 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Minor League Position Training
tysonlowery
Thoughts?
Minor League Position Training
February 19, 2004 at 10:16PM View BBCode
I'm not sure what this number should be, but it has been obvious that it should be upped. Before, if you trained a minor leaguer at a new position and he got an improvement, you would get 20 points (out of 1000 for a full conversion) towards the new position. I have upped this to 50. I think the number should be high enough where it is an attractive option for some players. 20 improvements would be a full conversion now.Thoughts?
mrod
What about converting fielders to pitchers & vice versa? Where is that on the list of priorities?
[Edited on 2-19-2004 by mrod]
February 19, 2004 at 10:56PM View BBCode
20 improvements seems pretty good for a young minor leaguer to change positions, especially considering the player doesn't get improvement chances in any other catergories.What about converting fielders to pitchers & vice versa? Where is that on the list of priorities?
[Edited on 2-19-2004 by mrod]
tysonlowery
Its after pretty much anything I can think of :) I actually may never do this one. It would be a ton of work for little to no payoff in terms of game enjoyment.
February 19, 2004 at 11:01PM View BBCode
What about converting fielders to pitchers & vice versa? Where is that on the list of priorities?
Its after pretty much anything I can think of :) I actually may never do this one. It would be a ton of work for little to no payoff in terms of game enjoyment.
Jack1
I like the idea a conversion to another postion could take place faster in the minors. I've seldom have used that method due to the slowness of development in the past. This might help owners trying to convert a catcher in leagues where catcher specific rules are
in force.
Jack1
Improved position change.
February 19, 2004 at 11:45PM View BBCode
T-Low,I like the idea a conversion to another postion could take place faster in the minors. I've seldom have used that method due to the slowness of development in the past. This might help owners trying to convert a catcher in leagues where catcher specific rules are
in force.
Jack1
FiveToolPlayer
February 19, 2004 at 11:45PM View BBCode
I think it should go on some sort of scale that coincides with the scale we use in the majors. For example, a LF shouldn't be able to convert to Catcher as quickly as a SS could convert to a 2B.
geoffrey13
testing it out
February 20, 2004 at 02:02AM View BBCode
I'm going to give 5 points to one player, and all my other without points will try to switch as well...I'll keep an eye on it.
tysonlowery
Its really just another way of doing what you mentioned.
February 20, 2004 at 03:07AM View BBCode
FTP - Right now (and ever since its been implemented), its tied to how quickly he'll improve. So if its LF to C, the chances he will receive an improvement are slim. But if he does get an improvement, it will be 50 points.Its really just another way of doing what you mentioned.
arodtoo
February 20, 2004 at 03:11AM View BBCode
20 improvements sounds like a lot. I would like to see the player be able to learn a new position and gain better rankings at teh same time, but if he is learning a new position then his sucess rate at other things goes down a bit. How many players learn a new position in the minors and learn nothing else during that time?
FiveToolPlayer
February 20, 2004 at 04:09AM View BBCode
What if by stating that you want the position to change, it basically becomes another category that can improve. So in addition to contact, power, speed, range, and arm, the player is now eligible for an improvement at position.
swerve
That if you want a player to learn a new position he still can improve in other categories. Just it will be less chances since there is an additional category. I have never used minor league coaching on changing positions because of the fact they can't improve in other places.
February 20, 2004 at 07:52AM View BBCode
What FiveTool says is what I would like to see.That if you want a player to learn a new position he still can improve in other categories. Just it will be less chances since there is an additional category. I have never used minor league coaching on changing positions because of the fact they can't improve in other places.
tysonlowery
February 20, 2004 at 08:02AM View BBCode
Yeah, it probably should be changed to that at some point. But for now, would you put CP on a guy with the 50 point bonus? What should be the magic number to make it worthwhile?
disciple
For me, this really isn't an option. The way things stand there is no way I would ever waste precious coaching points on learning a new position. I want all my points dedicated to creating pitchers and hitters.
Bottom line - when a hitter makes it to the majors he can receive hitting improvements and learn a new position simultaneously. Why should the minors be any different?
I think you should allow minor league players to progress as hitters and learn new positions at the same time. If you make this improvement I would suggest reducing the 50 point bonus back down to 25 or 20.
February 20, 2004 at 12:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
Yeah, it probably should be changed to that at some point. But for now, would you put CP on a guy with the 50 point bonus? What should be the magic number to make it worthwhile?
For me, this really isn't an option. The way things stand there is no way I would ever waste precious coaching points on learning a new position. I want all my points dedicated to creating pitchers and hitters.
