 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball League Forums » Speed Leagues » Jackie Robinson League » Talent Distribution
Bob
Since there are 80 pitchers in the starting rotation (16 teams times 5 starters), I looked at the top 80 starting pitchers in each league at the beginning of the 1950 season. In each league, just over half (41, to be precise) were ranked B or above. The beta league had 17 rated B+ or higher, whereas the JR league only had 8. Overall, the JR league had slightly inferior starting pitching.
Looking at the top 80 relievers shows a bigger disparity. In the beta league, 29 are ranked B or higher, with 26 B- and 25 C+. In the JR league, only 19 are rated B or higher, with 25 at B-, 27 C+ and 9 only rated C overall. The JR league definitely has worse relievers.
On the hitting front, I looked at the top 240 players (15 per team times 16 teams). The JR league has 101 players rated B or higher overall. The beta league only had 72. JR has 139 rated B-, and none ranked lower than that. The beta league has 132 B- and 36 C+. Obviously the JR league has ended up with better hitters than the beta league.
Adding it all up, it becomes obvious that this will be a hitters' league, at least compared to beta. JR has better hitters and worse pitchers (particularly out of the bullpen), so look for a lot of runs to be scored.
Talent Distribution
February 12, 2003 at 04:32PM View BBCode
I've been tracking the talent distribution in the beta league, and thought I would compare the initial draft in that league to the initial draft in the JR league. Here is what I found.Since there are 80 pitchers in the starting rotation (16 teams times 5 starters), I looked at the top 80 starting pitchers in each league at the beginning of the 1950 season. In each league, just over half (41, to be precise) were ranked B or above. The beta league had 17 rated B+ or higher, whereas the JR league only had 8. Overall, the JR league had slightly inferior starting pitching.
Looking at the top 80 relievers shows a bigger disparity. In the beta league, 29 are ranked B or higher, with 26 B- and 25 C+. In the JR league, only 19 are rated B or higher, with 25 at B-, 27 C+ and 9 only rated C overall. The JR league definitely has worse relievers.
On the hitting front, I looked at the top 240 players (15 per team times 16 teams). The JR league has 101 players rated B or higher overall. The beta league only had 72. JR has 139 rated B-, and none ranked lower than that. The beta league has 132 B- and 36 C+. Obviously the JR league has ended up with better hitters than the beta league.
Adding it all up, it becomes obvious that this will be a hitters' league, at least compared to beta. JR has better hitters and worse pitchers (particularly out of the bullpen), so look for a lot of runs to be scored.
disciple
Do you have any stats on starting ages for Beta vs JR?
It's just a gut feeling on my part, but the JR league seems to have alot of old timers.
Age
February 12, 2003 at 05:04PM View BBCode
Bob,Do you have any stats on starting ages for Beta vs JR?
It's just a gut feeling on my part, but the JR league seems to have alot of old timers.
Bob
February 12, 2003 at 05:12PM View BBCode
Sorry -- I don't have that. I guess I could probably figure it out somehow, but it would be a real pain in the neck.
khakurat
did you compare the number of b+ and A- position players. i doubt jr comes out on top there.
February 14, 2003 at 12:01AM View BBCode
hey bob,did you compare the number of b+ and A- position players. i doubt jr comes out on top there.
Bob
February 14, 2003 at 02:40PM View BBCode
Nope -- JR comes out on top that way as well, with 75% more hitters rated B+ or higher. Both leagues started with 2 A- hitters, but JR has 19 B+ hitters, whereas beta had only 10 in the first year.
khakurat
February 14, 2003 at 06:08PM View BBCode
i wouldn't have guessed. oh well, good for us then. too bad we can't check on youth though. i have the same feeling as disciple, but then my guess on the rankings was off-base.
Bob
Looking at the top 80 starting pitchers, we've definitely seen some talent inflation already. In 1950, only 8 starters were ranked B+ or above -- that has gone up to 22 now. In 1950, nearly half of the top 80 were ranked B- (39 to be exact). Now there are only 18 starters ranked B- in the top 80.
Same story with relief pitchers. In 1950, there were only 9 ranked B+ or higher -- now there are 24. In 1950, the top 80 relievers included 27 C+ and 9 C. Now there are only 5 C+ and 0 C.
But you need not worry that this is becoming a pitcher's league -- there is talent inflation among the hitters as well. In 1950 there were only 21 players rated B+ or higher -- now there are 51. Out of the top 240 hitters, 58% were rated B- in 1950. Now that percentage has dropped to 37%.
