 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » New Injury System(s) and pitcher overuse
Admin
First off, I put in a change so that if a pitcher gets over 50 ICs, anything over 50 will go 100% towards endurance. This is for all leagues and can't be turned on or off.
For injuries, I've coded in 4 different systems.
System 1: Same as Today
This is the current system we use today. I expect this to be used by select Private leagues that want this still.
System 2: Same as Today with Overuse Penalties
This new system will be used by default by all existing leagues. It is the same as the system we use today, but also adds a penalty in for pitcher overuse. If a pitcher is pitching in too many games, he will be more prone to injury.
System 3: Increased Pitcher injuries, and Overuse Penalties
This is the same as system 2, but it doubles the chances of injuries for relief pitchers in all cases and quadruples the chances of injuries for SP. I expect to use this in some new Speed leagues. I might try to migrate Dynasty and Speed leagues to this system over time.
System 4: Realistic Injuries
This will have many more injuries than your average league and include penalties for pitcher overuse. It has about double the injuries as System 3.
One of the reasons we are doubling pitcher injuries, or adding in penalties for overuse, is to make Health more important for Pitchers. Right now, pitchers have the same chance of being injured as batters for each game they play in, about 1 in 500 for a C+ health player. So for a season, a batter that plays everyday will have about a 162/500 chance of injury whereas a SP will have about a 36/500 chance of injury. These measures are meant to bridge that gap somewhat and make it more realistic.
For the moment, I have setup beta to use System 2.
For new private leagues, if you have ideas on tweaking injury settings, I might be willing to add in new systems for your league. It's only a few lines of code now with the way I set it up.
Tyson
New Injury System(s) and pitcher overuse
September 27, 2007 at 04:33PM View BBCode
I've put in some changes to how injuries work on the site. I've allowed the option of turning these on and off for leagues, and made it easy to add new injury systems for the future.First off, I put in a change so that if a pitcher gets over 50 ICs, anything over 50 will go 100% towards endurance. This is for all leagues and can't be turned on or off.
For injuries, I've coded in 4 different systems.
System 1: Same as Today
This is the current system we use today. I expect this to be used by select Private leagues that want this still.
System 2: Same as Today with Overuse Penalties
This new system will be used by default by all existing leagues. It is the same as the system we use today, but also adds a penalty in for pitcher overuse. If a pitcher is pitching in too many games, he will be more prone to injury.
System 3: Increased Pitcher injuries, and Overuse Penalties
This is the same as system 2, but it doubles the chances of injuries for relief pitchers in all cases and quadruples the chances of injuries for SP. I expect to use this in some new Speed leagues. I might try to migrate Dynasty and Speed leagues to this system over time.
System 4: Realistic Injuries
This will have many more injuries than your average league and include penalties for pitcher overuse. It has about double the injuries as System 3.
One of the reasons we are doubling pitcher injuries, or adding in penalties for overuse, is to make Health more important for Pitchers. Right now, pitchers have the same chance of being injured as batters for each game they play in, about 1 in 500 for a C+ health player. So for a season, a batter that plays everyday will have about a 162/500 chance of injury whereas a SP will have about a 36/500 chance of injury. These measures are meant to bridge that gap somewhat and make it more realistic.
For the moment, I have setup beta to use System 2.
For new private leagues, if you have ideas on tweaking injury settings, I might be willing to add in new systems for your league. It's only a few lines of code now with the way I set it up.
Tyson
dunn_acolyte
September 27, 2007 at 04:48PM View BBCode
This is a great idea and will be met with some opposition by certain owners but I'm sure most owners will love it in the long run. As always anything new can be frustating because people hate changes after they think they have something figured out but I think it is good for all to have to adjust eventually.
DeVeau31
September 27, 2007 at 04:57PM View BBCode
we need to find a way to better develop pitchers in the minors then. As it is right now, sometimes it's hard to field a good pitching staff and your minor league pitchers don't develop too well down there. I think that should go hand in hand with this.
tworoosters
Currently ABE seems to think having a 26 year old starter work 201 innings is over use, which I think is ludicrous, yet sees nothing wrong with relievers appearing in [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=3663464]154 games in a season[/url].
Before we start upping the injury ante for over use I think we need to get a consensus on what the threshold should be.
