Although I think I had good logic in using your example, in this case I think it was an intentional move by the mgr and not done by the robot.

Just like consistently starting a guy at SS who only played very few innings there (A-Rod or Bellhorn) as done by many including Mike Bravard (A-Rod) and me (Bellhorn) it is legal.

The same for using a guy who kills lefties with a 1.475 LOPS yet only had 16 of 68 AB vs lefties and yet you use him 50 AB vs lefty.

It's all legal and yet questions could be made about if it is ethical. Personally, I hate the platooning abuse worse than all the rest.

The game should enforce appopriate penalties within the game. I do not think "peer pressure" enforcement is appropriate or effective or fair. Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to use a guy in your regular rotation who made 1 start in 40 appearances yet wrong to start him if he never made that 1 start? That type of enforcement is a little analagous to vigilante law enforcement, isnt' it? Who decides what is "ethical"? There is a better way.

The game should control abuse: for example allow you to start perhaps 200% of the games you actually started (or some appropriate amount) - not unlimited. Allow you to play a guy at a position only 200% of his actual innings there, etc. Allow you to use your lefty/righty platoon only up to 200% of a hitters actual AB's vs lefty, etc. But that isn't how it is, is it?

I'm not trying to defend these practices, just suggesting they aren't worth complaining about in specific cases if they are legal in general and I suspect we are all guilty of some of the ones I listed. The real problem is to convince Mike Bravard to change what is legal, isn't it?