tysonlowery
A couple IC changes
February 03, 2006 at 04:16PM View BBCode
Ok, I'm going to get rid of Pace. It doesn't seem to be doing what it was designed to do - the loophole guys are still getting around it.
If you'd like to see a discussion of the changes, see this thread:
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=93141
What I'm going to change today is this. Pitchers will get a percentage of their ICs just for being on the roster. This will lessen the relationship between playing time and ICs - it doesn't make any sense to me that this relationship is so tightly correlated.
Additionally, Pace will be tossed and will be replaced with a sort of soft cap for pitchers. After 40 ICs, each IC will be increasingly harder to get.
I'm almost done with the coding, so it should be ready by lunch time.
tysonlowery
February 03, 2006 at 04:18PM View BBCode
Also, I'm thinking of just revealing the forumulas this time around. Last time, with Mentoring, it didn't seem to help much to keep it a secret. The smart guys reverse engineered the formulas anyhow, and it just hurt the casual player for me not to be able to say "Keep your Games pitched below X% of your team's games"
Some people felt that if the numbers were hidden, people wouldn't try to abuse things. It seems like the opposite has happened for whatever reason.
rnznsmn
February 03, 2006 at 04:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
What I'm going to change today is this. Pitchers will get a percentage of their ICs just for being on the roster. This will lessen the relationship between playing time and ICs - it doesn't make any sense to me that this relationship is so tightly correlated.
Tyson,
Does "being on the roster" included when a pitcher is on the roster but injured? What if he's on the DL? What if he's rested?
Will you be disclosing the new formulas for pitcher IC accumulation based on appearances, and based on roster time?
tysonlowery
February 03, 2006 at 04:26PM View BBCode
Does "being on the roster" included when a pitcher is on the roster but injured? What if he's on the DL? What if he's rested?
He has to be in a rotation slot and not be injured.
Will you be disclosing the new formulas for pitcher IC accumulation based on appearances, and based on roster time?
Not sure yet. What do you all think should be done?
rnznsmn
February 03, 2006 at 04:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
Will you be disclosing the new formulas for pitcher IC accumulation based on appearances, and based on roster time?
Not sure yet. What do you all think should be done?
If it's reverse-engineerable anyway, then I think you should disclose it. Otherwise, it's just a boon for those of us like Blucy and I that like to figure this stuff out, and a difficulty to those that don't have the time, inclination, or ability to do so themselves.
Besides, if it's theoretically less-abusable anyway, then I see less concern in the abuse.
Incidentally, have you resolved the issue where pitchers that are rested don't count for mentoring? Because this is a GREAT example to me of how it can be valuable to bring up minor leaguers in September to get some starts AND roster time, but doing so trashes your mentoring when your vets get rested. I think vets should still contribute to mentoring when rested, IF they have some reasonable minimum number of games or appearances (to keep you from getting waiver wire scrubs with no appearances and stashing them in your rested lineup in September).
tysonlowery
February 03, 2006 at 04:46PM View BBCode
Incidentally, have you resolved the issue where pitchers that are rested don't count for mentoring?
I don't consider that an issue. If you want to discuss it further, let's do it in another thread.
rnznsmn
February 03, 2006 at 05:06PM View BBCode
Tyson, any ETA on when you will port this over to the main site?
tysonlowery
February 03, 2006 at 05:14PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
March 10th ish at the next code merge. I don't think it effects anyone unfairly.
Ok, the changes are in place - I'm testing with some short term beta games.
Jet
February 03, 2006 at 11:38PM View BBCode
The whole resting thing is a bit of a loophole already, I've been playing around with it a bit lately.
In September I called up a couple extra mentors. I expected at least one or two mentors to retire anyway in the offseason, and one of the mentors I called up had C+ mentoring and still had minor league options left because he was a 25yo amatuer draftee.
Then I would shuffle out the youngsters in the rotation who were tired until they could go again and shuffle them back in for other youngsters who were tired. This way I was able to increase my mentor to kid ration from 5:5 (2 starting mentors and 3 relief mentors) to 7:3.
