 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » New Retirement System
Admin
If a player 34 or older spends less than 120 games on the active roster, he will retire.
If a batter 34 or older has less than 250 At bats, he will retire.
If a pitcher 34 or older has more than 100 IP, or has more than 25 IP and 15 Games, he will stick around. Otherwise, he will retire.
If a player is 30 or older and on the waiver wire, and hasn't met the above criteria, he will retire.
All other players will not retire. This will basically leave retirements in the hands of the owners in the league. If a player is given playing time, he will stick around.
This feature will be turned off in all leagues by default. If Private or Speed leagues want to use this system, we will allow them to change if they get a unanimous vote, or 3/4 if at renewal.
This is turned on in the beta league, turned off in the trial league.
Tyson
New Retirement System
June 18, 2009 at 09:52PM View BBCode
I added a new system for retirements that only looks at playing time when considering whether a player should retire.If a player 34 or older spends less than 120 games on the active roster, he will retire.
If a batter 34 or older has less than 250 At bats, he will retire.
If a pitcher 34 or older has more than 100 IP, or has more than 25 IP and 15 Games, he will stick around. Otherwise, he will retire.
If a player is 30 or older and on the waiver wire, and hasn't met the above criteria, he will retire.
All other players will not retire. This will basically leave retirements in the hands of the owners in the league. If a player is given playing time, he will stick around.
This feature will be turned off in all leagues by default. If Private or Speed leagues want to use this system, we will allow them to change if they get a unanimous vote, or 3/4 if at renewal.
This is turned on in the beta league, turned off in the trial league.
Tyson
tworoosters
Consider a player who plays regularly and is active getting 300 plate appearances, which should be used not at bats, but suffers a couple of injuries and is therefore only active in 115 games.
Will he retire because he wasn't active for 120 games, or will he stay because he got 300 plate appearances ?
June 18, 2009 at 10:57PM View BBCode
I like the idea but worry whether the active games/250 at bats are an either/or scenario.Consider a player who plays regularly and is active getting 300 plate appearances, which should be used not at bats, but suffers a couple of injuries and is therefore only active in 115 games.
Will he retire because he wasn't active for 120 games, or will he stay because he got 300 plate appearances ?
redcped
I don't see this being a realistic system, but maybe that's not what people want.
June 18, 2009 at 11:42PM View BBCode
Lots of useful veterans stick around as pinch hitters and backups. The 250 AB requirement basically means they have to play as a regular for half the season.I don't see this being a realistic system, but maybe that's not what people want.
Shaheen
It's pretty much made it where if you are a player over 34 you need to be a full time player or you will retire.
With players have declines every year, why don't you just have players auto-retire once thier overall rating gets below 75% of thier peak rating regardless of playing time/AB's/games on the roster. The watermark value could be a range that is random per player or a different value. I am just throwing 75% out there. It could be 70%-80% or whatever makes sense.
June 19, 2009 at 01:09PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
I can see this change now killing off having/trading for vets to use as a backups/pinch hitters/defense replacements/platoon players.
It's pretty much made it where if you are a player over 34 you need to be a full time player or you will retire.
With players have declines every year, why don't you just have players auto-retire once thier overall rating gets below 75% of thier peak rating regardless of playing time/AB's/games on the roster. The watermark value could be a range that is random per player or a different value. I am just throwing 75% out there. It could be 70%-80% or whatever makes sense.
Admin
Tyson
June 19, 2009 at 02:13PM View BBCode
Will he retire because he wasn't active for 120 games, or will he stay because he got 300 plate appearances ?I'm going to adjust this so 120 includes time spent on the DL.
I don't see this being a realistic system, but maybe that's not what people want.The basic thought here is that there are very few players that hang it up when they still have something left in the tank. I'd say 90-% or more of MLB players retire because they are not offered a job, not because they used to bat .310 and are now hitting .250. If someone wanted to play them everyday hitting .250, most guys would still do it.
With players have declines every year, why don't you just have players auto-retire once thier overall rating gets below 75% of thier peak rating regardless of playing time/AB's/games on the roster. The watermark value could be a range that is random per player or a different value. I am just throwing 75% out there. It could be 70%-80% or whatever makes sense.That might be a possibility for a 3rd system. If there's interest, I'll consider adding something like that. Maybe start a thread in Suggest Enhancements?
