Another Legendary Dale Murray Season

I play the 200xx seasons and I'd like to start some ATG seasons, which I haven't played for a long time, but the 400 innings RP thing seems like a real problem, giving a sour taste when you are on the receiving end I guess. Has anyone- or a bunch of people- contacted Strat and registered complaints or strong suggestions to get this fixed. This anomaly is equivalent to a SP getting 80-90 starts and pitching 800 innings.

I've had reasonable success in ATG without employing the "super reliever" strategy, and if someone else wants to use it against me, it does not bother me.

Yep I have used Murray extensively and feel coming into most leagues it would be a disadvantage to not have him. So I try to pick him regularly. He is by far the best player available for what he can do and his price. He stands out too far above others but I also would be glad to see him go and tighten up the competition.

Yep I have used Murray extensively and feel coming into most leagues it would be a disadvantage to not have him. So I try to pick him regularly. He is by far the best player available for what he can do and his price. He stands out too far above others but I also would be glad to see him go and tighten up the competition.

As simplistic as it may be, just getting rid of the Murray card would go a long way towards resolving this issue. LOL.

Perhaps you've seen the movie, the Poseidon adventure. The original was a gem. The remake, while not as good, was still enjoyable. The Poseidon, a large cruise ship, flips over after a massive wave hits it. Much mayhem ensues. The ship settles...but upside down, and folks struggle to find their footing. Some cross their arms and say, "We are going to be saved. We should wait here and do nothing ourselves, simply wait for external rescue." Spoiler--this set of folks do not get saved (leaving aside spiritual interpretations), they are doomed.

Another set of folks say, essentially, let's not assume someone else is going to fix things, but rather, let's rescue ourselves. Not faith, but acts. And they go and chart their own rescue. I don't know why I am thinking of this old time movie, but I am. I'm sure it is a terrible analogy, yet...

Two recent leagues where folks came together to play by a set of rules that limited relief usage in some significant ways. There are 100 other ways to do it as well. Don't despair that the ship is upside down, or think that it ruins everything. Chart your own course. Make your own leagues with your own rules.

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/league/433768

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/league/436141 (Requiem for Dale Murray League)


A couple of other thoughts:
Pretty much EVERY aspect of putting my team together is about exploitation. I try to exploit the game mechanics to make my team successful. And after the draft I then scout the vulnerabilities of my opponents and consider whether those can be exploited, too.

I play my hitters 162 games if they don't get injured. That doesn't happen in the real world. At last not with my beloved Mets, where I wish we could get 130 healthy games out of Cespedes.
I start my starters 41 times if they are *. Lucky to get 28 from DeGrom and Syndergaard.
I aspire to have my subs play 0 times. Totally unrealistic. Many Met subs play 20-30% of the time.

If I see my opponents use lots of platoons, then I will use 5 righty starters and all lefty relief (or vice versa). And I will have my starters get out a max of 6 innings, to bring in the lefty relievers for 3+ innings to maximize their matchups against my opponent's lefty hitters.

If I see a bunch of well balanced teams, a lot of 4 right handed hitters/ 4 left handed hitters...then maybe I'll go in a generic search for value starters with no focus on L/R, and then some bullpen guys to exploit. If I see a bunch of Lefty and Righty heavy teams, then I'll probably go for mix and match starters. Klipstein, Sutton, Rueter, etc.

If I see lots of switch hitters, then I consider righty starters who are good against lefties, and lefty starters who are good against right handed hitters. Etc., etc, etc. Exploit, exploit, exploit.

And finally, of course, if its a DH league with no restrictions I won't use Murray, but I will use a "super reliever." There are guys I prefer over Murray now. But yes, I will probably try to limit my starters innings and aspire to have 2-3 relievers get 800 innings of work. Starting pitching is overpriced and relief is underpriced, especially R5, R4, R3 and to a lesser extent, R2 relief. Perhaps this is the most extreme of the various contradictions we could enumerate between the simulation and the real game. For some, this (and less the other contradictions) is an abomination.

I see it through a different lens, myself. The market as it is currently constructed drives the consumer/general manager toward value. We all want value ... so we have more money left to attend other parts of our roster construction. There is significant value to be derived by spending less on starting pitching and by spending strategically on relief.

