Wouldn’t the best way to maximize + include absolutely horrific pitching? In theory a pitcher with a 1.000 OAV allowed to pitch in perpetuity would lead to at least 27 + plays per game, not including stolen extra bases. Ryno this idea has you or your brother written all over it. I don’t have the heart to make a team with awful pitching

this would be a nice theory to test with just4me’s current “cheapest pitching possible” team; instead of stacking the team with mashers, stack it with the best fielders available and put them in Hilltop. If budget is no concern you could really load up that defense

I did something like that and ended up with 318

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=498219&threadID=11400732#l_11400732

There's only so much you can spend on the best range guys, since a lot of them are pretty bad at hitting or make a ton of errors.

That’s kinda my goal with this team. They’re not “the worst pitchers I can get”, but in Hilltop, going down to 70%, they should be pretty hittable.

I think Leach will be 50+ plays.

I’m going to give it a whirl. I have a staff of mid 3’s ERC# (all low hr, low bb, high oav, A+ range themselves) and will roll out this lineup which should have a great defense and also be able to score a ton:

c Rudy York/Wooten (isn’t range at C irrelevant for this exercise)
1b speaker (.338)
2b stirnweiss
3b Pinelli
ss andrus
of erstad
of max carey (gave up a little range for a great lead off hitter but still A++)
of Paul Blair (ditto but with power )

Besides erstad and pinelli they all have north of .800 OPS, and even those to have decent averages with little pop. extrapolating their performance histories over 162 gets well over 200 + plays so putting them in hilltop with a staff made for a higher result could definitely push 300 I think ...and dare I say I think the team could be decent. Who knows, I’ve never used a pitching staff this awful

Posted by 06gsp on 8/21/2020 4:00:00 PM (view original):
I did something like that and ended up with 318

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=498219&threadID=11400732#l_11400732

There's only so much you can spend on the best range guys, since a lot of them are pretty bad at hitting or make a ton of errors.

This is fabulous

Posted by tpistolas on 8/21/2020 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Wouldn’t the best way to maximize + include absolutely horrific pitching? In theory a pitcher with a 1.000 OAV allowed to pitch in perpetuity would lead to at least 27 + plays per game, not including stolen extra bases. Ryno this idea has you or your brother written all over it. I don’t have the heart to make a team with awful pitching

this would be a nice theory to test with just4me’s current “cheapest pitching possible” team; instead of stacking the team with mashers, stack it with the best fielders available and put them in Hilltop. If budget is no concern you could really load up that defense

I’m totally in... I’ll get one together this weekend.

Actually, With the focus on this, I’ll get the next bounty out a little earlier than intended and have it + play focused. I’ll use this thread and the one 06gsp posted as the reference points for the qualifying amount.

Posted by tpistolas on 8/21/2020 7:34:00 PM (view original):
I’m going to give it a whirl. I have a staff of mid 3’s ERC# (all low hr, low bb, high oav, A+ range themselves) and will roll out this lineup which should have a great defense and also be able to score a ton:

c Rudy York/Wooten (isn’t range at C irrelevant for this exercise)
1b speaker (.338)
2b stirnweiss
3b Pinelli
ss andrus
of erstad
of max carey (gave up a little range for a great lead off hitter but still A++)
of Paul Blair (ditto but with power )

Besides erstad and pinelli they all have north of .800 OPS, and even those to have decent averages with little pop. extrapolating their performance histories over 162 gets well over 200 + plays so putting them in hilltop with a staff made for a higher result could definitely push 300 I think ...and dare I say I think the team could be decent. Who knows, I’ve never used a pitching staff this awful

That looks fun! With catchers I try to focus on A+ arms, even in regular teams.

Excited to see how this team plays - I think A+ teams are fun - hope you enjoy it!

It literally makes no sense that bad pitching would lead to more + plays. It's simply not rational. Fewer Ks from your pitchers will lead to more + plays but the quality of pitching other than Ks should have little, if not zero, impact based on how the sim engine works

Posted by milest on 8/27/2020 2:55:00 PM (view original):
It literally makes no sense that bad pitching would lead to more + plays. It's simply not rational. Fewer Ks from your pitchers will lead to more + plays but the quality of pitching other than Ks should have little, if not zero, impact based on how the sim engine works

Ks have no bearing on + plays... the decision for hit/out is made before the decision for K/ball-in-play. For a + play to occur, the ball must be a hit, which is determined prior to K's being factored in. The next decision is HR/non-HR, then +play/hit, then what type of hit from there...

