 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » New Major league position change logic
tysonlowery
1) A player will only convert to a new position if he's played more games at that position than at any other position that season.
2) When a player converts to a new position, he will retain a 99% rating instead of 90% at his old position.
This should help with "accidental" position changes. Please keep a close eye on this area during testing.
New Major league position change logic
July 18, 2006 at 04:56PM View BBCode
I added a couple minor changes to how position changes work in the major leagues.1) A player will only convert to a new position if he's played more games at that position than at any other position that season.
2) When a player converts to a new position, he will retain a 99% rating instead of 90% at his old position.
This should help with "accidental" position changes. Please keep a close eye on this area during testing.
rnznsmn
Tyson,
This is great! One third suggestion though - how about a de minimus number of games that must be played in a season to convert a player as well.
For example, if my SS plays 10-15 games at 2B as a defensive sub, or starts 10-15 games at 2B as a backup, and those are the ONLY games played for the year, I'd still rather not see the guy convert to 2B if he's been a SS for 10 seasons.
July 18, 2006 at 05:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
I added a couple minor changes to how position changes work in the major leagues.
1) A player will only convert to a new position if he's played more games at that position than at any other position that season.
2) When a player converts to a new position, he will retain a 99% rating instead of 90% at his old position.
This should help with "accidental" position changes. Please keep a close eye on this area during testing.
Tyson,
This is great! One third suggestion though - how about a de minimus number of games that must be played in a season to convert a player as well.
For example, if my SS plays 10-15 games at 2B as a defensive sub, or starts 10-15 games at 2B as a backup, and those are the ONLY games played for the year, I'd still rather not see the guy convert to 2B if he's been a SS for 10 seasons.
ScooterPie
Tyson: You are my very best friend.
Raisin-Man: The word you seek is "minimum." "De minimis" (note the "i" at the end) more closely means "of no importance."
Everybody Who Plays Beta And Therefore Actually Belongs in This Here Forum: Have a nice day. We now return you to your regularly scheduled posting.
scooter
July 18, 2006 at 06:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
2) When a player converts to a new position, he will retain a 99% rating instead of 90% at his old position.
Tyson: You are my very best friend.
Raisin-Man: The word you seek is "minimum." "De minimis" (note the "i" at the end) more closely means "of no importance."
Everybody Who Plays Beta And Therefore Actually Belongs in This Here Forum: Have a nice day. We now return you to your regularly scheduled posting.
scooter
rnznsmn
Pardon my poorly worded phrase. I meant that when a player plays fewer than a certain threshold number of games, those games should be considered de minimus and thus not considered for purposes of a position change.
Is that a better use of the phrase for you? :)
July 18, 2006 at 06:24PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ScooterPie
Originally posted by tysonlowery
2) When a player converts to a new position, he will retain a 99% rating instead of 90% at his old position.
Raisin-Man: The word you seek is "minimum." "De minimis" (note the "i" at the end) more closely means "of no importance."
Pardon my poorly worded phrase. I meant that when a player plays fewer than a certain threshold number of games, those games should be considered de minimus and thus not considered for purposes of a position change.
Is that a better use of the phrase for you? :)
CaseyStengel
I would assume the player still has to "convert" to another position using the original logic. I think the new logic is a safeguard to make sure that a player is not "accidently" converted when being put in as a temporary substitute.
July 18, 2006 at 09:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rnznsmn
Tyson,
This is great! One third suggestion though - how about a de minimus number of games that must be played in a season to convert a player as well.
For example, if my SS plays 10-15 games at 2B as a defensive sub, or starts 10-15 games at 2B as a backup, and those are the ONLY games played for the year, I'd still rather not see the guy convert to 2B if he's been a SS for 10 seasons.
I would assume the player still has to "convert" to another position using the original logic. I think the new logic is a safeguard to make sure that a player is not "accidently" converted when being put in as a temporary substitute.
rnznsmn
Casey,
I realize that. But players actually CAN convert from SS to 2B in 10-15 games or fewer - thus my example.
