 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Schedule Of Events
tysonlowery
The playoffs will occur on Saturday (hopefully). They will occur in 3 batches. One at 8:15AM, the second batch at 12:45PM, and the third batch at 5:15PM.
If they don't run Saturday, I'll be home on Sunday to give them another whirl.
I'll leave the results up through Monday night. Run the offseason and Amateur Draft on Monday night. And start 1953 on Tuesday.
Note that if the Amateur draft this time is going to be scaled back slightly in terms of talent. In my opinion, only the worst 4-8 teams should be able to draft a player in the B/B- range. The talent in the league as a whole is getting too good. Here's why that's bad. I had a 28 year old guy who batted .290 with 38 HRs in season one. In season's two and three, he had significant decreases in stats. I've seen this with many players, and have concluded it is because the pitching is getting too good because of the amateur draft!
Any thoughts?
Schedule Of Events
April 12, 2002 at 08:48PM View BBCode
Okay, I'm going to test out something I put together for the playoffs. Before, I usually ran the playoffs by hand. But I'm going to try to run them automatically this time to see if it works okay (and since there is no possible way I can run the playoffs by hand for the regular site, there are too many leagues.The playoffs will occur on Saturday (hopefully). They will occur in 3 batches. One at 8:15AM, the second batch at 12:45PM, and the third batch at 5:15PM.
If they don't run Saturday, I'll be home on Sunday to give them another whirl.
I'll leave the results up through Monday night. Run the offseason and Amateur Draft on Monday night. And start 1953 on Tuesday.
Note that if the Amateur draft this time is going to be scaled back slightly in terms of talent. In my opinion, only the worst 4-8 teams should be able to draft a player in the B/B- range. The talent in the league as a whole is getting too good. Here's why that's bad. I had a 28 year old guy who batted .290 with 38 HRs in season one. In season's two and three, he had significant decreases in stats. I've seen this with many players, and have concluded it is because the pitching is getting too good because of the amateur draft!
Any thoughts?
honus
April 12, 2002 at 09:00PM View BBCode
It's possible that for every hitter that's declined over the last few seasons, one has improved an equal amount. Can you see if the league average has changed?
tysonlowery
This goes for pitchers as well. Let me dig up some examples. But basically a guy in season 1 that was an overall B- buy was probably starting and doing well. By season 3, he was in the minors.
April 12, 2002 at 09:24PM View BBCode
Well, that's the thing. The guys skills haven't changed at all because he was in his prime.This goes for pitchers as well. Let me dig up some examples. But basically a guy in season 1 that was an overall B- buy was probably starting and doing well. By season 3, he was in the minors.
tysonlowery
April 12, 2002 at 09:27PM View BBCode
To answer your question, I'm unable to see if the league average has changed because player skills change over time.
tysonlowery
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/beta/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=871]http://www.simdynasty.com/beta/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=871[/url]
April 12, 2002 at 09:29PM View BBCode
Example one. This guy is 27 years old and has been around since 1950 when he was 24. His skills have gotten better over time, but his stats have not. His batting average is highest in the first season.[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/beta/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=871]http://www.simdynasty.com/beta/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=871[/url]
hcboomer
April 12, 2002 at 09:29PM View BBCode
Could this also have been a function of the tweaking you mentioned awhile back to temper the offense a bit? Don't know if you actually did that, or what impact it may have had, but it seems like one effect would be to hurt the numbers in particular of the good-but-not-star players. Perhaps the way in which the offense was curtailed would hit the B- type hitters disproportionately.
tysonlowery
Anyone else have an opinion? Personally, I think the talent level in the draft is too high. I might back it off a little bit. But I do like the fact that I can get 2-3 starting players each year in the amateur draft (even though it is entirely unrealistic, it makes the game more fun).
Originally my plan was to make it so only a few guys in the first round would be of major league quality and the rest would need to be developed.
What do you guys think?
April 12, 2002 at 09:33PM View BBCode
One thing I forgot, is that I did make the league more pitcher friendly as time has gone on. Maybe my argument doesn't hold any weight?Anyone else have an opinion? Personally, I think the talent level in the draft is too high. I might back it off a little bit. But I do like the fact that I can get 2-3 starting players each year in the amateur draft (even though it is entirely unrealistic, it makes the game more fun).
