Most overrated aspects of strategy and overspent money

I would add injury rating. My sense is the premium you pay for a 1*, 1**, and 0 injury is not worth it in many cases. Once I started ignoring injury rating I started doing much better at this game.

Agree on clutch.

Stridently disagree on defense.

For catchers, it depends. I'm not so interested in arm strength but I think the T-rating matters a lot.

Yes, injuries also needed to be included in the discussion. Didn't think of it, but they are also very cap dependent.

Overrated are players who play multiple positions and are bad at all of them. Or you don't incorporate their versatility into your day-to-day lineups and only play them at one position. You pay up for that luxury.

I think, at least at $80m, most people spend too much on their bullpens.

I think, at least at $80m, most people spend too much on their bullpens.

Feel like pens get disregarded sometimes in pitcher batting leagues, where you’re going to use RPs more often. Beyond that, the key to many seasons, for me anyway, is record in 1-run games. Good bullpens can be the difference in that equation.

But then, have to ask: how much is too much?

I think, at least at $80m, most people spend too much on their bullpens.

Feel like pens get disregarded sometimes in pitcher batting leagues, where you’re going to use RPs more often. Beyond that, the key to many seasons, for me anyway, is record in 1-run games. Good bullpens can be the difference in that equation.

But then, have to ask: how much is too much?

On a "normal" team (and I know that's pretty vague), I'd say $10m is normal, anything over $12m is excessive.

I think spending more than 10% of your budget on bullpen is excessive except at caps over $200 million. And a specific part of that bullpen (closers, AKA R1's) gets badly overemphasized by most managers.

I agree that many teams often overspend on the bullpen in 80M and 100M leagues. It can work if the team strategy is to go with cheap starters and burn up innings with super-relievers. But to pay for good starters and then add two 5M RPs who are each going to work 75 IP each doesn't make much sense to me. I've seen teams succeed with much cheaper bullpens in lower cap leagues.

Are catcher throwing arms important? It depends on the setting. In a league that's loaded with power parks and power hitters, or on a team whose pitchers have good holds, the throwing arm might matter less. I think the throwing arm matters less in the high caps, where power is king. But in a different setting, the throwing arm might matter a lot more.

But throwing arms are just one aspect of catcher defense.
Here's Steve O'Neill's good 1920 card: c-1(-3)e5,T-10(pb-3)
Here's King Kelly's best card, his 1886: c-3(-2)e13,T-20(pb-20)
Here's Mike Piazza's best card, 1997: c-4(+1)e6,T-10(pb-2)
Obviously O'Neill's is the best of these cards. 1 range; -3 arm; decent throwing errors, low passed balls.
But defensively, would you rather have Kelly or Piazza? A strong case could be made that Piazza is the better fielder, overall. Yes, his range is a 4 instead of a 3 and his throwing is +1, but he has lower fielding errors than Kelly, lower throwing errors and much lower passed balls.

Accuracy of current algorithms is difficult to state without a host of caveats. Accuracy at the homograph level is routinely above 90%, when you just purchase Joe the Jets ratings which make you look great at a game when thousands of players and parks have been added to make manual calculations more challenging. It is similar to playing an online chess game with a fst computer running the same game on another machine to “suggest” moves. You can get a great rating without understanding a damn thing

"But defensively, would you rather have Kelly or Piazza?"

Piazza, Piazza, Piazza. Not having analyzed the probabilities, I can only say anecdotally that Kelly at catcher is an unmitigated disaster, with balls flying around the outfield and runners racing around the basepaths to yakety sax....