Hey Frankie T and Nevdully's

Frankie and Nev - Would it be worthwhile to put up a poll that has the choice vs. choice as follows?

A - ATG9 is great and should proceed AS-IS.

B - ATG9 would be better if we reverted back to the ATG8 pitching engine and bullpen options, but keep the ATG9 price increases to discourage over use of relievers.

THEN - if 75% + of the community chooses Option "B" then perhaps SOM would need to consider the community's opinion on the matter......just thinking out loud.

Yes, RPs could and would be abused from time to time, but at a significant salary hit.....at least we could have the better understanding of a slightly more transparent and predictable pitching engine??

It can't hurt. I think at least if enough respondents reply here, then maybe SOM would want to expand a narrowly scoped survey on the topic to the community via email to their ATG customers. Maybe anyone who has an active ATG team or something.

I only say it that way because some people don't follow the boards, and I think a message board survey is a good first scan of perception, and then SOM can take it the rest of the way before considering a change.

why not both options? like DH or no DH, injury option like the Daily Game, Drop%, etc.?

why not both options? like DH or no DH, injury option like the Daily Game, Drop%, etc.?

I think your idea is very good. Let's eat the elephant one bite at a time. If the community wants to go with going back to ATG8 pitching engine, then I think your idea would be optimal to be able to toggle the choice when setting up the league.

Thanks for the idea.

For the time being, let's keep this topic focused.

The v3 bullpen engine has not gotten a fair shake - no one has truly exercised it because it is mismatched with the reliever reprice, and the 4 studs strategy is thereby used whenever possible. Why not just reprice relievers? That should at least be one of the options.

The v3 bullpen engine has not gotten a fair shake - no one has truly exercised it because it is mismatched with the reliever reprice, and the 4 studs strategy is thereby used whenever possible. Why not just reprice relievers? That should at least be one of the options.

This makes a lot of sense. Dale Murray should not pitch 5 innings and then come back rested. But his price should have been lowered not raised

I don't claim to have the answer and I don't think any of us do, so maybe that is another option for consideration that would show SOM there is indeed an issue to begin with--problem ID first, then solution testing. Which is how it should have been in the first place.

All I do know is the current state has created a situation where most relievers are never on rosters because it is much higher value to simply save $ and abuse the starters, making up the pitching deficit with better defense, or focused relievers who have a proper supporting cast that allows them to avoid their weak side.

Seems like 75% of the pitchers--and that may even be very conservative--don't ever get used at nominal caps (ie 80-100M). Why bother having the cards then? It just makes for an unwieldy set. Many cards are very similar as it is.

I still think--for years now--the best way to cultivate interest in the ATG game is to periodically reprice based on usage at some nominal cap or average cap. With a reprice, it is almost like a new game each time because it opens new strategies and players up for consideration. And it should tend to minimize the inevitable pricing errors over time. The pricing is much improved (the present pitcher question excepted) but let's face it--there are obvious anomalies.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB


BEE

Seems like 75% of the pitchers--and that may even be very conservative--don't ever get used at nominal caps (ie 80-100M). Why bother having the cards then? It just makes for an unwieldy set. Many cards are very similar as it is.

I still think--for years now--the best way to cultivate interest in the ATG game is to periodically reprice based on usage at some nominal cap or average cap. With a reprice, it is almost like a new game each time because it opens new strategies and players up for consideration. And it should tend to minimize the inevitable pricing errors over time. The pricing is much improved (the present pitcher question excepted) but let's face it--there are obvious anomalies.

I think this is essentially correct. I do believe that ATG 9 however is better than many iterations in the past in terms of the usable pool of players. It is worse among pitchers than hitters, but even with hitters included it would be very interesting to see data on how many players are quite literally never used. I suspect your estimate is conservative--there are probably about 150 players that almost invariably end up on a standard 12 league 80 mil roster somewhere with the rest of the spots rotating through another 400-500 players.

I have suggested that the better option is to give commisioners a much freer hand when setting up leagues so they can set an array mangerial options, what roster options are on the table, etc. Let's experiement with bullpen settings, roster sizes and requirements, etc. As long as you know going into the league what the rules are.... Although it may be difficult to implement, I have also wondered if some level of dynamic pricing might be in order (every few months prices are moved up or down based on usage.)

Frankie and Nev - Would it be worthwhile to put up a poll that has the choice vs. choice as follows?

A - ATG9 is great and should proceed AS-IS.

B - ATG9 would be better if we reverted back to the ATG8 pitching engine and bullpen options, but keep the ATG9 price increases to discourage over use of relievers.

THEN - if 75% + of the community chooses Option "B" then perhaps SOM would need to consider the community's opinion on the matter......just thinking out loud.

Yes, RPs could and would be abused from time to time, but at a significant salary hit.....at least we could have the better understanding of a slightly more transparent and predictable pitching engine??

Start Poll...