 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Problem with catcher conversion code
imalbundy2
this makes no sense for players who have been eligible at catcher for their entire careers.
case in point - Johnny Bench. in 1982 at OS34 he played 107 games at 3B and only 1 at catcher. in a 90% league he certainly would have lost elibility when there is little doubt he could still play the position.
i propose that any player should be allowed to move up at catcher regardless of lost eligibility until OS35 after declining.
in leagues with the STD known as VD where some players continue to play at a very high level into their early 40's i would argue that these players should be allowed to move up even longer - but that's probably best left for another day as it seems much more complicated.
Please see this thread from support for more details.
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=351250&page=1#pid1879148
Problem with catcher conversion code
January 08, 2013 at 09:55AM View BBCode
players who fall under the league minimum for catcher cannot move back up in catcher rating after reaching a certain age.this makes no sense for players who have been eligible at catcher for their entire careers.
case in point - Johnny Bench. in 1982 at OS34 he played 107 games at 3B and only 1 at catcher. in a 90% league he certainly would have lost elibility when there is little doubt he could still play the position.
i propose that any player should be allowed to move up at catcher regardless of lost eligibility until OS35 after declining.
in leagues with the STD known as VD where some players continue to play at a very high level into their early 40's i would argue that these players should be allowed to move up even longer - but that's probably best left for another day as it seems much more complicated.
Please see this thread from support for more details.
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=351250&page=1#pid1879148
Admin
Chris
January 08, 2013 at 10:05AM View BBCode
I'm not sure if being able to improve at a position at older ages is the answer. Maybe the opposite is a better answer: once you've played at a position for x number of years you can't decline below, say, 90%.Chris
imalbundy2
i would argue that a player should never fall below 90 at his original position as well.
case in point is craig biggio who only played three seasons at catcher before moving to 2B.
does anyone doubt he could have played catcher at any point in his career until the very end?
some time back i ran into this problem in TGL as you might remember.
i spent 3-4 seasons flip flopping/benching my players so that my two star catchers both remained eligible.
since my starter had D- health you would think that my 'backup' who would have started on any other team would have played enough each season to remain eligible.
but he had A+ health and begain dropping dramatically when he got older as he started in RF. then after a certain age i couldn't get him to move back up even when i made him the starter and started my other guy at RF. (they were both 100% at each position at one point)
you shouldn't have to bench someone to keep them eligible to play a position.
[Edited on 1-8-2013 by imalbundy2]
January 08, 2013 at 10:41AM View BBCode
that would be a blessing from above but it's so obvious that i didn't think it would fly.i would argue that a player should never fall below 90 at his original position as well.
case in point is craig biggio who only played three seasons at catcher before moving to 2B.
does anyone doubt he could have played catcher at any point in his career until the very end?
some time back i ran into this problem in TGL as you might remember.
i spent 3-4 seasons flip flopping/benching my players so that my two star catchers both remained eligible.
since my starter had D- health you would think that my 'backup' who would have started on any other team would have played enough each season to remain eligible.
but he had A+ health and begain dropping dramatically when he got older as he started in RF. then after a certain age i couldn't get him to move back up even when i made him the starter and started my other guy at RF. (they were both 100% at each position at one point)
you shouldn't have to bench someone to keep them eligible to play a position.
[Edited on 1-8-2013 by imalbundy2]
Admin
To me that would depend on his age. If he was drafted at 17 and changed to, say, 3B at 18, I wouldn't expect him to come back at 37 and play catcher at 90%.
If you assumed that from the age of 17 he played his natural position, that would actually help give some older players in the draft some additional value. If you had, say, a 6-year threshold at which you would no longer forget a position, then a 23-year old in the draft would never lose his primary position. (I pulled that 6 year figure out of thin air for this example, I'm not married to it.)
However, it would make sense if 90% was "90% of his highest skill level". If we did that, your borderline catcher would still have fallen out of the position. However, getting him to 55% and keeping him there for a few years would guarantee he wouldn't drop below 50%.
Not quite sure how I would track this, though, without adding a ton of fields to the database... allowing them to keep getting better if they are already at a certain threshold is certainly simpler.
Chris
January 08, 2013 at 05:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by imalbundy2
that would be a blessing from above but it's so obvious that i didn't think it would fly.
i would argue that a player should never fall below 90 at his original position as well.
To me that would depend on his age. If he was drafted at 17 and changed to, say, 3B at 18, I wouldn't expect him to come back at 37 and play catcher at 90%.
If you assumed that from the age of 17 he played his natural position, that would actually help give some older players in the draft some additional value. If you had, say, a 6-year threshold at which you would no longer forget a position, then a 23-year old in the draft would never lose his primary position. (I pulled that 6 year figure out of thin air for this example, I'm not married to it.)
However, it would make sense if 90% was "90% of his highest skill level". If we did that, your borderline catcher would still have fallen out of the position. However, getting him to 55% and keeping him there for a few years would guarantee he wouldn't drop below 50%.
Not quite sure how I would track this, though, without adding a ton of fields to the database... allowing them to keep getting better if they are already at a certain threshold is certainly simpler.
Chris
imalbundy2
like my former manager used to say at every occasion possible, "keep it simple, stupid."
but to add on to what you said, anyone who converted from C to 3B at OS18 would have to do it in the minors to be any good at all - unless they were a megastud at OS18.
if that were the case, then why move them from C when that is the hardest position to fill with a quality bat?
i guess i have to go back to my original idea of allowing them to improve regardless of threshold until after they decline the first time. that HAS to be the simplest approach to this.