This is very similar to what we're seeing in the beta league, so you may be interested in this thread: http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=3363
April 09, 2003 at 05:37PM View BBCode
I revisited this based on where we currently stand (a month into the 1953 season).Looking at the top 80 starting pitchers, we've definitely seen some talent inflation already. In 1950, only 8 starters were ranked B+ or above -- that has gone up to 22 now. In 1950, nearly half of the top 80 were ranked B- (39 to be exact). Now there are only 18 starters ranked B- in the top 80.
Same story with relief pitchers. In 1950, there were only 9 ranked B+ or higher -- now there are 24. In 1950, the top 80 relievers included 27 C+ and 9 C. Now there are only 5 C+ and 0 C.
But you need not worry that this is becoming a pitcher's league -- there is talent inflation among the hitters as well. In 1950 there were only 21 players rated B+ or higher -- now there are 51. Out of the top 240 hitters, 58% were rated B- in 1950. Now that percentage has dropped to 37%.
This is very similar to what we're seeing in the beta league, so you may be interested in this thread: http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=3363
bogalicious
Do you know how ABE drafts players?
1)Does Tyson create x-amount of players, before the draft and ABE randomly picks from that list?
In other words, are there a set number of players that are created prior to the inaugural season, where those pool of players are only selected?
For example, 500 players are created for the JR amatuer draft and randomly those players are selected, thus increasing the probabilty of a stronger amateur draft.
Or
ABE selects from 3 independent columns, thus creating a player for each draft.
1) Overall ranking, Player name and hitter or pitcher
I guess my reasons vary, but Im thinking if there are a pool of players pre-existing, the probabilty is high, somewhat like a true lottery that every draft will vary and eventually we will have a very strong draft.
My definition of a strong draft is the team with the best record will have an immediate impact player.
April 09, 2003 at 07:53PM View BBCode
Bob,Do you know how ABE drafts players?
1)Does Tyson create x-amount of players, before the draft and ABE randomly picks from that list?
In other words, are there a set number of players that are created prior to the inaugural season, where those pool of players are only selected?
For example, 500 players are created for the JR amatuer draft and randomly those players are selected, thus increasing the probabilty of a stronger amateur draft.
Or
ABE selects from 3 independent columns, thus creating a player for each draft.
1) Overall ranking, Player name and hitter or pitcher
I guess my reasons vary, but Im thinking if there are a pool of players pre-existing, the probabilty is high, somewhat like a true lottery that every draft will vary and eventually we will have a very strong draft.
My definition of a strong draft is the team with the best record will have an immediate impact player.
Bob
April 09, 2003 at 08:16PM View BBCode
I'm not really sure how it works. Since we need 80 players for each draft (16 teams times 5 players each), I think ABE creates about 120 or so, from which the draft takes place. I don't think all the leftover players go into the free agent wire, though. Like I said, I'm not really sure.
khakurat
thanks for putting in the time and effort to do this, as well as giving us a link to your work in the beta league.
i know there is a great deal of concern about rankings inflation, and i certainly don't want everyone running around with all A something starters and a pitching staff like the steamroller's; however, i think that we also don't want to "tone down" the improvement system too much. the players in sim dynasty have very limited lifespans compared to actual baseball players.
most players come into the bigs in their early to mid twenties (which sim dynasty has moved to emulate) and play until they are in their late thirties to mid-forties. some even play longer. in sim dynasty, players commonly retire in their mid thirties. a few do hang on to reach forty, but most that i've seen are either old at the leagues inception or may be exceptional players whose decline still leaves them capabale of competitive play.
my point is that we need to be able to replace quality players with players of at least reasonable quality. so, i suppose that means that we have to be very careful when measuring the rankings of players that that is kept in mind. while i don't think this has been a real issue to date, i would hate to see it become one.
April 09, 2003 at 08:42PM View BBCode
bob,thanks for putting in the time and effort to do this, as well as giving us a link to your work in the beta league.
i know there is a great deal of concern about rankings inflation, and i certainly don't want everyone running around with all A something starters and a pitching staff like the steamroller's; however, i think that we also don't want to "tone down" the improvement system too much. the players in sim dynasty have very limited lifespans compared to actual baseball players.
most players come into the bigs in their early to mid twenties (which sim dynasty has moved to emulate) and play until they are in their late thirties to mid-forties. some even play longer. in sim dynasty, players commonly retire in their mid thirties. a few do hang on to reach forty, but most that i've seen are either old at the leagues inception or may be exceptional players whose decline still leaves them capabale of competitive play.
my point is that we need to be able to replace quality players with players of at least reasonable quality. so, i suppose that means that we have to be very careful when measuring the rankings of players that that is kept in mind. while i don't think this has been a real issue to date, i would hate to see it become one.
