 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Major League position changes and ICs
Admin
There are many reasons for this change. First off, it has a basis in reality. If you are learning a new position at the major league level, it is typically taking away from your ability to learn how to be a better hitter. The human brain can only learn so much at once.
Second, with the ability to convert at the minor league level penalty free, there should be less reason to convert at the major league level.
Finally, this will prevent bad teams from just converting every player to every position at the major league level "just in case" they might someday need them to play that position, and in the meantime piling up more loses.
Tyson
Major League position changes and ICs
September 28, 2007 at 03:05PM View BBCode
I put in a change today. If you are playing out of position, and don't have at least a 90% rating at that position, you will be subjected to a 10 percent decrease in Major League ICs.There are many reasons for this change. First off, it has a basis in reality. If you are learning a new position at the major league level, it is typically taking away from your ability to learn how to be a better hitter. The human brain can only learn so much at once.
Second, with the ability to convert at the minor league level penalty free, there should be less reason to convert at the major league level.
Finally, this will prevent bad teams from just converting every player to every position at the major league level "just in case" they might someday need them to play that position, and in the meantime piling up more loses.
Tyson
tworoosters
Are Left Fielders or Center Fielders playing Right Field going to suffer a decrease in improvements ? How about SS playing 2B - will they suffer the same 10% as a RF learning 3B ? Doesn't seem logical to me.
Only in SIM do players have 0% abilities at other positions when drafted, in reality players come up through Little League, High School, and College playing a multiple of positions. Many top college pitchers play alternate positions as well.
As a high school and college player I was primarily a catcher, yet I also played 3B, 1B and Left Field so I think it is unrealistic to have SIM players start their careers with 100% at one position and 0% at all others.
Is playing out of position such a huge problem in SIM right now?
I don't hear any hue and cry in my three leagues, and since the advent of +/- I think we're seeing considerably less of the wild switches.
[Edited on 9-28-2007 by tworoosters]
September 28, 2007 at 04:25PM View BBCode
I think 90 % is way too high.Are Left Fielders or Center Fielders playing Right Field going to suffer a decrease in improvements ? How about SS playing 2B - will they suffer the same 10% as a RF learning 3B ? Doesn't seem logical to me.
Only in SIM do players have 0% abilities at other positions when drafted, in reality players come up through Little League, High School, and College playing a multiple of positions. Many top college pitchers play alternate positions as well.
As a high school and college player I was primarily a catcher, yet I also played 3B, 1B and Left Field so I think it is unrealistic to have SIM players start their careers with 100% at one position and 0% at all others.
Is playing out of position such a huge problem in SIM right now?
I don't hear any hue and cry in my three leagues, and since the advent of +/- I think we're seeing considerably less of the wild switches.
[Edited on 9-28-2007 by tworoosters]
tworoosters
Not exactly penalty free, only players with 4CPs or less are able to change positions at the minor league level.
September 28, 2007 at 04:28PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Second, with the ability to convert at the minor league level penalty free, there should be less reason to convert at the major league level.
Tyson
Not exactly penalty free, only players with 4CPs or less are able to change positions at the minor league level.
Admin
A 10% penalty isn't going to kill you. If you are in a bind and have to convert someone at the major league level, then you're going to get a bit of a hit.
A lot of rebuilding teams will convert every prospect to every position possible. This results in more losses than the team should have. With the current system this is the optimal strategy. Not only do you get to lose more games, but your players will learn to play just about every position. Just another little nudge to make the bad teams as competitive as possible. This is the main reason for this change.
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 04:33PM View BBCode
Not exactly penalty free, only players with 4CPs or less are able to change positions at the minor league level.That's not the case. I've posted the info 3 times now, re-read the thread.
A 10% penalty isn't going to kill you. If you are in a bind and have to convert someone at the major league level, then you're going to get a bit of a hit.
A lot of rebuilding teams will convert every prospect to every position possible. This results in more losses than the team should have. With the current system this is the optimal strategy. Not only do you get to lose more games, but your players will learn to play just about every position. Just another little nudge to make the bad teams as competitive as possible. This is the main reason for this change.