Tom's point about pitcher development and depth is also well taken, one of the reasons why the increase in difficulty in pitcher development was palatable is that at least once they were developed you could be fairly certain they were going to be available.
If we start dramatically increasing pitching injuries coupled with bundling, soft cap and, quite frankly, bizarre minor league conversion rates there simply aren't going to be enough major league arms to go around.
While that may mirror the current state of major league baseball remember we are dealing with a 16 team universe.
September 27, 2007 at 10:49PM View BBCode
Can you define "pitcher overuse" ?Currently ABE seems to think having a 26 year old starter work 201 innings is over use, which I think is ludicrous, yet sees nothing wrong with relievers appearing in [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=3663464]154 games in a season[/url].
Before we start upping the injury ante for over use I think we need to get a consensus on what the threshold should be.
Tom's point about pitcher development and depth is also well taken, one of the reasons why the increase in difficulty in pitcher development was palatable is that at least once they were developed you could be fairly certain they were going to be available.
If we start dramatically increasing pitching injuries coupled with bundling, soft cap and, quite frankly, bizarre minor league conversion rates there simply aren't going to be enough major league arms to go around.
While that may mirror the current state of major league baseball remember we are dealing with a 16 team universe.
Admin
I wasn't sure if Tom's comment was directed at the injury stuff or the 50 IC limit. I'll assume it was aimed towards the injury changes. My goal is to migrate everyone to System 3 at some point, but everyone would be on System 2 out of the gate (besides any Private leagues that voted for something different)
I also have a goal to do a statistical analysis of pitching talent verses hitters to get some good data to make changes. Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that there are more developable hitters than pitchers, but by what degree and how much to tinker, I don't really know. But I think we can table that for a different days discussion. I won't start migrating to system 3 until that data is available and analyzed.
Tyson
September 27, 2007 at 11:06PM View BBCode
At the moment, overuse is defined as using a pitcher in 3 or more of the last 5 days (days, not games). He's not going to be automatically injured when he pitches on that 3rd day out of 5, just have an increased chance of injury. If you are pitching 4 or 5 days out of 5, it is a higher increase. For those that use pitchers in a reasonable manner, you aren't going to notice anything different. I haven't put anything in for innings.I wasn't sure if Tom's comment was directed at the injury stuff or the 50 IC limit. I'll assume it was aimed towards the injury changes. My goal is to migrate everyone to System 3 at some point, but everyone would be on System 2 out of the gate (besides any Private leagues that voted for something different)
I also have a goal to do a statistical analysis of pitching talent verses hitters to get some good data to make changes. Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that there are more developable hitters than pitchers, but by what degree and how much to tinker, I don't really know. But I think we can table that for a different days discussion. I won't start migrating to system 3 until that data is available and analyzed.
Tyson
ScooterPie
One thing I'm interested to learn about this system actually has to do with development of pitchers: while injuries will slow down some prospects' development, I expect it will also speed up some others, as youngsters are forced into more substantial roles. I think majors/minors will remain a delicate balance, and it'll take some serious testing to see how it shakes out.
scooter
September 28, 2007 at 11:53AM View BBCode
Tyson, I'm very excited to see this new system -- and those other things you've just been posting about.One thing I'm interested to learn about this system actually has to do with development of pitchers: while injuries will slow down some prospects' development, I expect it will also speed up some others, as youngsters are forced into more substantial roles. I think majors/minors will remain a delicate balance, and it'll take some serious testing to see how it shakes out.
scooter
bam10
October 01, 2007 at 12:02AM View BBCode
A way too high injury model was one of the biggest reasons I left my last baseball sim. I don't think this bodes well for things here.
barterer2002
October 01, 2007 at 02:43AM View BBCode
Bam I disagree. One of the biggest issues I have with SD is the use of pitchers. They should not be able to throw 100 games a season much less 162 yet they do (and they do it on my team too). Putting some injury chances into play will cause the managers to rethink some strategy.
bam10
From what I have seen it's hard enough to develop or acquire even decent pitchers here and with this new wrinkle it's going to be even harder to maintain a decent pitching rotation if guys go down with injuries a lot more often. Maybe the way it's set up now needs changed but the proposal on the table seems too drastic the way it's laid out.
