2020 SIM 4 Complete - Next SIM Tues 2/13

[Pat]

Mike, the voice of reason?

[Guest]

The assessment of "oh well when you pay them you're stuck with a bunch of AAAA types filling the roster"

I mean that's just not true. In 2 years when his money is tied up in three guys he'll have 1.5, Stripling, Baker, insert prospect here, making league minimum balancing out his roster.

I feel like everyone thinks I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything about baseball now lol

Came off as a generalization and obviously it's not a certainty, but it makes roster construction unnecessarily difficult and the margin for error is razor thin. You have to hit on pretty much every transaction you make.

The things that generally suffer with top-heavy payrolls are depth on both sides of the ball, and its harder to win without it. You could have 5 aces in your rotation, but it means nothing if your bullpen is patchwork.

I hate that this has turned to people thinking I'm a dumbass, I'm just numbers-based and err on the side of analytics as it relates to baseball.

[Delandis]

I know why Baltimore did it. They were two elite options, he knew Seattle had the cap to do it, but he did as well. Since his team was closer to competing he weighed his options and decided to invest in those two pitchers. The (extremely) early returns are good. To make a definitive argument either way, which IS lunacy in the sense that after month 1 of their contracts, is too soon to tell.

I mean we're talking about a handful of games here. Not even one season.


Overall the argument of " it's going to take X to make it valued to a certain degree" is one way of looking at it where "if these two win me a championship and make me competitive then it's valued where I want it to be" is a completely fair assessment as well.

Delandis identified these two as his cash cows, went after them and time will tell if he's happy with the result.

The assessment of "oh well when you pay them you're stuck with a bunch of AAAA types filling the roster"

I mean that's just not true. In 2 years when his money is tied up in three guys he'll have 1.5, Stripling, Baker, insert prospect here, making league minimum balancing out his roster.

Thank you, sir. There is a reason why you get paid to do what you do.

And for the record, I pointed out the stats not prove that is was good deal, just that it hasn't proven to be a bad one, yet.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BDub]

Thank you, sir. There is a reason why you get paid to do what you do.

Hit the nail right on the head, Delandis.

[mike]

I feel like everyone thinks I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything about baseball now lol

Came off as a generalization and obviously it's not a certainty, but it makes roster construction unnecessarily difficult and the margin for error is razor thin. You have to hit on pretty much every transaction you make.

The things that generally suffer with top-heavy payrolls are depth on both sides of the ball, and its harder to win without it. You could have 5 aces in your rotation, but it means nothing if your bullpen is patchwork.

I hate that this has turned to people thinking I'm a dumbass, I'm just numbers-based and err on the side of analytics as it relates to baseball.

I don't think you come off as a dumbass at all. I actually generally subscribe to the same belief that a player is worth X and you shouldn't have a certain percentage tied up in a minimal amount of players....in real life. I don't think that works in OOTP or at least I haven't seen it play out that way. Mainly because the budgets are so much smaller in game there's really no way two guys won't take up a large portion.

I'm with you on the analytics side of things man, every point you made in this thread was spot on from an argument perspective but I laid out both sides of the coin just to basically agree with both of you because this is an instance where all perspectives on team building are what I consider to be the 50/50 rule.

The 50/50 rule to me is when discussing strategies like team building, everyone who has an idea on how it should be done is completely right, and completely wrong, depending on the audience. It's the Monday morning QB aspect.

Thank you, sir. There is a reason why you get paid to do what you do.

And for the record, I pointed out the stats not prove that is was good deal, just that it hasn't proven to be a bad one, yet.

Totally fair, didn't mean to insinuate that you were the one championing that they were the best players in the game. I'm just saying overall there's no way to determine the result for some time.

[Carlos]

Honestly, the only thing JJ loses me on is the argument: "I wouldn't give anyone that much money."

If this was advice for a new owner that doesn't know how to navigate their Financials, then I see it. But I'm sure Delandis doesn't need financial advice and he has his system in place when determining value.

Everything else I'm good with.