Bottom line - when a hitter makes it to the majors he can receive hitting improvements and learn a new position simultaneously. Why should the minors be any different?
I think you should allow minor league players to progress as hitters and learn new positions at the same time. If you make this improvement I would suggest reducing the 50 point bonus back down to 25 or 20.
ME
February 20, 2004 at 03:46PM View BBCode
I'm wondering, how do 20 or 25 or 50 improvement points translate into a % of that player learning a new position?
hcboomer
The only possible value would be trying to convert, say, an OF or a 1B to a C or a SS, so you'd avoid the big defensive penalties if you were trying to make that kind of conversion in the majors. The problem, though, is that it would take so long -- even with the somewhat faster rate being discussed here -- that you'd dramatically hurt the player's overall development and make the conversion useless anyway.
I think unless a player retains improvements in other skills at some sort of reasonable rate while converting, this is a wasted exercise.
February 20, 2004 at 04:45PM View BBCode
I'm with disciple, I don't think there is a magic number to make it worthwhile. It's not a sensible option, certainly not when you lose improvements in everything else.The only possible value would be trying to convert, say, an OF or a 1B to a C or a SS, so you'd avoid the big defensive penalties if you were trying to make that kind of conversion in the majors. The problem, though, is that it would take so long -- even with the somewhat faster rate being discussed here -- that you'd dramatically hurt the player's overall development and make the conversion useless anyway.
I think unless a player retains improvements in other skills at some sort of reasonable rate while converting, this is a wasted exercise.
tysonlowery
1000 points is full conversion.
February 20, 2004 at 04:58PM View BBCode
Well, what if I changed it to 1000. One improvement would mean learning the new position - could you see a scenario where you would use it then?
I'm with disciple, I don't think there is a magic number to make it worthwhile
1000 points is full conversion.
hcboomer
It has never really made sense that while a player learns a new position in the minors, his development in ALL other areas stops cold. And that makes the minor league conversion a terrible use of CPs. If the goal here is give some value to those minor-league conversions and keep it as a option people would use, continued development in all skill areas will have to be a part of it. Otherwise it's too big a sacrifice.
February 20, 2004 at 05:13PM View BBCode
In that case, sure, since it obviously wouldn't take long to get the conversion done. But what's the point then? It would be far too easy to switch guys to whatever position you want.It has never really made sense that while a player learns a new position in the minors, his development in ALL other areas stops cold. And that makes the minor league conversion a terrible use of CPs. If the goal here is give some value to those minor-league conversions and keep it as a option people would use, continued development in all skill areas will have to be a part of it. Otherwise it's too big a sacrifice.
arodtoo
February 20, 2004 at 05:21PM View BBCode
200 points would make it worthwhile, say 5 imporvements to make a full change, that seems reasonable, seeing as though the sucess chances of the improvement already weigh on what type of change it is. Then it would be worthwhile, and not too easy.
tysonlowery
February 20, 2004 at 07:20PM View BBCode
I was just making the point that some number exists which would make this worthwhile. And it definitely has to be more than 20 b/c nobody is using this option right now. We'll try 50 for a while, and maybe up it to 100 or 200 if there is support for that.
In that case, sure, since it obviously wouldn't take long to get the conversion done. But what's the point then?
arodtoo
February 20, 2004 at 08:24PM View BBCode
The olny way i think 50 will work is if you sucede every time no matter what position you are switching to, otherwise wasting at least a season is pointless. Now 200 with a chance to fail is fair also
hcboomer
The problem is that ANY time spent converting a player's position in the minors is costing him meaningful development that he'll never get back. So it's ALWAYS a waste of CPs. Maybe that's worth it if the conversion can be REALLY quick at some point, but that's about it.
My own thought is that it will be a waste of time raising it to 50. I'd be shocked if that encourages anyone to suddenly change their approach. I'd suggest going much higher as an initial experiment to gauge if anyone really even cares about using that option. Then it could be tweaked accordingly if need be. I doubt a small increase will change anything.
Maybe, though, there's something fundamental I'm missing here. Does anyone have an explanation of how, under the current system -- or by tweaking the conversion points up a bit -- a minor-league conversion would be beneficial? Meaning the position switch would be worth the loss in development?
February 20, 2004 at 09:08PM View BBCode
Right, but my point was that there really is NO number to make it worthwhile unless the conversion is practically immediate, which would make the whole debate moot.The problem is that ANY time spent converting a player's position in the minors is costing him meaningful development that he'll never get back. So it's ALWAYS a waste of CPs. Maybe that's worth it if the conversion can be REALLY quick at some point, but that's about it.
