 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Pace
tysonlowery
I have a much better system in mind for this, but I believe it will require 12 man pitching staffs in order to be fair. So I will likely lump the change with this in with that and the injury system change when I do that.
Pace
November 04, 2005 at 05:12PM View BBCode
I've adjusted how pace works for RP, in regards to ICs. It is a bit more lenient now.I have a much better system in mind for this, but I believe it will require 12 man pitching staffs in order to be fair. So I will likely lump the change with this in with that and the injury system change when I do that.
TimSchere
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=89149
December 03, 2005 at 11:00PM View BBCode
Tyson, does your fix address this problem (if I even have the problem right)?http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=89149
youngallstar
Does it adress this issue as well?
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=86210#pid509508
[Edited on 12-3-2005 by youngallstar]
December 03, 2005 at 11:09PM View BBCode
Im just now seeing this threadDoes it adress this issue as well?
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=86210#pid509508
[Edited on 12-3-2005 by youngallstar]
barterer2002
December 03, 2005 at 11:33PM View BBCode
It strikes me that the problem you guys are both addressing here are different than the ones Tyson is addressing. If I'm correct, Tyson is changing pace to be more lienent on pitches racking up high games pitched in a smaller period of time. Your issues, I believe from the threads, deal with another issue that I do not think has been addressed yet. The best way to get high ICs for a pitcher is to have him come into games as a reliever and throw 7-8 innings at a time. He won't run into pace problems with his games and can rack up some serious innings. You end up with a guy who appears in 40-50 games and is well below the Pace threshold there and who averages about 5-6 innings a game (with some short outings thrown in. He gets 200-300 innings and doens't approach pace in either case. The low end here would be 52 ICs while the high end would be 75. Obviously with Yaz's example you can job the system a little more but these are certainly easily obtainable numbers.
TimSchere
That's not exactly my point, no. It just seems to me that pace is enforced in a way that is brutal if you're just over the line for the whole season, and no problem at all if you're just under it until the last week of the year. As a result, you have pitchers with essentially the same stats in terms of games and IP but totally different ICs. Example (from the thread I linked to):
Pitcher A, Age 35: 121 games 135 innings - Frank Crutcher got 29 ICs
Pitcher B, Age 22: 111 games 126 innings - Fetters Lee got 46 ICs
Pitcher C, Age 25: 103 games 137 innings - Ed Doane got 57 ICs
I know mentoring was a factor here, but pace was holding back Crutcher's ICs from almost the very beginning of the year. I didn't care, since he's 35, but isn't it silly that he would end up with half the ICs Doane got?
December 04, 2005 at 12:01AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
It strikes me that the problem you guys are both addressing here are different than the ones Tyson is addressing. If I'm correct, Tyson is changing pace to be more lienent on pitches racking up high games pitched in a smaller period of time. Your issues, I believe from the threads, deal with another issue that I do not think has been addressed yet. The best way to get high ICs for a pitcher is to have him come into games as a reliever and throw 7-8 innings at a time. He won't run into pace problems with his games and can rack up some serious innings. You end up with a guy who appears in 40-50 games and is well below the Pace threshold there and who averages about 5-6 innings a game (with some short outings thrown in. He gets 200-300 innings and doens't approach pace in either case. The low end here would be 52 ICs while the high end would be 75. Obviously with Yaz's example you can job the system a little more but these are certainly easily obtainable numbers.
That's not exactly my point, no. It just seems to me that pace is enforced in a way that is brutal if you're just over the line for the whole season, and no problem at all if you're just under it until the last week of the year. As a result, you have pitchers with essentially the same stats in terms of games and IP but totally different ICs. Example (from the thread I linked to):
Pitcher A, Age 35: 121 games 135 innings - Frank Crutcher got 29 ICs
Pitcher B, Age 22: 111 games 126 innings - Fetters Lee got 46 ICs
Pitcher C, Age 25: 103 games 137 innings - Ed Doane got 57 ICs
I know mentoring was a factor here, but pace was holding back Crutcher's ICs from almost the very beginning of the year. I didn't care, since he's 35, but isn't it silly that he would end up with half the ICs Doane got?
barterer2002
I'd say the question with your guys is when were they used. You can have two pitchers pitch the same amount of games and have vastly different PACE effects based on when they're used.