Tyson
tworoosters
I think a level of 200 plate appearances would be more appropriate if the goal is to put the retirement function in the hands of team owners.
June 19, 2009 at 02:34PM View BBCode
I still think 250 at bats is a pretty high ceiling, this essentially means that unless a player is at least a platoon starter against RHP he's going to have trouble reaching the requirement.I think a level of 200 plate appearances would be more appropriate if the goal is to put the retirement function in the hands of team owners.
Admin
Tyson
June 19, 2009 at 02:55PM View BBCode
that unless a player is at least a platoon starter against RHP he's going to have trouble reaching the requirement.That was kind of my intent. But maybe the level should be set so that a typical guy that platoons vs LHP would be safe as well.
Tyson
redcped
If he were a player in SD, Manny Mota would have retired at 35. But in RL, he was a valuable bench player until he was 42:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/motama01.shtml
June 19, 2009 at 04:02PM View BBCode
I just believe there has to be a place for the veteran who is a useful PH and doesn't start.If he were a player in SD, Manny Mota would have retired at 35. But in RL, he was a valuable bench player until he was 42:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/motama01.shtml
Admin
I've adjusted the limit to 200 at bats, and included time spent on the DL in the active games.
Tyson
June 19, 2009 at 04:22PM View BBCode
He would have retired under either system I think. You have a point, but I'm not sure how else you'd do this. I guess you could have a system with a minimum of any playing time? That shouldn't be to hard to set up, I'll work on that as a 3rd system.I've adjusted the limit to 200 at bats, and included time spent on the DL in the active games.
Tyson
Admin
Tyson
June 19, 2009 at 04:29PM View BBCode
Ok, I've added the Manny Mota system - minimum of 1 active game, 1 at bat, and 1 IP. We won't test this one in beta, it uses the same code as we are testing with different limits.Tyson
DwightKSchrute
June 19, 2009 at 07:05PM View BBCode
Yes! Methusala can now play simulated baseball at 1090 years old.
Admin
Tyson
June 19, 2009 at 08:18PM View BBCode
Yes! Methusala can now play simulated baseball at 1090 years old.He'll still decline, so his value and mentoring score would eventually become F. I'm sure someone will try this for kicks though :)
Tyson
Hits101
That seems realistic.
Another idea to consider if having a player retire whose plate appearances fall something like 50 % below his career average (or his 3 year average or something like that). This way a part time player who was averaging 100 AB/year platooning stays in the game unless he suddenly gets less than 50 AB. You could adjust for injuries or not but a 37 year old guy who gets injured might be more likely to retire anyway.
June 28, 2009 at 11:22AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Shaheen
I can see this change now killing off having/trading for vets to use as a backups/pinch hitters/defense replacements/platoon players.
It's pretty much made it where if you are a player over 34 you need to be a full time player or you will retire.
With players have declines every year, why don't you just have players auto-retire once thier overall rating gets below 75% of thier peak rating regardless of playing time/AB's/games on the roster. The watermark value could be a range that is random per player or a different value. I am just throwing 75% out there. It could be 70%-80% or whatever makes sense.
That seems realistic.
Another idea to consider if having a player retire whose plate appearances fall something like 50 % below his career average (or his 3 year average or something like that). This way a part time player who was averaging 100 AB/year platooning stays in the game unless he suddenly gets less than 50 AB. You could adjust for injuries or not but a 37 year old guy who gets injured might be more likely to retire anyway.
bpearly69
July 02, 2009 at 04:59PM View BBCode
meeh.. not sure if I like these too much, it's gonna get unrealistic with guys playing into their 50's, although I believe there should be guys playing into their 40's, I think there are other ways to do so.. like going for records if they are close to them, or the whole ring thing, I don't think someone winning a bunch of rings should have anything to do with them retiring, but many guys have played years longer then they should have chasing a ring so that makes sense, many guys do stick around for some records too but this has no affect in SD, I just am not thrilled with what this new system would be, and I know it's turned off by default I just think it's gonna get a bit crazy with how it'll be abused, I like the first idea to a certain point where it's based on playing time, getting them 200 at bats or so sounds fair, just not sure about the system 3 thing
tworoosters
With those limits the retirement is in the team owner's hands but he actually has to use the player to keep him around.