Tyson
Admin
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 04:35PM View BBCode
The reason I set it at 90%, rather than 100%, is that I didn't want to penalize those guys who had flip-flopping position changers.Tyson
tworoosters
Actually your initial post says:
Then later in a response to my question you state:
Without ever retracting the initial statement I guess I didn't pick up on the "I've scrapped the 4 CP or less idea".
Regardless I still think 90% is too high a threshold
September 28, 2007 at 05:21PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Not exactly penalty free, only players with 4CPs or less are able to change positions at the minor league level.That's not the case. I've posted the info 3 times now, re-read the thread.
Actually your initial post says:
The other thought is to limit this to guys with 4 CPs or less, so you have to give up something to make it happen.
Then later in a response to my question you state:
Even if he has 0 CPs on him, or 5 CPs on him, he will get 162 chances to convert to the new position. That's how it is setup at the moment.
Without ever retracting the initial statement I guess I didn't pick up on the "I've scrapped the 4 CP or less idea".
Regardless I still think 90% is too high a threshold
Admin
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 05:33PM View BBCode
Sorry, for clarify perhaps I should have made this statement one paragraph:I didn't put any restrictions in here about how many players you have to pick. I figure if you want to focus on 1 guy, that's your choice. Do you disagree? The other thought is to limit this to guys with 4 CPs or less, so you have to give up something to make it happen.By thought, I meant I had given it some thought but not done anything about it. It's the opposite of letting you focus on 1 guy.
Tyson
lvnwrth
September 28, 2007 at 06:01PM View BBCode
I agree with this in principal, but also believe that 90% is too high. There are lots of major leaguers who are utility type players who probably don't play their second or third positions at 90% of average of the ML starters at that position. I think somewhere between 50-75% is more reasonable.
ScooterPie
Personally, I think this is a swell idea. When I was losing all those games, and then at the end of seasons where I had the pennant sewn up, I would look around for who might benefit from some training at another position. Even with +/-, there's not much downside.
I like it.
scooter
* Any thought of graduating the penalty? So a dude who's 85% at his off position doesn't incur the same IC penalty as a feller who's 1.6%? Just a thought. Don't know about ease of implementation; haven't considered whether it makes sim sense.
September 28, 2007 at 08:13PM View BBCode
90% does feel a bit high at first blush; I may change my mind on that. Either way, it is what it is and we'll all be playing by the same rules, so whatever number you land on is acceptable*.Personally, I think this is a swell idea. When I was losing all those games, and then at the end of seasons where I had the pennant sewn up, I would look around for who might benefit from some training at another position. Even with +/-, there's not much downside.
I like it.
scooter
* Any thought of graduating the penalty? So a dude who's 85% at his off position doesn't incur the same IC penalty as a feller who's 1.6%? Just a thought. Don't know about ease of implementation; haven't considered whether it makes sim sense.
Admin
On my teams, the types of players that I have playing multiple positions aren't guys I'm also trying to develop to their fullest. My superstar prospects are playing every day.
Do you guys have legitimate prospects or players you are trying to develop where they are playing a position they are not 100% at? Or will be?
Give me some more examples of the types of players this will adversely effect. On my teams, it's not guys that are playing every day.
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 08:24PM View BBCode
Hi Scooter, I had thought about degrading the penalty. I guess I had full conversions in mind when coming up with the rules here. So if you have a guy at 0% and want him to play SS, he'd incur the penalty until he was fully converted. I suppose I could change it to be like a 15% penalty if he is below 50%, vs a 5% penalty if he is above (or some similar thing like that), but in the end if you are after a full conversion the effect is the same.On my teams, the types of players that I have playing multiple positions aren't guys I'm also trying to develop to their fullest. My superstar prospects are playing every day.
Do you guys have legitimate prospects or players you are trying to develop where they are playing a position they are not 100% at? Or will be?
Give me some more examples of the types of players this will adversely effect. On my teams, it's not guys that are playing every day.
Tyson
Admin
Tyson
[Edited on 9-28-2007 by Admin]
September 28, 2007 at 08:24PM View BBCode
Just to reiterate, I was going to make it so that guys need to be 100% at their position to avoid the penalty. But figured with guys running up against the 25 games played in a season rule, that didn't seem fair.Tyson
[Edited on 9-28-2007 by Admin]
tworoosters
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=3641429]Alonzo Harris[/url] was a minor league OF converted to 2B so would have suffered the penalty while converting.
