Now that we have OLs rolling without AAA, I wanted to comment on my experience. There are 2 main drags- budget limits and fatigue.

The dynamic pricing debacle means many popular players can't be used in an $80m cap OL, especially now that rosters have lost those extra +/- 1800 PAs.

The second thing, fatigue, is a problem. Especially if you let it get away from you in the first few days. No way a new owner (OLs being where most newbies get their first sample of SLB) can sort these issues and right the ship.

If AAA are not coming back (I still don't see the problem with simply making them untradeable), perhaps the OL cap could be increased to $85m? It's kinda ok as an experienced owner to have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to cobble together a competitive team, but this can't be the experience new owners hope to find when they give this site a trial run.

I contend that current salaries of commonly used Open League players are underpriced. With $80M you can buy a roster better than many good historical teams. I think once Dynamic Pricing is restored you'll see many salaries increase. Below I give 3 examples, including 2 that won a World Series:

1967 St. Louis Cardinals $76.2M, won WS

One thing I have asked for in future updates is multiple salary caps for Open League play. If you want marquee talent, play the $100M or $120M version. If you want Walter Johnson facing Babe Ruth every game, have a $255M option.

Posted by DoctorKz on 7/19/2021 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I contend that current salaries of commonly used Open League players are underpriced. With $80M you can buy a roster better than many good historical teams. I think once Dynamic Pricing is restored you'll see many salaries increase. Below I give 3 examples, including 2 that won a World Series:

1967 St. Louis Cardinals $76.2M, won WS

2009 New York Yankees $74.9M, won WS

1968 Cincinnati Reds $70.1M

My point is that you can currently build a very good club with $80M. Perhaps not All-Star caliber, but solid clubs top to bottom with the money on hand. Most 2021 MLB clubs aren't nearly this good. Do you want realism, or top talent at every position for $80M? I say $75M would be a realistic number, given current salaries. My 2 cents

Having multiple cap options for an OL is certainly a good idea, although high caps are not appealing to me personally.

Obviously, with everyone playing with the same cap, some $80m teams are going to win the WS every time. My point is that the limits make it harder for newbies to draft historical players they want, and that it makes it more difficult to navigate fatigue. I would contend those you gave as examples are not teams the average newbie would want to draft, would know to draft, or could be competitive with in an OL. It would require serious fine tuning and management, especially those pitching staffs, and even then I'm not sure they'd get far against veteran owners with a broader knowledge of cookies (hello Ketel Marte, I'm looking at you)

Vets here like the challenge of a low-cap that makes you dig deeper and stretch IPs and PAs, and have essentially succeeded in turning OLs into their personally preferred default theme league by altering the introductory product which had been mostly static for 20 years (dynamic pricing and roster updates notwithstanding).

I don't believe that's the experience a newbie to this site is looking for in a first taste, not when all the adds drawing them here are saying "draft a team of your historical favorites and all-time greats."

Agreed. It should be posted that there are salary cap leagues north of $200M, and that $80M doesn't buy you those big named players. It's an Average Joe type league...

Also, changing cap won’t help fatigue issues, the higher cap you go, the more likely fatigue becomes an issue. People will draft same number of PA and IP, and go as low as they’re comfortable with. I’ve played in at least half a dozen to a dozen of the OL without AAA and the only teams I’ve seen dealing with fatigue are bru’s, but his had fatigue issues when we had AAA. I’ve seen more parity in general with less sub-.300 teams.

The extra $ to buy free agents also compensates for any fatigue issues.

Posted by just4me on 7/20/2021 8:49:00 PM (view original):
Also, changing cap won’t help fatigue issues, the higher cap you go, the more likely fatigue becomes an issue. People will draft same number of PA and IP, and go as low as they’re comfortable with. I’ve played in at least half a dozen to a dozen of the OL without AAA and the only teams I’ve seen dealing with fatigue are bru’s, but his had fatigue issues when we had AAA. I’ve seen more parity in general with less sub-.300 teams.

The extra $ to buy free agents also compensates for any fatigue issues.

The higher cap you go, the more likely fatigue becomes an issue? You state that as if it's an absolute... or as if you've never played in a league with a higher cap. That's a weird assertion, and one I would love to see empirical data to support.

It's bizarre to think fatigue is less of an issue after taking 1800 PAs away from your roster. Perhaps I just really don't understand how the maths work.

Has anyone ever done a park-specific chart of needed AB or IP? I feel more comfortable building with a certain IP in my first OL than where my current AB totals are prior to joining a league. In reading the forums it seems easier to understand how many IP I need based on ball park factors than AB.

Just4me has said that defensive proficiency begins to drop as soon as 99% but hitting is less prone to tapering off to 90% or below, that some of his best performances were 93 or below. Ideally you don't want to buy more than you need. I would probably start off with 640-650 in a neutral park for the top 2-3 lineup spots, adjust downward a bit for the others. Shave off what you don't need in subsequent seasons. Trial and error is needed here.
Those are probably conservative numbers, you could try 5-10% less, see how it goes. Open leagues are a good testing ground..