I'll have to play with it some more to see how much it helped. You have to be fairly active to use it well and you have to hope the guys actually retire to make room or your going to lose someone in most cases.
If you allow resting players to count towards mentoring though, I think this would become even a worse problem where people could play more kids and rest as many mentors as they can find. Grab a bunch of C+ guys off waivers or something.
Originally posted by rnznsmn
Incidentally, have you resolved the issue where pitchers that are rested don't count for mentoring? Because this is a GREAT example to me of how it can be valuable to bring up minor leaguers in September to get some starts AND roster time, but doing so trashes your mentoring when your vets get rested. I think vets should still contribute to mentoring when rested, IF they have some reasonable minimum number of games or appearances (to keep you from getting waiver wire scrubs with no appearances and stashing them in your rested lineup in September).
Jet
February 03, 2006 at 11:52PM View BBCode
I like these changes a lot. Mostly because I absolutely hate the pace system. And I've found even with the 1.5xgames for relievers you can cheat the system and very easily get a lot more improves for SP by shuttling them into relief later in the season. But relievers, especially the ones with poor endurance hit their pace quickly and don't get enough innings to compensate unless you make them start and try to leave them in until they get hammered.
One potential abuse I see of this new system is the cap. I could see owners with 20 to 22yo minor league pitchers demoting the guys who hit 40 IC and putting minor league CPs on them for the rest of the year, and calling up the other guy(s). It's something I do already to try and compensate for pace when the guy starts getting to many games. Although it's a soft cap so it might not be worth the effort.
Still, I'm not sure this is a really bad thing. You'd have to have all the right peices to make it work, so it would be a rarer occurance. And I think that it's harder to get good mentoring values for pitching anyway. With hitting you can have 2 (25%), 3(38%), or 4(50%) of your 8 hitters be mentors and do okay. For pitching, there are odd numbers with 5 and 5. You would think two of the five would be good enough for mentoring, But even with two B+ mentors you still only get C+ mentoring. So hopefully this change will help compensate for that, even if you have a small loophole like this.
I think either way this system sounds way better than the current one and that it should be tried out for a couple months as is and tweaked from there.
[Edited on 2-3-2006 by Jet]
Beringer
February 04, 2006 at 01:38AM View BBCode
The question then becomes - if Pitcher-A starts 35 game and throws 250 innings - how many IC's is he going to get? IMO pitchers need to be able to get their IC total up into the high 50's to 60 at least. (assuming mentoring is C+)
Hitters routinely get 65 IC's+, so I believe pitchers need to be able to get the same thing.
barterer2002
February 04, 2006 at 10:26PM View BBCode
I'd agree with Beringer but would take it a step further. It strikes me that there are three categories of players-hitters, RP and SP. All three should have equal opportunites to reach the same levels of improvements. As things now stand hitters can easily reach the 65-70 range, starting pitchers 55-60 and relievers 45-50. Relievers and starters can be manipulated to increase their totals but it strikes me that it ought to be able to do so without manipulation or abuse. This means that an 80 game 100 inning reliever needs to have equal opportunity to a 35 start 250 inning starter and a 650 plate appearance hitter.
ScooterPie
February 04, 2006 at 11:32PM View BBCode
What immediately jumps to my mind is this: Does it make sense to make batters' (not just picthers') ICs start getting more difficult at 40? At least this would put everyone in similar watercraft, if not the same boat exactly.
Originally posted by barterer2002
an 80 game 100 inning reliever needs to have equal opportunity to a 35 start 250 inning starter and a 650 plate appearance hitter.
If you use a formula that only takes into account games and innings pitched, the way to do this is to make games roughly 3 times as valuable as innings. i.e., ( 3*G + IP ) / 5
I suspect that the new formula, with roster time being more important, will need a similar weighting. I just played with it in the spreadhseet Tyson posted in the other thread, and that does seem to be the case.
Just a couple thoughts.
scooter
Beringer
February 05, 2006 at 01:35AM View BBCode
I agree w/ barterer and Scooter - the 35 start pitcher, 80 game reliever, and the every day position player need to wind up w/ similar IC totals, the question is how many?
