 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta Issues & Suggestions » Disabled List and "Tanking"
jer2911
Of course this will not completely get rid of the "tanking" problem, (because owners could still keep them on the bench) but it will be a step in the right direction. With this system the "star" players will not be in the minors and will play occasionally.
Disabled List and "Tanking"
January 21, 2003 at 05:33PM View BBCode
An idea that might be able to help with the "tanking" problem (though I don't think it could solve it completely), is to institute a DL and prevent owners from demoting players who have played X number of games. I'm not sure what that number should be but it should probably be a few seasons worth of games (or ABs, or IPs).Of course this will not completely get rid of the "tanking" problem, (because owners could still keep them on the bench) but it will be a step in the right direction. With this system the "star" players will not be in the minors and will play occasionally.
hcboomer
January 21, 2003 at 06:44PM View BBCode
I also noticed elsewhere in the posts some discussion about options in which a player can only be demoted X amount of times before having to pass through waivers. That also seems worth pursuing in conjunction with a DL. There's no one thing that by itself is going to discourage tanking to any great degree. But toss in a few of these things (along with a wild-card, for instance) and collectively they'll help the cause.
Jizzy
January 22, 2003 at 05:30PM View BBCode
If tanking is just rebuilding and playing your youngsters, there should just be a point in the season when that is OK. For example not until after game 100 or something. If teams aren't allowed to play their youngsters for improvements then they may lose interest all together and you get ghost teams. Ghost teams probably will not return for another season, while rebuilding teams will be curious about their improvements in the offseason and return the next year.
jer2911
January 22, 2003 at 06:05PM View BBCode
I would agree with you Jizzy, BUT, if you wait to play all your youngsters until Game 100, then there is no way that they will get any sort of decent improvement.
hcboomer
January 22, 2003 at 08:22PM View BBCode
I think the point -- which has been discussed elsewhere on the message board at other times -- is that there isn't necessarily anything "wrong" with tanking. The problem is that while there are some definite benefits to throwing in the towel as early as possible, there aren't enough encouragements balancing that out to hang in the race. Elements like a wild card or options etc. won't prevent tanking, or even particularly discourage it for a lousy or rebuilding team, and that's fine. You should be able to go with all your young guys and shoot for a few seasons down the road if you want. The trick, I think, is to provide some incentives for middle-of-the-road teams to try to contend. Right now, especially if there is one powerhouse team in the league, there's pretty much no reason for any team to try to contend. But there's plenty of incentive to tank. Just need to level the playing field a little bit.
geoffrey13
draft order
January 22, 2003 at 10:59PM View BBCode
A possible incentive not to tank would be to partially reverse the draft order for the Amateur draft. The 2 division winners would still draft last but then to promote everyone trying to win you could have everyone else draft in order of finish. I know that seems unfair to teams that really truly suck, but then the emphasis is on them to get better through trading and what not. Just look at the Beta league right now, everyone has started out on a reasonable even level and it's very competitive. As time goes on though the truly active and intelligent GM's will get better with smart moves.
jer2911
In a league where all owners are intelligent (at least somewhat), and make fair deals, how would a team that really does suck make it?
January 22, 2003 at 11:05PM View BBCode
Or by taking advantage of stupid owners.In a league where all owners are intelligent (at least somewhat), and make fair deals, how would a team that really does suck make it?
andrew
Actualy I am making the same point as Brad, just with different words.
January 22, 2003 at 11:14PM View BBCode
Or what about a team who just had a crappy inital draft (ie. BRO in the WML, sorry Chris). Some teams just get unlucky and without the high picks each year they would never recover.Actualy I am making the same point as Brad, just with different words.
geoffrey13
stupid owners
January 23, 2003 at 03:57AM View BBCode
They exist in real life pro sports as well though. Case in point is my hometown team, the Vancouver Canucks...a few years ago we traded a journeyman tough guy (Alex Stojanov) to Pittsburgh for Markus Naslund, who has blossomed into one of the best players in the NHL. And it's not like he was a bum while in Pittsburgh, he'd already had a 30 goal season. Just bad trading by one GM.
Bob
January 23, 2003 at 12:36PM View BBCode
I think a good middle ground would be to have a draft lottery. Select the order for the amateur draft randomly among everyone who didn't make the playoffs. That way there is no incentive to finish with the worst record, but you're also not overly punishing weaker teams.
mrod
January 23, 2003 at 03:22PM View BBCode
If the lottery were set up like the NBA's, I think it would be a great idea.
tysonlowery
January 23, 2003 at 05:45PM View BBCode
I think a lottery would be cool, but I don't think it would do much to prevent tanking. You still get more ping pong balls for losing games. It might help out a little bit.