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=3791573]Goodsen[/url] is also almost finished his conversion but it took over 100 games before the 100% will take place due to timing.
None of these changes are of the unbelievable variety 2 CF to 2B and an OF to 1B.
Also what about the LF/RF/CF scenario as mentioned above ? Is a RF going to suffer because he's playing LF, seems a bit harsh to me. While a 10% decline in improvement chances is not severe I still think the logic should be accurate.
September 28, 2007 at 08:52PM View BBCode
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=3850505]Bobby Rayburn[/url] is originally an OF being moved between OF and 1B - not a major prospect but someone I wouldn't want to lose improvements on.[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=3641429]Alonzo Harris[/url] was a minor league OF converted to 2B so would have suffered the penalty while converting.
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=3791573]Goodsen[/url] is also almost finished his conversion but it took over 100 games before the 100% will take place due to timing.
None of these changes are of the unbelievable variety 2 CF to 2B and an OF to 1B.
Also what about the LF/RF/CF scenario as mentioned above ? Is a RF going to suffer because he's playing LF, seems a bit harsh to me. While a 10% decline in improvement chances is not severe I still think the logic should be accurate.
Admin
With the new system, you would have likely converted Harris at the minor league level too. But in either case, he isn't a good example because it seems you are converting him to 2B. Unless you are planning on habitually converting him to other positions, you will only suffer this penalty once.
Same with Goodsen, you would only suffer the penalty during one conversion.
With this new rule, you should suffer the penalty only once during a conversion. I set it at 90% to ensure you only suffer the penalty once.
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 09:01PM View BBCode
You are right, marginal prospects like Rayburn may be hurt by this penalty whereas they weren't hurt before. But under the new system, you could have prepared for this by doing some conversions at the minor league level.With the new system, you would have likely converted Harris at the minor league level too. But in either case, he isn't a good example because it seems you are converting him to 2B. Unless you are planning on habitually converting him to other positions, you will only suffer this penalty once.
Same with Goodsen, you would only suffer the penalty during one conversion.
With this new rule, you should suffer the penalty only once during a conversion. I set it at 90% to ensure you only suffer the penalty once.
Tyson
barterer2002
A suggestion here.
There are certain skill sets that are common to more than one position. For instance A CF has skills to play LF and RF from the beginning. He has to learn how to read the ball off the bat but it seems to me that he should start higher than 0. I'm thinking like this
General OF skills-Any outfielder is already 40% in CF and 50% in LF or RF by virtue of the primary position.
General IF skills-A shortstop is already 40% at 2B or 3B, a 3B is 40% at SS or 30% at 2B and a 2B is 40% at SS or 30% at 3B
All players start off as 30% at 1B.
September 28, 2007 at 09:01PM View BBCode
TysonA suggestion here.
There are certain skill sets that are common to more than one position. For instance A CF has skills to play LF and RF from the beginning. He has to learn how to read the ball off the bat but it seems to me that he should start higher than 0. I'm thinking like this
General OF skills-Any outfielder is already 40% in CF and 50% in LF or RF by virtue of the primary position.
General IF skills-A shortstop is already 40% at 2B or 3B, a 3B is 40% at SS or 30% at 2B and a 2B is 40% at SS or 30% at 3B
All players start off as 30% at 1B.
Admin
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 09:04PM View BBCode
For OF, it's kind of nice how this works in with position changing difficulty. Since it is a less difficult change, it will take less games to get to the threshold. So you won't be penalized as much. For converting from 1B to SS, you will suffer the penalty for multiple seasons and will make you think twice before making the change.Tyson
Admin
I suppose we could make them twice as hard and start some guys off at 50%.
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 09:06PM View BBCode
Hey bart, isn't that already somewhat taken into account my making some position changes harder or easier than others, no?I suppose we could make them twice as hard and start some guys off at 50%.
Tyson
barterer2002
September 28, 2007 at 09:09PM View BBCode
Tyson, to an extent you're right but at this point you're taking away ICs from a guy which makes it more relevant. Its not uncommon for me to move young OFs from one position to another after a trade etc. Some of this will be alievated by the minor league stuff but if you're going to penalize for playing a CF in RF I think the penalty needs to be mitigated a bit but cutting down on the time that the penalty is in effect for.