I think 200 at bats is still too high, unless you are injury system 4 I rarely have more than 9 guys above 200 at bats. I also think the "active games" thing is too easy to use, it means guys like [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=5086777]Alshot[/url] can stick around forever and get 20 at bats a year.
Currently guys like [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=4878164]Thomas[/url], [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=4714795]Christopher[/url] and [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=4878104]Reid[/url] are pretty much 50/50 to retire despite the fact that:
A) they are still contributing
B) their team would like to have them back because of A.
If 30 year olds on waivers all retire there is going to be a mentor crunch, which might be a good thing. In the minors I think that players above B- overall rating should stay on the books until OS34.
[Edited on 7-3-2009 by tworoosters]
A Compromise that fits the Philosophy
July 02, 2009 at 05:21PM View BBCode
I'd like to see the major league requirement set at 100 plate appearances, regardless of games, for hitters and 30 appearances or 100 innings pitched, either or, for pitchers.With those limits the retirement is in the team owner's hands but he actually has to use the player to keep him around.
I think 200 at bats is still too high, unless you are injury system 4 I rarely have more than 9 guys above 200 at bats. I also think the "active games" thing is too easy to use, it means guys like [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=5086777]Alshot[/url] can stick around forever and get 20 at bats a year.
Currently guys like [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=4878164]Thomas[/url], [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=4714795]Christopher[/url] and [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=4878104]Reid[/url] are pretty much 50/50 to retire despite the fact that:
A) they are still contributing
B) their team would like to have them back because of A.
If 30 year olds on waivers all retire there is going to be a mentor crunch, which might be a good thing. In the minors I think that players above B- overall rating should stay on the books until OS34.
[Edited on 7-3-2009 by tworoosters]
ballplayer3
July 03, 2009 at 06:36PM View BBCode
Something went wrong with Offseason Improvements - it appears that it didn't run.
celamantia
Make Health decline with age after, say, age 38... when your health gets to 0, you are forced to retire. If health dropped 6 points on average every year after age 38, that would set an absolute ceiling of 54 years for retirement for someone with perfect health. Only three Major League players ever played past 54: Satchel Paige, Minnie Miņoso, and Nick Altrock, and Miņoso and Altrock barely count.
[Edited on 9-3-2009 by celamantia]
September 03, 2009 at 01:31AM View BBCode
Solving the Methuselah problem....Make Health decline with age after, say, age 38... when your health gets to 0, you are forced to retire. If health dropped 6 points on average every year after age 38, that would set an absolute ceiling of 54 years for retirement for someone with perfect health. Only three Major League players ever played past 54: Satchel Paige, Minnie Miņoso, and Nick Altrock, and Miņoso and Altrock barely count.
[Edited on 9-3-2009 by celamantia]
celamantia
I can't remember... it doesn't show up on the Declines list.
September 03, 2009 at 07:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Doesn't health already decline with age ?
I can't remember... it doesn't show up on the Declines list.
Jughead
September 03, 2009 at 08:44PM View BBCode
Health already declines with age, but it is less than six points per year, and if health reaches zero, some number is automatically added to the health score. I had an F health guy become D- after his first year of declines. It doesn't matter. Any health under 10 (D-) or so all results in the same 130 games played (noncatchers).
tworoosters
Is it 200 plate appearances for hitters ? I want to keep [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=19068]George[/url] around just to see at what level he simply becomes useless.
Four of his past five seasons have been below value but he had a useful, barely, year in 2045. He no longer has any mentor value vs. RHP but his arm is still 80 so he provides some value behind the plate.
October 29, 2009 at 06:45PM View BBCode
Where are we at currently with playing requirements and retirements ?Is it 200 plate appearances for hitters ? I want to keep [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=19068]George[/url] around just to see at what level he simply becomes useless.
Four of his past five seasons have been below value but he had a useful, barely, year in 2045. He no longer has any mentor value vs. RHP but his arm is still 80 so he provides some value behind the plate.
Pages: 1