Bob
January 23, 2003 at 05:54PM View BBCode
Not if you made the draft order completely random among all non-playoff teams. In other words, give everybody one ping-pong ball. The down side to this, of course, is that real bad teams are as likely to get the 14th pick as the 1st.
BC
How about a "ping-pong ball" based on place, and maybe as an incentive to play regular players all season, a table tennis ball for each player that meets certain minimum criteria. This way, teams that throw their season, will have less chance of meeting the minimums, and begin t o lose their weight.
January 23, 2003 at 07:36PM View BBCode
I think it absolutely needs to be weighted, otherwise the really poor teams will lose a chance of becoming better anytime soon.How about a "ping-pong ball" based on place, and maybe as an incentive to play regular players all season, a table tennis ball for each player that meets certain minimum criteria. This way, teams that throw their season, will have less chance of meeting the minimums, and begin t o lose their weight.
dawgfan
The reason tanking wholesale doesn't occur on the MLB level is the economic incentives. In SimDynasty, we don't have to worry about disgruntled fans getting peeved that the team is trading away all the star players and losing 70% or more of the time.
Unless we want to start going down the path of adding economic features into the game, I think the best thing to do is proceed with adding the wild card and revamping the player improvement formulas so that you don't necessarily have to make a young guy a starter for the entire season to reap the maximum development.
Another idea here would be to improve the incentive to keep guys developing in the minors. Revamping the coaching points here and allowing development just from minor league playing time, combined with the possibility that if a player is rushed to the majors before he's ready that he may not improve, or actually regress, would be a much better way of handling this situation than messing with the draft order.
January 23, 2003 at 10:51PM View BBCode
I don't much see the point of a lottery; if it's not weighted, it's extremely unfair to the bad teams trying to rebuild. If it is weighted, then what's the point - just keep the inverted order of the regular season.The reason tanking wholesale doesn't occur on the MLB level is the economic incentives. In SimDynasty, we don't have to worry about disgruntled fans getting peeved that the team is trading away all the star players and losing 70% or more of the time.
Unless we want to start going down the path of adding economic features into the game, I think the best thing to do is proceed with adding the wild card and revamping the player improvement formulas so that you don't necessarily have to make a young guy a starter for the entire season to reap the maximum development.
Another idea here would be to improve the incentive to keep guys developing in the minors. Revamping the coaching points here and allowing development just from minor league playing time, combined with the possibility that if a player is rushed to the majors before he's ready that he may not improve, or actually regress, would be a much better way of handling this situation than messing with the draft order.
andrew
January 24, 2003 at 12:21AM View BBCode
I argee %110 with dawgfans idea. If i knew that my teenagers who are in the bigs now would be growing significantly better in the minors then i would certainly have more veterns in the bigs and then I would not have a team that will struggle to win 20 games. That would solve the problem much better then a draft that can allow the rich to get richer.
hcboomer
That said, I agree that the better approach is probably through changes in the player development curves etc., although I realize that's a more elaborate process.
January 24, 2003 at 12:22AM View BBCode
Not to get too exotic here, but one way to change the draft order and not overly penalize the worst teams would be to give, say, the top two picks to the two worst teams, THEN go in actual order of the standings rather than reverse order (minus the playoff teams, which would still go last). That way, the truly awful teams get those first picks, but if you know your team isn't THAT bad, you might as well compete as best you can if you're thinking about improving draft position. This wouldn't eliminate tanking, but at least curb it, and if the worst thing that happens is that the third worst team in the league ends up with the 14th pick instead of the third, that's not that big a deal.That said, I agree that the better approach is probably through changes in the player development curves etc., although I realize that's a more elaborate process.
jer2911
Here's a somewhat strange idea related to what dawgfan said. (Though I'm afraid it may be hard to program)...
Is there any way to make it so that the younger a player is, the less he has to play in the Majors to get full improvement? Maybe if we went by something like, if he's 17, then if he plays enough to qualify for the ROY, then he gets full improvement. If he is 18, maybe tack on a few more innings, and a few more ABs, to the point where by the time he reaches 23/24, he is up to the current requirements for improvement.
January 24, 2003 at 06:06AM View BBCode
Dawgfan: "...revamping the player improvement formulas so that you don't necessarily have to make a young guy a starter for the entire season to reap the maximum development."Here's a somewhat strange idea related to what dawgfan said. (Though I'm afraid it may be hard to program)...
Is there any way to make it so that the younger a player is, the less he has to play in the Majors to get full improvement? Maybe if we went by something like, if he's 17, then if he plays enough to qualify for the ROY, then he gets full improvement. If he is 18, maybe tack on a few more innings, and a few more ABs, to the point where by the time he reaches 23/24, he is up to the current requirements for improvement.
jer2911
Here they are...
