I recall 95% usage as the minimum for a pitcher entering the playoffs as well, specifically to combat the old Milacki strategy.

Posted by skunk206 on 9/6/2018 3:47:00 PM (view original):
I recall 95% usage as the minimum for a pitcher entering the playoffs as well, specifically to combat the old Milacki strategy.

So it’s only for pitchers? So if I did a similar strategy with Shane Spencer and Oscar Gamble, it’d work?

Also was the Milacki strategy infamous in WIS?

Posted by d_rock97 on 9/6/2018 3:46:00 PM (view original):
I haven’t been around WIS that long. What is wrong with this strategy? Why would this need to be changed?

It was broadly used, including by me, but not universally loved. At the time cheap 1894 pitchers greatly overperformed; the names Dan Daub and George Hemming stick in my mind. Also, "rookie" pitchers could throw far more innings than they can now. So you could have a cheap pitching staff that was decently competent combined with a thumping offense and great defensive range. (I say "thumping" but a lot of it was "walking" - Ashburn, Stanky, Yost, Tenace etc. etc.) Meanwhile you could save not just one Milacki type but two or three -- Jack McDowell and Jeff Heathcock were popular. Or there was a Fred Toney season of about 110 IP with a WHIP of 0.73 I think. Even if you used, say, 70-80 of those innings he could dominate the playoffs.

Bottom line, you could go through three playoff rounds using pitchers in a manner they could not have performed in real life. And some users hate hate hated it. As against that, it only worked if you could make the playoffs using about $70-75 M worth of the value of your salary cap during the regular season.

Posted by d_rock97 on 9/6/2018 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skunk206 on 9/6/2018 3:47:00 PM (view original):
I recall 95% usage as the minimum for a pitcher entering the playoffs as well, specifically to combat the old Milacki strategy.

So it’s only for pitchers? So if I did a similar strategy with Shane Spencer and Oscar Gamble, it’d work?

Also was the Milacki strategy infamous in WIS?

No, I believe it also covers hitters. Yes, it was infamous.

Posted by point_piper on 9/6/2018 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 9/6/2018 3:46:00 PM (view original):
I haven’t been around WIS that long. What is wrong with this strategy? Why would this need to be changed?

It was broadly used, including by me, but not universally loved. At the time cheap 1894 pitchers greatly overperformed; the names Dan Daub and George Hemming stick in my mind. Also, "rookie" pitchers could throw far more innings than they can now. So you could have a cheap pitching staff that was decently competent combined with a thumping offense and great defensive range. (I say "thumping" but a lot of it was "walking" - Ashburn, Stanky, Yost, Tenace etc. etc.) Meanwhile you could save not just one Milacki type but two or three -- Jack McDowell and Jeff Heathcock were popular. Or there was a Fred Toney season of about 110 IP with a WHIP of 0.73 I think. Even if you used, say, 70-80 of those innings he could dominate the playoffs.

Bottom line, you could go through three playoff rounds using pitchers in a manner they could not have performed in real life. And some users hate hate hated it. As against that, it only worked if you could make the playoffs using about $70-75 M worth of the value of your salary cap during the regular season.

I heard about the 1894 pitchers. That’s dumb.

Never heard about the rookie pitchers. I don’t see how that makes sense.

And I didn’t realize that teams were dedicating $6-8 mil on Milacki, McDowell, and Heathcock.

But the former two are bugs in the system.

I don’t really see how facing Milacki was worse than facing 08 Joss. I kinda see it as a counter

I don't think it is worse, or better. Just two different market inefficiencies.