Next update is almost here! Topic

combalt
Posts: 513 (0)
Hall of Famer
481 181 2
Rookie
Quote: Originally posted by zubinsum on 10/01/2009# Relative fielding percentage (similar to how we do relative range factor)
Maybe K-out will have usefulness then?

I think the biggest impact will be making more of the old-timers far more usable than they are today.
10/2/2009 12:36 AM
zubinsum
Posts: 1731 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Hall of Famer
Quote: Originally Posted By combalt on 10/02/2009
Quote: Originally posted by zubinsum on 10/01/2009
# Relative fielding percentage (similar to how we do relative range factor)


Maybe K-out will have usefulness then?

I think the biggest impact will be making more of the old-timers far more usable than they are today.
I know but I was going for the less obvious. Also it should make a lot of modern guys far less useful.
10/2/2009 1:02 AM
combalt
Posts: 513 (0)
Hall of Famer
481 181 2
Rookie
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
10/2/2009 3:24 AM
seels
Posts: 72 (0)
All Star
30
Prospect
The price adjustment for hitting pitchers has made Coors field teams obsolete. Plus Caruthers will never be used again.
10/2/2009 7:44 AM
jjgreen14
Posts: 239 (0)
Hall of Famer
111 7 1
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
10/2/2009 8:37 AM
crazyamos
Posts: 6312 (1)
Hall of Famer
580
Rookie
Finally someone like Honus Wagner - a GREAT defensive shortstop - might get his due. I had him for 8 straight seasons in a progressive. (1901-1908) He was the most dominant hitter over that stretch but was just a wreck at shortstop.

Good stuff...
10/2/2009 9:46 AM
The Taint
Posts: 13193 (0)
Hall of Famer
1059 3
Hall of Famer
One thing I'd like to see sometime down the road is a "queue" in the WIS draft tool that allows you to set a list that the computer will pick from if you don't make your time slot. I think missing your time slot and not getting a player is the biggest hindrance to people not using the WIS draft tool more often. The THM or THL or THC leagues, whatever they are called.
10/2/2009 11:15 AM
sheller
Posts: 6756 (0)
Hall of Famer
435
Veteran
Quote: Originally Posted By The Taint on 10/02/2009One thing I'd like to see sometime down the road is a "queue" in the WIS draft tool that allows you to set a list that the computer will pick from if you don't make your time slot. I think missing your time slot and not getting a player is the biggest hindrance to people not using the WIS draft tool more often. The THM or THL or THC leagues, whatever they are called


Yeah - automate the proxy process - I think drafts would run a LOT smoother with that
10/2/2009 11:18 AM
zubinsum
Posts: 1731 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Hall of Famer
Quote: Originally Posted By jjgreen14 on 10/02/2009

I respectfully disagree with those limits in OLs, I think 4500PA and 1200 IP would be good.
I didn't write that it was my ideal, I just wrote I could live with it. For the record I completely understand why this is being done. Right now it is just too easy to build a good playoff team by shorting PAs and IPs.
10/2/2009 11:42 AM
tzentmeyer
Posts: 618 (0)
Hall of Famer
80 1 2 28 22 52 5
Prospect
For the draft queue you guys are referring to, the problem has always been how to account for position and salary. You have to assume the user is going to fill the queue imperfectly.

Everyone's used to this model for fantasy, but fantasy doesn't have salary requirements.

Think about it for a few moments and you'll understand the problem.

3 picks remaining. Team has 6 pitchers. Queue has 18 1B at the top. Does it pick 3 consecutive 1B since there are open util spots?

Another scenario: 2 picks remaining with $10M. User needs a starting 3B. Other utility and pitching spots remain open. Top 15 players in list are expensive RP. Then a bunch of 3B. Draft will take top guy in queue, expensive RP. then user is with awful 3B.

Lots of scenarios like these arise once you think about it. If we could count on everyone making perfect lists, it'd be easy to do. But we can't.

If you have ideas, please share.

Thanks
10/2/2009 11:43 AM
The Taint
Posts: 13193 (0)
Hall of Famer
1059 3
Hall of Famer
I play on another site called Scoresheet baseball that uses a queue. What they do in the case of the 18 1b situation is use "roster balancing". Roster balancing sets the parameters that it is going to fill positions that haven't been filled...including backups...before it will pick your tenth or even 3rd firstbaseman. It also lets you override the roster balancing procedure by either "marking"(they use an asterisk) that you would rather have a certain firstbaseman(even if its your third) than a backup secondbase player. You can also turn off the roster balancing feature if you so choose.

So the way it would work with scoresheet is like this....if you have roster balancing on, you would select

1 each of catcher, 1b, 2b, 3b, ss, 3 ofers, 5 starting pitchers and 3 relievers before you start duplicating positions. After those positions are filled then it would start picking backups and/or more pitching.

The engine then uses your lists for backup players and/or more pitching slots. Again, it won't take a 3rd secondbaseman before taking a backup Of'er.

In the first scenario above...the queue would skip all your 1bman and fill out your pitching rotation. before going back to the top to grab another 1b.

In the second scenario the balancing feature would grab the 3bman before filling out the pitching staff and then go to filling the bullpen.

Gotta run right now, but I have an idea for the salary problem as well.
10/2/2009 12:22 PM
The Taint
Posts: 13193 (0)
Hall of Famer
1059 3
Hall of Famer
I also should add that the balancing feature goes back to the top of the list with each pick made and then works its way back down.
10/2/2009 12:23 PM
sheller
Posts: 6756 (0)
Hall of Famer
435
Veteran
Are you able to update the proxy queues? Would this be less of an engineering challenge if you only allowed a player to make one proxy pick at a time, rather than queueing up for multiply picks?
10/2/2009 12:28 PM
biglenr
Posts: 1801 (0)
Hall of Famer
431 1
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By zubinsum on 10/02/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By jjgreen14 on 10/02/2009

I respectfully disagree with those limits in OLs, I think 4500PA and 1200 IP would be good.
I didn't write that it was my ideal, I just wrote I could live with it. For the record I completely understand why this is being done. Right now it is just too easy to build a good playoff team by shorting PAs and IPs
I'd suggest 1250 IP and 5250 PA.

And I'd slightly increase the value of PA since they count towards this minimum
10/2/2009 1:47 PM
llamanunts
Posts: 1498 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 95
Hall of Famer
I wouldn't put a requirement any higher than 1100 IP. If you're in a huge - park, why should you have to draft way too many innings... especially when it's perfectly all right to rely on AAA for low-leverage IP?
10/2/2009 1:55 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
Next update is almost here! Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.