Suppose Pitcher A appears in 70 of the first 81 games. After about game 20 PACE kicks in on him and he stops receiving any credit for the games appeared. He'll still generate ICs based upon his innings but none for the games. At that point he gets injured and is out for the year (aren't hypotheticals great). His replacement, who had not yet pitched that season, then appears in 70 of the next 81 games. Since he never reaches a time that he is "on pace" to break all kind of appearance records, he continues to generate ICs for every game he pitches plus his innings. At the end of the season, assuming one inning per appearance for each, the first pitcher will have ICs of approximately 20 while the second would have 35.
December 04, 2005 at 02:23AM View BBCode
Yeah, sorry Tim, I was more reading Yazs post and just glanced through yours. Should have read it better.I'd say the question with your guys is when were they used. You can have two pitchers pitch the same amount of games and have vastly different PACE effects based on when they're used.
Suppose Pitcher A appears in 70 of the first 81 games. After about game 20 PACE kicks in on him and he stops receiving any credit for the games appeared. He'll still generate ICs based upon his innings but none for the games. At that point he gets injured and is out for the year (aren't hypotheticals great). His replacement, who had not yet pitched that season, then appears in 70 of the next 81 games. Since he never reaches a time that he is "on pace" to break all kind of appearance records, he continues to generate ICs for every game he pitches plus his innings. At the end of the season, assuming one inning per appearance for each, the first pitcher will have ICs of approximately 20 while the second would have 35.
TimSchere
December 04, 2005 at 09:44PM View BBCode
right, hence my question: is that being addressed by the change Tyson is putting in?
tysonlowery
All 3 guys were penalized - the issue as I understand it is that even though each guy is penalized, it was unfair which ones were penalized more than others.
The way to change this would be to tie pace to recently pitched games - but as I mentioned before I don't feel this is fair until we allow you to have 11+ pitching staffs.
December 05, 2005 at 03:45PM View BBCode
The guys you referenced wouldn't have been affected by this change.All 3 guys were penalized - the issue as I understand it is that even though each guy is penalized, it was unfair which ones were penalized more than others.
The way to change this would be to tie pace to recently pitched games - but as I mentioned before I don't feel this is fair until we allow you to have 11+ pitching staffs.
TimSchere
December 05, 2005 at 06:43PM View BBCode
Or tie pace to improvement chances awarded, rather than appearances or innings pitched. If someone is on pace for XX IC's, they are penalized. The penalty itself would make them fall off of pace, and they would start to accumulate ICs again.
barterer2002
December 06, 2005 at 01:02AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
But Tim, the purpose of PACE is not to take away ICs but to take away the advantage gained by abusing pitchers by throwing them out there for more than 100 games.
RSS
For instance, when a pitcher has racked up 160 relief innings -- a historically top-end figure, I believe -- cap his ICs. Same with 110 games. Unless ABE can't differentiate between relief innings and starter innings, I don't know why pace is used.
December 08, 2005 at 04:58PM View BBCode
Then why not wait until after the regular season to allocate ICs? Forget in-season pace -- just award ICs based on how many innings and games a guy has pitched at the conclusion of the season.For instance, when a pitcher has racked up 160 relief innings -- a historically top-end figure, I believe -- cap his ICs. Same with 110 games. Unless ABE can't differentiate between relief innings and starter innings, I don't know why pace is used.
tysonlowery
December 08, 2005 at 06:21PM View BBCode
Presumably, an owner could rack up those guys of ICs in say half a season, and then do the same with a 2nd player.
barterer2002
December 08, 2005 at 08:44PM View BBCode
Presumably we could do that right now if we just started in the second half of the season.
TimSchere
You can do that now, and only the first guy gets penalized. That's the problem I'm pointing out.
December 08, 2005 at 08:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
Presumably, an owner could rack up those guys of ICs in say half a season, and then do the same with a 2nd player.
You can do that now, and only the first guy gets penalized. That's the problem I'm pointing out.
Pages: 1