 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » improving the health grade of a player
shep1582
I could put him on the DL for 50-100 games (the longer the DL stay, the higher the bump in health grade) for health reasons, he would have virtual surgery, and come out the other side with improved health.
Discuss...
improving the health grade of a player
July 19, 2009 at 03:17PM View BBCode
How difficult would it be to code in a surgery? Let's say I have a D health guy who is a masher, and I'd like to get his grade to a B.I could put him on the DL for 50-100 games (the longer the DL stay, the higher the bump in health grade) for health reasons, he would have virtual surgery, and come out the other side with improved health.
Discuss...
Hamilton2
July 19, 2009 at 03:31PM View BBCode
While I am completely opposed to anything that would serve to improve the health of a player, this is the best idea that I have yet heard for implementing it. If we reach a point at which we must do something to improve health, this is the idea that has my vote.
bpearly69
July 19, 2009 at 07:24PM View BBCode
sounds pretty cool, but couldn't someone just do that 5 times to get him maxed health or would there be some kind of cap to do so?
INDIANSFORLIFE
I would be in favor of subjecting the result of the surgery to variable development, where most would improve a little bit, some would get worse (react bad to the surgery), some would get significantly better, etc..
July 19, 2009 at 09:07PM View BBCode
by bpearly69
pretty cool, but couldn't someone just do that 5 times to get him maxed health or would there be some kind of cap to do so?
I would be in favor of subjecting the result of the surgery to variable development, where most would improve a little bit, some would get worse (react bad to the surgery), some would get significantly better, etc..
shep1582
a 22 yr old would respond better than a 34 yr old.
July 20, 2009 at 01:18AM View BBCode
age would be a factor, as well.a 22 yr old would respond better than a 34 yr old.
cubfan531
July 20, 2009 at 03:56AM View BBCode
I would also say there would have to be an age limit on it. A 42 year old isn't going to undergo something like that. Well, most won't. But, since there's no way to code in egos, it's easier to go with the logic of the majority of players.
chessmyantidrug
July 20, 2009 at 06:34PM View BBCode
I can't get behind any idea that improves health. At least not unless the way health affects players changes. And I don't think anyone would use this idea on a younger player as it would sacrifice a year of development to improve health. The hitting ratings mean a lot more.
happy
July 20, 2009 at 07:58PM View BBCode
not all health problems can be fixed by surgery. some players just get tired easily, some players have unfixable injuries.
shep1582
why are ALL the players in SimD subject to it?
July 20, 2009 at 10:32PM View BBCode
there's no player in the history of baseball with static health, with the possible exception of Ripken and Gehrig.why are ALL the players in SimD subject to it?
dirtdevil
July 21, 2009 at 12:25PM View BBCode
i still have to say that i'm opposed to any system that potentially improves health for a player without including a parallel system which would include the potential for reducing it. for every player like paul molitor who plays more games later in his career, there's a ken griffey jr who ran into a rash of injuries later in his career as well. there needs to be a balance.
cubfan531
July 21, 2009 at 02:40PM View BBCode
Dirt's completely right. With every change that allows us more control over the game and our players, there has to be a variable added. In fact, I'd argue that more players are more injury prone at 35 and older than those of that age who aren't.
chessmyantidrug
I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but who will it be used on? It won't be on an OS 21-26 player because that sacrifices development. No one will take a worse player with better health. Or at least no one should.
And as has been said, health should be allowed to deteriorate if it is allowed to improve. Hello, Mark Prior.
July 21, 2009 at 03:51PM View BBCode
Paul Molitor had the advantage of DHing, something Griffey couldn't do in Cincinnati because the NL is stubborn.I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but who will it be used on? It won't be on an OS 21-26 player because that sacrifices development. No one will take a worse player with better health. Or at least no one should.
And as has been said, health should be allowed to deteriorate if it is allowed to improve. Hello, Mark Prior.
cubfan531
July 21, 2009 at 06:15PM View BBCode
I think the variable inning amounts for pitcher abuse would account for a Mark Prior case. He wasn't a superman as it was, and Dusty Baker just rode every last pitch out of him he could.
Brrexkl
Unless he was such a stud that I KNEW he was not going to convert a percentage... like the Pitchers that go 0 or 1 for 68 in a season whether Major or Minor.. then I could not risk him getting better IN THE MINORS for him to get more chances in the Majors.
