I have had 3 post update OL teams and all are doing horrible. It is like I'm having to relearn the game and what works.

From my study of what works and what doesn't. Pitchers from the deadball era seem to be the way to go now. There are some exceptions to the rule, but the Christy M, Rube W., Summers, Pete A. seems to fill the Cy Young awards.

Also noted that (again there are exceptions) teams are not balanced salary wise and those teams that spend $44-45 million on pitching have more winning records than not.

Oh and learning the hard way - need alot more innings than I used to.

I have not seen a trend in the hitters yet.

I've noted in other threads that defense is killing me with the new update (which I suppose it was supposed to do). The position players that were usable because their offense offset their poor defense isn't the case anymore. One of my teams has a 13+/49- defense ratio. Alomar '92, Boggs '95 and Crawford '06 are performing the worst. This, of course, makes all of the piichers I usually use perform worse.

I'm not complaining, just have to re-learn the process.

range doesnt look that bad. I have all C D and D- range in 2 leagues. averaging less than one minus play every 2 games. that only about 30 more plays per season than the previous system. I bought some powerful pitching with the savings. so far it hasnt paid off, losing record in both leagues and I'm still trying to figure out why.

Quote: Originally Posted By truemen on 12/01/2009
I have had 3 post update OL teams and all are doing horrible. It is like I'm having to relearn the game and what works.

From my study of what works and what doesn't. Pitchers from the deadball era seem to be the way to go now. There are some exceptions to the rule, but the Christy M, Rube W., Summers, Pete A. seems to fill the Cy Young awards.

Also noted that (again there are exceptions) teams are not balanced salary wise and those teams that spend $44-45 million on pitching have more winning records than not.

Oh and learning the hard way - need alot more innings than I used to.

I have not seen a trend in the hitters yet.

Definitely true; not sure of the reason. Otherwise I generally disagree with you. I don't think you need to spend a lot on pitching to win any more than you used to. I also don't think deadball pitchers are the way to go. They're winning Cy Young awards because they pitch huge numbers of quality innings. That's always been the case; you see more of them now because of the fact that pitching got cheaper in general, thus improving the caliber of players you can afford, and deadballers in particular got cheaper if they can't hit. The reason they got cheaper is because of the impact they have on defense - it's bad. Certainly using deadballers and all good fielders is one option. Using deadball hitters and modern pitchers actually seems like a more attractive option to me, though. I'd rather pay for my fielding through the pitcher than the fielders themselves because the fielders will also bat and help bring down the other team's defense.

lesson i larned is:

rejigger

...don't join a progressive that has an "anti-tank formula".....that is such a lame concept....also don't join a progressive that has fewer than 25 players per team average.

One of the teams has turned it around and is leading the division.

I spent $36 million on five starters , crappy BP and Carlos/Milacki closer combo. The starters are set to go 8-9 innings each start.

I have great Defense with North/Erstad/Speaker trolling the OF.

Another team has great pitching, crappy Defense/high OPB and they are the worst team I have had since my rookie season. They lead the league in errors by a significant amount.

As Boogerbreath was able to point out in another Post that walks are bad, I will go out on a limb and state, for the record, leading the league in errors by a large margin is also bad.

Walks are bad mkay