Admin
How long does it take a LF to convert to RF at the major league level? Let me look at my code... it would take an average guy about 17 games to convert from LF to RF. For the first 15 games, he would be hit with the penalty. Assuming a player gets 60 ICs in a season and plays in 140 games, he would lose 0.64 ICs as a result of this change. One time in his career. I don't think that's going to be enough to prevent you from doing that sort of position change.
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 09:34PM View BBCode
Yeah, I suppose it could go either way there. Your change might be nice to do, but it would require re-tinkering of all the position change formulas.How long does it take a LF to convert to RF at the major league level? Let me look at my code... it would take an average guy about 17 games to convert from LF to RF. For the first 15 games, he would be hit with the penalty. Assuming a player gets 60 ICs in a season and plays in 140 games, he would lose 0.64 ICs as a result of this change. One time in his career. I don't think that's going to be enough to prevent you from doing that sort of position change.
Tyson
barterer2002
September 28, 2007 at 09:39PM View BBCode
Alright, no problem then, I hadn't run the numbers.
Admin
3B to 2B. This will take an average guy 100 Games to accomplish. For the first 90 games, he will be hit with the penalty. Assuming he plays 140 games and gets 60 ICs, that will mean he will lose 3.8 ICs. I'll probably still convert him if it makes sense for my team, but it makes it a tougher decision if I'm just doing it to gain some kind of long-term position flexibility.
3B to SS. This takes about 2 -3 seasons, so you're getting penalized on You'd lose about 15 ICS over that time. Might be worth it if I need a SS, but I'm not doing this one just because I might someday need him to play 3 games at SS when he's 34 years old. This is exactly the kind of position change I was targeting with this change.
Tyson
September 28, 2007 at 09:56PM View BBCode
Since I have the code open, let's run the math for a moderate change and a difficult change.3B to 2B. This will take an average guy 100 Games to accomplish. For the first 90 games, he will be hit with the penalty. Assuming he plays 140 games and gets 60 ICs, that will mean he will lose 3.8 ICs. I'll probably still convert him if it makes sense for my team, but it makes it a tougher decision if I'm just doing it to gain some kind of long-term position flexibility.
3B to SS. This takes about 2 -3 seasons, so you're getting penalized on You'd lose about 15 ICS over that time. Might be worth it if I need a SS, but I'm not doing this one just because I might someday need him to play 3 games at SS when he's 34 years old. This is exactly the kind of position change I was targeting with this change.
Tyson
lvnwrth
In the Hank Aaron League, I had three real good catching prospects...two in the outfield and one catching. They are all three still on the team and I was absolutely developing them at the time they were changing positions.
In Beta, Don Francione was a third baseman who moved to first base. He is an All-Star and I wasn't playing him at first as a utility guy, he was there to convert and play there for ten years.
In Mike Schmidt, I switched a first baseman and a right fielder because the RF had good range and no arm, and the 1st baseman had decent arm, but limited range.
Just because you don't do this on your team, I don't think that means that it's safe to assume that it's not being done. In this case, I think you are probably the exception, not the rule.
September 28, 2007 at 11:13PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Do you guys have legitimate prospects or players you are trying to develop where they are playing a position they are not 100% at? Or will be?
Give me some more examples of the types of players this will adversely effect. On my teams, it's not guys that are playing every day.
Tyson
In the Hank Aaron League, I had three real good catching prospects...two in the outfield and one catching. They are all three still on the team and I was absolutely developing them at the time they were changing positions.
In Beta, Don Francione was a third baseman who moved to first base. He is an All-Star and I wasn't playing him at first as a utility guy, he was there to convert and play there for ten years.
In Mike Schmidt, I switched a first baseman and a right fielder because the RF had good range and no arm, and the 1st baseman had decent arm, but limited range.
Just because you don't do this on your team, I don't think that means that it's safe to assume that it's not being done. In this case, I think you are probably the exception, not the rule.
tworoosters
Here's a classic example of the kind of guy who would be affected, [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=10400]Polcovich[/url] - he struggles to find at bats anyway on a very good offensive team whose [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9045]catcher[/url] is still young and is significantly better than Polcovich.
