To assemble a pitching staff for an OL, I have read and read and re-read the forums, and while I notice some disagreement on who the best are, I notice general agreement on about 25 or so pitchers. My confusion lies in interpreting numbers. For example, '08 Addie Joss, who some have opined as the "best bargain." His numbers, normalized(?), or his advanced numbers, don't seem all that great. There are many pitchers from the steroid era whose numbers appear to normalize much better than Joss', or for that matter, many of the dead ball era pitchers. There are however, certain seasons, 1894-1895 for example, that do appear to normalize very well. Why are these players not "cookies?" Is this just a bit of the normalization abyss, or am I missing something?

I could ask the same questions. I think that the answer lies in acquiring the necessary innings to complete a season. Guys that had great seasons, and normalize well are expensive, and I would say the general opinion is that if you draft the steroid era studs, you have to sacrfice too much offense. But i, too, have never been able to figure out exactly where that line of demarcation lies. I do know that many managers, who's record af achievement is much better than mine, regularly select players I wouldn't touch, and beat me with them. Lately, I expanded my selection criteria, but the results have not been good.

I would add this: If your team is at 100%, fatiguewise, through most of the season, it will be a losing team.

Quote: Originally Posted By pfattkatt on 4/02/2010I would add this: If your team is at 100%, fatiguewise, through most of the season, it will be a losing team.

Thats crazy...my teams nearly always play at 100% and do fine

Quote: Originally Posted By pfattkatt on 4/02/2010I would add this: If your team is at 100%, fatiguewise, through most of the season, it will be a losing team.

disagree, I do well enough and strive to juggle my line up to keep players at 100%... just another example of how there are many ways to win in the SIM

Well I always try but alot of times my low PA guys are at 100% but with a 9 % on the over use.

Quote: Originally Posted By pfattkatt on 4/02/2010I would add this: If your team is at 100%, fatiguewise, through most of the season, it will be a losing team.

I would be more inclined to say that if your team is not at100 % it will be a losing team. I almost never let my guys dip below 98%, unless I'm in a battle to make the playoffs.

To get back to the original question, sort all 200+ IP starters by ERC# (normalized ERC - a reasonable proxy for pitcher effectiveness in the sim). '08 Joss is ninth on the list in order. If you add the category $/IP to your search field, you'll see that '08 Joss only costs $37K per IP (342 IP for $12.8M). That's lower than any other in the top ten and lower than most of the rest in the top thirty. That's why he's considered a bargain. IMO '95 Maddux is the sim's most effective 200+ IP starter. But you only get 236 IP for your $10.8M.

Also, you can't look at normalization in a vacuum. A pitcher's effectiveness in the sim is a combination of his real life numbers as adjusted by normalization. A pitcher with atrocious numbers from the steroid era will "normalize well" (that is, perform better in the sim than his raw numbers would suggest) but he will still stink. The best dead ball pitchers have such out of sight real life numbers they don't need to normalize all that well to be effective. And that's also why Maddux and Pedro are such killers. They have out of sight real life numbers and then further benefit from normalization.

I think I have either been misunderstood, or else I have been laboring under a misconception. All of the teams I have done well with were truly fatigue issues. What I meant was, if you draft a team of players who have enough innings or PAs to effortlessly cruise thru the season, in my level of expertise, that will be a losing team. Grizzly one may play his players at 100%, but they are at 100% because they have been rested. i don't think I inferred that it was advisable to play them below 95% or so, but in an OL, the best teams will be teams that cause their managers to do some regular shuffling in order to keep his players fresh.

Quote: Originally Posted By pfattkatt on 4/03/2010I think I have either been misunderstood, or else I have been laboring under a misconception. All of the teams I have done well with were truly fatigue issues. What I meant was, if you draft a team of players who have enough innings or PAs to effortlessly cruise thru the season, in my level of expertise, that will be a losing team. Grizzly one may play his players at 100%, but they are at 100% because they have been rested. i don't think I inferred that it was advisable to play them below 95% or so, but in an OL, the best teams will be teams that cause their managers to do some regular shuffling in order to keep his players fresh

Before the update, that wasn't necessarily true. I drafted several teams that cruised to the playoffs with little use of AAA. However, I do agree as more "bargains" are eliminated in the SIM, drafting the right number of PAs is essential.

Quote: Originally Posted By 2pragmatic on 4/02/2010To assemble a pitching staff for an OL, I have read and read and re-read the forums, and while I notice some disagreement on who the best are, I notice general agreement on about 25 or so pitchers. My confusion lies in interpreting numbers. For example, '08 Addie Joss, who some have opined as the "best bargain." His numbers, normalized(?), or his advanced numbers, don't seem all that great. There are many pitchers from the steroid era whose numbers appear to normalize much better than Joss', or for that matter, many of the dead ball era pitchers. There are however, certain seasons, 1894-1895 for example, that do appear to normalize very well. Why are these players not "cookies?" Is this just a bit of the normalization abyss, or am I missing something

As Boogerlips might point out, how well a guy normalizes by itself isn't important for a player or pitcher's value. What is important is their expected performance relative to their price. There are player that normalize poorly, but are still great bargains ('08 Joss is a possible example) and there are players that normalize well, but still aren't bargains (Randy Johnson might be an example). That being said, I recomend beginers simply ignore normalization and use the advance search tools. Search by HR/9#, OAVG#, BB/9# relative to $/IP and don't worry much about which way they normalize.

Thats pretty much spot on.

I dozed off, can everybody repeat that again?