khakurat
April 09, 2003 at 08:52PM View BBCode
one more thing, regarding what bogalicious asked, tyson said a couple days ago that he does create more than 80 players. he said that he creates enough to cover all potential demands. the extra players do not appear on the waiver wire. he didn't say how he selects which ones get drafted and which ones get dumped. maybe he'll see this and respond.
disciple
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=3363]Click here for Beta Thread[/url]
April 09, 2003 at 11:48PM View BBCode
As Bob mentioned a similar discussion is running in the Beta League:[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=3363]Click here for Beta Thread[/url]
Bob
First is the problem of overall talent inflation. Based on the way things are currently progressing, it seems likely that by the end of our first 20 years that a majority of players will be ranked A- or higher. Certainly this is not desirable.
The second issue is the ability of weak teams to improve. Right now there are only 4 ways that I see to improve a weak team: (1) waiver wire; (2)improvements as players mature; (3) trades; (4) the amateur draft. Let's look at these different methods.
(1) Obviously the waiver wire is of limited use -- you're not going to get many quality players there. So I'm going to ignore this for the rest of my post.
(2) Playing young players and letting them improve as they mature works to some extent. Contending teams will play their best players, even if they are older and will no longer improve significantly. Therefore, a rebuilding team might be playing 8 young hitters, all of whom will improve in the off-season, whereas a contender might only be playing 1 or 2 guys who are young enough to improve. Under this scenario, a younger, rebuilding team will improve more in the off-season than an older, contending team. Similarly, a team with older players will also see those players decline with age, further closing the gap with younger teams.
(3) Trading has some promise, particularly if you can trade older players for younger ones and take advantage of the young players' natural improvement as they mature. The best way to take advantage of this is to trade good, older players to a contending team for their prospects. I've seen this strategy be very effective in the beta league, although it does take at least 3 or 4 seasons and therefore requires patience. Unfortunately, trading has been somewhat slow so far in the JR league. I think this is primarily attributable to the scarcity of quality pitching. I think Boston is a good example of this (correct me if I'm wrong, Keith). When he decided to rebuild, he got a ton of interest in their pitchers, but limited interest in his position players. It's a lot tougher to rebuild if you can't get decent prospects in exchange for older position players. Based on what I've seen in the beta league, though, I think this is only a temporary issue.
(4) Finally, the amateur draft seems the best way to improve. The weaker teams naturally get better players in the draft.
Unfortunately, the things that allow a weak team to rebuild into a contender also tend to be the primary contributors to talent inflation. So, the real problem becomes how to eliminate talent inflation without hampering the ability of teams to rebuild. If you slow down the improvements for young players, you will reduce talent inflation but hurt rebuilding teams. Same thing if you lower the quality of the amateur draft. The only effective method of improvement that doesn't add to talent inflation is trading.
Therefore, to me the best course would be to increase trading between teams. Obviously, though, you can't force trades; therefore, it would be good to find some other way to increase player movement between teams. Although it goes against the 50s theme, I think some sort of free-agency system makes the most sense.
The goal here is to create enough player movement through free agency that this becomes a viable method for rebuilding. If this works, then you stem talent inflation by slowing down player improvements and dropping the amateur draft talent while still allowing weaker teams to effectively rebuild.
Warning -- really long post
April 10, 2003 at 01:22PM View BBCode
There are definitely two distinct issues here, although they are related.First is the problem of overall talent inflation. Based on the way things are currently progressing, it seems likely that by the end of our first 20 years that a majority of players will be ranked A- or higher. Certainly this is not desirable.
The second issue is the ability of weak teams to improve. Right now there are only 4 ways that I see to improve a weak team: (1) waiver wire; (2)improvements as players mature; (3) trades; (4) the amateur draft. Let's look at these different methods.
(1) Obviously the waiver wire is of limited use -- you're not going to get many quality players there. So I'm going to ignore this for the rest of my post.
(2) Playing young players and letting them improve as they mature works to some extent. Contending teams will play their best players, even if they are older and will no longer improve significantly. Therefore, a rebuilding team might be playing 8 young hitters, all of whom will improve in the off-season, whereas a contender might only be playing 1 or 2 guys who are young enough to improve. Under this scenario, a younger, rebuilding team will improve more in the off-season than an older, contending team. Similarly, a team with older players will also see those players decline with age, further closing the gap with younger teams.
