|
Post by Commish_Ron on Aug 5, 2019 16:20:06 GMT -5
Great great feedback and discussion on the previous thread. Thank you everyone that contributed. Based on that here are my refined recommendations. We have time to continue iterating and refining as needed or until people get bored with it. 1. Contract and modify minor leagues so that each organization has 5 (AAA,AA,A,A-,R) 2. Add maximum roster sizes to the minor leagues (30 at all levels except 50 at R) 3. Reduce the number of rounds in the draft from 25 to 15 (Continue to generate a draft class for 28 rounds) 4. Once a season purge excess free agents from the league Comments: I saw quite a bit of support for an A- league. I'm good with 5 affiliates. Definitely will be an improvement I think for those GMs currently dealing with 8. I saw support for maximum rosters sizes of both 30 and 35. I feel like 30 should be large enough and the lower number helps to offset the addition of a fifth league. I'll go to 35 if there is enough support. I might also be open to 30 at the top two levels and 35 at the lowers (keeping 50 at R). Reducing the number of draft rounds does not really get to the core issue of too many players in the league. But it was a nice byproduct of the changes we are discussing. I think the draft really drags on and would like to see it shortened. Additional bonuses. We can start later giving people more time to analyze and maneuver after the draft class is revealed. Starting later we may see some of the ratings changes and injuries that occur sometimes pop up before the draft starts. There might actually be an undrafted player or two in FA after the draft worth people racing to or bidding on. The purge obviously needs to be flushed out. I am thinking this can be an annual thing. Maybe at Roster Expansion when draftees have signed and IFA has run? Maybe purge down to approximately a set number (300 batters, 200 pitchers)? Purge candidates to be identified by doing some type of sort on the free agent list (lowest stars then contact then power for hitters and stars then stuff then control for pitchers?)
|
|
|
Post by Will - Cubs on Aug 5, 2019 16:33:58 GMT -5
All looks good here!!
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Aug 5, 2019 17:18:53 GMT -5
The purge obviously needs to be flushed out. I am thinking this can be an annual thing. Maybe at Roster Expansion when draftees have signed and IFA has run? Maybe purge down to approximately a set number (300 batters, 200 pitchers)? Purge candidates to be identified by doing some type of sort on the free agent list (lowest stars then contact then power for hitters and stars then stuff then control for pitchers?) I'd start with star rating, then reduce that pool based on age, and contact potential/control potential. I wouldn't use power for hitters because some viable batters never develop power, but no viable hitter will ever have contact less than 3. Also, I'd do control over stuff since control is less likely to develop when its low, whereas stuff is mainly dependent on pitches coming in (which, to the best of my understanding isn't related to anything but luck). So control is more reliable for determining what pitchers might have some future value. I know John can probably put his spreadsheet to work to tell you what type of player has a less than 0.01% chance of developing viably.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Aug 5, 2019 17:29:49 GMT -5
I'm fine with all, though I wish we could limit to just 4 minor league teams--- just my preference.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Aug 5, 2019 17:31:56 GMT -5
The purge obviously needs to be flushed out. I am thinking this can be an annual thing. Maybe at Roster Expansion when draftees have signed and IFA has run? Maybe purge down to approximately a set number (300 batters, 200 pitchers)? Purge candidates to be identified by doing some type of sort on the free agent list (lowest stars then contact then power for hitters and stars then stuff then control for pitchers?) I'd start with star rating, then reduce that pool based on age, and contact potential/control potential. I wouldn't use power for hitters because some viable batters never develop power, but no viable hitter will ever have contact less than 3. Also, I'd do control over stuff since control is less likely to develop when its low, whereas stuff is mainly dependent on pitches coming in (which, to the best of my understanding isn't related to anything but luck). So control is more reliable for determining what pitchers might have some future value. I know John can probably put his spreadsheet to work to tell you what type of player has a less than 0.01% chance of developing viably. It's not that sophisticated, but the sheet can tell me approximately how far away from replacement level that player's potential is (or current is). I'm sure that if we have a benchmark for how many we want to survive the purge (as we appear to), I could come up with a few rules that would catch players below that point. If desired of course.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Aug 5, 2019 21:05:19 GMT -5
First two fine.
If the idea of going to 15 drafted rounds in S+ is just to speed things, and keep people more engaged, I understand that. I still think those that are interested will be and those that aren't will not be, but fine with drafting 15. And I might suggest that having to scour and sign undrafted free agents to fill spots in the minors might actually be extra work as opposed to using the auto-draft presently? But, the 28 rounds, after the contraction and contemplated annual manual purge seems counterproductive to me.I read this proposed exercise as being a desire to contract minor levels and purge the dead weight in the free agent pool. And the idea if sound. To plan for a manual purge annually is an odd plan and increases the chance for error and unforeseen circumstances, fighting the game if you will, in my opinion. To replenish players that retire (even from the minors - we see the messages every end of season), declare free agency and players that just just get bad, the rule of thumb in OOTP has always been to generate 5 rounds per level of minors and one more round for the annual draft. That way natural selection within the game happens and a certain game equilibrium is achieved. Using that formula, 25(26) is the number. Your 28 is very close to that, but slightly too high. Why generate dead weight?
