ATG9 bullpen poll

You can't place you top rp in Tied n late, Behind and late, and Closer even though the difference between those three roles can be 1 skinny run. (and wouldn't create a super reliever scenario)

Not to mention paying 5+m for a top closer that is an R1 and you can't even designate him to "not come in before the 9th" subjecting your 5+m R1 closer to fatigue since the best you can assign him is "not come in before the 8th"

While the comments about reliever pricing/usage are poorly informed, there are a couple of relevant points to make in regard to this post:

#1 (Salaries of extreme platoon types) - ATG9 pricing still isn't perfect, but it's a HUUUGE improvement over ATG8. As gkhd11a pointed out, players who have extreme platoon splits tend to be under-priced.

gjhd11a's concept of limiting a team's overall "bias" is interesting, but strikes me as too complex to implement and manage. BruceF's extreme use of platoon's on his 110-win Barnstormers' team was interesting, but he's had a hard time replicating that success.

#2 (Don't Rel. B4 rules) - The game engine allows you to direct HAL to essentially, never remove your starters. Thus, you don't really need a bullpen (e.g., Labrat's 140M team that only used 40 innings of relief). Adjusting that logic would presumably require coding, but I think the game could benefit by loosening up that mechanism. IMO, a team would minimally require ~ 100 innings of relief for a season.

#3 (Starters in "emergency" relief) - With the new bullpen rules, it is now much more common for HAL to insert a starter (often the team's best starter) to finish a game where all of the other relievers have been used. The starter will come in at F4, then can start the next day at F9. That's not much of a penalty. IMO, when you reach a point in a game where you have burned through all of your relief pitchers, you should be in really big trouble! Right now, it's a bonus when HAL uses a starter in relief.

I think it was fairly clear to some of us back then as Nev said to me-
you either raise the price of the RPs OR you limit the innings but NOT BOTH-
you've just weakened pitching twice while keeping hitting the same.

So...

what Salt says......and it's already a hitters game (at least as we choose to play it) so 10-7 with 6 home runs is what we'll get plenty of.

what Salt says......and it's already a hitters game (at least as we choose to play it) so 10-7 with 6 home runs is what we'll get plenty of.

Disagree!
Recast:
"what Salt says......and it's already a hitters game (at least as we choose to play it) so 10-7 with 6 home runs is what we already get plenty of"

Not sure why a 4-starter team where those 4 guys pitch 85-90% of a team's innings, and the innings they don't pitch are blowouts after going F0, is so realistic but the relievers were just a bridge too far and had to be nerfed.

We would never allow ~40% of the position players to get 85% of the games played (or equivalently, plate appearances) at the exclusion of the other 60% of the players...not a great analogy but something for context

And BruceF has been pretty darn successful consistently from public data I can see at least. To be top ten in this tour is an accomplishment

I don't think he is an example that proves anything anyway since it is an anecdotal point, but since he has been mentioned on both sides of this, it seemed crazy to me to malign his strategy whatever it is (I am not claiming I know what it is...everyone has their own $ to pay and play how they wish)

Good managers who have been here a while are able to adapt to whatever will work with the way the valuations are set up--that's the fun.

What isn't fun is when there is one predominant strategy for half the game that is the only reliable way to succeed because everyone is competing for the same players again. Maybe we aren't all trying for the Dots Miller and Happy Felsch's anymore, but now it's those S9*s.

The cure as bad as the illness. Seems apropos

what Salt says......and it's already a hitters game (at least as we choose to play it) so 10-7 with 6 home runs is what we'll get plenty of.

Disagree!
Recast:
"what Salt says......and it's already a hitters game (at least as we choose to play it) so 10-7 with 6 home runs is what we already get plenty of"

Not sure why a 4-starter team where those 4 guys pitch 85-90% of a team's innings, and the innings they don't pitch are blowouts after going F0, is so realistic but the relievers were just a bridge too far and had to be nerfed.

We would never allow ~40% of the position players to get 85% of the games played (or equivalently, plate appearances) at the exclusion of the other 60% of the players...not a great analogy but something for context

-sort of feel like you didn't actually read what was said bc there was no mention from me of this being an issue of 'Realism'-- nor is it an issue of ability to be successful - you are giving us red herring here.

Red Herring? I agreed with nev and your comments. this was sarcasm.
The reason the bullpen changes were made was ostensibly because people were upset that it was not realistic based on thecards

Red Herring? I agreed with nev and your comments. this was sarcasm.
The reason the bullpen changes were made was ostensibly because people were upset that it was not realistic

ahh my apologies in that case- thought you were suggesting that the problem was not enough realism and inability to succeed.
perhaps I am guilty of not reading clearly enough.

alles gut.
sometimes my sarcasm is veiled too much.