Posted by hogsfan22 on 6/29/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I think there should be a couple of minor changes to the game, while it won't put a stop to tanking it will reward the teams who do not tank. Here are some changed that I can think of:
1) Draft Lottery just like the NBA, the reason it's not done in MLB right now is bc there are so few sure fire baseball players, while you don't see many misses in HBD with a top draft pick.
2) For the players that play guys out of position or hold them in the minors too long, there should be penalties, there should be a greater chance of an injury in the minors than the majors, it makes sense all the best trainers and medical personnel are in ML baseball anyways.
3) Most important there should be a reward for doing good in a season, a team like the Yankees can spend so much money, bc they make that much money by putting a competitive team on the field every year.  So why not have a variable money range based on the previous seasons performance, only based on attendance.  Not a huge difference say from 185 to 200 MIL, so teams that are competitive and at least in the wildcard hunt get the max money, while teams who are done by the all-star break get less money to spend, you can still rebuild under that model with the good draft picks but it would no longer be that you could spend no salary and have millions of extra dollars for IFAs level the playing field a little.

1) We will never have a draft lottery. It's not even up for discussion.

2) Penalties already exist for each of these scenarios. If player's repeat levels we have code that hampers their development significantly. For player's that play out of position, well, look at their fielding stats, it's all accounted for.

3)  We aren't going to institute fluctuating budget values as that will create a massive disparity between teams. Imagine a new owner spending $25 to play the game only to find out that they instantly can not compete in the division they have selected because the other 3 franchises can outspend them significantly in every area that matters.

Wow on #2

Posted by bripat42 on 6/29/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):
I'm curious what constitutes "repeating" a level. If I promote a player to, say, AA, midseason and then keep him at AA to start the following season, is he "repeating" that level?

It does not. There are factors we consider when the penalties are assessed.

Posted by patrickm885 on 6/29/2012 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hogsfan22 on 6/29/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I think there should be a couple of minor changes to the game, while it won't put a stop to tanking it will reward the teams who do not tank. Here are some changed that I can think of:
1) Draft Lottery just like the NBA, the reason it's not done in MLB right now is bc there are so few sure fire baseball players, while you don't see many misses in HBD with a top draft pick.
2) For the players that play guys out of position or hold them in the minors too long, there should be penalties, there should be a greater chance of an injury in the minors than the majors, it makes sense all the best trainers and medical personnel are in ML baseball anyways.
3) Most important there should be a reward for doing good in a season, a team like the Yankees can spend so much money, bc they make that much money by putting a competitive team on the field every year.  So why not have a variable money range based on the previous seasons performance, only based on attendance.  Not a huge difference say from 185 to 200 MIL, so teams that are competitive and at least in the wildcard hunt get the max money, while teams who are done by the all-star break get less money to spend, you can still rebuild under that model with the good draft picks but it would no longer be that you could spend no salary and have millions of extra dollars for IFAs level the playing field a little.

1) We will never have a draft lottery. It's not even up for discussion.

2) Penalties already exist for each of these scenarios. If player's repeat levels we have code that hampers their development significantly. For player's that play out of position, well, look at their fielding stats, it's all accounted for.

3)  We aren't going to institute fluctuating budget values as that will create a massive disparity between teams. Imagine a new owner spending $25 to play the game only to find out that they instantly can not compete in the division they have selected because the other 3 franchises can outspend them significantly in every area that matters.

1) Ok Fair enough

2) The whole point of playing someone out of position is for the bad fielding, it helps teams that are trying to lose games while still saying, oh hey I'm playing my best players in the ML.  What I'm saying is why not have it so if I try to put Pujols in CF, where he doesn't have any attributes up to par, I run a greater chance of injuring him.  This would also come into affect with what is being talked about in the other forums about playing a DH in RF.