In order to have Polcovich catch, and receive full improves, I lose out on the quality of my catching and lose Malone's mentor value (negligible to be fair) on my pitching staff.
With the new minor league positional improves I could have changed Polcovich but that's no longer an option. I think maybe it would be better to introduce the minor league positional option first to give managers time to "get their ducks in a row".
September 29, 2007 at 03:45PM View BBCode
Let me preface this by saying that I realize 10% loss of improves is not life changing and I still think 90% is too high a threshold.Here's a classic example of the kind of guy who would be affected, [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=10400]Polcovich[/url] - he struggles to find at bats anyway on a very good offensive team whose [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9045]catcher[/url] is still young and is significantly better than Polcovich.
In order to have Polcovich catch, and receive full improves, I lose out on the quality of my catching and lose Malone's mentor value (negligible to be fair) on my pitching staff.
With the new minor league positional improves I could have changed Polcovich but that's no longer an option. I think maybe it would be better to introduce the minor league positional option first to give managers time to "get their ducks in a row".
lvnwrth
For OF, it's kind of nice how this works in with position changing difficulty. Since it is a less difficult change, it will take less games to get to the threshold. So you won't be penalized as much. For converting from 1B to SS, you will suffer the penalty for multiple seasons and will make you think twice before making the change.
Tyson [/quote]
And that's a good thing. A 1b to SS switch is simply not done at the ML level. Off the top of my head, I can't think of it EVER being done.
And with the changes to minor league position conversions, if a 17-year old 1b has SS skills, he makes that conversion during his minor league career. WOW! Just like real baseball!!
Some wrinkles to iron out, and some unknown bugs that will surface during testing, but this is a great change, TL.
September 29, 2007 at 06:02PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Admin[/i]
For OF, it's kind of nice how this works in with position changing difficulty. Since it is a less difficult change, it will take less games to get to the threshold. So you won't be penalized as much. For converting from 1B to SS, you will suffer the penalty for multiple seasons and will make you think twice before making the change.
Tyson [/quote]
And that's a good thing. A 1b to SS switch is simply not done at the ML level. Off the top of my head, I can't think of it EVER being done.
And with the changes to minor league position conversions, if a 17-year old 1b has SS skills, he makes that conversion during his minor league career. WOW! Just like real baseball!!
Some wrinkles to iron out, and some unknown bugs that will surface during testing, but this is a great change, TL.
ScooterPie
Of course, my league is a Dynasty League, and I don't guess anybody's gonna want to wait for more than two months of staggering. As always, we'll just deal with what we get. Plus, Tyson's examples of major-league switches make it sound very reasonable anyway, so it's not a huge deal. Some teams will get a little unlucky is all.
scooter
September 29, 2007 at 06:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoostersI was thinking about this yesterday. If both changes (major-league and minor-league position changes) are put in together, then there will be several tweeners in every league -- guys who missed their chance to convert in the minors and must now suffer the wrath of the IC penalty if they shift in the majors. Wondered whether it made sense to stagger the implementation.
I think maybe it would be better to introduce the minor league positional option first to give managers time to "get their ducks in a row".
Of course, my league is a Dynasty League, and I don't guess anybody's gonna want to wait for more than two months of staggering. As always, we'll just deal with what we get. Plus, Tyson's examples of major-league switches make it sound very reasonable anyway, so it's not a huge deal. Some teams will get a little unlucky is all.
scooter
lvnwrth
But a one season difference really doesn't make much difference, does it? You're still gonna wind up with a bunch of guys who didn't have time to convert in the minors and will now get hit with the ML penalty during their prime improvement seasons.
September 29, 2007 at 08:05PM View BBCode
I would agree with this. I'd think that a couple of seasons of the minor league change before the implementation of the major league change should give guys time to start adjusting. Your point on Dynasty leagues is well taken...two seasons is four months.But a one season difference really doesn't make much difference, does it? You're still gonna wind up with a bunch of guys who didn't have time to convert in the minors and will now get hit with the ML penalty during their prime improvement seasons.
Pages: 1 2