So, to maximize + plays, you need pitchers that allow more hits, but few HRs...

8 games in testing this at the extreme (though I give up too many HRs to be at true extreme):

Team	GP	+	-	PB	CS	SBA	CS%	PK
IM SORRY!	8	33	0	0	2	2	1.000	0
Frank Moses was Here	8	5	2	0	0	7	.000	0
S	8	5	2	0	2	16	.125	1
Dark Side Of The Sun	8	5	4	0	4	14	.286	0
LEAGUE AVERAGE	8	4	3	0	5	17	.289	0

Posted by milest on 8/27/2020 2:55:00 PM (view original):
It literally makes no sense that bad pitching would lead to more + plays. It's simply not rational. Fewer Ks from your pitchers will lead to more + plays but the quality of pitching other than Ks should have little, if not zero, impact based on how the sim engine works

There was entire league (multiple leagues?) dedicated to testing this, and thanks to contrarians work, in addition to the order of the decision tree, that pitchers K’s have no bearing on + plays.

I just realized that the out was decided before the Ks... So basically, pitching quality has very little bearing on + plays. Also, It seems extremely counterproductive and a waste of time to use 'worse' pitchers just so you can see a very small increase in + plays. The end result would be the same (or similar) as if you used good pitching and avg defense. I just dont understand the point, I guess..... That's all

Posted by contrarian23 on 8/27/2020 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milest on 8/27/2020 2:55:00 PM (view original):
It literally makes no sense that bad pitching would lead to more + plays. It's simply not rational. Fewer Ks from your pitchers will lead to more + plays but the quality of pitching other than Ks should have little, if not zero, impact based on how the sim engine works

I don't know how to say this other than to be direct: you are entirely incorrect.

That's fine. I just came back to the thread bc I realized I was incorrect and was going to say so. I was basing my statement on real life logic instead of the flawed logic of the sim.... Then, I realized I was wrong... However, the quality of pitching still produces very little affect on + plays. That part is correct. Sure, the worse your pitching is, the more + plays you'll see, but.. How many more? Enough to actually justify using worse pitching? It truly makes no sense if the objective is winning. If the objective is simply to see more plus plays, then ok, I guess. I just dont see the point.. As a stated above. The money you're spending on + plays can be better used on good pitchers and hitters. Idk. I can see how it might be a halfway decent experiment to try if you have hundreds of OL seasons under your belt and you're board- but it's not something that's gonna translate into wins.

It's all about value... especially with the way dynamic pricing has effected some of the salaries, you might find more bargains in pitchers who are otherwise equal, but have slightly worse OAV than in the difference in the hitters with a B range to A++. So you might see a better relationship to winning with a pitcher with a .240 OAV# at $8m and a $5.6m A++ range fielder than a $5.2m B range fielder and a similar pitcher, but with a .220 OAV# at $9.4m. Obviously will vary position to position, but knowing the relationship of what you're buying can be vital to making the correct value decision.

Posted by just4me on 8/27/2020 4:40:00 PM (view original):
It's all about value... especially with the way dynamic pricing has effected some of the salaries, you might find more bargains in pitchers who are otherwise equal, but have slightly worse OAV than in the difference in the hitters with a B range to A++. So you might see a better relationship to winning with a pitcher with a .240 OAV# at $8m and a $5.6m A++ range fielder than a $5.2m B range fielder and a similar pitcher, but with a .220 OAV# at $9.4m. Obviously will vary position to position, but knowing the relationship of what you're buying can be vital to making the correct value decision.

The more money you save on pitching, the more you can spend on offense. My 1st A++ team won 104 games, my 2nd is on pace for 101, and my 3rd is currently 9-4, so too early to tell - but the entire sim is based on finding the best value for the $ spent. If I can spend $6.3m on 1992 Bob Tewksbury and have him put up results that are more consistent with someone who costs $8.5m-$9m, then that’s a great value and it’s an extra 2-3m I can put elsewhere