I got a 20 YO Pitcher who just will not improve in the Minors and his Major Converts would suck due to age. I would see putting him under the knife to improve the Health thus improving his Total Chances in the Majors by playing more. But I would have to weigh the risk of Bad Surgery costing me my Stud.
July 29, 2009 at 12:58AM View BBCode
If we can improve it then luck should have it we could destroy it as well. Surgery gone wrong... staph infection etc. Could end a career.Unless he was such a stud that I KNEW he was not going to convert a percentage... like the Pitchers that go 0 or 1 for 68 in a season whether Major or Minor.. then I could not risk him getting better IN THE MINORS for him to get more chances in the Majors.
I got a 20 YO Pitcher who just will not improve in the Minors and his Major Converts would suck due to age. I would see putting him under the knife to improve the Health thus improving his Total Chances in the Majors by playing more. But I would have to weigh the risk of Bad Surgery costing me my Stud.
barterer2002
http://simdynasty.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/705-3581
July 30, 2009 at 03:50PM View BBCode
There is an idea on ideascale about improving health-its a bit different than what is described here but if you're interested in it here it ishttp://simdynasty.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/705-3581
chessmyantidrug
July 30, 2009 at 07:13PM View BBCode
Dusty Baker can't be blamed for Mark Prior hitting the disabled list in 2002. Prior was just a walking pane of glass. It's not like pitchers are injured much in SD anyway, though [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=5806189]it can get pretty irritating[/url] when it happens.
shep1582
Anyone ever heard of Tommy John? Then there's JR Richard...
July 30, 2009 at 11:06PM View BBCode
I agree with dirtdevil that there would need to be a counterbalance.Anyone ever heard of Tommy John? Then there's JR Richard...
chessmyantidrug
July 31, 2009 at 07:43AM View BBCode
I'm not seeing much of a point to this suggestion. The only players this would even be tried on are the ones who aren't developing with extremely low health. It would seem rather foolish to try this on a C+ health player and have their health plummet to C- or lower. So the only players this would make sense for are the ones with terrible health anyway since the penalty affects them the least. If a F health player responds negatively, it wouldn't matter.
Brrexkl
This would cost some leagues some players that would have been stars... but at the same time it could give more chances to improve in the Majors to what would have been a 100 game a year player... also allowing him to get more total stats along the way. Risk/Reward.
And that is the beauty of it. Good teams could extend there run by getting more health for that guy that could not get CPs but will get plenty of ICs in the Majors with a Health Improve... or could shorten there run by killing off a few decent prospects that could have replaced retiring players in a few year. Bad teams could get a really quality 150+ game guy out of a Low Health 1st Pick really making him much more effective... or could kill there build by losing him to the knife. Middle teams could improve the value of a player and get pieces in trade for him... or lose the player with nothing in return.
At the least it adds a wrinkle to the game and gives the manager one more important decision to make. And winning at that gamble would be joyous and fun. There is no harm as you are not forced to do such things... you gain ground as others fail at this and lose ground when others are successful.
It is a good idea that some would use often and others would never touch and yet others would nit and pick at when the feeling arose.
July 31, 2009 at 06:22PM View BBCode
Chess... you really can not say that no one would do this. Each person has their own amount of risk that they find acceptable. There are bound to be players that would take a really good prospect and try to make that B+ and A+ to get 160 games out of a stud. I would not... but there are those that would.This would cost some leagues some players that would have been stars... but at the same time it could give more chances to improve in the Majors to what would have been a 100 game a year player... also allowing him to get more total stats along the way. Risk/Reward.
And that is the beauty of it. Good teams could extend there run by getting more health for that guy that could not get CPs but will get plenty of ICs in the Majors with a Health Improve... or could shorten there run by killing off a few decent prospects that could have replaced retiring players in a few year. Bad teams could get a really quality 150+ game guy out of a Low Health 1st Pick really making him much more effective... or could kill there build by losing him to the knife. Middle teams could improve the value of a player and get pieces in trade for him... or lose the player with nothing in return.
At the least it adds a wrinkle to the game and gives the manager one more important decision to make. And winning at that gamble would be joyous and fun. There is no harm as you are not forced to do such things... you gain ground as others fail at this and lose ground when others are successful.
It is a good idea that some would use often and others would never touch and yet others would nit and pick at when the feeling arose.
chessmyantidrug
With major league ICs no longer linked to health, improving a player's health to get more ICs doesn't make sense. Those low-health players will get more by starting against right-handed pitchers and pinch hitting against southpaws. Then you just have to hope the player doesn't get hurt, but that's true of any player.
