Reliever Trade Value

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Painmantle

And once again, OOTP doesn't see names, there are of course exceptions to every rule, and frankly 12-13mil isn't an "elite" salary.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. No one is saying "an elite reliever is worth as much as Clayton Kershaw". I compared the value of an elite reliever to the value of Kershaw above. The reliever is obviously worth less. I was only pointing out that WAR doesn't tell the right story when you evaluate relievers.

Originally Posted by Painmantle

Plus your trade examples were all within the last 4 months, hardly enough time to justify saying it should be built into the AI of OOTP17.

They were not all from the last four months (the first Kimbrel trade), but that's not really the point. You claim there is no evidence at all that teams value elite relievers highly, I provide a fair bit of recent evidence, and now you say that I'm not providing enough evidence. That could go on indefinitely. I'm not sure what evidence it is that you're basing your opinion on, since you haven't presented any.

Originally Posted by Painmantle

My comment about Newton's law was based on the many times I've seen a Programmer (Not just OOTP) try to accomplish something with the AI that had unintended consequences elsewhere in the game.

You could have made this objection every time anyone proposed improving some aspect of the AI. Yet we have succeeded at dramatically improving the AI. Newton's laws don't apply.

Originally Posted by Painmantle

I mean how exactly would anyone who believes it need fixed suggest it be coded with regard to which Ratings and/or stats make one reliever more valuable than another in a sea of relievers with very similar numbers?

This is probably the root of our disagreement. Craig Kimbrel, Kenley Jansen, Aroldis Chapman and Wade Davis are not in a "sea of relievers with very similar numbers". They are insanely better than an average reliever. They're even insanely better than an average closer.

When you mention saves, 'clutch performance' and 'killer instinct', I have the impression you think people who disagree with you have some irrational old school attachment to closers and largely meaningless stats (saves) or mostly mythical concepts (clutch). It's the opposite, at least for some of us. A few years ago it was sabermetric dogma that relievers were fungible and that closers were overvalued. That dogma has been reassessed and revised in recent years. There is now a greater appreciation in sabermetric circles of the value of an elite bullpen arm.

[Dodgerblue]

Originally Posted by Assos

Here's the thing about the OP, it references Ken Giles. Giles is now the setup man in Houston. One can claim that Houston overvalued him for his pitching. The question is could he be a one or two year wonder? Houston was clearly dumping some failures in Appeal. The sample size is too small in this case. Does the game look at closers differently than just you run of the mill reliever? Run of the mill relievers are a dime a dozen, but a lock down closer is something that might be valued more? Or are they? Past season have shown a lot of closers have changed hands for various reasons. Chapman went for peanuts if you value closers. I know for outside reasons, but even the first trade, pre story, was not that great and Andrew Freidman is not know for giving away talent.

Your bringing a proof from the fact that Ken Giles isnt the closer? What does that have to do with his talent level? We have seen him pitch very well over the lat two years so until that changes he is still very valuable.

And you are also saying that the original Dodgers trade for Chapman was not going to give the Reds so much talent. How do you know that? The names were never released so unless you work for one of their front offices I would not just make blanket statements without backing to support your claim.

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by injury log

This is probably the root of our disagreement. Craig Kimbrel, Kenley Jansen, Aroldis Chapman and Wade Davis are not in a "sea of relievers with very similar numbers". They are insanely better than an average reliever. They're even insanely better than an average closer.

Just for the record I am not arguing with anyone, I'm just having a normal conversation and expressing my opinion.And the above is the basis of the point I'm trying to make, How do you tell OOTP to value the aforementioned pitchers as "More Valuable" since OOTP doesn't see names, only ratings and stats. What stat or rating do you use to declare these pitchers more valuable than other relievers without making relievers that are not in their elite category more valuable too. The whole point of my newton's law analogy is that by making those guys more valuable it could very possibly make some guys not so deserving more valuable to the game also.

What I think will happen if OOTP tried to appease this crowd that feels Relievers are too easy to hoard and some should be declared "More Valuable", is they will cause another set of people who feel that now, relievers are too hard to trade for and we end up in yet another thread having this exact same conversation with the only difference being that the OP has the opposite point of view


And like any other AI busting action in any game. you always have the option to NOT do whatever action you feel is a problem. Some times common sense is all that is really needed. If the AI was doing the same thing then I would say their is a problem, but no one has said this is a problem for the AI ran teams. Humans will always find AI busting methods, that will never stop. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

[Hammercraft]

Virtually anyone who can warm up quickly and has an out pitch can be a closer, but a lot of guys are only good for about two years in the pressure cooker. What makes some relievers more valuable than others is that they are established. Every year a group of young guys ends up in the closer role for the first time, and some of them do great in their limited chances and rack up a bunch of saves and suddenly they are legit. Established guys who can continue to pitch one dominant inning sixty times a season for multiple years become a reliable quantity in demand. Meanwhile, the all-time single season saves leader bounces from team to team at the trade deadline and gets paid a comparatively low wage.

Closers don't get paid on their ability as much as the confidence in their ability.

[Spanish Lefty]

Yes, it's one of the things that doesn't work. And it's not just reliever = 2-3 bad prospects, it's that you can trade a bad mlb reliever for a much better one (ratings and stats). It has to be solved.

[NotMuchTime]

Originally Posted by Spanish Lefty

Yes, it's one of the things that doesn't work. And it's not just reliever = 2-3 bad prospects, it's that you can trade a bad mlb reliever for a much better one (ratings and stats). It has to be solved.

I agree about it needing to be solved. It goes beyond trading, I acquired my dominate closer and two other relievers (both potential closers) in the rule 5 draft (same year). I'm going to wait for more patches before I start a new game.

[mmarra82]

I have seen as well...relievers being offered by AI for nothing. Controlling the A's right now, reach trade deadline, looking to dump Butler and his 10.0 mil contract. Cincinnati offers me there closer, who is making minimum, has 22 saves and an ERA under 2.
Have trade settings set at hard and neutral.