Is the CP necessary?

[MarkVI]

Something that has always slightly bothered me about the show is their designation of the position 'cp.'

Does anyone else think this is just a little over-analyzing. Your CP is, in essence, your best RP. IRL, CPs change and fail all the time, and I find myself changing an RP to a CP or vice versa to reflect real life situations. When managing the minors, I don't call up a AAA closer if my closer is injured; I just use the next best releiver. That's why I feel like the position designation is unnecessary. The CP is kind of like the ace of the bullpen, and there's no ace pitcher (AP?) position designated in the game. I wish The Show would have just SP and RP.

I understand this is a petty topic, but it's just something I don't think is all that necessary, and I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way as I did.

[Spring Rubber]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

It's in the game because almost all real life teams use a designated closer.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but do you suggest that the player position of "CP" should be eliminated, but the "CP" designation within the bullpen should be kept?

I would be all for that as long as it doesn't upset the CPU's logic in any way. How does it work right now in Franchise if the Closer gets injured? Does it use the next best reliever, or does it call up the AAA closer? If it's the latter, then that's screwed up.

[Royal Black]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

I believe it is over analyzing. You have starters (sp), relievers (rp) and your closer (cp). These are just roles that given. A closer is given more importance than a regular bullpen guy because he is mainly used for save situations.

[Royal Black]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

I believe it is over analyzing. You have starters (sp), relievers (rp) and your closer (cp). These are just roles that given. A closer is given more importance than a regular bullpen guy because he is mainly used for save situations.

[MarkVI]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

It's in the game because almost all real life teams use a designated closer.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but do you suggest that the player position of "CP" should be eliminated, but the "CP" designation within the bullpen should be kept?

I would be all for that as long as it doesn't upset the CPU's logic in any way. How does it work right now in Franchise if the Closer gets injured? Does it use the next best reliever, or does it call up the AAA closer? If it's the latter, then that's screwed up.

I'm simply suggesting the position 'CP' be eliminated, but keeping the bullpen role in tact.

I'm not sure what the CPU does; I think they just use the next best reliever but I could be mistaken.

[Royal Black]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

I'm simply suggesting the position 'CP' be eliminated, but keeping the bullpen role in tact.

I'm not sure what the CPU does; I think they just use the next best reliever but I could be mistaken.

Yeah they just go to the setup man or next best reliever if the closer is hurt. Why exactly does it bother you enough that you want CP to be eliminated? It doesn't affect anything.

[Perfect Zero]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

If it were up to me, I would eliminate the "closer" designation in the game and use whichever reliever I want in the closer position. I don't know what the designated position does, but I'm not going to draft or trade for a player who is just a closer.

[Bobhead]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

I completely agree with the OP. "Closer" isn't a position in baseball anymore than "cleanup hitter" or "leadoff guy". You need one, but it's not a player-specific role. Your cleanup hitter is one of your best hitters at any given time, your closer is your best reliever.

If your #3 hitter is significantly underperforming, you don't keep throwing him out in the #3 spot do you? He's not locked into that spot.

Rafael Soriano was a closer. Then he wasn't. Now he is again. His position never changed: he's a relief pitcher. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Knight165]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

It is and it isn't.

You cannot deny that teams, when setting up their teams, go after a "closer".
It's talked about all the time on sports shows.
There is a closer role on teams.....statistics will bear that out as well.
Look at just about any team in the league and one pitcher will get more than 75% of the saves(and save opportunities)

Now...should a pitcher be "titled" a closer?...
It's not necessary to the game.
If you rename every CP to RP....the teams will simply choose the best pitcher available(spring training.....opening day...and anytime thereafter in case of injury) and "make him the closer" by putting him in that CP role.
I think that's what you guys want...and it's really already there.

I also think why you guys want it is in the area of drafting/trades....teams will now look for a CP instead of going for a great RP and making him a closer.
They will if you edit all RP as I stated though.(except drafting...you have to edit them later)

M.K.
Knight165

[seanjeezy]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

In my opinion there really is no need to have the closer as a specific position since it is considered more of a role. This year alone there have been many instances of the closer role switching hands due to injury, poor performance, etc. Rodney, Wilhelmsen, Chapman, Clippard, Betancourt, Reed, Jansen, Aceves, Casilla, Balfour, Frieri... None of these guys were closers last year so in the Show you would never see any of these guys closing games (unless you changed their positions).