My own thought is that it will be a waste of time raising it to 50. I'd be shocked if that encourages anyone to suddenly change their approach. I'd suggest going much higher as an initial experiment to gauge if anyone really even cares about using that option. Then it could be tweaked accordingly if need be. I doubt a small increase will change anything.
Maybe, though, there's something fundamental I'm missing here. Does anyone have an explanation of how, under the current system -- or by tweaking the conversion points up a bit -- a minor-league conversion would be beneficial? Meaning the position switch would be worth the loss in development?
tysonlowery
February 20, 2004 at 10:44PM View BBCode
This was a 2 second change. It would take me less than a minute to change it to another number if there is support for that. The change you're talking about would take considerably more time - although it may be worthwhile to look at it in the long run.
My own thought is that it will be a waste of time raising it to 50
FiveToolPlayer
February 20, 2004 at 11:38PM View BBCode
I see the issue as this: up the number too much and it becomes unrealistic, keep it too low and nobody uses it. I'd say keep it as is until a larger change can be made. It's not really taking anything away from the game right now.
jer2911
As has been pointed out before, position shifting and hitting improvements can occur simultaneously in the Majors. The only reason to not make the switch in the majors is to avoid giving up errors if your team is in a tight race for the title. However, there are reasons to make the switch in the majors. The number one reason is that there is no strong penalty for switching in the Majors outside of a higher chance of errors, but a rebuilding team may actually want to make those errors in hopes of increasing their chances of losing. Another reason to make the switch in the majors is that Coach Points are a precious commodity, and while defense (ie, playing "in position") does have some merit, offense probably outweighs it ten times over.
I also agree with what has been said before, that the optimal solution would be to allow improvements in position switching and hitting categories (though at a reduced rate).
Magic Number
February 21, 2004 at 12:18AM View BBCode
I think the "Magic Number" would have to be 200 at a bare minimum to make it worthwhile.As has been pointed out before, position shifting and hitting improvements can occur simultaneously in the Majors. The only reason to not make the switch in the majors is to avoid giving up errors if your team is in a tight race for the title. However, there are reasons to make the switch in the majors. The number one reason is that there is no strong penalty for switching in the Majors outside of a higher chance of errors, but a rebuilding team may actually want to make those errors in hopes of increasing their chances of losing. Another reason to make the switch in the majors is that Coach Points are a precious commodity, and while defense (ie, playing "in position") does have some merit, offense probably outweighs it ten times over.
I also agree with what has been said before, that the optimal solution would be to allow improvements in position switching and hitting categories (though at a reduced rate).
McV
What about the idea of hindering development in the majors when a player plays out of position? For example, if my player plays 20 percent of his games at C when he's listed as a LF, then he gets one improvement chance every 12 AB instead of every 10. You could adjust the penalty by how "far" out of position he is. A SS could easily play OF, but would have a hard time playing C and therefore the penalty would be much greater for his time at C. Just a thought.
February 21, 2004 at 04:26AM View BBCode
I hope I'm not out of turn posting in the Beta forums, but I thought I'd give my 2 cents worth. The only reason I would ever attempt a switch in the minors would be if the league had a rule similar to "2 catchers in the majors at all times". Even then, it would have to occur fairly quickly or it would be more worthwhile to use a trade to get what I needed. To me, the number would have to be 200, and the probability of success about the same as it is for other improvements.What about the idea of hindering development in the majors when a player plays out of position? For example, if my player plays 20 percent of his games at C when he's listed as a LF, then he gets one improvement chance every 12 AB instead of every 10. You could adjust the penalty by how "far" out of position he is. A SS could easily play OF, but would have a hard time playing C and therefore the penalty would be much greater for his time at C. Just a thought.
pwj
February 25, 2004 at 08:14AM View BBCode
If you're talking a small number of improvements to change position (say 5-10) then it would be worth it. Otherwise, I'm with disciple: let the guy play at a different position in the majors, and then he gets improvement at hitting and fielding. Right now, as it stands, I never use CP's to change position. I DO think that two things should be under consideration: the age of the player AND the nature of the position shift; if he's young and going from 2B to SS, then 5-10 improvements; if he's going from LF to C, then double (or triple) it. If the guy is older (28-30+), then increase those numbers twofold, if not more (2B to SS would be 10-20, LF to C 20-40 [or more]). I know that right now, there have been position shifts of OF's to C without a realistic drop in defensive performance, and that's a cryin' shame. That guy should not only be a defensive liability, but also at greatly increased risk for more injury time.Pages: 1 2