New league forming. Mystery 70's with a gentleman's agreemen

New league forming.
12 GM 70s mystery $80M league.
All the default settings with one exception...

We all sign off on a "gentleman's agreement" not to overuse RP Only pitchers 120% max of their real life innings pitched.

We agree not to exceed 120% of any RP Only...of their five cards...120% of their highest inning card of the five (Even though you are not sure which of the five cards you have).

Interested?
Email me at ctf1995@yahoo.com
I will email you the password to join once we are full.

Chris

Random divisions.

Team one: Chris Franco

Need 11 GMs.

I was expecting GMs to join this league quickly. As the super reliever exploit gets ugly and widespread.

?

Long ago, when playing the card game, we had a 7 innings in 7 games rule. Manual tracking, etc to accomplish something like this. But, we managed the teams not HAL.

This sounds easier than it would be. Interesting, but not easy.

I've played a few mystery seasons, but still trying to figure out a lot of things. .. From the gentleman's agreement proposition, I gather that Strato does not have a means to prevent overuse of relief pitchers? I've seen some of my opponents rack up 160 IP with a closer and wondered how they do it.

Since you won't know what card you have how would you monitor usage on the pitching?

Also, there has not been an issue with super reliever usage in the mystery card games so what does it matter?

I think I'd rather play with a limit on roster moves, maybe 5 for the season. Some of these folks make 20+++ moves. Drives me nuts

20+++ in the first week for some guys. I have seen guys well above 40. I'm in a league now that after 15 games one guy has made 15 moves. The game needs to be enjoyable and getting a bad draft and being stuck with it is not fun. Reasonable is good though.

Maybe limit it to x# cuts per phase? Like x# @ 5%, x# more @10% then x# @ 20%. It could be more than 5 even 10 per period.

The thread starter, Mr. Chris Franco, sent this message to the league after a finals I was in. I was the "Mirror" team he referenced.

Congratulations to Footers for winning the title!!!
Thankful Mirror did not win as he totally exploited super reliever Sutter...Sigh.

I did get a "Mike Marshall" season out of Sutter 18-2-40-10/209.2 that season and was glad to have gotten my money's worth from Bruce. And getting your money's worth from him is not a lock by any means. I have gotten between 67 and 179 innings from him prior to the 209.2 mentioned here. I assure you when he only pitched those 67 innings for that $6.05M salary I wasn't happy. Mostly because the team wasn't very good, thus he didn't get many chances. I think that team would have been better off with me spreading some of Bruce's salary around and getting better starters. I also do not think I got my $6.05M's worth when he was 8-15-30-12/179.1 despite his pitching those 179.1 innings. 15 loses and 12 blown saves, ouch! I think a couple $2M guys would have done as good. Bruce is not a lock to be a big contributor. I use him maybe 20% of the time and see him undrafted/played about the same number of times.

I have seen Sutter pitch over 250 innings for others (I wish I knew how they got him so many) and did have a 272 IP season from a $4M RP only guy in the 70's once. It was in Fulton so his numbers were not great as I remember it, other than those innings of course.

I looked around and did not see any "Mike Marshall" seasons out the 60's. I did see that "Eck" had some 175+ in the few 80's I have been in. Plus some .75 guy going 174 in a season! I hear it is not unusual to get great season out of $.75 guys in the 80's.

I looked through the 90's and did see one 195 season from Billy Wagner, nothing else.

There are no guarantees no matter who you take here. It's baseball after all!

I am considering "totally exploited" as a compliment. To paraphrase a NASCAR line "If you are not exploiting, you are not trying."

Have fun!