How Do You Evaluate Reliever Performance?

Tekulve would come in against righties and just get hammered. Sambito too. Elite general relievers, it just didn't matter. So that's when I began to wonder if I was doing something wrong and started spending more time learning the nuances of relievers. In many cases they appear better than they actually are as their role is quite volatile and prone to anomalies and short term luck. Establishing a good balance between starters and relievers is a very tricky aspect of the game. There are certain simplifications can that are viable (4 aces slow hooked to the max) but I feel this is likely not the most optimal solution possible despite it working brilliantly for many managers.

Some of this is just bad luck and how the dice fall--and as you say, losing by 2 runs or 6 all count the same. Another thing is that hitters account for 50% of the outcomes, Pitchers cards contain all the fielding chances, so their cards actually account for fewer outcomes than one might think. The 4 studs, rest duds can work and many employ it--but as with any strategy it has its flaw (i.e. fatigue sets in, then the .50 bullpen and then...).

What drives me crazy is the HAL v HAL stuff--i. e. he pulls a starter to put in the lefty specialist, then PHs a righty for the lefty leaving you with a terrible matchup, then the same thing happens for the next batter and you end up burning through your bullpen in one inning of bad matchups then the rest of the game you have some schlub getting shelled because he's the last man standing. Somehow I would love the algorithm to be able to think about who's left on the opponents bench as a factor in determining whether or not make a one AB sub.

Tekulve would come in against righties and just get hammered. Sambito too. Elite general relievers, it just didn't matter. So that's when I began to wonder if I was doing something wrong and started spending more time learning the nuances of relievers. In many cases they appear better than they actually are as their role is quite volatile and prone to anomalies and short term luck. Establishing a good balance between starters and relievers is a very tricky aspect of the game. There are certain simplifications can that are viable (4 aces slow hooked to the max) but I feel this is likely not the most optimal solution possible despite it working brilliantly for many managers.

Some of this is just bad luck and how the dice fall--and as you say, losing by 2 runs or 6 all count the same. Another thing is that hitters account for 50% of the outcomes, Pitchers cards contain all the fielding chances, so their cards actually account for fewer outcomes than one might think. The 4 studs, rest duds can work and many employ it--but as with any strategy it has its flaw (i.e. fatigue sets in, then the .50 bullpen and then...).

What drives me crazy is the HAL v HAL stuff--i. e. he pulls a starter to put in the lefty specialist, then PHs a righty for the lefty leaving you with a terrible matchup, then the same thing happens for the next batter and you end up burning through your bullpen in one inning of bad matchups then the rest of the game you have some schlub getting shelled because he's the last man standing. Somehow I would love the algorithm to be able to think about who's left on the opponents bench as a factor in determining whether or not make a one AB sub.

The only time I like HAL v HAL is when all the switching ends up with Tony Phillips catching for my opponent after pinch-hitting for the last rated catcher on his roster.
Yes, the specialist being left in to get rocked is a problem often in many situations, we don't need HAL creating more of them for us.

For what it's worth, I tend to think of this game as one that's not going be be won by getting high quality inning by inning decisions from HAL. He's going to screw things up for you and your opponent, and part of the game is to try to minimize the damage he does.

There are a few things HAL can do well, if he has enough decent options. He's actually done a good job with defensive replacements on high-cap teams when I have a lot of good players to work with. All in all, I try to keep it simple for the AI, and avoid as much HAL decision-making as I can. For example, I don't set RH / LH RP specialists, though I do set for certain pitchers to AVOID RHB or LHB, and to limit my schlub RPs to 1-2 innings and not pitch until as late as possible. That works sometimes, but far from always. And absolutely NO bunts or IBB by decent hitters (although in non-DH leagues I set my bunting at "Conservative" rather than "Extra" to allow pitchers to bunt.)

But overall, my thinking is that the game is going to be won or lost by on the larger scale: by extracting value from the players you chose and adjusting the team you drafted to take into account opposition teams and parks. I try to build an offense will have a lot of baserunners and the power to advance them, aided by as much baserunning speed as possible. (I don't put much emphasis on SB). I look for pitchers who will keep runners off base and give up as few HR as possible. I tend to put more focus on SPs than RPs, though I haven't tried 4 Aces much in ATG9. It did work for me in ATG8, but the stud SP prices are now way up.

A team built on value that achieves higher OBP & SLG than its opponents, while minimizing HAL's influence is likely to win more often than it loses. Or at least, that's been my approach.

If you stop calling yourself the Manager and see yourself more as the GM, it helps a little.

Because that’s what you really are in this setting. Draft, decide on a philosophy, and hope for the best.

Agree with PJ here, sometimes your relievers will get lit up and you need to throw out their worst outings to get a realistic gauge of effectiveness. In real life those guys will get the hook much quicker and not give up as many runs. Also you have to look at road outings that are very unfavorable to your pitchers in an unfriendly park.