Posted by contrarian23 on 6/18/2013 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Assuming that's true - and I am not convinced that it is - how would you propose addressing it without having the unintended consequence of punishing owners who do a good job building an effective offense?
I know that an offense that over performs and is so effective that it racks up extra PAs is an issue since these players will get below 100 faster. Part of this answer lies in the fact that WIS has already tried to correct this by capping PAs/game for fatigue in the system and by giving us the free 10% before you hit 99 with a hitter.
My first thought is to draft extra PAs for your bench so you can rest a starter here and there. Yes, I know you are going to say this is not the most ideal because you have to spend money on bench players and that could effect your ultimate offense. But I still contend that if your ultimate offense includes multiple players playing between 92-99% that you are gaming the system currently by taking advantage of a fatigue flaw.
My second thought is to be liberal with your "rest when up/down by X runs in the X inning" settings, maybe setting this to 4 in the 6th or something. Yes, I know you are going to say that this limits your managerial options and you really hate pulling your starters because you can lose a lead late or give up the chance to come back in a game...but it does address your concern.
My third thought would be to request WIS change the PA/game cap on fatigue to the average PAs a team generates per starting position over the course of a season. Looking at the example from our league above, the team with the most runs was the Dilligafs with 1739. They had 7,474 PAs (6545 ABs + 852 BBs + 77 HBP) so let's round up to 7500. (7500/162) / 9 = 5.14 PAs per spot in the batting order per game. In MLB in 2012 there were 184179 PAs for an average of 6139 PAs/team. (6139/162) / 9 = 4.21 PAs per spot in the batting order per game.
If WIS capped fatigue levels at 5 PAs per game, you would alleviate excess fatigue for games where you score a lot of runs.
Or, if they used this information to appropriate fatigue, that would give you 810 PAs per batting order slot if they set 5 PAs/game per position as the max for a player who played 162 games. If WIS prorated this for the number of games the player played in real life, you could control fatigue pretty easily. If your player appeared in 120 games, he would get up to 600 PAs.
Another thought would be to take real life PA/G data for each player and set their fatigue on this stat. If your player had 500 PAs in 120 games, he would fatigue based on 4.17 PAs per game. This would work similarly to the in game fatigue for pitchers based on their IP/G. Doing fatigue by PA/G would be a change in the fatigue system, but might work better.
Those are some thoughts...what about yours? It is still my opinion that players playing effectively at 93% who are a full 17% over their real life PAs is broken. So is playing a player a full 162 games when he only played 120 in real life...I still think that if WIS fixed this via harsher fatigue penalties that it would make the sim more realistic.