January 08, 2013 at 11:11PM View BBCode
:lol:like my former manager used to say at every occasion possible, "keep it simple, stupid."
but to add on to what you said, anyone who converted from C to 3B at OS18 would have to do it in the minors to be any good at all - unless they were a megastud at OS18.
if that were the case, then why move them from C when that is the hardest position to fill with a quality bat?
i guess i have to go back to my original idea of allowing them to improve regardless of threshold until after they decline the first time. that HAS to be the simplest approach to this.
dirtdevil
January 09, 2013 at 02:54AM View BBCode
the intention is to not have guys fall accidentally out of position eligibilty, right? i'm not keen on guys improving at older ages, either, and no i don't think biggio could have caught in anything other than an emergency situation at the end of his career. but what if we put a barrier in at, say, 60%? once a guy crosses the 60% threshold at a position he can't go below it. that's enought to keep positional eligibilty but keeps the idea of getting 'rusty' at a position you haven't played regularly for a while.
Admin
Chris
January 09, 2013 at 06:32AM View BBCode
There only position that this is really an issue for is catchers, and catcher eligibility varies by league. So this would all boil down to "If a player ever has qualified at catcher he should never lose that qualification".Chris
nuzzy62
They would fill in as an emergency catcher, but not the rigours of the day to day donning the tools of ignorance.
January 10, 2013 at 12:47PM View BBCode
Just to inject another side of realism here, usually when a guy is moved from catcher, it's to give his knees a break so his career can be extended. It happens frequently enough that a guy is moved from catcher to first or DH (which we don't have). You generally don't see these guys going back and playing catcher full-time in the twilight of their careers.They would fill in as an emergency catcher, but not the rigours of the day to day donning the tools of ignorance.
dabigtrain
Count me a a vote for "If a player ever has qualified at catcher he should never lose that qualification." I also think any league where you have to have 90% to start a C is setting the bar too high, but that's another discussion.
January 10, 2013 at 04:03PM View BBCode
Nuzzy makes a good real-world point - but the problem is, where Biggio/Bench/Mauer (in a couple of years) could be put into a real game by a real manager as an "emergency catcher" or could have been a sometime backup, in SimD, once the C gets below the league threshold, the manager can't put him in.Count me a a vote for "If a player ever has qualified at catcher he should never lose that qualification." I also think any league where you have to have 90% to start a C is setting the bar too high, but that's another discussion.
tworoosters
This means if your league has a 50% requirement that your player will still be able to play the position but he will suffer the defensive issues of being a 50% catcher if that's how low his rating gets.
January 10, 2013 at 05:22PM View BBCode
I think that "If a player ever has qualified at catcher he should never lose that qualification" make sense, with the provision that the player not be able to improve at the catcher position again after a certain age, say 30.This means if your league has a 50% requirement that your player will still be able to play the position but he will suffer the defensive issues of being a 50% catcher if that's how low his rating gets.
dirtdevil
which seems fair.
January 10, 2013 at 05:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
This means if your league has a 50% requirement that your player will still be able to play the position but he will suffer the defensive issues of being a 50% catcher if that's how low his rating gets.
which seems fair.
tm4559
January 17, 2013 at 06:03PM View BBCode
truly, everything about the catchers, the code that controls how much they play, their conversion (going to and away from), and the code that gives what they do in the game, its retarded, all of it.
dirtdevil
January 17, 2013 at 06:06PM View BBCode
i won't necessarily disagree with that. but the prior alternative- the immediate capability of your A+/A+ A+ arm SS to play catcher for 162 games with little or no penalty- was worse.
tm4559
(of course they played way too much, so did the natural catchers. but out of position catchers were never good at throwing.)
January 17, 2013 at 06:13PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
they were terrible as catchers. they suffered a huge penalty, they couldn't throw anything out.
(of course they played way too much, so did the natural catchers. but out of position catchers were never good at throwing.)
tm4559
January 17, 2013 at 06:17PM View BBCode
(but the code that limits a b+ catcher to five games in a row, then it must rest, is kind of woefully off also. more realistic? would be code that let them catch all they want to when they're younger, but their skills with the bat would start going down, sharply, along with their speed, at about age 28 or 29, or even sooner. and they could hang around and catch forever if they want to, give pep talks in the fake clubhouse, whatever. but oh boy, would folks complain about that even more. complaining is actually the most awesome thing.)
dirtdevil
(your way would be better. the hue and cry would be deafening though.)
January 17, 2013 at 06:25PM View BBCode
they also converted to catcher in about half a season and suffered no penalty thereafter and in the meantime their bat in the lineup was usually more of an advanatge than the arm was a detriment.(your way would be better. the hue and cry would be deafening though.)
tm4559
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=3033971&statsorimps=stats
lots of errors. poor percenage for the most part.
here is a more recent one
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=7299586&statsorimps=stats
you can tell how long it took them to convert by reading the error column. they made lots of errors until they converted. then most of them just disappear.
January 17, 2013 at 06:45PM View BBCode
they didn't convert in half a season. they got, depending on the range, either one point for 10 games or one point for 20 games. it took five or so seasons for them to convert. here is one from the old dayshttp://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=3033971&statsorimps=stats
lots of errors. poor percenage for the most part.
here is a more recent one
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=7299586&statsorimps=stats
you can tell how long it took them to convert by reading the error column. they made lots of errors until they converted. then most of them just disappear.
Pages: 1