|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 23, 2014 21:27:30 GMT -5
In the 50's league, we set the min limit at 60 ABs / 30 IPs. Since we are going with 12 managers once again and the league had significant expansion, I am recommending increasing the min limits since the player pool is larger. The low AB/IP cards skew things when they get a full season of usage, so I'd like to have some discussion on this. PLEASE CHIME IN!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by tcochran on Jun 23, 2014 23:17:34 GMT -5
Having a larger player pool would be a good thing. It's scary in the 1950's leagues to think that player #24 on your roster or #25 might actually get into a game
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2014 9:19:01 GMT -5
I am working on the player pools this week and should have them done shortly.
Since we are going with the three inactive "reserves" roster slots, I am considering having ALL PLAYERS (non keepers) available in each draft regardless of AB/IP.
A team will need to consist of 25 "active" players meeting the minimum AB/IP thresholds, with the three inactive reserve slots having no AB/IP limits on them. I think it will add an interesting angle to the draft strategies!
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
roosky
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by roosky on Jul 2, 2014 9:25:15 GMT -5
That would be fine by me and could be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by billhuffman on Jul 2, 2014 9:38:02 GMT -5
I like the reserve slots idea. I also wonder if limiting usage, rather than allowing injuries, would allow for more realism toward the usage of low AB/IP players.
|
|
|
|
Post by pnhlong on Jul 2, 2014 11:20:37 GMT -5
I'm against limiting usage. When I've played the CD game, I've had problems with when and how the program "limits" usage.
I like that we have a minimum ab/ip requirement and let it go at that.
my 2 cents,
Paul Long
|
|
|
|
Post by pnhlong on Jul 2, 2014 11:22:09 GMT -5
but I am MORE than ready for those spreadsheets on the player pool(s) for the 60s league. Very excited to start doing the work on them while I'm off work (teacher) this summer.  Paul |
|
|
|
Post by onealje on Jul 2, 2014 20:55:59 GMT -5
I prefer the minimum AB/IP limits on players that can be drafted vs any usage limits. It is just easier to keep up with and allows for some sleepers which gives an air of uncertainty to the season. We could make the minimums a bit higher since we have a larger player pool to pick from. I'm good with that.
I think that the 3 reserve should have the same requirements as the 25 man roster. What are going to be the rules for switching players in and out of reserve? What would prevent someone from drafting a reserve with a low AB/IP and then swapping them into the active roster for most of the season unless we have some kind of rules about when they can be activated and how long they can remain active. Again, another complication that we really don't need.
I too am looking forward to getting my hands on those spreadsheets of players. Especially the 60's when I first began to follow baseball and began the second greatest love of my life (after my wife and kids, of course!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2014 21:52:22 GMT -5
but I am MORE than ready for those spreadsheets on the player pool(s) for the 60s league. Very excited to start doing the work on them while I'm off work (teacher) this summer. Paul Shhhhhhhh, they are coming,LOL |
|
|
|
Post by jkloster on Jul 3, 2014 6:32:43 GMT -5
Rob,
The rules of the 50's were working well, so lets just use those with the addition of three reserve players.
I would like a drug testing policy in place by the time we get to the 70's (I don't want a 'tripping' Doc Ellis pitching to my players) and a steroid policy for the 80's. But,we have time to work those out.
|
|
|
|
Post by tcochran on Jul 3, 2014 18:31:05 GMT -5
Is that drug testing for the players? Or for the managers?
To Rob: I like your idea about allowing "no limits" players to be drafted, even if they are not allowed on the active roster for the season in question.
|
|
sroman
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by sroman on Jul 8, 2014 6:07:29 GMT -5
Rob,
I think you were going to check into how the computer can penalize overuse? Do you know if SOM does this effectively? I think some other games do so to great success. For instance there is a 25% dropoff at 110% usage for Pitcher or Batter, then a 50% dropoff at 125% of usage, etc. Of course these games aren't card-based like SOM, but statistics-based.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2014 7:46:46 GMT -5
Steve, yep. I did a bunch of testing. Basically the game will swap out players from the starting lineups based on usage, trying to keep the players within a reasonable range of AB/IP.
That would be great, but what I don't like about it is that HAL makes his own lineup adjustments based on the subs. Which made for some very quirky lineups (that I wouldn't have been too happy with, for my team at least). There's no performance reduction like your called out from other games.
|
|