(3) Trading has some promise, particularly if you can trade older players for younger ones and take advantage of the young players' natural improvement as they mature. The best way to take advantage of this is to trade good, older players to a contending team for their prospects. I've seen this strategy be very effective in the beta league, although it does take at least 3 or 4 seasons and therefore requires patience. Unfortunately, trading has been somewhat slow so far in the JR league. I think this is primarily attributable to the scarcity of quality pitching. I think Boston is a good example of this (correct me if I'm wrong, Keith). When he decided to rebuild, he got a ton of interest in their pitchers, but limited interest in his position players. It's a lot tougher to rebuild if you can't get decent prospects in exchange for older position players. Based on what I've seen in the beta league, though, I think this is only a temporary issue.
(4) Finally, the amateur draft seems the best way to improve. The weaker teams naturally get better players in the draft.
Unfortunately, the things that allow a weak team to rebuild into a contender also tend to be the primary contributors to talent inflation. So, the real problem becomes how to eliminate talent inflation without hampering the ability of teams to rebuild. If you slow down the improvements for young players, you will reduce talent inflation but hurt rebuilding teams. Same thing if you lower the quality of the amateur draft. The only effective method of improvement that doesn't add to talent inflation is trading.
Therefore, to me the best course would be to increase trading between teams. Obviously, though, you can't force trades; therefore, it would be good to find some other way to increase player movement between teams. Although it goes against the 50s theme, I think some sort of free-agency system makes the most sense.
The goal here is to create enough player movement through free agency that this becomes a viable method for rebuilding. If this works, then you stem talent inflation by slowing down player improvements and dropping the amateur draft talent while still allowing weaker teams to effectively rebuild.
dawgfan
Talent inflation is a real problem and needs to be addressed. When the overall talent level of a league continues to increase then the value of the individual players weakens - having an A rated player when he's 1 of 3 is obviously much more valuable than when he's 1 of 20.
It would seem self-evident that the overall talent pool of the leagues should remain basically static; minor variations up or down are OK, but generally speaking the number of players at each overall rating level should remain stable.
We've talked a lot about one end of the spectrum, which is improvements. The other end of the spectrum is declines. For every guy that improves, another guy should be declining in order to maintain balance.
The game currently models declines in for older players, but perhaps the declines aren't steep enough or dramatic enough. Perhaps we should consider increasing the decline amounts and probabilities.
Another proposal has been to tie declines into injuries, with injuries leading to a small chance of the player suffering declines in some ratings. Some have also proposed career-ending injuries as another way of balancing improvements. Personally, I don't think enforced retirements would be necessary if the decline in ratings were done right - say that reliable B starting pitcher with the F health rating suffers an 80-day injury, and after he returns his ratings have dropped to C overall - ABE won't need to retire him as he will likely be cut and not picked-up by other teams.
April 10, 2003 at 06:25PM View BBCode
I echo what Bob has said, but I'd like to add a few points:Talent inflation is a real problem and needs to be addressed. When the overall talent level of a league continues to increase then the value of the individual players weakens - having an A rated player when he's 1 of 3 is obviously much more valuable than when he's 1 of 20.
It would seem self-evident that the overall talent pool of the leagues should remain basically static; minor variations up or down are OK, but generally speaking the number of players at each overall rating level should remain stable.
We've talked a lot about one end of the spectrum, which is improvements. The other end of the spectrum is declines. For every guy that improves, another guy should be declining in order to maintain balance.
The game currently models declines in for older players, but perhaps the declines aren't steep enough or dramatic enough. Perhaps we should consider increasing the decline amounts and probabilities.
Another proposal has been to tie declines into injuries, with injuries leading to a small chance of the player suffering declines in some ratings. Some have also proposed career-ending injuries as another way of balancing improvements. Personally, I don't think enforced retirements would be necessary if the decline in ratings were done right - say that reliable B starting pitcher with the F health rating suffers an 80-day injury, and after he returns his ratings have dropped to C overall - ABE won't need to retire him as he will likely be cut and not picked-up by other teams.
poppa0101jr
Talent Distribution
April 10, 2003 at 08:08PM View BBCode
I agree that more trading/player movement would help this situation. To that end we could establish a system that allows owners to only protect a certain number of players at the end of each season e.g.35-40. In addition any players obtained via trade during the season would not count against your protected list.
bogalicious
At the end of each season there would be an additional draft, almost like an expansion draft where teams could only hold on to 30 players and the rest of their roster would go into a pool.
The teams with worst records would then be able to choose first from this pool of players in addition to the waiver wire.
The Yankees obviously called this system flawed, but in our sim situation I think this would be a cool idea.