I've used '80 Dilone or the 542PA McGee in a top 2 in the order without serious fatigue issues. Perhaps bat them 8th or 9th occasionally to give them a bit less exposure.

In the DRAFT CENTER I have used 600 then 565 then 550 ... I had a Ruth in OF or 1B who was a 450 but that would be if i had AAA

Posted by jmcraven74 on 7/27/2021 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by just4me on 7/20/2021 8:49:00 PM (view original):
Also, changing cap won’t help fatigue issues, the higher cap you go, the more likely fatigue becomes an issue. People will draft same number of PA and IP, and go as low as they’re comfortable with. I’ve played in at least half a dozen to a dozen of the OL without AAA and the only teams I’ve seen dealing with fatigue are bru’s, but his had fatigue issues when we had AAA. I’ve seen more parity in general with less sub-.300 teams.

The extra $ to buy free agents also compensates for any fatigue issues.

The higher cap you go, the more likely fatigue becomes an issue? You state that as if it's an absolute... or as if you've never played in a league with a higher cap. That's a weird assertion, and one I would love to see empirical data to support.

It's bizarre to think fatigue is less of an issue after taking 1800 PAs away from your roster. Perhaps I just really don't understand how the maths work.

I play in pretty much all caps from $25m-$255m+

higher caps require more IP/PA because of how fatigue works. In higher cap leagues you tend to run into more teams with fatigue problems than in lower cap leagues. Even in WIS there are several experienced owners struggling with fatigue in the $90-160m leagues. Not very many fatigue issues in the $70m league.

And owners will always try to push the limits of minimum IP/PA so they can bring more quality to the table.

It’s a combination of the competitive nature and the way the fatigue model works. Higher cap = more fatigue and requires more IP/PA.

Posted by WarLeagle on 7/27/2021 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone ever done a park-specific chart of needed AB or IP? I feel more comfortable building with a certain IP in my first OL than where my current AB totals are prior to joining a league. In reading the forums it seems easier to understand how many IP I need based on ball park factors than AB.

Let me see if I can find them, there were some good ones posted years ago by boogerlips...

Posted by DoctorKz on 7/27/2021 7:31:00 PM (view original):
Just4me has said that defensive proficiency begins to drop as soon as 99% but hitting is less prone to tapering off to 90% or below, that some of his best performances were 93 or below. Ideally you don't want to buy more than you need. I would probably start off with 640-650 in a neutral park for the top 2-3 lineup spots, adjust downward a bit for the others. Shave off what you don't need in subsequent seasons. Trial and error is needed here.
Those are probably conservative numbers, you could try 5-10% less, see how it goes. Open leagues are a good testing ground..

I've used '80 Dilone or the 542PA McGee in a top 2 in the order without serious fatigue issues. Perhaps bat them 8th or 9th occasionally to give them a bit less exposure.

This is mostly correct. Fatigue impacts all facets immediately, but because of how the math works, it’s less noticeable on hitting performance than fielding performance. And for pitchers, you can control some of the most impacted variables with ballpark and defense choices to minimize those impacts, as well.

For example, .300 AVG at 90% = .3*.9= .270. Throw them in a +1B ballpark and the effect of fatigue will be even smaller because the ballpark is boosting the hits up even more.

.230 OAV at 90% = .230/.9=.256. Throw them in a -1B ballpark and reduce that further. Put A+ range behind the pitcher and it’s like he’s not fatigued at all.

.990 FLD at 90% = .99*.9=.891. Your only chance here is if it’s a modern pitcher and a modern hitter to not reduce your starting FLD even more. But you’re hurting no matter what.

The hitting and pitching stats are all derivative of AVG/OAV except for BB rate, so you can get a rough idea of the fatigue impact ahead of time.

Posted by just4me on 7/29/2021 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by WarLeagle on 7/27/2021 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone ever done a park-specific chart of needed AB or IP? I feel more comfortable building with a certain IP in my first OL than where my current AB totals are prior to joining a league. In reading the forums it seems easier to understand how many IP I need based on ball park factors than AB.

Let me see if I can find them, there were some good ones posted years ago by boogerlips...

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=398222&threadID=8045587#l_8045587

There's the link for IP based on ballpark (assumes $80m w/AAA, so add 75 IP or so). Also, there will be variance around era your pitchers are from (modern require less IP, deadball more), as well as your defensive range. But good general estimate to build around.

For PA, it’s less exact, as the run scoring propensity of your roster impacts greatly. But in general at $80m, no AAA, start at 700 PA for leadoff hitter and subtract 25PA for each spot in the lineup. Add/subtract 15 PA for each +/- you go up/down on the 1B factor. Add/subtract roughly 10% overall for a offense heavy or pitching heavy team or 20% if you go all in on offense/pitching.

As cap goes up/down I’d add/subtract 5% to IP per $10m and 2% to PA per $10m.

Also, play to your comfort level. If you’re not comfortable going that low. Adjust upward and then make rest of adjustments accordingly.