Theres three types of owners that have emerged from this discussion.

Type A: Drafts very few innings and uses heavily fatigued players. (Grizzly_One)
Type B: People who know the correct amount of innings to draft to have non-fatigued pitchers in all 162 games.
Type C: People with zero research/ trial and error skills or with zero desire to think, who draft too many innings.

Type A composes about 5% of players in OLs and CLs.
Types B and C are probably an even split.

Type C's are under the dillusion that all non-type C's fall under the type A category. They don't realize that they are just stupid for drafting too many innings all this time.

Following boogerlips poll: I play in Wrigley or AFC (+2 each) and the only pitcher that ever comes in fatigued is my mop, who may or may not be fatigued, but I allow him to pitch fatigued, and always target 1,200 IP... but, as I posted back on page two, when you factor in AAA and your 10%, 1,150 isn't really much of a stretch either. The only reason to go to 1,250 for the minimum is to alter ballpark usage. 1,150 would satisfy the answer to the question of curbing fatigue strategies, and 900 would protect newbies from themselves.

The flaws in the system can and will still be manipulated even if the minimum is set 1,400 IP, which is why I questioned the introduction of the minimum at all, especially with the advent of a fix to the flawed system coming in short order.

[EDITED for readability]

The poll asks how many you can draft and still pitch unfatigued. If you don't use fatigued pitchers on your teams, then update your post please.

Curious to see where you place me in that list.

I'm certainly not an A

I generally play in relatively neutral parks (I like Polo Grounds V, Olympic, Jacobs). When I have AAA, I generally have between 1200 - 1250 IP.

But I never play a tired pitcher (below 98%), nor do I ever start a Hi West type.

So does that put me in B or C?

Let me also say that I don't have the time to micro-manage a team. So it's a set and go kind of thing to me. That probably costs me a few IP over the course of a season.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By biglenr on 10/14/2009

Curious to see where you place me in that list.

So does that put me in B or C?

I'm only familiar with Polo Gs from your list. You need 1175 IP to pitch 162 unfatigued games in a -1 park. You fall under C by a bit.

Your lack of micromanaging time doesn't effect IPs that I'm aware of.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

I updated my previous post for your poll....

Quote: Originally posted by biglenr on 10/14/2009Curious to see where you place me in that list.  I'm certainly not an AI generally play in relatively neutral parks (I like Polo Grounds V, Olympic, Jacobs).  When I have AAA, I generally have between 1200 - 1250 IP.  But I never play a tired pitcher (below 98%), nor do I ever start a Hi West type.  So does that put me in B or C?Let me also say that I don't have the time to micro-manage a team.  So it's a set and go kind of thing to me.  That probably costs me a few IP over the course of a season. 

I'm a B. I *hate* starting tired pitchers, so I work to avoid it. Then again, I nearly always draft between 1200 and 1300 IP so it works out fine.

Regarding our point-by-point... Fair enough on all counts. We disagree about most. I'd like to clarify that "screw the noobs" isn't a malicious comment. If a noob feels it's brilliant to draft 1050 IP and has a terrible (but not league- or division-breaking) team, so be it.

Then again, I also tend to micromanage.

I've been through many of these "major" updates and, in one respect, they are all the same. Admin changes something and the forums light up with "this is a horrible, unnecessary update feature" threads. People toss their opinions around like grenades and make sure to point out that the people who disagree don't know how to play the game nearly as well as they do. Then we play in the new system for a while (and sometimes admin tweaks things here and there to correct obvious programming bugs) and then everything settles down and life goes on much the same as it was before. Here I guess this new requirement "reduces the strategies available to good managers" if you oppose the new minimum and "closes a loophole" if you like it.

Me? I don't care one way or the other and I truly doubt it will make much difference to anyone who has taken time to post in this debate. The low IP guys will end up with about 500K less to spend on their offense than before because they'll have to draft more scrub IP. I can't see that as much of a difference maker. The guys who already draft more won't be affected at all. So why all the fuss?

Then again, I generally draft significantly more than the new minimum IP. From a close review of the prior postings I now know that this means I'm stupid. The truth is I've always suspected as much but at least now I have confirmation so I've probably gotten more out of this debate than most. lol

Pitching prices as a whole seem to have gone down so it should still be possible to pay the same price for more innings.

damn some of these pitching prices are crazy....7.9 milliion for 64 Horlen.