I think 57-60 is reasonable, with some guys still able to get to 65. Reason being - if the totals are substantially lower, say 48-55, then the game changes a lot. A much bigger emphasis will be put on the draft as guys won't be improving as much as before.
If you place an even bigger emphasis on the draft the desire to tank goes up. As it stands now lots of players are OK drafting a few slots lower as they're confident that they can develop their guy anyway. But if you lose 10 IC's per year compared to what you've been getting you're going to want your draft position to be a little better to make up for that.
Jet
February 05, 2006 at 02:49AM View BBCode
The reason pitching is being tweaked is that it's the most abused thing right now. And the most difficult thing to balance out for owners. Batting is fine where it is, maybe it could use a little tweaking, but we need to focus on the biggest problem first.
Clearly people abuse pitchers, and clearly the people who don't abuse them have a really hard and a really unfair time getting decent improves. Clearly relievers are a lot harder to improve than starters. And that's true wether your a n abuser or a regular user. For abusers, starters are easy to manipulate and get them a lot more games and innings and load up on improves. For relievers, because of endurance issues and the old pace system, it's a lot harder. Currently, unless you spend every day or several times a day tweaking your rotation, you lose out. And that's not fun or fair to most of us.
You have to do when you put in changes is take them one step at a time. In the past I think we've done to many things at once to try and fix the problem all in one shot, and this just caused more problems while fixing others. Lets just go with what we got here, see how it works and then tweak it some more after that.
tysonlowery
February 05, 2006 at 03:04PM View BBCode
One potential abuse I see of this new system is the cap. I could see owners with 20 to 22yo minor league pitchers demoting the guys who hit 40 IC and putting minor league CPs on them for the rest of the year, and calling up the other guy(s). It's something I do already to try and compensate for pace when the guy starts getting to many games. Although it's a soft cap so it might not be worth the effort.
With the way the formulas are setup, its tough to get to 40 ICs without being on the roster for all 162 games. Its not impossible though - you could probably do it if a guy pitched say 70 out of 80 games and threw 400 IP.
You have to do when you put in changes is take them one step at a time. In the past I think we've done to many things at once to try and fix the problem all in one shot, and this just caused more problems while fixing others. Lets just go with what we got here, see how it works and then tweak it some more after that.
I agree with that as well. Let's focus on the one thing, put it on the main site, tweak it, etc. so that we can get it right. I think some changes should be made to batters - because it makes sense - not because its a glaring problem in my mind.
Beringer
February 06, 2006 at 07:17PM View BBCode
Tyson - with this new system, about how many IC's does the SP w/ 35 starts and 250 innings get?
BrutusKhan
February 07, 2006 at 12:57AM View BBCode
The only thing I'd point as to being very important is this:
Players come out of the amatuer draft at the top of the draft with very good pitching ratings. You need to make sure that other owners who spend 3 years of CP's & then OS 23, 24 & 25 in the majors can make their players equal to the players being drafted, or what owners are acustomed to seeing their star pitchers look like.
Some, not all, of the abusers did so to get their pitching to a SERVICABLE level. So, my point is, just don't make it too hard for guys to get to 50 - 60 IC's, and don't make it too easy. Making it impossible to get to 60 is bad, and making it too easy to get to say 45-50 is also bad, as you eliminate some of the strategy of the game.
I'm not offering suggestions, and I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out if you don't cover that basis, you'll have big problems again. Sorry I don't have time to go through & come up with suggestions, but I've been busy.
And, I've laid low about being called a whiner, but numerous people have stated they "hated" pace, including a post I read by Jet, now that it's being demolished, admitting so as well. That's all I pretty much complained about is that I wasn't enjoying the game. I'm pretty laid back guy, so if I'm complaining, there usually is reason. I'm trying to pay my money & enjoy the game, and didn't appreciate references that I'd have other intents.
Just my 2 cents, and if you guys don't want to hear them, let me know.
Doug
tysonlowery
February 07, 2006 at 04:41PM View BBCode
Tyson - with this new system, about how many IC's does the SP w/ 35 starts and 250 innings get?
Assuming he is on the roster for all 162 games, he will be at around 55 ICs.
Pages: 1