Unless there is overwhelming hard data, or other compelling reason(s), to generate 28, and you can reasonably predict the impact on the changed league, I politely suggest we come at this from the opposite direction. At the same time we reduce the minors, we generate player for only 25 rounds (actively still drafting 15 as you suggest). Yes, that is one less than prescribed above. IF you see the free agent pool slowly dry up over several seasons then you could bump it to 26 and then observe the reaction. That, in turn, hopefully removes the need for manual intervention, and possible negative effects because of the manual change, after each season?
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Aug 6, 2019 5:28:32 GMT -5
The 28 rounds is not because it's how many we think are needed to keep the talent pool full (we know it's higher than necessary for that) but because it appears that lowering that number drops the amount of talent entering the league.
If the options are:
1) reduce the influx of players to only what is necessary at the cost of making the draft talent pool worse or 2) keep the draft talent pool where it is, knowing that we'll need to purge the league roster a little bit every year
The consensus seems to be that #2 is the preference.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Aug 6, 2019 7:21:47 GMT -5
The 28 rounds is not because it's how many we think are needed to keep the talent pool full (we know it's higher than necessary for that) but because it appears that lowering that number drops the amount of talent entering the league. If the options are: 1) reduce the influx of players to only what is necessary at the cost of making the draft talent pool worse or 2) keep the draft talent pool where it is, knowing that we'll need to purge the league roster a little bit every year The consensus seems to be that #2 is the preference. And to reiterate a point John made on the other thread, this talent drop isn't theoretical. Decreasing from 30 rounds of drafting to 25 has had noticeable effects on talent pool since 2045. If I had my way, I'd bump the number of draft rounds back to 30.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 9:19:12 GMT -5
Happy to go with the items discussed.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Aug 6, 2019 12:09:02 GMT -5
The 28 rounds is not because it's how many we think are needed to keep the talent pool full (we know it's higher than necessary for that) but because it appears that lowering that number drops the amount of talent entering the league. If the options are: 1) reduce the influx of players to only what is necessary at the cost of making the draft talent pool worse or 2) keep the draft talent pool where it is, knowing that we'll need to purge the league roster a little bit every year The consensus seems to be that #2 is the preference. Oh I am aware of why there are 28. But I also feel that manually purging deadwood (now - though I agree it's likely needed - but also annually) also has the capacity to negatively affect the draft. By removing the deadbeats you artificially increase the overall talent level still in the league and, I contend, that too will suppress the quality of the draft. But either way, both are manually countering what the game is trying to do, which may lead to unintended issues. Just sayin...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_NatsGM on Aug 6, 2019 21:20:42 GMT -5
I guess I'm the opposite of KC and would still prefer all levels (one each of AAA, AA, A+, A, A-, R). I think the roster limits + purge accomplish most of what we're trying to do, especially considering there's a ton of teams now with over 50 or even 100 players that would get cut down. Five isn't the end of the world, but I wouldn't recommend going lower. The other stuff is fine by me, though I'd test the hell out of any draft changes before implementing them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 6:27:16 GMT -5
Redundant and no real answer..... Operator Error
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Aug 9, 2019 9:40:57 GMT -5
I'm fine with all, though I wish we could limit to just 4 minor league teams--- just my preference. Tim / KC I'm in complete agreement with my fellow fellow American League counterpart here. When looking at one random team (not so random, but I don't want to single him out either)... He has 7 minor league teams. To protect his anonymity, I'll just group levels together. There's about 177 1/2* players here. I don't see see anyway that having MORE levels is beneficial. I get that I'm the penultimate guy here, but out of the 51 players that are 1* or better, I can't see any benefit to MORE levels.
- R Ball:
(1) 3.5* Players, (2) 3* Players, (2) 2.5* Players, (2) 2* Players, (4) 1.5* Players, (2) 1* Players and (44) 1/2* guys
- At A (92 players):
(1) 5*, (2) 4*, (1) 3.5*, (3) 3*, (3) 2.5*, (8) 2* players, (4) 1.5* players, (2) 1* players and (68) 1/2* guys
- AA Ball (30):
(2) 3.5*, (1) 1.5* players, (1) 1* players and (26) 1/2* guys
- AAA Ball (52):
(1) 3.5*, (1) 2* players, (7) 1.5* players, (4) 1* players and (39) 1/2* guys
There are quite a few teams in the league (the Warhounds being one of them) that invest a lot of their time and resources in building a deep farm system. I see drastically reducing the amount of rosters spots and levels they have available as a penalty to the most active and engaged GMs in the league. I think one team at each of the existing levels Triple A, Double A, Single A, Short Season A and Rookie is a reasonable amount of teams. Enough to allow the GMs that are engaged with their farm systems to properly disperse and develop their players while not being too many for any other GM to manage.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Aug 9, 2019 9:50:42 GMT -5
Is there any thought being given to increasing the Major League active roster size to 26?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Aug 9, 2019 10:00:08 GMT -5
I think the stronger case for 5 minor leagues over 4 is the development hole between R and A. I do see specs with no room to grow in R but not ready for A yet. Some guys benefit from spending time in A-
Yes. There will be a poll this off season to vote on increasing Active Roster size to 26.
|
|