Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
Moderators: WillyD, alecansky74
Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
Anyone want anything changed? Now's the time to start talking about it.
I know we discussed changing the retirement system to a normal setting. Seemed like most people agreed that was something they wanted. Anything else? Maybe tweaking the variable development curves slightly? Or the injury rates down to system 3?
I know we discussed changing the retirement system to a normal setting. Seemed like most people agreed that was something they wanted. Anything else? Maybe tweaking the variable development curves slightly? Or the injury rates down to system 3?
-
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:31 am
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
If changing the injury rules means mr1313 (and possibly others) stays, I'd absolutely support it. Also, we will need to figure out a new HoF coordinator if I'm not mistaken?
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
I do want the retirement system changed. Other than that, I like it like it is. I assume there will be an official vote, so I reserve the right to change my mind on other things until they are officially proposed.
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
I'll set up a poll to have the league vote on the retirement system change possibility.
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
I would be ok with those changes and I personally would like to see a revamp of variable development percentages. Specifically getting rid of "young major leaguer".Who only develops in the majors before 23 and makes up 10 % of our draft pool. I might also vote for a higher gem and dud percentages
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
I do think the retirement system needs to be tweaked: I just waived two old Honey Badgers because I felt bad for fake baseball players. They should be able to enjoy their retirement...
I absolutely love the injury system. It keeps me here. You have to have depth. Having used two top 2 picks on "duds" (still hope to be late bloomers) I also like our development curve...and hate my minor league coaching staff. The "young major leaguer" should help teams developing (in theory, they have the spots), but I agree that 10% might be a little high...
I absolutely love the injury system. It keeps me here. You have to have depth. Having used two top 2 picks on "duds" (still hope to be late bloomers) I also like our development curve...and hate my minor league coaching staff. The "young major leaguer" should help teams developing (in theory, they have the spots), but I agree that 10% might be a little high...
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
I'm with you on the young major leaguer. I hate that curve. Who's going to promote a player under 21 unless he's already A- overall? Maybe if there's an injury, but still. I promoted Mark Darling last season at age 22 even though he was killing it in the minors because I was terrified he might be one. Let's discuss how much to reduce it, or do away with it entirely, and then what other curves we should add those points to.LannisG wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:32 am I would be ok with those changes and I personally would like to see a revamp of variable development percentages. Specifically getting rid of "young major leaguer".Who only develops in the majors before 23 and makes up 10 % of our draft pool. I might also vote for a higher gem and dud percentages
Last edited by WillyD on Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
Looking at the percentages of curves, I'd like to increase the regular curve to at least 40%, if not higher to maybe 50%.
How about something like this?
Regular = 50%
Young Major Leaguer = 1%
Late Bloomer = 12%
Bust = 8%
Bust in Minors = 2%
Bust in Majors = 4%
Gem = 8%
Ageless Wonder = 6%
Eureka 1, 2, 3 = 3%
Enigma 1, 2, 3 = 6%
How about something like this?
Regular = 50%
Young Major Leaguer = 1%
Late Bloomer = 12%
Bust = 8%
Bust in Minors = 2%
Bust in Majors = 4%
Gem = 8%
Ageless Wonder = 6%
Eureka 1, 2, 3 = 3%
Enigma 1, 2, 3 = 6%
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
This looks well balanced except for "Late Bloomer." Someone with more knowledge than I have correct me if I am wrong, but that's seems like a huge % for a type of player who may never make the Majors to realize their late-blooming potential. Won't many of them just end up wasting away on the waiver wire?
Re: Discussion on potential rule changes for next term
Some will, but many tend to hang on because of the system 3 minors. They start improving their conversion rate in the minors at age 23, so you'll get a shot to notice them. I think a lot of highly rated prospects are kept thru that age. You can also keep them down or promote them at 25+ since they have a plus conversion rate the rest of their career in either scenario.bck919 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:30 pmThis looks well balanced except for "Late Bloomer." Someone with more knowledge than I have correct me if I am wrong, but that's seems like a huge % for a type of player who may never make the Majors to realize their late-blooming potential. Won't many of them just end up wasting away on the waiver wire?
I'd be OK with keeping it at 10% and adding a couple points elsewhere.