3) I understand that part of it, it's a fine line between fair and unfair, I can see the problem there, while most vet owners can stay competitive a new owner it may take a few years.  It's just frustrating to spend say 80 MIL every year in players to stay competitive and year after year the same team gets a top 5 pick and has the money to buy the best IFA, waste of time even considering it.  Another option is jacking up what early picks cost I mean number one pick will demand a 4.5 MIL signing bonus high end, while that same player would command 15-20 in the IFA market.  Any chance of a higher payscale for first round picks say the number 1 pick demands 14 million instead of less than 5

Posted by patrickm885 on 6/29/2012 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bripat42 on 6/29/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):
I'm curious what constitutes "repeating" a level. If I promote a player to, say, AA, midseason and then keep him at AA to start the following season, is he "repeating" that level?

It does not. There are factors we consider when the penalties are assessed.

How about if I put a top 10 pick immediately in AAA and leave him there for 2-3 seasons to develop.  My thinking would be a) if he's a college guy, he's probably already good enough for AAA, and b) I don't want to waste his time with my low minors coaches. 

Would that guy get a penalty for staying in AAA more than 1 full season?  That would definitely change the way I handle my minors if so.

Yes.

Posted by patrickm885 on 6/29/2012 4:48:00 PM (view original):
Gotcha on #2, it makes more sense now. I'm not sure how we could curtail this as injuring the player is potentially worse than allowing him to just play the position very poorly. Unfortunately, there probably isn't much we can do here.

I think increasing the injury probabilty is a bad idea.. You sometimes have instances where an owner tries  to intentionally destroy a team and this would give them another way to do so.

One must keep in mind that owners aren't tied into a team beyond the current season.   Destroy a C because he's in CF and a 1B because he's on 3B and the tanker just moves on. 

One idea I have is if major league players are playing out of position, you get mail from the fielding coach how angry he is at your managing and his effectiveness freezes until things change. This affects all levels of ball since there is only 1 fielding coach. So prospects that are being groomed from tanking production begin to suffer.

High code detection for even just playing the wrong guy at catcher would trigger this. A LF with 0 pitch count catching would be enough to trigger this event.

I know MIke doesn't like the idea of hurting a club for a tanker's irresponsibility. However it takes consequences to discourage behavior. I think a tanker cares as much about his prospects during the time of ownership to see this as something he does not want, and he would lose at least 1 major method of tanking.

Posted by patrickm885 on 6/29/2012 4:48:00 PM (view original):
Gotcha on #2, it makes more sense now. I'm not sure how we could curtail this as injuring the player is potentially worse than allowing him to just play the position very poorly. Unfortunately, there probably isn't much we can do here.

I agree there is not much you can do as far as the game program.

I think HBD has settled into a good-enough culture; the conscientious owners will play in the credible private worlds with human-originated anti-tanking rules in place. Exxon-Valdez supertankers like the guy who posted earlier will stay 50 country miles away from such worlds. 

It is mostly good owners who play HBD, as there are waiting lists for the best worlds.

Let the rabble tank themselves to death in the public worlds.

That pretty much nails it. 

And while I know it will never happen, I'd like to see partial seasons show up on an owner's record.   Give the commish something to look at.  I know, if I saw a 32-80 on an owner's record, I'd ask "WTF?   Why'd you bail with 50 games left?"

I have another question about repeating levels. Another owner signed a solid SS IFA last season, and immediately assigned him to AAA, even though he wasn't quite good enough for that level yet. I traded for that SS in the offseason, and then assigned him to AA. Am I hurting his development by playing him at a lower level than he played last season, even though I just acquired him? And would I be better off promoting him back to AAA, even though that would cause him to repeat the same level two seasons in a row?

Or am I basically screwed either way, unless I promote him to the Majors, even though he's not ready for that yet?

Wait, I stand corrected. The other owner did have him at AA last season. I thought he was at AAA because he promoted him after last season was over. So I'm actually causing him to repeat a level now. So I can promote him to AAA now without hampering his development.

That said though, what would the answer to my original question be, hypothetically?

Volk, good question. In one particular world, I "inherited" some very good prospects that I think were rushed up the ladder too quickly. I am wondering if they are now doomed to not come close to their projections. I certainly don't want to move a AA player back to Low A if he is going to take a demotion hit.