(There are limits to this, of course. And be aware that many of the best players in the game do not take this approach, at least not much that I saw. Look at Cristiano, among others in the Championship League.)

I'm not simply saying "don't blame the player, blame the game." More, "ok, the ship is upside down. yah. It kind of sucks. It doesn't really feel like baseball. But it is still damn fun. I'll play upside down baseball at the bottom of a ship any day! And if some of us want the simulation to feel more like baseball, or at least to have reliever limits, we'll, let's create some rules we like---and go out and play some ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Chompksy

I don't have a problem with Super Relievers, I would if it was a 200X game but not so much with ATG. There is a simple fix, which could probably be accomplished by the community getting together and petitioning blog boy, better yet Richman himself, for an ATG 9 repricing. There is already a cadre of community members who set the pricing for new player additions. Clearly Garcia has no interest in improving the quality of the ATG experience, if doing so involves any effort on his part. But if enough ATG consumers can speak with one voice to SOM and a group of members could be induced to undertake a repricing of the entire set, just maybe something might come of it. There is precedent for this. Nevdully's, Adrian Gabriel, Bill Janssen and I repriced the ATG3 v1 set, but that was when Bernie Hou was the point man, for ATG. Whatever his shortcomings, Bernie did care about the product and the community. I'd love to see a repricing of the '94 Expo's and 2001 Mariner additions and certainly Murray's value should be somewhere north of 7M, but also players like Gates Brown, Weintraub, Ken Smith, Speer could be relegated to an unleashed version of ATG 9. I'd also like to see some variant of usage based pricing, whereby players that never get used get their cost slashed and guys who appear in almost every league, get their prices raised accordingly. Another, additional solution, is to randomly modify existing player prices by 2-5%, just to create new values and keep the game fresh.

That said, getting the community to agree on anything is probably harder than herding cats, so the reality is there will probably be continued consumer attrition until Strat 365 is no longer financially viable and just disappears.

Addressing Coach Rich's initial post, his Big Hit's League is now in it's 5th iteration. He is still wedded to the super reliever strategy, albeit sans Murray, who is on my team. Murray is likely to get less than 250 innings for me while Rich's Burke and Moore are headed for close to 700 innings between them.

I don't think Coach Rich will win 107 games in this league though.

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/league/436577
http://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1484099

I think both Chompsky and the Last Druid both had very interesting points. I must admit I pretty much have proceeded like Chompsky has expressed "play ball" or it is what it is. However, I really like what the last Druid expressed because it stands out how the game could be improved simply by repricing and reevaluation of the existing set. There is so much dead wood for guys that where real stars and never get picked. For example(I hope I am not offending anyone), Ed Roush, Alan Trammell or Gorman Thomas. They are not competitive because of the pricing, not because they were "bad" players. For myself I really don't have the time, nor actually even the knowledge about how to reprice players. I do believe that other more experienced players who are active in the community do. So if anyone wants to grab the ball or if an existing committee is willing- I will back it.

Usage based pricing as Petrosian suggested makes absolute sense. It would solve multiple issues.

In addition perhaps a petition type campaign directed towards HAL personally would make a difference or at least be worth a shot.

As for Murray, I don't think 7 mill is enough on him. He is literally the most dangerous pitcher in the set when used as a Super Reliever. Better yet, just get rid of the card.

I have used some of what I've "learned" via the Super Reliever settings to better learn how to handle my bullpen in any situation. I've gotten solid results from a much cheaper 3 man pen such as Giusti, McBean and Pleis Which is about a $4 million dollar pen.

As for Super Relievers, until they change things, it's a to each his own type of thing.

It's the R4 more than anything that makes Murray special. Just making him an R3 would help (although personally I don't think any reliever should be more than ann R2, with the possible exception of 1974 Mike Marshall.

It's the R4 more than anything that makes Murray special. Just making him an R3 would help (although personally I don't think any reliever should be more than ann R2, with the possible exception of 1974 Mike Marshall.

Agree with everything you said (and think I said it earlier in the thread possibly). Make everyone an R2 and problem solved. Teams would need more relievers which would solve the problem.

Love the Mike Marshall comment.