RP or CL... Any functional difference?

[jpeters1734]

Is there any actual effect of setting a player's position between RP and CL? Is it purely cosmetic? Perhaps it affects morale or expectations?

[Bobbyraz49]

Great question. ^^^^^^^^^^
I'm awaiting responses.

[Bobfather]

I think it makes a difference when simming games a closer would only be used in the 9th inning in a high leverage situation. If you go to a teams pitching page you can experiment there to see what each role does.

[ExpansionManager]

Originally Posted by Bobfather

I think it makes a difference when simming games a closer would only be used in the 9th inning in a high leverage situation. If you go to a teams pitching page you can experiment there to see what each role does.

I think the original poster was talking about set position, not role on bullpen page. I'm curious as well, if a pitcher has an expected role of "closer", which would they like more, having a listed position of closer and a role of long or middle relief, or a position of reliever but a role of closer.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by ExpansionManager

I think the original poster was talking about set position, not role on bullpen page. I'm curious as well, if a pitcher has an expected role of "closer", which would they like more, having a listed position of closer and a role of long or middle relief, or a position of reliever but a role of closer.

You are 100% correct. Definitely not asking about roles. RP isn't even a role, lol

[jaa36]

I don't think there is a difference... and honestly it's a bit annoying that the game lists them separately. A few times I've tried to sort by relievers, and check the "relievers" box instead of the "all relievers" box (which includes "closers") and end up missing 20% of the guys I'm looking for...

[panda234]

I haven't tried OOTP 26 yet, but having played through a lot of versions I've never had a problem using closers in a setup role.

[omg_pwnasaurus]

I think closers can be captains whereas relievers cannot? I forget the matrix thingy but it's posted somewhere.

[Larryk007]

I have wondered about the criteria for closers too. Seems like the game developers could give us a reason. Even the draft has pitchers identified as closers that don't look any different than relievers.

[Sweed]

I don't think it's any different than a player that wants to bat fourth for a human team where the human is making all of the decisions. Player wants closer position, you give it to him and he is happy. Don't and he may become unhappy and cause some problems on the team, along with all of the extension/file for FA consequences. Pretty much what you said, "affects morale or expectations".

As far as a closer or "normal" RP on the mound throwing pitches in a game? No difference.

[Bobfather]

The only thing I can see is on the in game substitution screen the closer is always on the bottom.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by jaa36

... and honestly it's a bit annoying that the game lists them separately. A few times I've tried to sort by relievers, and check the "relievers" box instead of the "all relievers" box (which includes "closers") and end up missing 20% of the guys I'm looking for...

Ditto. I wish they were all just listed as RPs.

[CubsFan1967]

Originally Posted by omg_pwnasaurus

I think closers can be captains whereas relievers cannot? I forget the matrix thingy but it's posted somewhere.

Correct. Closers can be team captains. Relievers can be sparkplugs. Affect on gameplay? No idea.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jaa36

I don't think there is a difference... and honestly it's a bit annoying that the game lists them separately. A few times I've tried to sort by relievers, and check the "relievers" box instead of the "all relievers" box (which includes "closers") and end up missing 20% of the guys I'm looking for...

Originally Posted by kq76

Ditto. I wish they were all just listed as RPs.

I understand your reasoning but disagree this should be changed in the game. Removing two options, all relievers and closer, means users having to build filters to have those sorts. Instead of those sorts being included in one easy to use menu, as it is now, a user has to open the filter menu, an unnecessary step IMHO. I don't know about you guys but I've built enough filters in my game that it's almost annoying opening that filter list and finding the one I want. Adding two more filters isn't going to help.


Maybe a compromise would be to have the "reliever" menu extend a new box where one specifies what pool of relivers he wants to see? It would be like picking Timeframe>month, as just one example, when sorting stats in season.

Bullpen>relievers
...........>all relievers
...........>closers

[kq76]

While I have mis-selected before, my main issue isn't the same as jaa36's.

My issue is what if you don't want to play with closers due to your league either being fictional or set in a real time before closers became popular? Too bad, you have to deal with closers whether you like it or not.

Now I don't usually play historical, but I created a 1927 league just to check this and while not every team by default has a closer, a handful do. In my fictional late 1930s league, however, almost all the teams have one. I checked the settings and in both closer usage is set to "very rarely". Why is there no "never" like there is for opener usage?

FWIW, when I checked the player expectations of the relievers in the 1927 lg, not a single one expected more than just a bullpen assignment. The first 5 closers I checked in a historical 1996 lg, however, all said they expected to be the closer (I didn't bother to check the rest, I figured 5 out of 5 was enough). That right there tells me it's not cosmetic. I also checked my fictional 1930s league and some expected to be a closer, some didn't.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by kq76

While I have mis-selected before, my main issue isn't the same as jaa36's.

My issue is what if you don't want to play with closers due to your league either being fictional or set in a real time before closers became popular? Too bad, you have to deal with closers whether you like it or not.

Now I don't usually play historical, but I created a 1927 league just to check this and while not every team by default has a closer, a handful do. In my fictional late 1930s league, however, almost all the teams have one. I checked the settings and in both closer usage is set to "very rarely". Why is there no "never" like there is for opener usage?

FWIW, when I checked the player expectations of the relievers in the 1927 lg, not a single one expected more than just a bullpen assignment. The first 5 closers I checked in a historical 1996 lg, however, all said they expected to be the closer (I didn't bother to check the rest, I figured 5 out of 5 was enough). That right there tells me it's not cosmetic. I also checked my fictional 1930s league and some expected to be a closer, some didn't.

Fair enough on the historical game issue.

[pgjocki]

The only thing I've observed is that closers get more money in arbitration and in Free Agency. Of course a lot of that comes with getting the stats of a closer which is more valued (good, bad or indifferent but the last 3 outs of the game are seen as more important than the other 24).

[jpeters1734]

Interesting, I never knew about the personality difference. If you max out personality ratings, a player set to Closer will fall into the captain class, while a Reliever will end up as a sparkplug. That feels a bit gamey to me.

Since that’s the case, is there any real downside to just setting all bullpen guys to CL? Would that boost leadership potential across the board or mess with expectations or AI handling in any unintended way? Curious if anyone’s tried it.