I’ll never play an OL because having Ruth on my team just feels better than having Marte on it. The problem with OL is you get to play none of the players that make people excited about the sport. Making salaries down to $70 million would make playing an all-time great go from bad to completely unwinnable.

Posted by DiamondJones on 3/25/2026 6:47:00 PM (view original):
I’ll never play an OL because having Ruth on my team just feels better than having Marte on it. The problem with OL is you get to play none of the players that make people excited about the sport. Making salaries down to $70 million would make playing an all-time great go from bad to completely unwinnable.

That’s not how that works… I’ve won two world series at $40m with Ruth on my roster, once with the 1918 Ruth and once with the ‘22 Ruth. Even at current inflated prices, I’ve used most Ruth seasons with success in OL. Shoot, just go halfway down the first page and you’ll see my thread where I finished .500 with a team that brought only an $8m pitching staff into an OL and had four Ruth seasons as hitters…

[Edited to add: I also used the 1899 Delahanty ($10m+) on a $40m team that made the playoffs. You can absolutely use any player at $80m.]

dynamic pricing, as implemented is the main reason it’s more challenging to use star players great seasons in OL right now, not the league cap.

Posted by DiamondJones on 3/25/2026 6:47:00 PM (view original):
I’ll never play an OL because having Ruth on my team just feels better than having Marte on it. The problem with OL is you get to play none of the players that make people excited about the sport. Making salaries down to $70 million would make playing an all-time great go from bad to completely unwinnable.

That's the benefit of OL's - you can use whoever you want - i've won 90+ and a WS using a team that featured 4 Ruth's. I didn't win, but i had a BLAST in a OL using Ruth at nearly every position. Made a lot of errors but hit a lot of HRs ha.

OLs are about having fun and trying crazy things. Not just about building the best team possible. You want that, go to theme leagues or progressives

Glad that you're having fun playing this game in that fashion.

It is one of the most unrealistic aspects of this game---- that ability to just make a mockery of real Baseball.
To me, it's just abhorrent to call a "team" with 4 Babe Ruth's and little pitching a Baseball team.
It's NOT!

Is why I will NEVER play in a League that allows clones. Why make Leagues like this?

It's OK I guess, this IS just a game. But whoever builds teams and plays Leagues with clones and crazy unrealistic approaches is NOT playing ANY form of baseball. It isn't even fantasy baseball. It's ridiculous. There has only been 1 Babe Ruth in History. Having a team with more than one is just NOT anywhere near "comparing" how differing players from differing eras would compete vs. each other. I contend it's so bizarre you can't even consider R/L performances having anything to do with results. It's Not for me. "OL's are about having fun and trying crazy things."
That may well be. But if that's what OL's are, you won't see me playing them. I thought this site was about baseball matchups, NOT ridiculous and crazy non baseball "games".
Baseball is a special game----unruined by manmade concepts like an arbitrary game length. It has balance between the differing facets of the game.
Each side gets 27 outs before it's over, you don't get deemed a loser just because you're down a run at some specific time point (60 minutes or 48 Minutes or whatever). Making a mockery of the GAME is NOT something I would tolerate and I believe that's what these goofball Leagues do. In over a hundred years there's been 1 Babe. Contemplating how 4 or 5 Babe's would do on the same team is just NOT anywhere near a realistic baseball matchup game.
It's ridiculous IMO.

End of my morning rant. Off to get a cup of Joe............. maybe that will mellow me out.