A++ range cost a lot of money.. I don't play open leagues at all, mainly bc I think the random AAA aspect is silly, so I'm not sure what the $ situation is there... But it's hard to fathom an A++ team working at a higher cap. Good pitching plus good hitting plus avg D is going to beat average pitching plus average hitting plus great range in higher cap leagues every time.
but whatever. Do what you think is fun. I shouldn't have said anything in the 1st place... I was going off the real life assumption that fewer strikeouts means more balls in play, which means more + plays (or - plays and errors depending on your defense). I was wrong- and the fact that I was wrong shows a clear flaw in the sim that should be fixed before the site worries about cosmetics... Just my thought.

Posted by chargingryno on 8/27/2020 4:49:00 PM (view original):

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

But is it really $2-3 million you can spend 'somewhere' else, or is it $2-3 million you must spend on A+++ range to actually make the strategy work?
Idk.

Two points I'd like to follow up on here:

1. Pitching that allows more hits should definitely lead to more + defensive plays. Take my theoretical example: a pitcher with a 1.000 OAV, allowed to pitch forever, will only make it through a game thanks to 27 + plays. Likewise, a pitcher with .000 OAV would never provide the opportunity for a + play. Yes, these are theoretical statements, but the same logic applies to a .350 OAV pitcher vs a .250 OAV pitcher.
2. and yes it's a valuation proposition. If A+ range can turn that .350 pitcher into a .250 pitcher, is it more or less expensive than paying for the .250 guy in the first place? The A+ range team I have now, without doing any scientific analysis, seems to cost $1-2mm per position more than an average defensive team with the same batting characteristics. My pitching staff, on the other hand, costs about $20mm less than what I usually do. I'm interested in comparing the performances between the pitchers when I'm done. Given the dynamic pricing updates, $ is not a perfect science in the sim, so even if it can save me $3-5mm total in an OL, that's a MASSIVE difference.

Posted by milest on 8/27/2020 5:00:00 PM (view original):
A++ range cost a lot of money.. I don't play open leagues at all, mainly bc I think the random AAA aspect is silly, so I'm not sure what the $ situation is there... But it's hard to fathom an A++ team working at a higher cap. Good pitching plus good hitting plus avg D is going to beat average pitching plus average hitting plus great range in higher cap leagues every time.
but whatever. Do what you think is fun. I shouldn't have said anything in the 1st place... I was going off the real life assumption that fewer strikeouts means more balls in play, which means more + plays (or - plays and errors depending on your defense). I was wrong- and the fact that I was wrong shows a clear flaw in the sim that should be fixed before the site worries about cosmetics... Just my thought.

I know I speak for everyone else, there’s no animosity felt here. We’re all just passionate about this game and have specifically tested this part of the game.

as far as it not working at higher caps, we will see. My 4th A++ team is already entered into skunks $115m non-Invitational. I actually think it’ll be better at higher caps than in lower caps, but we will see!

Posted by tpistolas on 8/27/2020 5:02:00 PM (view original):
Two points I'd like to follow up on here:

1. Pitching that allows more hits should definitely lead to more + defensive plays. Take my theoretical example: a pitcher with a 1.000 OAV, allowed to pitch forever, will only make it through a game thanks to 27 + plays. Likewise, a pitcher with .000 OAV would never provide the opportunity for a + play. Yes, these are theoretical statements, but the same logic applies to a .350 OAV pitcher vs a .250 OAV pitcher.
2. and yes it's a valuation proposition. If A+ range can turn that .350 pitcher into a .250 pitcher, is it more or less expensive than paying for the .250 guy in the first place? The A+ range team I have now, without doing any scientific analysis, seems to cost $1-2mm per position more than an average defensive team with the same batting characteristics. My pitching staff, on the other hand, costs about $20mm less than what I usually do. I'm interested in comparing the performances between the pitchers when I'm done. Given the dynamic pricing updates, $ is not a perfect science in the sim, so even if it can save me $3-5mm total in an OL, that's a MASSIVE difference.

100%

Do we have any idea what the + play record for one player is? I feel like I’ve seen mid 40s by Chet Lemon in a theme league. It’s early but I’ve got already gotten 16 out of Snuffy Stirnweiss through just 34 games in an OL.

Posted by tpistolas on 9/4/2020 1:49:00 PM (view original):
Do we have any idea what the + play record for one player is? I feel like I’ve seen mid 40s by Chet Lemon in a theme league. It’s early but I’ve got already gotten 16 out of Snuffy Stirnweiss through just 34 games in an OL.

Most I've seen is mid 40s... I've see it by Nap Lajoie, Max Carey, Walt Wilmot, Chet Lemon, Dick Bartell, & Mike Cameron.

I think your Stirnweiss will clearly set a record in terms of teams trying to be competitive. Otherwise, I think this Mike Cameron, who has 31 + plays through 32 games, will likely set an unclearable bar. But that team was setup to test the extremes, not win, so a different beast altogether.

55 from Curt Welch at 2B here:

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

318 total and 55 from one guy...More than 1/5th of the way through the season and it looks like I can make a run at both...while being competitive! 24-12 with 71 + plays including 16 from Snuffy. Erstad has to pick it up - just 4 so far in CF

excellent thread. I still have a Q tho:

If I have 240 + plays at year's end, is this precisely 240 hits-into-outs; or

are some of them force-outs-into-DPs, or doubles-into-singles or runner-held-at-third kind of plays?

Posted by tomhanrahan on 10/4/2020 2:50:00 PM (view original):
excellent thread. I still have a Q tho:

If I have 240 + plays at year's end, is this precisely 240 hits-into-outs; or

are some of them force-outs-into-DPs, or doubles-into-singles or runner-held-at-third kind of plays?

Some will be XBH into single, but most seem to hit into out. I haven’t looked at the exact breakdown close enough to say the spread with any certainty, but it seems anecdotally to be at roughly a 2-1 ratio of hits to outs over XBH to singles.

I'd even say 3-1/4-1 hits into outs over exh into singles. But that's my anecdotal experience

After some of this discussion, I drafted a team with the sole intention of maxing out the + plays. After 90 games, I felt the point was well hammered in and began a second test on WW holding players above the salary cap. The difference at game 90 to the end of the season wasn't significant, but the totals were clear.

League

Team

Game 90: 314
Game 162: 368

Mike Cameron also had 71 + plays through game 90 and finished with 83. Four players finished with more than 50. Shortly before game 90 I dropped Darrin Erstad for Roger Conner and then again dropped Connor for Al Oliver, to provide more offensive pop to support the '00 Pedro I picked up early and had been stashing in AAA. Pedro began pitching with game 92 along with three other pitchers I picked up around game 90 (Jack Pfeister, Alex Jones, John Henry Johnson).

Had I continued focusing strictly on + plays, I'm confident the team would have gotten significantly more than 500 and Cameron would've pushed close to 150 alone.

In any case, I think this cements with certainty, that + plays are a factor of opportunity, and there are more opportunities with poor pitching.

[edited to fix team link]

I wish you would have continue playing it out. I find it very hard to believe you would have sniffed 500 + plays and Cameron would have hit 150.

Posted by schwarze on 10/19/2020 11:09:00 AM (view original):
I wish you would have continue playing it out. I find it very hard to believe you would have sniffed 500 + plays and Cameron would have hit 150.

I'm happy to do it again... but given where we were at game 90, I think 500 was a certainty, and 150, would've been a slight stretch, but definitely reachable.