Who knows how many people put that in their survey. It might have been only 10 people so they decided it was significant

I don't like the pitch count min for starting pitchers. I utilize tandem starters for ST for relief pitchers, and for some, 40 pitches may be too much.

Everything else seems spot on.

I agree that 75% seems a bit high, but it could just be that I'm used to coach hiring the way it is where no one seems to stay. I'm open to see how that plays out though.

I really don't like the pitch count min for starting pitchers. I'm generally opposed to restrictions on how we use players, even if imposed in the name of "realism." If I want to play a DH at catcher, even if it's not realistic, this is WhatIf sports and I like that I'm able to do that. Similarly, I like having wholesale defensive replacements if up 1 in the 7th (how often do you see that in RL?) or trying to run an entire staff full of relief pitchers.

I agree with the pitch count minimum ctiricisms, but I think I can see why it was put in-- so that owners could no longer put in, for example, a LHP against a platoon-heavy lineup, let him go for one batter, and then sneak in the "real" pitcher who's right-handed. So if you start a pitcher, unless he pitches terribly and gets pulled early, he is going to have to go through the lineup at least once. So I do like that aspect, even though the tradeoff is that owners get less control over their tandems.

Speaking of tandems, though, are they EVER going to fix them? Tandem 5 and Tandem 6 have never been available, and there is no reason at all to force owners to make tandem starters the last starters in the rotation; both of these fixes would be welcome additions.

Posted by prezuiwf on 6/22/2010 2:54:00 PM (view original):
I agree with the pitch count minimum ctiricisms, but I think I can see why it was put in-- so that owners could no longer put in, for example, a LHP against a platoon-heavy lineup, let him go for one batter, and then sneak in the "real" pitcher who's right-handed. So if you start a pitcher, unless he pitches terribly and gets pulled early, he is going to have to go through the lineup at least once. So I do like that aspect, even though the tradeoff is that owners get less control over their tandems.

Speaking of tandems, though, are they EVER going to fix them? Tandem 5 and Tandem 6 have never been available, and there is no reason at all to force owners to make tandem starters the last starters in the rotation; both of these fixes would be welcome additions.

I could understand that, even if I don't necessarily agree with it, but they didn't even limit it to just tandem SP with a minimum PC. If they are really worried about the LH for one batter 1B then RH SP as 1B, and they feel it is worth taking some control from managers, at least make it narrowly tailored enough to address that concern while having as little additional impact as possible. Have Tandem 1A pitchers have a minimum PC, rather than every SP.

Posted by dmurphy104 on 6/22/2010 3:00:00 PM (view original):
You could still create the same situation with a SP1 if you set him to a 5 pc, and have your relievers prioritized to bring in an opposite throwing long reliever next.

In theory, yes, if you played a 1-game season. In reality, though, you'd have to be able to account for fatigue from game to game and make sure that long reliever wasn't used the game before, etc. Tandem allows you to determine exactly who is coming in when.

I like it. Every year in the playoffs I get a manager trying to game the platoon system by throwing a lefty for 5 pitches and then bringing in their starter. You can't react in-game so it was an unfair advantage.

Posted by zbrent716 on 6/22/2010 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dmurphy104 on 6/22/2010 3:00:00 PM (view original):
You could still create the same situation with a SP1 if you set him to a 5 pc, and have your relievers prioritized to bring in an opposite throwing long reliever next.

In theory, yes, if you played a 1-game season. In reality, though, you'd have to be able to account for fatigue from game to game and make sure that long reliever wasn't used the game before, etc. Tandem allows you to determine exactly who is coming in when.

Some people have the time to do that. Put the guys who would be your B tandems on rest when its not their turn. Put them as LRA, inning available ANY when it is their turn, and have everybody else available later.

Back to loyalty; I think it works because you're still going to have coaches $$ demands and requests for level changes to deal with, so I don't think it's a case of a lock in knowing the budget the year before.

Hard to visualize it abstractly. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Posted by WiredTiger on 6/22/2010 3:04:00 PM (view original):
I like it. Every year in the playoffs I get a manager trying to game the platoon system by throwing a lefty for 5 pitches and then bringing in their starter. You can't react in-game so it was an unfair advantage.

You can't see who is starting in advance?

Either 1) the LH "SP" is a specialist (fatigue-wise) and it's your own fault for not bothering to check that or 2) the opposing manager is making a strategic decision to sacrifice the availability of a second legit SP to counter your own strategy of having a platoon-laden team.

OK, then the guy sets up t1a for 100 pitches, and the opponent reacts by starting the opposite lineup when T1b doesnt come in until the 8th inning set with a pitch count of 5.

Posted by prezuiwf on 6/22/2010 2:54:00 PM (view original):
I agree with the pitch count minimum ctiricisms, but I think I can see why it was put in-- so that owners could no longer put in, for example, a LHP against a platoon-heavy lineup, let him go for one batter, and then sneak in the "real" pitcher who's right-handed. So if you start a pitcher, unless he pitches terribly and gets pulled early, he is going to have to go through the lineup at least once. So I do like that aspect, even though the tradeoff is that owners get less control over their tandems.

Speaking of tandems, though, are they EVER going to fix them? Tandem 5 and Tandem 6 have never been available, and there is no reason at all to force owners to make tandem starters the last starters in the rotation; both of these fixes would be welcome additions.

There should never be a tandem 5 or 6. EVER.

In truth, there's nothing unrealistic about a 40 PC for a starting pitcher.     Some people may think it reduces their options, and it does, but you really shouldn't have an option where you don't expect your SP to finish 3 innings.

Posted by WiredTiger on 6/22/2010 3:04:00 PM (view original):
I like it. Every year in the playoffs I get a manager trying to game the platoon system by throwing a lefty for 5 pitches and then bringing in their starter. You can't react in-game so it was an unfair advantage.

Every year?  What kind of bush league are you playing in?