Things are slow, not supposed to go anywhere, no sports.
So I would love to see these things added.
A couple static categories for all players.
Hustle: How aggressive a player is, how hard he works. (For instance would you rather have a good player that works hard or a great one that is lazy.) This could ultimately affect how a player improves.
IQ: How smart a player is, does he make good decisions. (Could be used with aggressiveness to score from first. Not get picked off. Stuff that is completely random now. Not trying to take 3rd on a single with 1 out when the next 2 guys in the order have 42 and 44 HR.
For pitchers it would be nice to have more variables.
Whether it be pitch types, or something. If you add pitch types it becomes more complex because you almost need to know if a hitter is a good fast or curveball hitter.
But maybe there would be a Stuff Variable which explains why a B overall pitcher beats an A overall pitcher. The B was A+ that game where the A didn’t have it.
Then lastly I would love a lot more control over improvements. Like being able to rate what attributes you want worked on more.
Also like an option for an international walk.
List of changes since I am board.
Re: List of changes since I am board.
I'd like to see something like "clutch".
A performance enhancer or detractor in "high leverage" situations......
Defining high leverage would be an issue, but for starters, it could be late innings, in games closer than say 3 runs. All extra innings.
It would include all post season games.
Of course its shouldn't be a huge effect..... but just a variable that reflects reality - some guys thrive in high pressure, other guys choke.... Some normal guys step up big in the post season, some all star guys don't...
It'd obviously make the closer role more meaningful (and realistic).... but it would add a complication to the management role in general as you strategize PH in the late innings....
"Clutch" could also improve with age, even as other attributes are falling off.
A performance enhancer or detractor in "high leverage" situations......
Defining high leverage would be an issue, but for starters, it could be late innings, in games closer than say 3 runs. All extra innings.
It would include all post season games.
Of course its shouldn't be a huge effect..... but just a variable that reflects reality - some guys thrive in high pressure, other guys choke.... Some normal guys step up big in the post season, some all star guys don't...
It'd obviously make the closer role more meaningful (and realistic).... but it would add a complication to the management role in general as you strategize PH in the late innings....
"Clutch" could also improve with age, even as other attributes are falling off.
Re: List of changes since I am board.
I really like the targeted improvement idea. And adding more "human" phenomena like time variation around true talent and characteristics like aggressiveness on the basepaths would also be cool.
If there were an easy way to get statistics from a bunch of seasons at once, it might be fun to do run expectancy analyses and calculate advanced stats and stuff. I might actually try to do that...it will be a good way for me to not go stir-crazy at home.
If there were an easy way to get statistics from a bunch of seasons at once, it might be fun to do run expectancy analyses and calculate advanced stats and stuff. I might actually try to do that...it will be a good way for me to not go stir-crazy at home.
-
DeepThreat
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:12 pm
Re: List of changes since I am board.
I was laughed at years ago when I suggested an idea for targeted improvements. I even went so far as to suggest that there would be an increased failure rate if a player is getting mostly ICs for one particular skill, just to balance things a bit. Back then, I was told that it would be impossible to do. Never received an explanation as to why. If you think about it, when a real MLB team drafts/signs a prospect with immense power but lacks contact skills, what do they spend most of the time training him on? Contact ability. If a pitcher starts off with high velocity but lacks control and command, it's the control and command they will focus on. If they believe he has all the right tools, but feels he needs a boost in stamina and endurance to turn him into a starter, this is what they will focus on.
Hustle could be something like Health or Leader/Mentor. A player either has it, or he doesn't. I like the idea, and think it would work well with base running situations and defensive range.
Stuff is something a few of us got together and presented a suggestion for some time back, but we called it "Movement" instead. Last I heard was that there were plans to try it out in a beta experimental league, but I don't know if it ever happened. Stuff/Movement has always been THE primary thing that makes or breaks a pitcher, and I have never understood why it's not a critical skill here.
A clutch type stat would be awesome, but that could be too complex for the game to handle. I do like the idea, though.
Hustle could be something like Health or Leader/Mentor. A player either has it, or he doesn't. I like the idea, and think it would work well with base running situations and defensive range.
Stuff is something a few of us got together and presented a suggestion for some time back, but we called it "Movement" instead. Last I heard was that there were plans to try it out in a beta experimental league, but I don't know if it ever happened. Stuff/Movement has always been THE primary thing that makes or breaks a pitcher, and I have never understood why it's not a critical skill here.
A clutch type stat would be awesome, but that could be too complex for the game to handle. I do like the idea, though.
-
DeepThreat
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:12 pm
Re: List of changes since I am board.
