Posted by ozomatli on 6/28/2018 3:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 6/28/2018 12:46:00 AM (view original):
3 man staff is straight cheese. We want deadballers to give up more dongs, but the way the price updates are now, they’re the best value. There might be better $/IP guys, but the way I’m thinking, it’s better to draft 3 guys and have 1 clanker vs. having 2 guys, and one ends up sucking, or drafting 4 guys and hoping 3 of them do good

How does this have anything to do with the price updates? Deadballer pitchers have been the best value on this site since I joined in 2004.

The theme leagues I played, all the winning teams had Pedro and Maddux. They always outplayed the Walsh’s and the Joss’

The ‘08 Mets and ‘08 Dodgers were very popular teams to twist

Posted by mightyhalos on 6/27/2018 4:18:00 PM (view original):
I spent some time trying to figure out why my teams are so bad. I noticed my teams give up a lot of home runs although I did have a team that has given up the least amount of home runs in the league and they still suck.

Instead of looking at my teams I started looking at the teams with the best record. I noticed nearly all of them have 3 man, 350 inning pitchers from like 1910. Same teams seem to use a lot of 1910-1920 hitters as well.

I wish I didnt have to build a team like that because it seems cheesy.

I wish they could tweak it a little so that isn’t such a go to crutch for teams. I seem to gravitate to players from like 1970 on. I’m sure there is more to it and I will probably make a cheese team to see if I could have the same success.

I hear you mightlyhalos, there are def some inefficiencies in the pricing and certain types of players are consistently undervalued. That said, you can definitely still win with modern pitchers, although its tough if you don't use a home park that suppresses home runs.

I'd suggest drafting fewer innings as a starting point, at least based on your team in MLB121668, you have more than 1400 innings in a pitchers park, which is way more than you need with average AAA pitchers. If you dumped 1981 Mike Caldwell and one of your 200k scrubs and replaced them with two good relievers on the waiver wire your pitching staff would be much more formidable.

I've been using the mix-and-match rotation. A 495ip pitcher, a couple 220-280 ip pitchers, and a couple low IP who can spot start when necessary. Take value wherever you find it and sort out the rotation later.

Posted by d_rock97 on 6/28/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ozomatli on 6/28/2018 3:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 6/28/2018 12:46:00 AM (view original):
3 man staff is straight cheese. We want deadballers to give up more dongs, but the way the price updates are now, they’re the best value. There might be better $/IP guys, but the way I’m thinking, it’s better to draft 3 guys and have 1 clanker vs. having 2 guys, and one ends up sucking, or drafting 4 guys and hoping 3 of them do good

How does this have anything to do with the price updates? Deadballer pitchers have been the best value on this site since I joined in 2004.

The theme leagues I played, all the winning teams had Pedro and Maddux. They always outplayed the Walsh’s and the Joss’

only in high cap leagues. Those guys are a waste of money in normal caps.

Posted by rbow923 on 6/30/2018 10:05:00 PM (view original):
I've been using the mix-and-match rotation. A 495ip pitcher, a couple 220-280 ip pitchers, and a couple low IP who can spot start when necessary. Take value wherever you find it and sort out the rotation later.

Ha. A certain 495 IP pitcher

Posted by rbow923 on 6/30/2018 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 6/28/2018 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ozomatli on 6/28/2018 3:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 6/28/2018 12:46:00 AM (view original):
3 man staff is straight cheese. We want deadballers to give up more dongs, but the way the price updates are now, they’re the best value. There might be better $/IP guys, but the way I’m thinking, it’s better to draft 3 guys and have 1 clanker vs. having 2 guys, and one ends up sucking, or drafting 4 guys and hoping 3 of them do good

How does this have anything to do with the price updates? Deadballer pitchers have been the best value on this site since I joined in 2004.

The theme leagues I played, all the winning teams had Pedro and Maddux. They always outplayed the Walsh’s and the Joss’

only in high cap leagues. Those guys are a waste of money in normal caps.

Are $110-$120 mil caps considered high caps?

I do not consider those high caps. If $110M-$120M are high caps, what do we call $255M?

Nobody has to build a team in any particular way to win. There are values and there are effective players, and the best offer both, but neither type is limited to one era or strategy.

I love three man staffs and it doesn't have to be deadballers. I've been running Hubbell, G.Perry and C.Hunter as a 3-man staff in a number of leagues. Although I have never studied the numbers to prove it, it feels like they recover from fatigue more efficiently than other staff variations.

Cheese'd

Pitcher	Role	%	G	W-L	SV	IP	ERA	OAV	WHIP	K/9	BB/9	$
Pete Alexander '15 (R)	Starter #1	100	58	31-10	0	379.1	3.01	.255	1.33	4.77	3.13	23.04M
Ed Walsh '10 (R)	Starter #2	87 (100)	58	30-10	3	378.1	2.66	.217	1.13	3.62	2.81	21.34M
Walter Johnson '13 (R)	Starter #3	100	58	35-12	2	364.0	2.97	.226	1.04	5.41	1.58	21.49M

I have been here since 2002 and pre 1920 pitchers have generally been the easiest way to build a winner. My first ever championship team was called the Big Six Fix and had three Matty years as the starters. I have won with a "modern" pitching staff. And while I didnt win with it I once had a team called "Their Day in the Sun" which took what were predominantly pre 1900 position players who had NEVER been used before. I needed modern pitchers to make the fielding acceptable and it actually turned out quite well, I didnt make the playoff with the team but finished some 10 games over 500. Its all about normalization and value... always will be... and match your team to your park

Posted by DoctorKz on 6/27/2018 7:06:00 PM (view original):
Correct! And Mikey doesn't like it when I limit a league to a neutral park!

I dunno, I think it should cost extra to use a non-neutral park... after all, the park effects are already built into a player's original numbers. Putting a guy who played in Coors in Coors doubles down on his inherent skill base.

And to address the OP, Theme Leagues and Progressive Leagues are the way to go if you want to see something other than the usual cookie players.