 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Catcher Rule
tysonlowery
Currently, Long term beta is set up so that you have to have at least 2 catchers. In this league, a catcher is defined as someone with at least 75% skill at catcher. Only a player with 75% skill at catcher can start at catcher.
I have the short term league setup so that you must have 1 or more catchers, with a catcher defined as someone with at least 50% skill at catcher. Only a player with 50% skill at catcher can start at catcher.
These numbers (min # of catchers, and % to be considered a catcher) can be configured per league.
The logic to enforce this is only on the lineup pages. You can potentially have a situation where you can end up with less than the required number of catchers - but you won't be able to adjust your lineup until this is taken care of. We'll have to see how much of an issue that presents.
I gave this a lot of thought and have spoken to several people on the issue. Some suggestions have been made to just make non-catchers have multiple passed balls an inning or have them get injured easily to deter people from playing out-of-position catchers. I didn't want to just have out-of-position catchers perform horribly because it would be a really easy way to tank. I also didn't want non-catchers to get injured at a high rate because sometimes Abe will play non-catchers there.
This isn't a perfect solution, but I think it will work well in most cases.
As for Dynasty leagues - I'm going to grand-father them in so to speak. For the first season, the rule will be set so that you only have to be at 1% to be considered a catcher. This percentage will rise over time until its at 50%. We'll have a minimum of 2 catchers as well.
There will be some other catcher changes coming soon as well. I'm going to have to take a look at the mentoring problem that was brought up regarding out of position catchers because of my decision to grandfather-in the aforementioned change. I'll also see what can be done about catchers in the amateur draft. And put restrictions on the backups area for catchers.
Catcher Rule
December 15, 2005 at 04:55PM View BBCode
I've added catcher rules into the game itself.Currently, Long term beta is set up so that you have to have at least 2 catchers. In this league, a catcher is defined as someone with at least 75% skill at catcher. Only a player with 75% skill at catcher can start at catcher.
I have the short term league setup so that you must have 1 or more catchers, with a catcher defined as someone with at least 50% skill at catcher. Only a player with 50% skill at catcher can start at catcher.
These numbers (min # of catchers, and % to be considered a catcher) can be configured per league.
The logic to enforce this is only on the lineup pages. You can potentially have a situation where you can end up with less than the required number of catchers - but you won't be able to adjust your lineup until this is taken care of. We'll have to see how much of an issue that presents.
I gave this a lot of thought and have spoken to several people on the issue. Some suggestions have been made to just make non-catchers have multiple passed balls an inning or have them get injured easily to deter people from playing out-of-position catchers. I didn't want to just have out-of-position catchers perform horribly because it would be a really easy way to tank. I also didn't want non-catchers to get injured at a high rate because sometimes Abe will play non-catchers there.
This isn't a perfect solution, but I think it will work well in most cases.
As for Dynasty leagues - I'm going to grand-father them in so to speak. For the first season, the rule will be set so that you only have to be at 1% to be considered a catcher. This percentage will rise over time until its at 50%. We'll have a minimum of 2 catchers as well.
There will be some other catcher changes coming soon as well. I'm going to have to take a look at the mentoring problem that was brought up regarding out of position catchers because of my decision to grandfather-in the aforementioned change. I'll also see what can be done about catchers in the amateur draft. And put restrictions on the backups area for catchers.
Bingle
Otherwise, I think you should populate the draft pools with more catchers since often there are few, if any, serviceable young catchers.
December 15, 2005 at 05:06PM View BBCode
Interesting changes which I like. I do think you should make it easier to effectively convert minor leaguers to other positions, including catchers, at the cost of CPs. This would hold down the improvement rate in the offensive categories so it would be a fairly steep price to pay, though sometimes it would be worth it.Otherwise, I think you should populate the draft pools with more catchers since often there are few, if any, serviceable young catchers.
RSS
None of these young players in the process of a position change suddenly face a diminished capacity to improve their hitting and fielding skills. Why introduce that kind of unreality here?
I'd rather see some restrictions on which positions certain players could convert to. Left-handers shouldn't be able to become third basemen, shortstops or second basemen, except in emergency situations at the major league level.