In other words, I'm concerned that the new logic will still not prevent the accidental conversion from SS to 2B.
July 19, 2006 at 12:30AM View BBCode
Originally posted by CaseyStengel
Originally posted by rnznsmn
Tyson,
This is great! One third suggestion though - how about a de minimus number of games that must be played in a season to convert a player as well.
For example, if my SS plays 10-15 games at 2B as a defensive sub, or starts 10-15 games at 2B as a backup, and those are the ONLY games played for the year, I'd still rather not see the guy convert to 2B if he's been a SS for 10 seasons.
I would assume the player still has to "convert" to another position using the original logic. I think the new logic is a safeguard to make sure that a player is not "accidently" converted when being put in as a temporary substitute.
Casey,
I realize that. But players actually CAN convert from SS to 2B in 10-15 games or fewer - thus my example.
In other words, I'm concerned that the new logic will still not prevent the accidental conversion from SS to 2B.
ScooterPie
You make an interesting point. And your notion makes sense to me. But given that the player in question will only fall to 99% at shortstop, isn't this concern de minimis?
Oh, actually ... I think I've got a situation where your proposed fix opens yet a third can of worms: How about a player who's almost completely converted from Position A to Position B when a season begins? Say, with the system as Tyson described, he would convert in his 2nd game. How long would he have to wait under your proposal? 20 games, maybe?
I dunno which is the greater problem -- the guy who accidentally converts to 2B, or the guy who needs an extra few weeks to finish an intended conversion. I throw this question out for the hive mind to discuss.
scooter
July 19, 2006 at 05:42AM View BBCode
Originally posted by rnznsmn
In other words, I'm concerned that the new logic will still not prevent the accidental conversion from SS to 2B.
You make an interesting point. And your notion makes sense to me. But given that the player in question will only fall to 99% at shortstop, isn't this concern de minimis?
Oh, actually ... I think I've got a situation where your proposed fix opens yet a third can of worms: How about a player who's almost completely converted from Position A to Position B when a season begins? Say, with the system as Tyson described, he would convert in his 2nd game. How long would he have to wait under your proposal? 20 games, maybe?
I dunno which is the greater problem -- the guy who accidentally converts to 2B, or the guy who needs an extra few weeks to finish an intended conversion. I throw this question out for the hive mind to discuss.
scooter
tysonlowery
August 11, 2006 at 03:20PM View BBCode
I've updated the logic so that a player will have to play 25 games during the season at his new position to convert. Otherwise, he'll be stuck at 99%.
griffel
August 11, 2006 at 06:31PM View BBCode
While I think this will be a big improvement, 25 games is just not much. As is it ridiculous how easy a SS converts to 3B. I think most natural SS would have a hard time, not everyone is Ripken or ARod. Do you think if Jose Reyes played 25 games at 3B he would all of a sudden be a better 3B? It should be that you have to play at least 100 games at a new position to completely convert for anything other than outfielders to other OF spots.
griffel
In part, but if you are fixing the logic, why not really fix it?
August 11, 2006 at 08:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
Griff - that's a different discussion IMO.
In part, but if you are fixing the logic, why not really fix it?
tysonlowery
August 11, 2006 at 09:10PM View BBCode
I'd have to think about each of about 80 different equations and which should and shouldn't be changed, and why. This was a 10 minute change, that would be a mini-project to change.
griffel
I'd have to think about each of about 80 different equations and which should and shouldn't be changed, and why. This was a 10 minute change, that would be a mini-project to change. [/quote]
fair enough. definitely an improvement.
August 11, 2006 at 09:50PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by tysonlowery[/i]
I'd have to think about each of about 80 different equations and which should and shouldn't be changed, and why. This was a 10 minute change, that would be a mini-project to change. [/quote]
fair enough. definitely an improvement.
Pages: 1