Originally my plan was to make it so only a few guys in the first round would be of major league quality and the rest would need to be developed.
What do you guys think?
hcboomer
One way to look at it too. In real life teams have the ability to go out and add talent, even overhaul their teams, signing free agents, big trades etc. Even sticking with the '50s ethos, besides trading many teams had vast minor-league systems to cull from, not just a limited minor-league roster and five amateur draft selections.
So, if you're considering realism, maybe the way to look at the amateur draft in this case is to compensate a bit for the limitations within the game for adding talent in other ways. So while the talent in the Sim amateur draft is better than it "should" be compared to real-life amateur drafts, it might be appropriate in the sim game.
April 12, 2002 at 09:43PM View BBCode
Personally, I like the higher level of talent coming in with each draft. You're right, it's not exactly "realistic", but it will help make the game more fun, especially for teams that do not start out with much talent in 1950 or 1951.One way to look at it too. In real life teams have the ability to go out and add talent, even overhaul their teams, signing free agents, big trades etc. Even sticking with the '50s ethos, besides trading many teams had vast minor-league systems to cull from, not just a limited minor-league roster and five amateur draft selections.
So, if you're considering realism, maybe the way to look at the amateur draft in this case is to compensate a bit for the limitations within the game for adding talent in other ways. So while the talent in the Sim amateur draft is better than it "should" be compared to real-life amateur drafts, it might be appropriate in the sim game.
tysonlowery
But I suppose its good that the 1950 draft doesn't seal your fate for too many years.
April 12, 2002 at 09:56PM View BBCode
The thing that just doesn't feel right is when I cut a guy on my team that was 32 years old and my cleanup hitter in the first season to make room for an undrafted free agent from 1952.But I suppose its good that the 1950 draft doesn't seal your fate for too many years.
hcboomer
April 12, 2002 at 10:25PM View BBCode
This also might go back in some ways to a discussion I recall awhile back about the distribution of grade levels for the players. Not sure exactly how, mind you, but there might be ways of tweaking that that would reduce these situations when players seem to rapidly become useless -- relative to the roster -- even though they should keep improving or are at least staying the same.
dawgfan
The problem with too much talent in the draft is you get talent inflation - like Tyson said, a guy that was rated a "B-" in 1950 was a real good player - in 1952, he's average to below average.
I don't know how you're tracking the overall talent level in the game, but ideally the incoming players are balanced by the retiring players, and the improving players are balanced by the declining players. Sure, in real life there might be some ebb and flow to the talent level, but you really only see that at particular positions - witness the SS explosion in the mid-'90's and the current crop of 3B.
Don't get me wrong - I've loved the chance to seriously re-work my roster through the last 2 drafts, but I think it's unrealistically increased the overall talent level of my team.
To address another point, I was wondering if the pitching had been turned up this season - I witnessed most of my hitters regress in performance despite the majority of them being in their prime with no decrease in rating, and my pitching seemed improved. I liked the numbers produced - they seem much more realistic than in 1950.
April 13, 2002 at 01:31AM View BBCode
I think the talent level of the draft has definitely been too high. You should expect no more than 1 guy per year that can step right into a starting role on average, with 2-3 more guys probably needing a season or 2 of seasoning to break into the bigs, with the remaining 2-3 roster filler, with a small chance of getting good enough to see some major-league time.The problem with too much talent in the draft is you get talent inflation - like Tyson said, a guy that was rated a "B-" in 1950 was a real good player - in 1952, he's average to below average.
I don't know how you're tracking the overall talent level in the game, but ideally the incoming players are balanced by the retiring players, and the improving players are balanced by the declining players. Sure, in real life there might be some ebb and flow to the talent level, but you really only see that at particular positions - witness the SS explosion in the mid-'90's and the current crop of 3B.
Don't get me wrong - I've loved the chance to seriously re-work my roster through the last 2 drafts, but I think it's unrealistically increased the overall talent level of my team.