October 01, 2007 at 03:14PM View BBCode
I guess we will have to wait and see but somebody made a good point about pitcher development.From what I have seen it's hard enough to develop or acquire even decent pitchers here and with this new wrinkle it's going to be even harder to maintain a decent pitching rotation if guys go down with injuries a lot more often. Maybe the way it's set up now needs changed but the proposal on the table seems too drastic the way it's laid out.
jzirker
I think it's unrealistic to see a SD rotation with 5 A-rated SPs and 5 A-rated RPs. What Major League team has EVER had that kind of staff top to bottom?
Any SIM moves towards more realistic rosters, I'm 100% in favor of.
October 02, 2007 at 02:51PM View BBCode
Maybe owners need to get used to cobbling together a rotation of 1-2 top guys, 1-2 mid-quality guys and a selection of long relievers, spot starters, and veterans who can give a good month.I think it's unrealistic to see a SD rotation with 5 A-rated SPs and 5 A-rated RPs. What Major League team has EVER had that kind of staff top to bottom?
Any SIM moves towards more realistic rosters, I'm 100% in favor of.
lvnwrth
I am in agreement with the changes. However, in answer to your question:
Orioles, early 1970's: Palmer, Cuellar, Dobson, McNally, Watt, Richert, Grant Jackson would all have translated into A or A- pitchers in SD.
Dodgers, mid-1960's: Koufax, Drysdale, Osteen, Sutton, Regan, Perranoski, Brewer would all be A or A- in SD.
Cardinals, mid-1940's: Cooper, Lanier, Brecheen, Wilks, Munger, Schmidt, Donnelly, Jurisich.
Orioles, late 1970's and early 1980's: Palmer, Martinez, Flanagan, Stone, MacGregor, Stanhouse, Martinez, Stoddard, Stewart comes close.
White Sox, mid-1960's: Gary Peters, Joel Horlen, Tommy John, John Buzhardt, Juan Pizzaro, Bob Locker, Eddie Fisher, Hoyt Wilhelm is close.
Those kinds of staffs have existed and will exist in the future. But they are rare. I do agree that you should not have to have one to even be competitive.
October 02, 2007 at 03:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jzirker
Maybe owners need to get used to cobbling together a rotation of 1-2 top guys, 1-2 mid-quality guys and a selection of long relievers, spot starters, and veterans who can give a good month.
I think it's unrealistic to see a SD rotation with 5 A-rated SPs and 5 A-rated RPs. What Major League team has EVER had that kind of staff top to bottom?
I am in agreement with the changes. However, in answer to your question:
Orioles, early 1970's: Palmer, Cuellar, Dobson, McNally, Watt, Richert, Grant Jackson would all have translated into A or A- pitchers in SD.
Dodgers, mid-1960's: Koufax, Drysdale, Osteen, Sutton, Regan, Perranoski, Brewer would all be A or A- in SD.
Cardinals, mid-1940's: Cooper, Lanier, Brecheen, Wilks, Munger, Schmidt, Donnelly, Jurisich.
Orioles, late 1970's and early 1980's: Palmer, Martinez, Flanagan, Stone, MacGregor, Stanhouse, Martinez, Stoddard, Stewart comes close.
White Sox, mid-1960's: Gary Peters, Joel Horlen, Tommy John, John Buzhardt, Juan Pizzaro, Bob Locker, Eddie Fisher, Hoyt Wilhelm is close.
Those kinds of staffs have existed and will exist in the future. But they are rare. I do agree that you should not have to have one to even be competitive.
Closer
And you shouldn't need a rare staff to be competitive.
In the same vein, I don't think you should need a lineup of all A or A- players to be competitive. And it seems if the pitching staffs aren't all A's and there are a better mix, then maybe the lineups will come down a notch and still be competitive.
Hope so anyway.
October 02, 2007 at 04:14PM View BBCode
I agree lvnwth.............rare being the operative word.And you shouldn't need a rare staff to be competitive.
In the same vein, I don't think you should need a lineup of all A or A- players to be competitive. And it seems if the pitching staffs aren't all A's and there are a better mix, then maybe the lineups will come down a notch and still be competitive.
