"I briefly entertained using the 642 IP Lady Baldwin, but I wasn't convinced that he could get anyone out at this level. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else tried him."

KMJK4 is the only person to use the 642-IP version of Lady Baldwin. He's being used as a reliever. In 12 games (29.2 innings), Baldwin is 0-3 with a 1.85 whip and 6.07 ERA.

So far I have read all of these. Lots of good insight and a variety of strategies. For example...

- I hadn't even considered 2015 teams for the 80M league because I figured there'd be no way to make the top pitcher salaries fit. After learning I was wrong, I realized I should have at least checked and now think I'm in trouble.
- Also didn't think of a high AVG/speed team for the 140M league, but am now very interested to see if anyone could get it to work well enough for a playoff spot. How much salary is the right amount to waste on cheap K and HR guys?
- Utilizing L/R and/or park matchups for the 255M league is interesting. I thought of that but didn't build a team with it in mind due to how successful the Municipal Stadium strategy generally is. Was that a mistake?

70m
I don't know what to say about this except that I tried to pick vaguely reasonable players.

80m
Basically I searched the spreadsheet for years/franchises with reasonable pitching staffs (e.g., sorted the teams by the number of innings with #ERC < 2.8). There were few standouts, some kind of mid 60s dodgers but the offense was a bit rubbish, and then the 81 astros looking like probably the best option. The offense seemed ok but this was because I screwed it up and included some joint seasons in my first attempt. I was super greedy and went with mike schmidt as one of my additions, and then tried to basically shoehorn it around schmidt + the killer pitching staff. In hindsight it would have been reasonable to consider also potential wildcard pitchers and open up possible teams with less contrived offenses...

100m
I did the same thing as with 80m, searching the spreadsheet for candidate good quality pitching staffs (but with tighter criteria given that this theme is a whole lot more flexible). The 79--81 yankees were the clear standout here. And they seemed to have a workable offense to go with that.

110m
I had grand plans for this team, I was planning to do something really clever with picking the perfect team given that it isn't really computationally feasible to brute force. But alas I was lazy and left it to the last minute, so I ended up just going with the easiest/most obvious option. The 98--2015 dodgers. I assume that the franchise soup would produce better teams but I'm not really upset with what I ended up with.

140m
This seems like a theme that has a correct solution, I just don't know what it is. So I just tried to produce a reasonable team. Overall I think I went with too many innings and as such quality suffered. I think the last time I joined the wisc I also concluded that I had been too conservative (with quality vs innings), but somewhere along the way I forgot this.

255m
Again I think there is a correct strat here, I just don't have any idea what it is. So I gambled by prioritising hitters. And in hindsight I don't think I did that well, I took Ruth-Bonds-Mantle but probably should have taken Ruth-Bonds-Foxx-Cobb. And then of the pitchers I took I made stupid decisions (Sandy Koufax!). This team is a disaster.

Posted by schwarze on 8/7/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
"I briefly entertained using the 642 IP Lady Baldwin, but I wasn't convinced that he could get anyone out at this level. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else tried him."

KMJK4 is the only person to use the 642-IP version of Lady Baldwin. He's being used as a reliever. In 12 games (29.2 innings), Baldwin is 0-3 with a 1.85 whip and 6.07 ERA.

So, in other words, better than my Randy Johnson. Ugh.

Posted by fooolishfool on 8/7/2016 8:24:00 PM (view original):
70m
I don't know what to say about this except that I tried to pick vaguely reasonable players.

80m
Basically I searched the spreadsheet for years/franchises with reasonable pitching staffs (e.g., sorted the teams by the number of innings with #ERC < 2.8). There were few standouts, some kind of mid 60s dodgers but the offense was a bit rubbish, and then the 81 astros looking like probably the best option. The offense seemed ok but this was because I screwed it up and included some joint seasons in my first attempt. I was super greedy and went with mike schmidt as one of my additions, and then tried to basically shoehorn it around schmidt + the killer pitching staff. In hindsight it would have been reasonable to consider also potential wildcard pitchers and open up possible teams with less contrived offenses...

100m
I did the same thing as with 80m, searching the spreadsheet for candidate good quality pitching staffs (but with tighter criteria given that this theme is a whole lot more flexible). The 79--81 yankees were the clear standout here. And they seemed to have a workable offense to go with that.

110m
I had grand plans for this team, I was planning to do something really clever with picking the perfect team given that it isn't really computationally feasible to brute force. But alas I was lazy and left it to the last minute, so I ended up just going with the easiest/most obvious option. The 98--2015 dodgers. I assume that the franchise soup would produce better teams but I'm not really upset with what I ended up with.

140m
This seems like a theme that has a correct solution, I just don't know what it is. So I just tried to produce a reasonable team. Overall I think I went with too many innings and as such quality suffered. I think the last time I joined the wisc I also concluded that I had been too conservative (with quality vs innings), but somewhere along the way I forgot this.

255m
Again I think there is a correct strat here, I just don't have any idea what it is. So I gambled by prioritising hitters. And in hindsight I don't think I did that well, I took Ruth-Bonds-Mantle but probably should have taken Ruth-Bonds-Foxx-Cobb. And then of the pitchers I took I made stupid decisions (Sandy Koufax!). This team is a disaster.

I am wondering if the correct strategy for the 140 was just to draft a bunch of low-K pitchers, WHIPs be damned but can keep the ball in the park a little bit. Like Garland Braxton, Roger Wolff, Monty Stratton. That would give you an extra 10mil (?) to spend on even better offense.

Oh and draft more innings than I did.

Did anyone do that? I can't remember.

11 of the 24 who advanced to round 2 posted in this thread. Probably worth re-reading.