For Starters (IPs)
50-17
75-18
100-19
125-20
150-21
175-22
200-23 and up
For Relievers (IPs)
40-17
45-18
50-19
55-20
60-21
65-22
75-23 and up
For Position Players (ABs)
150-17
200-18
250-19
300-20
350-21
400-22
450-23
500-24 and up
Here's an idea...
January 24, 2003 at 06:08AM View BBCode
I kinda worked out the numbers, but feel free to pick it apart and let me know if something like this might work. It seems to me that a simple age check before calculating the offseason might do it, but I don't know for sure.Here they are...
For Starters (IPs)
50-17
75-18
100-19
125-20
150-21
175-22
200-23 and up
For Relievers (IPs)
40-17
45-18
50-19
55-20
60-21
65-22
75-23 and up
For Position Players (ABs)
150-17
200-18
250-19
300-20
350-21
400-22
450-23
500-24 and up
andrew
However this would make youngsters improve WAY too quickly. As it is I think they improve too fast. If anything we should go the opposite dirrection and make it a teenager needs to be a super stud pitcher (ie Brads 17 YO ace), who could log 200 IP, to be able to get a big improvement. That way people would keep the guys that arn't super studs in the minors where they would be in real life.
Anyways that is my 2 cents, and i am sorry if I misspelled anything so much that it is immposible to understand.
January 24, 2003 at 08:17AM View BBCode
Brad, I understand that your idea is to make it so we only play our teenagers for a small portion of the season and then demote them (or at least I think I know what your idea is :)However this would make youngsters improve WAY too quickly. As it is I think they improve too fast. If anything we should go the opposite dirrection and make it a teenager needs to be a super stud pitcher (ie Brads 17 YO ace), who could log 200 IP, to be able to get a big improvement. That way people would keep the guys that arn't super studs in the minors where they would be in real life.
Anyways that is my 2 cents, and i am sorry if I misspelled anything so much that it is immposible to understand.
dawgfan
In the MLB, you don't see teams throwing raw, young kids into the fray very often, and when they do these kids often have their development delayed or reversed since they're overwhelmed. Only the biggest of studs should be playing at the MLB level in his teens. The only guy I can think of that did so and succeeded was Robin Yount. Even A-Rod didn't start blossoming until he was 20.
I think that the chances of young guys improving while playing in the majors should be tied to both their age and their overall rating. For example, the younger you are, the higher your overall rating would need to be to see the normal improvements. Create a sliding scale where the older you are, the less advanced your rating needs to be to see normal improvement. Compensate for this by implementing the improved Minor League improvement scheme where playing time in the minors leads to improvement in addition to focused coaching points.
I think the way improvement in the minors should work is that playing time there leads to overall improvements similar to how it works at the Major League level. Coaching points should be a way to focus improvements in specific areas - i.e. I want to focus improvements on my wild young flamethrower so his control improves, or focus improvements on my young slugger so he makes better contact.
These ideas would create incentives for keeping you youngsters developing in the minors until they are good enough to play at the Major League level, and actually provide disincentives for bringing your kids up too soon.
January 24, 2003 at 09:12PM View BBCode
I agree with Andrew's take. I think the best way to minimize the incentive to bring in the kiddie corps and suffer through horrible seasons is to make the minor league development system more sophisticated and realistic.In the MLB, you don't see teams throwing raw, young kids into the fray very often, and when they do these kids often have their development delayed or reversed since they're overwhelmed. Only the biggest of studs should be playing at the MLB level in his teens. The only guy I can think of that did so and succeeded was Robin Yount. Even A-Rod didn't start blossoming until he was 20.
I think that the chances of young guys improving while playing in the majors should be tied to both their age and their overall rating. For example, the younger you are, the higher your overall rating would need to be to see the normal improvements. Create a sliding scale where the older you are, the less advanced your rating needs to be to see normal improvement. Compensate for this by implementing the improved Minor League improvement scheme where playing time in the minors leads to improvement in addition to focused coaching points.
I think the way improvement in the minors should work is that playing time there leads to overall improvements similar to how it works at the Major League level. Coaching points should be a way to focus improvements in specific areas - i.e. I want to focus improvements on my wild young flamethrower so his control improves, or focus improvements on my young slugger so he makes better contact.
These ideas would create incentives for keeping you youngsters developing in the minors until they are good enough to play at the Major League level, and actually provide disincentives for bringing your kids up too soon.
geoffrey13
kids
January 25, 2003 at 08:37AM View BBCode
definitely disagree with Brad and agree that kids should learn more in the Minors than in the Majors, other than the occasional super stud.
jer2911
January 25, 2003 at 03:39PM View BBCode
Yeah, I agree with you guys. I hadn't thought about the possibility of creating superstuds by this. It was just an idea so owners would be less likely to play their kids in the Majors. I like dawgfan's idea though. (I just thought there was already something in place that kept teenager from maximum improvement by playing in the Majors. I guess I was wrong...)Pages: 1