effect topped at around 220 innings unless they are exploited in a fatigued state, and that comes with a heavy penalty. And even then, you would not reach 220 innings without using your reliever in useless situations like being mop-up and not be available for the next game. This does not make sense baseball-wise to have your best reliever doing this, this is why Maddon was criticized in game 6.

In all teams where I tried to exploit the super-reliever strategy in 20XX, while avoiding a prolonged fatigue state and keeping my super-reliever out of mop-up situations--the superior limit I reached has been 180 innings, and I did it only a few times---in some teams my super-reliever did not go over 160 innings--for example with better starters that could complete games. But I should add that I never tried the super-reliever strategy with a R3 pitcher...but since R3 relievers are rarely closer, I don't think I would reach 250 innings in 20XX either with the same principles above. Again, the absence of the closer in ATG make things very different there.


So the question for 20XX then: are 180 innings way too much? This question is within the context that super-aces can start 41 games and part-time players be everyday player.

If you pause for one second, and ask yourself this question: suppose you are told that exists an elite league in South Asia, and you are told in that league that reliable starters such as Lester and Bumgarner start 40-41 games apiece and pitchers with stints of DL will start 32-33 start a year...you try to figure how works that league's schedule...your guess would probably be that there is an off day between every series...3 games, one day off, 3 games, one day off...in this schedule, a starting pitch would pitcher every 5 days, but every 4 games, which is what we see in Strat. Starters that need DL would miss roughly 8 starts for a month of DL and rehabilitation...and relievers would get one day off every three games, similar to what we see in the World series. In that context, pitching 180 innings in a season wouldn't be too far from the usage we saw for Miller and Janssen, in a context of a yearly schedule that would allow this kind of usage...Miller for example had 19 innings in 15 post-season games, which is equivalent to 206 innings over a 162-game schedule...