There's no decision to make if this suggestion were implemented. The only players who would benefit are the low-health ones. Anyone who would attempt to make a blue health player into a red health player is a fool. The risk would outweigh the reward.
July 31, 2009 at 07:42PM View BBCode
Brex, read over the suggestion again. It's saying to trade a year of development (which is a relative guarantee, especially with OS 22-25 players) for a chance to improve health. Anyone who would trade better production for more games is a fool, plain and simple.With major league ICs no longer linked to health, improving a player's health to get more ICs doesn't make sense. Those low-health players will get more by starting against right-handed pitchers and pinch hitting against southpaws. Then you just have to hope the player doesn't get hurt, but that's true of any player.
There's no decision to make if this suggestion were implemented. The only players who would benefit are the low-health ones. Anyone who would attempt to make a blue health player into a red health player is a fool. The risk would outweigh the reward.
Brrexkl
I see this working more for Pitchers... especially in the years where you get those 0 conversions or really really bad rates that tend to happen. That would be the time frame to put the Pitcher on Surgery and hope to see an increase in health.
As for the risk outweighing the reward... that is for each Owner to decide.
July 31, 2009 at 11:34PM View BBCode
Each game started is 0.2 IC and each game finished is another 0.2. Not much I admit... but those add up. Getting an extra 0.4 IC per game started and finished adds up to a nice chunk that can aid development.I see this working more for Pitchers... especially in the years where you get those 0 conversions or really really bad rates that tend to happen. That would be the time frame to put the Pitcher on Surgery and hope to see an increase in health.
As for the risk outweighing the reward... that is for each Owner to decide.
chessmyantidrug
Pitching health means almost nothing.
And the risk will always outweigh the reward unless the health is already low. A D+ health player has very little to lose because F health isn't that much worse. But for a B health player, the possibility of going down to maybe C- is just a risk I wouldn't take for the chance at hitting A+.
August 01, 2009 at 09:39AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Brex, you're forgetting about the health multiplier. Low-health players have a higher multiplier so they can actually benefit by starting less. As crazy as that sounds, it's true.
Pitching health means almost nothing.
And the risk will always outweigh the reward unless the health is already low. A D+ health player has very little to lose because F health isn't that much worse. But for a B health player, the possibility of going down to maybe C- is just a risk I wouldn't take for the chance at hitting A+.
Brrexkl
As for the last last part, it is a risk you would not take and I probably would not take either... but others might and they should have that option.
August 02, 2009 at 04:48AM View BBCode
Thanks for the info of the health multipliers. I was unaware of that so it does change things a bit.As for the last last part, it is a risk you would not take and I probably would not take either... but others might and they should have that option.
chessmyantidrug
August 02, 2009 at 08:40AM View BBCode
No, they shouldn't. That's why minor league position changes are the way they are now. So new owners can't screw themselves over by training a new position.
cubfan531
A surgery's effectiveness is tied to: 1) player's health, 2) time on DL, 3) point in season surgery enacted (if at the end of the season, I'd add an OS boost to it, since alot of players get these towards the end of the year, to add the off-season to their recovery time).
The downfall: 1) Less time on DL, more likely it'll have no, or a negative, effect, 2) The higher a player's health, the less likely it is to work, 3) addition of "major" injuries. We're talking torn rotator cuffs and fractured skull stuff here. The ones that take you out for all of this season, and possibly part of the next. I'd say a maximum of 400 days for these (a long road back from Tommy John would be the real life equivilent of this).
Anyone have thoughts on this?
September 10, 2009 at 02:15PM View BBCode
I think I may have an acceptable compromise on this:A surgery's effectiveness is tied to: 1) player's health, 2) time on DL, 3) point in season surgery enacted (if at the end of the season, I'd add an OS boost to it, since alot of players get these towards the end of the year, to add the off-season to their recovery time).
The downfall: 1) Less time on DL, more likely it'll have no, or a negative, effect, 2) The higher a player's health, the less likely it is to work, 3) addition of "major" injuries. We're talking torn rotator cuffs and fractured skull stuff here. The ones that take you out for all of this season, and possibly part of the next. I'd say a maximum of 400 days for these (a long road back from Tommy John would be the real life equivilent of this).
Anyone have thoughts on this?
Pages: 1 2