PING mtw

Iffy_Boatrace · 08-22-2003, 09:25 PM

You mentioned that you only have SPs on your pitching roster. 2 Questions:

Why do you do this?

Is your pitching payroll HUGE?

mtw · 08-22-2003, 10:41 PM

Why do you do this?

Playing in a deadball league, I did not want middle relievers or closers, as such roles effectively did not exist until the 1920's, and then only in limited instances.

If an OOTP roster contains middle relievers or closers, those pitchers will take up the primary bullpen roles, even if there are better rated starting pitchers available. By eliminating closers and middle relievers, I accomplished two things--1) only the best pitchers are in the majors, as there is only one pitching role, not three, so the best pitcher on a roster is the number one starter and the worst the last guy in the pen (a typical AI staff contains 7-10 pitchers), as it would have been in those days.

The second thing I accomplished was to have several pitchers wind up with both starts and relief appearances--a little statistical eye candy, if you will, for deadball enthusiasts. Before 5.12 this was even more true, as the AI's number 1 starter would also be the closer, so the staff ace would also wind up with a few saves. With 5.12, the spot starter is the closer.

The system is hardly perfect, as many pitchers will still go the season without a relief appearance, or will pitch in many games without making a start, something that wouldn't have happened in those days. But the result IMO is a still better than having all three pitching roles.

--BTW, I don't actually delete closers and middle relievers. As, initially as an experiment, and now out of habit, I change their primary position to DH and train them at positions in the field during spring training and during the season in the minors. So far, none of these pitchers--after many seasons--has developed into a major league caliber player, and only a couple have legimately reached AAA.

Is your pitching payroll HUGE?

Short answer: No.

Long version: This is a bit of a sore spot for me. The OOTP financial growth system basically puts into play team finances comparable to modern day, but player salaries are only that from the early- to mid-90's (except for the Hall of Fame type players, and first year players). So despite this, many pitchers posting gaudy ratings and stats are paid only a fraction of what they should be. This could possibly be due to the number of high quality pitchers in the league (a typical starting rotation boasts 2-3 No.1 starters according to the player scouting reports). Perhaps the high talent level dilutes the amount paid for an individual player, but my forays into testing this do not seem to support this idea.

The problem that results is that the low payroll means that money is never a factor in team roster decisions, unless I edit each team's finances.

08-22-2003, 09:25 PM	#1
Iffy_Boatrace Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 43	PING mtw You mentioned that you only have SPs on your pitching roster. 2 Questions: Why do you do this? Is your pitching payroll HUGE?

08-22-2003, 10:41 PM	#2
mtw All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 653	Why do you do this? Playing in a deadball league, I did not want middle relievers or closers, as such roles effectively did not exist until the 1920's, and then only in limited instances. If an OOTP roster contains middle relievers or closers, those pitchers will take up the primary bullpen roles, even if there are better rated starting pitchers available. By eliminating closers and middle relievers, I accomplished two things--1) only the best pitchers are in the majors, as there is only one pitching role, not three, so the best pitcher on a roster is the number one starter and the worst the last guy in the pen (a typical AI staff contains 7-10 pitchers), as it would have been in those days. The second thing I accomplished was to have several pitchers wind up with both starts and relief appearances--a little statistical eye candy, if you will, for deadball enthusiasts. Before 5.12 this was even more true, as the AI's number 1 starter would also be the closer, so the staff ace would also wind up with a few saves. With 5.12, the spot starter is the closer. The system is hardly perfect, as many pitchers will still go the season without a relief appearance, or will pitch in many games without making a start, something that wouldn't have happened in those days. But the result IMO is a still better than having all three pitching roles. --BTW, I don't actually delete closers and middle relievers. As, initially as an experiment, and now out of habit, I change their primary position to DH and train them at positions in the field during spring training and during the season in the minors. So far, none of these pitchers--after many seasons--has developed into a major league caliber player, and only a couple have legimately reached AAA. Is your pitching payroll HUGE? Short answer: No. Long version: This is a bit of a sore spot for me. The OOTP financial growth system basically puts into play team finances comparable to modern day, but player salaries are only that from the early- to mid-90's (except for the Hall of Fame type players, and first year players). So despite this, many pitchers posting gaudy ratings and stats are paid only a fraction of what they should be. This could possibly be due to the number of high quality pitchers in the league (a typical starting rotation boasts 2-3 No.1 starters according to the player scouting reports). Perhaps the high talent level dilutes the amount paid for an individual player, but my forays into testing this do not seem to support this idea. The problem that results is that the low payroll means that money is never a factor in team roster decisions, unless I edit each team's finances. __________________ Over-Zealous Apologist