To address another point, I was wondering if the pitching had been turned up this season - I witnessed most of my hitters regress in performance despite the majority of them being in their prime with no decrease in rating, and my pitching seemed improved. I liked the numbers produced - they seem much more realistic than in 1950.
tysonlowery
I'll try to decrease the skills slightly, but not too much.
April 13, 2002 at 02:10AM View BBCode
Pitching has been tweaked twice since we began this beta season. Once on 3/5/02 and again on 3/25/02. I think these were during the 2nd and 3rd seasons, but I'm not 100% how the timing worked out.I'll try to decrease the skills slightly, but not too much.
BC
April 13, 2002 at 03:30AM View BBCode
I have been amazed that the draft has provided me with players that can help my team immediately. It usually takes a few seasons for stars to become stars. Is this what you mean by talent level too high? That the great players are great too soon? I would love to see many of the first rounders become good... over time.
Bob
I think the tweaks you made to balance pitching and hitting have worked very well. We used to have way too much offense, and the balance seems good now.
Dawg makes a great point -- the talent of new players should closely mirror the talent of retiring players. Same for improving vs. declining players. Based on that, it seems to me that new draftees are too strong.
I think one thing that would help would be to tweak the player improvement system. Right now, only the three players you give coaching points to during the season seem to improve. I strongly feel that all young minor-leaguers should improve. Here's my idea for a way to work this which hopefully doesn't change the current system too much.
During the season, the only way to improve is to assign coaching points to a player in the minor leagues. This should only help very young players (23 or less, pehaps), although 24-27 year old players might improve a tiny bit. This is exactly how things work now, although I would scale back the rate of improvement.
In the off-season, all young players (27 years old or less) improve based on three factors: 1. Number of days spent in the minors, 2. Number of AB or IP in the majors, and 3. Their age. Players should improve most by spending time in the minors, but would still improve a fair amount for playing (not sitting on the bench) in the majors. This really gives you the following four ways to improve a young player, ranked in order of effectiveness: 1. Assign 5 coaching points and leave the player in the minors; 2. Leave the player in the minors; 3. Give the player regular playing time in the majors; 4. Make the player a bench player in the majors.
I think the only changes to the current system this would require would be to track the number of days spent in the minors by each player and to tweak the off-season improvement formula to include this factor.
Implementing a system like this would allow more young players improve. Thus, you could lower the ability of new draftees because there will be ample opportunity for them to develop.
April 13, 2002 at 12:08PM View BBCode
WARNING: Incredibly long post to follow (sorry).I think the tweaks you made to balance pitching and hitting have worked very well. We used to have way too much offense, and the balance seems good now.
Dawg makes a great point -- the talent of new players should closely mirror the talent of retiring players. Same for improving vs. declining players. Based on that, it seems to me that new draftees are too strong.
I think one thing that would help would be to tweak the player improvement system. Right now, only the three players you give coaching points to during the season seem to improve. I strongly feel that all young minor-leaguers should improve. Here's my idea for a way to work this which hopefully doesn't change the current system too much.
During the season, the only way to improve is to assign coaching points to a player in the minor leagues. This should only help very young players (23 or less, pehaps), although 24-27 year old players might improve a tiny bit. This is exactly how things work now, although I would scale back the rate of improvement.
In the off-season, all young players (27 years old or less) improve based on three factors: 1. Number of days spent in the minors, 2. Number of AB or IP in the majors, and 3. Their age. Players should improve most by spending time in the minors, but would still improve a fair amount for playing (not sitting on the bench) in the majors. This really gives you the following four ways to improve a young player, ranked in order of effectiveness: 1. Assign 5 coaching points and leave the player in the minors; 2. Leave the player in the minors; 3. Give the player regular playing time in the majors; 4. Make the player a bench player in the majors.
I think the only changes to the current system this would require would be to track the number of days spent in the minors by each player and to tweak the off-season improvement formula to include this factor.
Implementing a system like this would allow more young players improve. Thus, you could lower the ability of new draftees because there will be ample opportunity for them to develop.
Bob
April 13, 2002 at 12:14PM View BBCode
Actually, I just thought of a much easier system to accomplish the same thing -- increase the number of coaching points from 15 to 35 or so. You could still keep the maximum per player at 5 and this would let more players improve. In the off-season, players would still improve based on their number of AB or IP in the majors. Besides increasing the coaching points, the only other change you would need to make would be allowing more than one player to improve per game.
pawishman
I do love the improvements made to my team through the drafts. I'm 500. now!
