Ego Management in the Bullpen

[RBI Baseball]

I'm starting a new season, and I've managed to put together a pretty loaded bullpen, including Raisel Iglesias, Craig Kimbrel, Hector Neris, Liam Hendriks, and Taylor Rogers. All five expect to be the closer, which I expect to become a morale problem. Iglesias is currently slotted as the closer in my depth chart, but the depth chart is meaningless because I manage every game, and there will be plenty of high leverage work to go around.

My question: Will the official depth chart determine their "Team Role" morale, or can I spread the saves around to keep everyone happy-ish? Would I be better off setting everyone's role to "None Specified", since I make usage decisions in-game anyway, or would that just make 5 unhappy wannabe closers instead of 4?

[slugga27]

My experience is that having multiple wannabe closers is a bad idea. I traded for Kimbrel once, but I already had a closer. He soon requested a trade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Syd Thrift]

Generally speaking, as long as you're winning, players won't complain too much. You can use guys who want to start and sometimes even play in the middle of the order as pinch-hitters if you're winning 100 games a year and the same goes for the bullpen.

If you're not, I think your first priority should really be to maximize the number of wins you get out of that 'pen and then trade away the people who get too salty, but if you *really* want to cheese the chemistry dynamic, I think what's going to happen is that if you swap out your closers every week you're going to see everyone who wants to be a closer get progressively more angry every week that they aren't one than happy every week they are. In the long term this isn't going to work. In the short term, like over the course of one year, maybe you can keep everyone from being flat out angry, at least as long as you're winning pretty often.

Oh yeah, another thing: IME guys care more about when they're used, not their title. If you're letting your manager play out games then they'll be more or less one and the same (although IME also the manager will sometimes override the role decisions you make for the smallest of reasons, like if it thinks your middle reliever is better than your setup man and your setup man is even a little bit tired, it'll use the MR). On the other hand, if you're managing the games, just naming a guy your closer won't be enough - you have to actually use that player in save situations in order for them to gain contentment.

The other thing there is that a team that isn't taking chemistry hits for other reasons isn't as likely to have people get full-on angry with stuff like bullpen roles. That works both ways - if you have an 85 win team with 3 Outspoken players and 2 Malcontents, you'll probably get guys angry in the 'pen even if they're in exactly the role they want to be in for the entire season. On the other hand, having an otherwise happy team can make those role-related hits come less often.

[Syd Thrift]

dola,

Originally Posted by slugga27

My experience is that having multiple wannabe closers is a bad idea. I traded for Kimbrel once, but I already had a closer. He soon requested a trade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, for all my WALL OF TEXT, I think I forgot to point out that IME players lose happiness for being in the wrong role much, much more quickly than they gain it back for being in the right one.

[RBI Baseball]

Originally Posted by slugga27

My experience is that having multiple wannabe closers is a bad idea. I traded for Kimbrel once, but I already had a closer. He soon requested a trade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's where this seems to be going, which is unfortunate. My starters are decent, but I find the third time through the order penalty to be quite onerous, and I aim for 5 innings out of them. The guy who pitches the 6th inning with a 2-1 lead with the heart of the opponent's order coming up for the third time is doing very important work that I'm willing to pay for accordingly, but they all want the 9th.

[RBI Baseball]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Generally speaking, as long as you're winning, players won't complain too much. You can use guys who want to start and sometimes even play in the middle of the order as pinch-hitters if you're winning 100 games a year and the same goes for the bullpen.

If you're not, I think your first priority should really be to maximize the number of wins you get out of that 'pen and then trade away the people who get too salty, but if you *really* want to cheese the chemistry dynamic, I think what's going to happen is that if you swap out your closers every week you're going to see everyone who wants to be a closer get progressively more angry every week that they aren't one than happy every week they are. In the long term this isn't going to work. In the short term, like over the course of one year, maybe you can keep everyone from being flat out angry, at least as long as you're winning pretty often.

Oh yeah, another thing: IME guys care more about when they're used, not their title. If you're letting your manager play out games then they'll be more or less one and the same (although IME also the manager will sometimes override the role decisions you make for the smallest of reasons, like if it thinks your middle reliever is better than your setup man and your setup man is even a little bit tired, it'll use the MR). On the other hand, if you're managing the games, just naming a guy your closer won't be enough - you have to actually use that player in save situations in order for them to gain contentment.

The other thing there is that a team that isn't taking chemistry hits for other reasons isn't as likely to have people get full-on angry with stuff like bullpen roles. That works both ways - if you have an 85 win team with 3 Outspoken players and 2 Malcontents, you'll probably get guys angry in the 'pen even if they're in exactly the role they want to be in for the entire season. On the other hand, having an otherwise happy team can make those role-related hits come less often.

That makes sense. If we're winning and they are performing well, they can probably be unhappy with their role and happy overall. If they're unhappy with the team or individual performance as well, chances are my morale will be low too, and I'll be the one requesting a trade for them. They all have one or two years of control left, which will make them the first guys to go if this season isn't working out.