[SoxFan01605]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

Don't closers get offered bigger contracts in The Show than those designated as RPs? Typically, the guys in real life that are consistently considered closers command considerably more salary than those that aren't. I can't recall for sure, but I thought this was the case in The Show as well. If so, then it makes sense why SCEA would designate it specifically.

The salary gap between a typical reliever and closer isn't significant enough to warrant the distinction, perhaps, but the gap between someone considered a good reliever and a top-tier closer is, again, considerable. In other words, there is more than roster or position logic to consider in this.

[seanjeezy]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

Don't closers get offered bigger contracts in The Show than those designated as RPs? Typically, the guys in real life that are consistently considered closers command considerably more salary than those that aren't. I can't recall for sure, but I thought this was the case in The Show as well. If so, then it makes sense why SCEA would designate it specifically.

The salary gap between a typical reliever and closer isn't significant enough to warrant the distinction, perhaps, but the gap between someone considered a good reliever and a top-tier closer is, again, considerable. In other words, there is more than roster or position logic to consider in this.

Then SCEA needs to make past season stats matter. Let's say SCEA removes the CP position next year and I have a free-agent-to-be reliever who saves 35 games. There should be logic in place that has said reliever being offered the big bucks because he saved 35 games.

I want to say that free agent contracts are dependent on overall anyway, which is why my minor leaguers keep on asking for multimillion dollar contracts, even though they haven't spent a single second on the big club.

Also regarding the closer position, what happens if a team has a closer by committee setup? All the more reason for SCEA to incorporate player and managerial tendencies next year

[SoxFan01605]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

Then SCEA needs to make past season stats matter. Let's say SCEA removes the CP position next year and I have a free-agent-to-be reliever who saves 35 games. There should be logic in place that has said reliever being offered the big bucks because he saved 35 games.

I want to say that free agent contracts are dependent on overall anyway, which is why my minor leaguers keep on asking for multimillion dollar contracts, even though they haven't spent a single second on the big club.

Also regarding the closer position, what happens if a team has a closer by committee setup? All the more reason for SCEA to incorporate player and managerial tendencies next year

I don't disagree. I am just offering a potential alternative to why the position (rather than simply a spot on the depth chart) is in use. I also don't know how much their logic depends on different variables and what it takes to change them.

I don't really have an issue with it either way. If it's really serving no background function, then I would agree it doesn't need to be there. At the same time, it takes minutes to convert guys as needed as it stands.

Now, if its removal is part of a bigger picture (making stats matter more, expansion/enhancement of logic, etc as you mentioned) then I'm more interested. I am hoping for something along those lines regardless of the CP thing though.

[AntonTc]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

Then SCEA needs to make past season stats matter. Let's say SCEA removes the CP position next year and I have a free-agent-to-be reliever who saves 35 games. There should be logic in place that has said reliever being offered the big bucks because he saved 35 games.

I want to say that free agent contracts are dependent on overall anyway, which is why my minor leaguers keep on asking for multimillion dollar contracts, even though they haven't spent a single second on the big club.

Also regarding the closer position, what happens if a team has a closer by committee setup? All the more reason for SCEA to incorporate player and managerial tendencies next year

I'm pretty certain that with regards to salaries this is already the case, is it not? In my RTTS from my experiences I get paid more if I had played much better the prior season. However, it almost seems like the salary grouping is done in tiers, or something. Ie. A player who hits from 280-290 with 25-30 HR will make x, and then 290-300 with 30-35 makes Y, if that makes sense.

[seanjeezy]

Re: Is the CP necessary?

I'm pretty certain that with regards to salaries this is already the case, is it not? In my RTTS from my experiences I get paid more if I had played much better the prior season. However, it almost seems like the salary grouping is done in tiers, or something. Ie. A player who hits from 280-290 with 25-30 HR will make x, and then 290-300 with 30-35 makes Y, if that makes sense.

Are you sure? In my test M's franchise, Danny Hultzen is asking for 5 years $36.26M, even after a 9-16 season with a 5.31 ERA. Erasmo Ramirez went 12-10 with a 4.48 ERA and is only asking for 2 years $2.01M. Both are in their first year of salary arbitration, but Hultzen is almost an A overall while Erasmo is a mid C.

I also have Shawn Kelley and Kevin Jepsen asking for the same contract of 5 years $3.32M. They're both 31 and the same overall, but Jepsen's ERA was a full point lower than Kelley's. Tom Wilhelmsen's ERA was half a point lower than Jepsen's, but he only wants 5 years $2.78M because his overall is a little lower than the other two.