The Big Picture: The Pitching Issue with ATG9

So in a way, I’m completely in agreement that Strat should stop trying to manipulate the pitcher rules in order to create “realism” to the managers eye, simply let the pricing correct any unsatisfactory inbalances, and just accept the fact that the numbers in no way, shape, or form will ever appear “realistic”.

I think the pricing should be the squelch knob. All else should be changed only with compelling evidence and understanding of the change for things that cannot be altered by pricing into the model.

Say Strat reverts to v2 - then what? Stay with v2 forever? Strat took a stab at dealing with the complaints about v2. Unfortunately, the pricing is out of whack, so current strategy dictates avoiding v3 altogether.

The Big Picture should be about fixing the bullpen engine, not reverting to an old one because people like the old issues better than the new ones.

One last time, and then I'm done with this topic since the poll (which for some reason does not include a "reprice only" option) indicates 90% want to go back to v2:

No one has truly exercised v3 because it is mismatched with the reliever reprice. The nuances and viable strategies will not be uncovered unless and until a reprice is done. Strat should start there.

My thought is simple:

Realism = Meaningless
Managers ability to control the BP as close to playing the actual dice game = As good as it gets

This necessitates transparent controls.

OK fellas...finally a nice warm day in New Castle IN. After a round of golf and a FEW beverages (85...need to work on hitting a few more greens...or less beverages... ), I'm going to weigh in with a different viewpoint.

I've never cared if someone wanted to use the super reliever strategy. I used and still do use the super starter strategy. Works on occasion, doesn't on most, but hey...it's MY dollar, which keeps the game going to begin with...

Do I want to go back to an older version of BP strategy..YES. So, I want to set a certain RP in 4 different roles, if he's used in one of the first couple roles, he's not going to be available for the last couple in certain games. So I need a second or third guy to also fill those roles if necessary.

I think that there are a couple things being over looked here:
Relief ratings and hitter prices..

A few examples:

1. Sutter pitched 1.73 per relief app in real life. Rated an R3
Murray 2.16 R4
Burke 1.65 R3
Wilhelm 2.18 R4
Shultz 1.63 R3
Smith 1.57 R3
Sanders 1.85 R3

Why are all these guys rated over a full inning more than they actually pitched in real life???

2. I think that this is a hitters game with all the favorable BP towards hitting.

Why not raise prices on some hitters considerably?

Bonds 90-100 HR in every league...pay an extra 3-5M for that
McGwire.. 2-3M
Greenberg (8.97) should be 10M+
Trosky Sr (7.74) 9M+ how many other 2b will give you 60 HR not named Dihigo
Kiner 60 HR in any park 10M+
Mathews (7.79) 60+ HR...9M+

Could go on...

It's two fold:
1. Make the offense a little more where you might have to have one or two weak spots in the lineup
2. Adjust the RP ratings to be more close to actual life

We will never in this game be close to realistic because of the mix of eras but in my beverage induced opinion, this could help..

I will say that I do not like the 10 pitcher requirement. We have SP who pitched well over 300 IP, why should I be required to carry 5 SP??? Makes absolutely no sense. Go back to 8 pitchers if wanted, 3 RP only. Why can't I have my best pitchers going against the best hitters???

I do love the Do not use before the 9th option...that's a no brainer.

Love you all and look forward to you kicking my ass in future leagues!!

Tim

A beverage and jazz induced thumbs up dude!!!!

Epic Tim...thanks for bringin da love

My thought is simple:
Realism = Meaningless
Managers ability to control the BP as close to playing the actual dice game = As good as it gets
This necessitates transparent controls.

Agree

Say Strat reverts to v2 - then what? Stay with v2 forever? Strat took a stab at dealing with the complaints about v2. Unfortunately, the pricing is out of whack, so current strategy dictates avoiding v3 altogether.
The Big Picture should be about fixing the bullpen engine, not reverting to an old one because people like the old issues better than the new ones.
One last time, and then I'm done with this topic since the poll (which for some reason does not include a "reprice only" option)

sjudd, I hope it isn't a last time for you engaging on this topic. The last thing we need is a small vocal plurality driving everything. That seems to be the way around here for quite some time.
Still--I would hope the poll is still simply an acknowledgement of a problem if the results are split. Then, it can be assessed by SOM in a next step, with solutions and tradeoffs considered. Hopefully. Because fire-ready-aim is what got us here.

I agree completely on the repricing part--I think that repricing should ALWAYS be option 1 because that is unique to the online game--use the online game's unique features to mitigate the online game's unique problems. I am not sure what you mean about the bullpen algorithm--this is unique to the online game and I don't think we need to continually make updates to the algorithms that change the nature of the sim from its core and add more elements of reduced in-game managerial controls via black box methods.

I think most, if not all, issues that have ever arisen with playability can be mitigated with repricing. But in this case, the changes from v2 to v3 also inhibited managerial controls artificially and there are many lacking interface items (like do not use before the 9th) that are absent for no good reason. But a caveat--we need to remember pricing is not done in isolation--it is all relative. And of course, if not done smartly, it can cause problems at certain caps. But the beauty of repricing errors is they can be changed without altering the game engine.

I think having the game in its purest form, or as Salt put it--closest to the ideal of a face-to-face--is the aimpoint. It can't ever be 100% aligned, but we should always ask why we are making a change to the engine. Is it something that a reprice could solve? In the case of so-called super Rs, it could.

There was an effort that went into beta testing different options back in the day....there was a group of owners who played season after season to evaluate different pricing paradigms and to test different options and provide feedback. That was a core group of very experienced owners and the information gathered was certainly worthwhile, though what was recommended vs what was implemented was certainly not in perfect alignment.
I think that it is time to do that again, to test V2 pitching with V3 pricing to see if that will address the issue. I think by the poll we can see that by a wide margin, owners prefer V2 pitching (we would like to see more owners voting on the issue) but keeping the v3 pricing. Certainly part of that is owners want a return to having more control over their bullpens, and if the super reliever issue is abated by keeping the high price of the R4 and R3 relievers, then it makes sense.
I think beta testing will bring us some additional tweaks (such as perhaps bringing down the pricing of non-R3 and R4 relievers so that they are actually used), and also to test the impact of different size pitching staff minimum requirements --per the number of "relief only" and staff size.
Though there probably are also some hitters that need value re-pricing (Bonds, Ruth, Duncan etc.)--I think fixing the pitching situation needs to come first.

Hear Hear
Preach!