Quote: Originally Posted By schwarze on 10/14/2009What some people call "taking away managing skills", others call "closing game-play loopholes." Drafting 1000 innings and getting away with it is taking advantage of a loophole, in my opinion.

Those that don't like the minimums can start a Theme League and set minimums to none. You can set all the theme league rules the same as open rules with the one exception. You can call the league "The No-Min IP Loophole League".

Of course, this probably won't happen, b/c those that like to take advantage of this don't want to play against others who also take advantage of this...

Quote: i dont know if its there yet, but it is going there (like HBD from what i hear).
even still, in the example above, this year:
Rockies threw 23119 pitches over 1438 innings for 16.08 pitches per inning.

Padres threw 24468 pitches over 1450 innings for 16.87 pitches per inning.

there is just no consistent real life example to show that teams in pitching parks need to throw fewer pitches to get through innings. the alternative to the minimums if to lessen the effects of the parks themselves, and i think that would eliminate a lot more strategic options

Quote: Originally Posted By schwarze on 10/14/2009What some people call "taking away managing skills", others call "closing game-play loopholes." Drafting 1000 innings and getting away with it is taking advantage of a loophole, in my opinion.

Those that don't like the minimums can start a Theme League and set minimums to none. You can set all the theme league rules the same as open rules with the one exception. You can call the league "The No-Min IP Loophole League".

Of course, this probably won't happen, b/c those that like to take advantage of this don't want to play against others who also take advantage of this...

Quote: Originally posted by toddcommish on 10/14/2009
The fatigue/low-IP strategy was developed to take advantage of open leagues and the n00bs.  Now the loophole that allowed it will be closed.And in a few months, there will be a new adaptation to some new loophole that is discovered.  Mutate and survive.

I hate to make this a big post, but you gave me a point for point rebuttal, so I wanted to expand on that. I'm not insulting your opinions, just making an argument that reaches different conclusions from yours.



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




1. Only affects Open and Champs leagues, go play a Theme
I can go play a Theme League if I want, sure... but "If you don't like it, get out" isn't very persuasive, as arguments go.

True. However, that's the way it is. The sim has a lot of features that aren't available to open/champions leagues though... Unlimited live play, career seasons, the DH, WAA AAA, pick-yer-own AAA, different salary caps, no injuries, later trading deadlines, etc. Each of them calls for unique strategies to use them well. As of tomorrow, using fewer than 1250 IP falls into the same category... If you want to use that strategy, you'll need to play in a theme league that allows it. Some of those features were part of the sim before they were sent to the theme league only universe

2. It's only too low if you're using a semi-fatigue strategy
I don't buy this. I usually play in neutralish parks that harm triples and encourage something else. I never draft 1300 keepable innings. I aim for the 1200-1250 range. With judicious use of AAA - not throwing games - I have no problem getting through a season. If I used a serious pitchers' park, there's no way I'd need 1250 RL innings. This is important, and it gets overlooked a lot: The most important factor in the number of innings you can get out of a pitcher is the quality of that pitcher. The better he is at preventing baserunners, the fewer pitches he'll use to finish innings. It doesn't have to be any kind of fatigue strategy.

Who said anything about 1300 KEEPABLE innings? 1250 IP is the new requirement. Those innings can be as bad or good as you want them to be. They don't need to be superstar IP.

I think our core disagreement here is that you believe that it is normal that if you buy 200 IP of a great pitcher you can get more sim IP out of him than if you buy 200 IP out of a journeyman hack. I see that as a loophole. You pay for 200 (220 with the 10% bonus) IP, you should be able to get that without fatigue, regardless of what pitcher you use, and what park. And not 240 IP, just 220. Again, the fix to this will be coming in the not-that-distant future, you might as well get used to more IP today. Fatigue effects are also going to get a lot stronger than they are today.

3. Low BB, low K pitchers in pitchers' parks are a loophole to be closed
If fielding works anywhere close to correctly, low-BB, low-K pitchers throwing fewer pitches is not a loophole. It's reality. They just do throw fewer pitches. If they do that in a low-hit environment, that's not a problem. It's just a thing that's true.

This is the same issue... We're agreeing that the pitcher should throw fewer pitches per inning, but I consider it a bug that he should have more innings to throw because of that. And again, it is changing. If in real life, he's a low BB/low K pitcher who played in a pitchers park, you're essentially double dipping by getting more IP from him in the sim. Again... You pay for a pitcher by IP, not by PC. The way he is used is a loophole that is being closed.

4.1 Noobs
Screw the newbies. Seriously. If the noob didn't read anything about the game before he tried to put a team together, that shouldn't affect how I have to draft my team. I want a floor, at about 1000. That's more "protection" than anyone deserves.


Well, obviously, I disagree with you here. One of the things I've done on this site is to try to help newbies get up to speed as quickly as possible. Why? Because I don't enjoy winning against weak competition, and because newbies are the lifeblood of this site. A lot of the great owners I played against when I was a newbie are not that active any longer, somebody has to come up to replace them.


4.2 Fatiguers again
Excellent! I agree! However, you're handicapping lots of other players (and it is a handicap) in order to... maybe hamper the strategy. If grizzly or somebody drafts a Gilmore or two to meet the minimum, he's just gonna put Bill Bergen (what's his new $?) at C and draft the rest of his team like he did before.

At this point, the rules are only a mild nuisance to the fatigue guys. But a journey of 1000 miles cliche comes in here... You have to start somewhere.

Quote: Originally Posted By just4me on 10/14/2009

Quote: Originally posted by toddcommish on 10/14/2009
The fatigue/low-IP strategy was developed to take advantage of open leagues and the n00bs. Now the loophole that allowed it will be closed


And in a few months, there will be a new adaptation to some new loophole that is discovered. Mutate and survive.

Nope, that may be what it is mostly used for today by copycat owners, but it was developed as a way to compete against top owners in challenging theme leagues. In the first 5 leagues I experimented with the idea, only two were OL (before champs leagues existed). Two of the theme leagues were basically champs leagues which is why I thought they'd be a great place to try it. Also note, that the fatigue strategy is used regularly in champs leagues as well. It's a game winning strategy, not a strategy to take advantage of other owners, but of the flaws in the system.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 10/14/2009I find it incredible that you (collective you, not j4m specifically) can admit you're taking advantage of what you yourself call flaws in the system and yet not want those flaws to be corrected. In general fixing "flaws" would be considered a good thing..

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

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 10/14/2009
I find it incredible that you (collective you, not j4m specifically) can admit you're taking advantage of what you yourself call flaws in the system and yet not want those flaws to be corrected. In general fixing "flaws" would be considered a good thing...

That's because they'd lose their advantage over those who don't know about the flaws.