Also, I wouldn't use MLB as a comparison for anything BLB. Bringing up how relievers are valued today means you're comparing bullpens to how MLB teams manage them. That's not a straight comparison because the BLB doesn't have the same distribution of talent in the pen (whether more or less), doesn't have the same weight in contract value (consider no BLB closer is getting paid like Chapman) and our 26 teams don't operate like the 30 in the MLB. So the behavior of one team might actual be more beneficial in this league versus the MLB.

To give an example, playing in 4 leagues, I promise you I can't build teams the same way across all of the leagues. There might be some things that are similar. Defense and pitching matters. Always has. Always will.

But I'm in a league where stolen bases are not something GMs particularly like to go for because mostly everyone subscribes to the "never run!" methodology. So that changes the draft and free agency. It changes the value of speedsters. If the supply is down for them, they get paid less.

In this league, older guys that can't field barely get signed. That's not the case in another league I'm in. Older guys get scooped up all the time and play all the time. But that league has less teams, less players, so maybe more value in older players because there are less younger ones.

Etc. Etc.

[Guest]

I don't think you come off as a dumbass at all. I actually generally subscribe to the same belief that a player is worth X and you shouldn't have a certain percentage tied up in a minimal amount of players....in real life. I don't think that works in OOTP or at least I haven't seen it play out that way. Mainly because the budgets are so much smaller in game there's really no way two guys won't take up a large portion.

I'm with you on the analytics side of things man, every point you made in this thread was spot on from an argument perspective but I laid out both sides of the coin just to basically agree with both of you because this is an instance where all perspectives on team building are what I consider to be the 50/50 rule.

The 50/50 rule to me is when discussing strategies like team building, everyone who has an idea on how it should be done is completely right, and completely wrong, depending on the audience. It's the Monday morning QB aspect.



Totally fair, didn't mean to insinuate that you were the one championing that they were the best players in the game. I'm just saying overall there's no way to determine the result for some time.

Fair points. I'm not saying it's an abject failure of a contract, just (IMO) an uphill battle to get a decent ROI. Championships certainly mitigate the value of WAR in that regard.

Again, I'm not afraid to admit this comes from a place of frustration.

Spoiler

[Guest]

Honestly, the only thing JJ loses me on is the argument: "I wouldn't give anyone that much money.

I personally don't intend on it. I mean maybe, but it'd have to be a Gremades type of player. Or if I haven't won a Brewmaster's and I just say fuck it and worry about money later.

[Sully]

I remember when I used to be in the thick of these disagreements. Now I'm just too old and lazy to waste my energy. But it makes for good reading...

[Z]

I remember when I used to be in the thick of these disagreements. Now I'm just too old and lazy to waste my energy. But it makes for good reading...

If only Dave were here.

[Carlos]

I personally don't intend on it. I mean maybe, but it'd have to be a Gremades type of player. Or if I haven't won a Brewmaster's and I just say fuck it and worry about money later.

Oh, I meant it in that you were saying others shouldn't.

That's where I'm lost on the argument. I get your side of it. And I actually agree with you. I prefer not having anyone in the Top 25 of salaries. First of all, I don't have the budget for it and secondly, I always end up hating the player because I know they are limiting me from spending.

But if other guys want to do it, that's for them.

[Sharkn20]

How in the hell am I leading the DL in Hits and near bottom in runs scored... Damn it!!!!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[umd]

Now I see how UMD felt with Zhang.

Pretty much. Now I just keep quiet.

[Guest]

Oh, I meant it in that you were saying others shouldn't.

That's where I'm lost on the argument. I get your side of it. And I actually agree with you. I prefer not having anyone in the Top 25 of salaries. First of all, I don't have the budget for it and secondly, I always end up hating the player because I know they are limiting me from spending.

But if other guys want to do it, that's for them.

Yeah I guess that came off as a heavy handed blanket statement, my bad. I just get visions of Joey Votto when I think about it.

[Carlos]

Yeah I guess that came off as a heavy handed blanket statement, my bad. I just get visions of Joey Votto when I think about it.

How dare you speak of Votto in such a way. He is the God of not swinging at pitches he can hit hard.