But it wouldnt hurt to slow that progress a little..., mind you a little. (;
paul w.
The Cin. roses beta league
The Cin. Roses bucky harris league.
--No longer a cellar dwellar.
Cool...ideas
April 13, 2002 at 12:32PM View BBCode
in addition, i was wondering if you could set it up so that post season records could be stored away for occasional perousal somewhere on the site?I do love the improvements made to my team through the drafts. I'm 500. now!
But it wouldnt hurt to slow that progress a little..., mind you a little. (;
paul w.
The Cin. roses beta league
The Cin. Roses bucky harris league.
--No longer a cellar dwellar.
honus
April 13, 2002 at 01:44PM View BBCode
I think people who are paying for the game and start off with crappy teams will appreciate the ability to improve their teams in the off season. Remember that these leagues will be going much more slowly than the beta league; people could get frustrated by getting stuck with a crappy team for months.
Bob
1. Waiver-wire signees. Obviously, these guys weren't drafted for a reason. Not much help.
2. Trades. The problem here is you have to give up something to get something. Still, right now it's the best way to improve your team, particularly if you fall out of the race and trade older players for young prospects.
3. Draft. Right now this is a good method of improving your team since weak teams will get better picks than the good teams. However, if we scale back the abilities of drafted players, it will hurt poor teams more than strong teams.
I think it still makes sense to scale back the abilities of draftees due to all the factors addressed in this thread. In my opinion, however, there needs to be thought about how to make it easier for weak teams to improve.
April 14, 2002 at 12:14PM View BBCode
Honus does have a point. Right now there are only 3 ways to improve a poor team.1. Waiver-wire signees. Obviously, these guys weren't drafted for a reason. Not much help.
2. Trades. The problem here is you have to give up something to get something. Still, right now it's the best way to improve your team, particularly if you fall out of the race and trade older players for young prospects.
3. Draft. Right now this is a good method of improving your team since weak teams will get better picks than the good teams. However, if we scale back the abilities of drafted players, it will hurt poor teams more than strong teams.
I think it still makes sense to scale back the abilities of draftees due to all the factors addressed in this thread. In my opinion, however, there needs to be thought about how to make it easier for weak teams to improve.
rickoshea
What I mean is, in each draft their should be 10-15 "impact players", who could immediately step in and make their team better. Then, there should be another couple dozen guys with potential to be good after a season or two in the bushes, and then a bunch of mediocre prospects who might not develop.
As Honus pointed out, it will be important to keep people interested, even if they're 30 games out. Knowing that you can pickup a decent player in the draft and knowing that one or two of last year's draftees might be ready to help you soon should go a long way towards that.
Again, it might not be realistic, but I think it might make for a better game...
April 14, 2002 at 05:39PM View BBCode
It seems to me that for the sake of the game, although not for the sake of realism, the draft should more reflect what goes on in the NBA.What I mean is, in each draft their should be 10-15 "impact players", who could immediately step in and make their team better. Then, there should be another couple dozen guys with potential to be good after a season or two in the bushes, and then a bunch of mediocre prospects who might not develop.
As Honus pointed out, it will be important to keep people interested, even if they're 30 games out. Knowing that you can pickup a decent player in the draft and knowing that one or two of last year's draftees might be ready to help you soon should go a long way towards that.
Again, it might not be realistic, but I think it might make for a better game...
honus
April 14, 2002 at 08:07PM View BBCode
Although, if there are less impact players, the draft will benefit the worse teams (who get higher draft picks) more than the winning teams.
tysonlowery
I like Bob's idea of more Coach Points. I'd have to rework the logic here though, because right now each team is only eligible for one improvement per game.
April 14, 2002 at 09:18PM View BBCode
I agree with the NBA concept 10-15 impact players, with 10-15 potential good players. The rest of the players would be guys you might have to nurture for 5-6 seasons.I like Bob's idea of more Coach Points. I'd have to rework the logic here though, because right now each team is only eligible for one improvement per game.
Pages: 1