x Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Opens up the probability of using the 40 man roster as the 25 man roster with CONSTANT promotions/demotions.
10/11/2015 1:58 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Yeah, it would happen a lot more than it does in MLB.   I, for one, would abuse the hell out of it.    60 DUR players would hold a LOT more value because I'd know I could send them to the minors for rest.    Low dur/stm pitchers would have MUCH more value.  

10/11/2015 2:09 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

It would fundamentally change the game.  Baseball is played with a 25 man roster not a 40 man.   Changing it to where you could have 10 SP with 16 starts is a bastardized version of the game, real or sim. 

10/11/2015 2:34 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
My Moonlight Graham team just completed a season.    16 position players reached 50+ PA and 14 pitchers threw 25+ innings.   10 minor leaguers on my team have options.   That doesn't seem far off from the numbers you posted.

Removing the demotion penalty would turn HBD into a clusterfuck.    You may not like it but it would.   Owners would no longer have to make decisions on when to call up players.   You could just call them up/send them down without consequences.
10/12/2015 8:52 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/12/2015 8:52:00 AM (view original):
My Moonlight Graham team just completed a season.    16 position players reached 50+ PA and 14 pitchers threw 25+ innings.   10 minor leaguers on my team have options.   That doesn't seem far off from the numbers you posted.

Removing the demotion penalty would turn HBD into a clusterfuck.    You may not like it but it would.   Owners would no longer have to make decisions on when to call up players.   You could just call them up/send them down without consequences.
Not to mention what it would do with burning those pre-arb years.  Owners currently playing the "wait 20 days before call up" game to get the 4th pre-arb season would now be manipulating this to get a 5th pre-arb season out them.

You're at the all-star break and are 10 games out of a playoff spot?  Send your stud rookie back down to AAA and save around 75 days of their service time with no risk of penalty.

Bad, bad idea.

10/12/2015 10:43 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Yeah, when falling out of the race, I'd demote all players with options(under 27 y/o) and bring up lesser players. 
10/12/2015 2:52 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Demotion penalty is one of the worst features of HBD.

As bripat42 accurately points out, it's not how the real world works.  AAAA players are moved up and down all the time.  They don't seem to lose eyesight or control.

It would not be realistic for a solid ML player with options to be demoted at the all-star break.  So that should not be encouraged.

Easy and at least a little more way to discourage that would be for any player with an OVR in the Top 20-22 on the team, or Top 9-10 for Ps, or Top 12 for position players to never sign a long-term contract with that team before going FA if they are ever demoted from ML.

That would remove the temptation to try to extend cheap seasons.  Easier to code. More predictable penalty vs. demotion penalty roulette.

The way it works now, it probably does pay to demote a pre-arb ML stud with options with high Make Up if you are 10 games out at the all-star break.  Almost no chance of a demotion penalty.  Might get one more cheap year.

10/27/2015 3:03 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
damag
Posts: 5549 (0)
Hall of Famer
1751 77 11
Veteran
It strikes me that this must have been a decision made by the developers to format the gameplay in opposition to real world rules, because real world rules without real world conditions would simply be, um, abused the **** out of.


10/28/2015 7:15 PM
tufft
Posts: 959 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/27/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Sure.  I'd be all for players refusing to sign a long-term deal if held back too long or demoted after call-up.    Betcha virtually no one who'd want to promote/demote at will is on board with that.   

The worst feature of HBD is the guaranteed control of a player for at LEAST 10 full BL seasons(3 min, 2 arb, 5 LT).    Putting an end to that would be awesome.   Good call, tuft.

I don't know that I'd call it THE worst, but it's a bad one.

I think Mike and I just agreed on something.  I'm opening a beer and taking the rest of the day off.

11/2/2015 4:40 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Hope you enjoyed your beer.

It is the worst.   Being guaranteed 10 seasons of control is so unrealistic.    Owners who know this know they can keep a position player his entire prime.   That makes FA somewhat pointless.   For the most part, there will only be a couple of players who'll hold their value thru a second contract and their "value" gets overinflated, like the real world, because there are only a couple.   You can get pitching during FA but hitting is difficult to acquire that way.   

If the guy who was held back 2-3 seasons while being one of the best 10 on a team were to refuse to sign LT, we'd see less tanking and better FA.   If the guy who was bounced from BL to AAA a time or two refused to sign for 5 years, no one would be in a hurry to promote/demote. 

11/3/2015 10:11 AM
cshake93
Posts: 425 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 6 8 258
Rookie
Wow, I can't believe you two agreed on something. Monumental day indeed
11/5/2015 9:19 PM
x 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.