December 15, 2005 at 05:59PM View BBCode
I don't get the logic behind needing CPs to convert a player in the minors to another position. This is going on every day, on every team, in the minor leagues -- players are constantly moved to different positions to take best advantage of their physical abilities, and to react to the future needs of the major league club.None of these young players in the process of a position change suddenly face a diminished capacity to improve their hitting and fielding skills. Why introduce that kind of unreality here?
I'd rather see some restrictions on which positions certain players could convert to. Left-handers shouldn't be able to become third basemen, shortstops or second basemen, except in emergency situations at the major league level.
Bingle
December 15, 2005 at 06:52PM View BBCode
I disagree that position changes don't often have a short term negative impact on a player's offensive game but I doubt either of us could come up with enough empirical evidence to support either stance. I really don't care if CPs are burned or not for position changes in the minors but as presently structured, it's not worth it to try it in the minors and I doubt more than 1% of the SD owners are trying the process now. Seems that there should be a viable position change option in the minors to groom players to suit the needs of the big league club upon their arrival.
tysonlowery
December 15, 2005 at 07:28PM View BBCode
We'll work on a new system for position changes at some point. I can't remember which category it fell under, but it was one of the options we considered for the next big project.
CaseyStengel
How are players ever going to get to the 50% level for catchers unless it is in the minors?
Will it become easier to convert to another position in the minors?
December 15, 2005 at 07:33PM View BBCode
Questions:How are players ever going to get to the 50% level for catchers unless it is in the minors?
Will it become easier to convert to another position in the minors?
- Right now we need to wait until ABE decides who gets an improvement, then if that player actually improves. I have found that it is fruitless to try to convert to another position in the minors. If I want to convert a player to a different position, he brought up to the majors, then converted (this includes catchers).
In order to make process more fair, I suggest that a player's position change improves in the minors each time ABE selects him. This means that if an owner is trying to convert someone in the minors to another position and ABE selects him 30 times in a season, he will improve each time towards that change.
barterer2002
As far as RSS, I would disagree that there isn't an impact on learning offensive skills when learning a new position. Players have a certain amount of time that they work on their game each day and if they're working on things like catching footwork then they aren't working on hitting or baserunning.
December 15, 2005 at 07:48PM View BBCode
Nick I think the 50% is to protect teams that have a catcher who starts 10 games or so at 1B and coverts overAs far as RSS, I would disagree that there isn't an impact on learning offensive skills when learning a new position. Players have a certain amount of time that they work on their game each day and if they're working on things like catching footwork then they aren't working on hitting or baserunning.
tysonlowery
December 15, 2005 at 08:18PM View BBCode
Nick I think the 50% is to protect teams that have a catcher who starts 10 games or so at 1B and coverts overThat is the intent.
tysonlowery
December 16, 2005 at 04:18PM View BBCode
I've added the catcher rule restrictions to the backup pages. I also fixed a bug on the roster page which would have caused problems for leagues without a catcher rule.
tysonlowery
Catchers now only have to be 28 to count towards pitcher mentoring. Also, out of position catchers won't count towards pitcher mentoring unless they are at least 50% at catcher. This isn't reflected on the Rotation & Bullpen page's approximate mentoring. That page still assumes whoever you have as C vs RHP is a natural catcher.
Finally, I've attempted to update the amateur draft code so that each draft will have at least 6 catchers in it. On average, a draft should have about 7.5 players at each position. If your draft class has less than 6 catchers, it will add extra players to the pool. So a draft might have as many as 106 players. I haven't run the code yet for this, so we'll see what happens next week in LT Beta. I may re-run the draft populate code several times for LT Beta to test this.
December 16, 2005 at 05:36PM View BBCode
I've made a few more changes regarding catchers.Catchers now only have to be 28 to count towards pitcher mentoring. Also, out of position catchers won't count towards pitcher mentoring unless they are at least 50% at catcher. This isn't reflected on the Rotation & Bullpen page's approximate mentoring. That page still assumes whoever you have as C vs RHP is a natural catcher.
Finally, I've attempted to update the amateur draft code so that each draft will have at least 6 catchers in it. On average, a draft should have about 7.5 players at each position. If your draft class has less than 6 catchers, it will add extra players to the pool. So a draft might have as many as 106 players. I haven't run the code yet for this, so we'll see what happens next week in LT Beta. I may re-run the draft populate code several times for LT Beta to test this.
Pages: 1