I would like to see a LOOGi option. Something that could only be used if the game is close (within 3-4 runs) and in the 7th inning or later. Teams would have to select a couple of guys as potential LOOGis, so that ABE doesn't automatically throw a LH setup man or closer into that role (or perhaps just block anyone put into Middle A, Setup, Setup/Closer, and Closer roles from being used).
I also think the health system needs to be changed. There is no reason at all for a 24 year-old prospect (or younger) to have a health rating below B+. Yet more and more, we are seeing the better prospects in each draft have C+ or worse health. Also, why is it that no player can ever gain health, but they lose it? I believe that all players drafted below 25 should start with a B+ or higher health. Players drafted between the ages of 25-29 can have B- health, while 30-somethings can have as low as C.
Every 2-3 years a player does not have an injury, his health rating should rise by a 1/3 step (with A health being the max... A+ should remain rare and something a player would have to be drafted with and manage to not lose). Every year a player suffers a multiple injuries of 10-19 days or an injury of 20-39 days, he should lose a 1/3 step in health. If a player gets hit with a critical injury of 40 games or more (since the max injury time is 60 days, I tend to equate 40-60 day injuries as the type that require some form of major surgery such as MCL, Achilles, TJ, labrum tears, etc), he should lose a 2/3 step in health. Also, health should begin to deteriorate at age 32 by a 1/3 step every year regardless of injuries (and added to any injury-related health loss). Health should also play a factor in decline impact and retirement. A player with high health should decline at a slower rate than a player with low health, and be far more likely to to stick around longer. I would go so far as to suggest that a player should not decline at all until his health rating is below A-.
How about coaches? Instead of needing to carry a subpar player or two with high mentor ratings when your team is competitive but still young (or your guys simply fail to achieve worthwhile mentor ratings when they hit their 30s), we could "hire" a positional and pitching coach from the retired players pool (below the age of 65) who have high mentor ratings. These are the sort of guys that would become coaches or managers in the real MLB, so why not do it here? Their only influence would be to boost mentor ratings for off season improvements.
I also think the health system needs to be changed. There is no reason at all for a 24 year-old prospect (or younger) to have a health rating below B+. Yet more and more, we are seeing the better prospects in each draft have C+ or worse health. Also, why is it that no player can ever gain health, but they lose it? I believe that all players drafted below 25 should start with a B+ or higher health. Players drafted between the ages of 25-29 can have B- health, while 30-somethings can have as low as C.
Every 2-3 years a player does not have an injury, his health rating should rise by a 1/3 step (with A health being the max... A+ should remain rare and something a player would have to be drafted with and manage to not lose). Every year a player suffers a multiple injuries of 10-19 days or an injury of 20-39 days, he should lose a 1/3 step in health. If a player gets hit with a critical injury of 40 games or more (since the max injury time is 60 days, I tend to equate 40-60 day injuries as the type that require some form of major surgery such as MCL, Achilles, TJ, labrum tears, etc), he should lose a 2/3 step in health. Also, health should begin to deteriorate at age 32 by a 1/3 step every year regardless of injuries (and added to any injury-related health loss). Health should also play a factor in decline impact and retirement. A player with high health should decline at a slower rate than a player with low health, and be far more likely to to stick around longer. I would go so far as to suggest that a player should not decline at all until his health rating is below A-.
How about coaches? Instead of needing to carry a subpar player or two with high mentor ratings when your team is competitive but still young (or your guys simply fail to achieve worthwhile mentor ratings when they hit their 30s), we could "hire" a positional and pitching coach from the retired players pool (below the age of 65) who have high mentor ratings. These are the sort of guys that would become coaches or managers in the real MLB, so why not do it here? Their only influence would be to boost mentor ratings for off season improvements.
Re: List of changes since I am board.
I always get annoyed by the mentors, it stinks when you have a group of young guys and you have to go out and find a mentor.
Targeted improvements is obviously how it is really done. My uncle is the organizational hitting coach for an MLB team. He works to improve deficiencies that players have.
Even that Contact criteria doesn’t fully seem realistic. It is almost like you need an eye or swing control criteria. Not that I want a Tony Gwynn who only struck out 434 times in his career over 10000 plate appearances. In this game the best A+ contact guys still strike out 70-80 times if they have the at bats. Pedro is averages 55 strikeouts a season way lower than the leader in the game.
Targeted improvements is obviously how it is really done. My uncle is the organizational hitting coach for an MLB team. He works to improve deficiencies that players have.
Even that Contact criteria doesn’t fully seem realistic. It is almost like you need an eye or swing control criteria. Not that I want a Tony Gwynn who only struck out 434 times in his career over 10000 plate appearances. In this game the best A+ contact guys still strike out 70-80 times if they have the at bats. Pedro is averages 55 strikeouts a season way lower than the leader in the game.