April 10, 2003 at 08:18PM View BBCode
I like that idea. It kind of reminds of of what MLB is trying to do with the small market teams.At the end of each season there would be an additional draft, almost like an expansion draft where teams could only hold on to 30 players and the rest of their roster would go into a pool.
The teams with worst records would then be able to choose first from this pool of players in addition to the waiver wire.
The Yankees obviously called this system flawed, but in our sim situation I think this would be a cool idea.
jer2911
April 10, 2003 at 08:23PM View BBCode
I think that it would be a good idea. (And I have a Yankee-like team in the Beta League too...) 30 I think would be a good number to start with, but if that doesn't seem to help the lesser teams enough, then maybe it could drop down to 25. I would also say that being able to protect anything less than 20 players would be too low.
andrew
Anyways I think that 20 protected players would work. Teams could either hold onto prospects or veterns, but not both.
Yankee like team???????
April 10, 2003 at 08:43PM View BBCode
You wish Brad ;)Anyways I think that 20 protected players would work. Teams could either hold onto prospects or veterns, but not both.
poppa0101jr
talent distribution
April 10, 2003 at 08:58PM View BBCode
How about comments about players acquired during the season not counting against the the protected list? If we don't do something like this owners will be more reluctant in making trades knowing that they may lose them at the end of the season. Alternatively owners would be encouraged to mke trades if this will allow them to protect a larger number at the end of the season. Personally trading or at least considering trade proposals in one tof the more enjoyable parts of SD and anything that we can do to encourage it shuld be considered.
andrew
April 10, 2003 at 09:06PM View BBCode
That makes sense. But lets not get ahead of ourselves. I am sure there are a lot of people who would be against a "free agent draft" (i don't know what else to call it). Also it might be hard to program.
dawgfan
Maybe we should spend some time devising a strategy page to accompany the rule book that would give new dynasty owners the info they need to make smart decisions with their teams.
April 10, 2003 at 10:34PM View BBCode
I would agree with Andrew. I'm not yet convinced that such a 'draft' is necessary to ensure competitive balance. From what I've seen in the Beta League it is possible to take a lousy team and build a contender over the course of 3-4 seasons through savvy trading, drafting and development.Maybe we should spend some time devising a strategy page to accompany the rule book that would give new dynasty owners the info they need to make smart decisions with their teams.
poppa0101jr
talent Distribution
April 10, 2003 at 10:53PM View BBCode
This is great! this is exactly the type of interaction that will make the whole Simdynasty process better. Communciation and exchange of ideas.
redcped
1) Let's really see how the rebuilding cycles work in the present system. If the teams at the bottom have all these advantages in rebuilding, then let's see if Cincinnati and New York end up dominating the NL for a few years while Milwaukee and Brooklyn suck wind.
2) This is the first experimental league with this speed, and I think keeping one set of basic franchise rules intact will help make the experiment more meaningful.
3) I, like others I'm sure, would be interested in new structures down the road (perhaps the 1970s would be the time to introduce free agency, as in real life). We could even create some sort of artificial salary structure system to permit bidding on free agents.
I'll post more on this another time. My tea is ready :D
April 11, 2003 at 08:13AM View BBCode
Although I find these ideas quite intriguing, I don't think we should implement them in this league in its initial 20-year run. Here's why:1) Let's really see how the rebuilding cycles work in the present system. If the teams at the bottom have all these advantages in rebuilding, then let's see if Cincinnati and New York end up dominating the NL for a few years while Milwaukee and Brooklyn suck wind.
2) This is the first experimental league with this speed, and I think keeping one set of basic franchise rules intact will help make the experiment more meaningful.
3) I, like others I'm sure, would be interested in new structures down the road (perhaps the 1970s would be the time to introduce free agency, as in real life). We could even create some sort of artificial salary structure system to permit bidding on free agents.
I'll post more on this another time. My tea is ready :D
khakurat
i'm also a little curious about what you all think the goal that we should shoot for is.
i mean we're talking about rankings inflation, but we each may mean something different. what kind of percentages do you think we should have? it's all well and good to say that rankings should not get out of hand, but where should the line be drawn?
April 11, 2003 at 10:02AM View BBCode
i have to agree that this needs more time. i am curious to see how things change even in the next 5 years. i think we really need to see how well guys hang on (19 of the top 51 players are 29 or older), and how the new guys improve. i know that you guys already did this in the beta league, but another test would almost certainly be instructive.i'm also a little curious about what you all think the goal that we should shoot for is.
i mean we're talking about rankings inflation, but we each may mean something different. what kind of percentages do you think we should have? it's all well and good to say that rankings should not get out of hand, but where should the line be drawn?