Hope so anyway.
bam10
October 02, 2007 at 11:07PM View BBCode
There's already B-/C- pitchers performing like A+/A+ against my teams so it probably won't make much difference to me.
tworoosters
God I love the "Play 162 games then toss coins in the playoffs" aspect of this game - sorry extremely bitter right now.:mad:
October 03, 2007 at 03:10PM View BBCode
And my entire rotation of A and A- starting pitchers just gave up 40 earned runs in a seven game series without any of my starters winning a game, despite going 81-25 in the regular season.God I love the "Play 162 games then toss coins in the playoffs" aspect of this game - sorry extremely bitter right now.:mad:
lvnwrth
October 03, 2007 at 03:40PM View BBCode
Well, if it's any consolation Rooster, I just finished with the best record in the league for the second straight year, then lost NLCS Game 7 at home for the second straight year.
lvnwrth
October 03, 2007 at 03:40PM View BBCode
Well, if it's any consolation Rooster, I just finished with the best record in the league for the second straight year, then lost NLCS Game 7 at home for the second straight year.
ballplayer3
Good Luck next season.
Regards, Mike
October 03, 2007 at 03:59PM View BBCode
Don't think of it as losing. Think of it as being beaten by the better team! Those were some exciting playoffs the past 2 seasons, and I fell fortunate to have my team come out on top. Game 7 yesterday required me to put one of my top starters into the bullpen in order to beat you, and it worked out perfectly.Good Luck next season.
Regards, Mike
lvnwrth
Well, that would be easier to do if I hadn't had the best record in the league during the regular season both times. :D
Good luck in the Series, and next season.
October 03, 2007 at 06:21PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ballplayer3
Don't think of it as losing. Think of it as being beaten by the better team!
Well, that would be easier to do if I hadn't had the best record in the league during the regular season both times. :D
Good luck in the Series, and next season.
bam10
I then went on to win the World Series against a very good team in five games. Of course the code has made me pay for it by screwing the hell out of my hitters so far this season but..... :rolleyes:
October 03, 2007 at 10:37PM View BBCode
Here's a feel good story: I was down three games to none in the first round of the NLCS and came roaring back by taking the next four in a row. I had compiled the best record in the league and the team I was up against wasn't the greatest so it would have been pretty frustrating had I lost.I then went on to win the World Series against a very good team in five games. Of course the code has made me pay for it by screwing the hell out of my hitters so far this season but..... :rolleyes:
Hamilton2
October 03, 2007 at 11:03PM View BBCode
I'm curious, has the beta league noticed an increase in pitcher injuries? Is it substantial enough to effect the league ERA compared to previous seasons (granted, there is some variance, but in general can we detect a pattern?)? Thanks for the replies.
hobos
October 04, 2007 at 03:31AM View BBCode
The system hasn't been in place nearly long enough to really determine anything (essentially just this last season), and because we are using System2, a pattern would only emerge for the teams using particular strategies, rather than a league wide pattern.
Admin
This change is directed at the guys that crunch the numbers and think that they can gain an advantage by pitching guys 162 games, or even 110 games. This should be sufficient to curb that behavior. If not, we'll examine the system and rework it again.
And for leagues that want something a bit different with injuries? We will now have a framework to support that.
Tyson
October 08, 2007 at 08:02PM View BBCode
I doubt people will notice any difference at all.This change is directed at the guys that crunch the numbers and think that they can gain an advantage by pitching guys 162 games, or even 110 games. This should be sufficient to curb that behavior. If not, we'll examine the system and rework it again.
And for leagues that want something a bit different with injuries? We will now have a framework to support that.
Tyson
barterer2002
Now this year he pitched in 21 games through mid May before he got hurt for about 40 games so perhaps that's an overuse injury there.
October 08, 2007 at 08:07PM View BBCode
I don't have my team currently set up to abuse a pitcher. Last season my top pitcher in terms of games pitched got into 78 games.Now this year he pitched in 21 games through mid May before he got hurt for about 40 games so perhaps that's an overuse injury there.
lvnwrth
October 10, 2007 at 03:49AM View BBCode
Last year my most used pitcher pitched 96 innings in 93 games. This season I don't recall adjusting anything, but my top reliever is pitching about 40% time...28 appearances in 69 games. No injuries so far.
tworoosters
October 10, 2007 at 05:22AM View BBCode
With the quality of my pitching, in Beta, just sending them out to the mound should qualify as abuse.Pages: 1 2