|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 12, 2018 16:49:38 GMT -5
Here is what I have on my radar for this off season. Please chime in with opinions or if there is anything else we should consider.
1. I am planning on doing the draft next season on Stats+. This will require everyone to register. I can still do notifications the same way I always have. But having the draft on Stats+ will allow me to maintain one draft list instead of the three I usually have to. The easiest way to register is to use slack but I believe you can use your google account as well. Send me a private message with the email you register under and I will connect your account to your team.
2. One thought I had was to possibly shorten the draft. I don't know what everyone else thinks or does but the trash acquired rounds 20+ are virtually always immediately released from my organization. I am considering putting a poll up to reduce the draft from 30 rounds to 25.
3. Before this last season began I adjusted the game setting sliders. The biggest areas of concern that were intended to be addressed were a shortage of strikeouts, a shortage of homeruns, and a shortage of caught stealing. I ran some numbers over the last three seasons but they are unfortunately on my other laptop. I hope to update this thread with some more specifics later this evening or tomorrow. It seemed like strikeouts and caught stealing raised up to a reasonable level. Homeruns, on the other hand, exploded to a level much higher than intended. Over the next few days I will be running some simulated seasons in a fictional league to get a better handle on the impact of those sliders. I am soliciting the league for feedback on what targets should be. Does the league prefer the HR starved pitching league from a couple seasons ago? The offensive explosion of last season? Somewhere between the two? Also, did anyone notice any other stats the seemed out of balance that should have attention paid to?
4. I have had numerous requests for an avenue to change stadium dimensions. That and much more will be rolled into a rewards program I am putting the finishing touches on that will be unveiled very soon.
Anything else ya'all?
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 12, 2018 17:59:58 GMT -5
This is small potatoes but as I mentioned in the Hall of Fame post, if we want to be able to induct Hall of Famers at the same rate that the BBWAA historically has we'll probably need to increase the ballot to 15 players instead of 10. It may feel like it would dilute the pool (which it technically would) but really, the problem is that the Major Leagues have had the same number of players on their ballots from when they had 16-team leagues. If we want to be super-selective, more than the Majors has been, we should stay at ten. But if we want to have a standard for the Hall comparable to that of the BBWAA historically, bumping to 15 is the correct move. I want to bring this up for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 12, 2018 20:44:12 GMT -5
1. Fine with that. Use it in other leagues.
2. The rule of thumb I have always heard was 5 rounds per level of minors. Probably where the current number came from. But sure, lower to 25 and gauge the effect.
3. Normal/Default/Balanced - whatever term suits you. Stay away from extremes. And then leave it for several seasons.
4. ZERO interest in a rewards program or allowing stadiums to be changed. Sorry.
** Stadiums do change right now, with every new release of OOTP as the league is based on MLB. I believe it started happening with 16? If you have an MLB-named stadium, just watch when we go to 19. MLB stadiums will reflect the current dimensions and factors of the real-life stadium of the same name, so if you are going this route, best change to unique names and get away from MLB names.
** Also means the need for more "rules" so that the dimensions will not be ridiculous (some might say extreme).
** And I would strongly recommend a waiting period for any new GM's.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 17, 2018 12:12:11 GMT -5
Regarding the modifiers (item 3 above).
I have been able to garner very little information on the modifiers through the interwebs. Instead I have created a sandbox copy of the PBL, removed all human managers and am simulating the 2046 season many times with tweeks to gauge impact.
Right out of the gate I want to address one thing head on. The ability for me to do this could be perceived as a cheat. An ability to see the future. I have several responses to that. First, as of this time I have simulated the 2046 season 5 times. I have observed huge variances in team records. I only observe this because the displayed screen while the simulation running is the Standings screen. This leads me to believe that there is a significant element of randomness, especially when turning all teams over to the AI, that would make any predicting based on the results futile. Second, each simulation takes about an hour to complete. I assure you that I have better things to do with my time than analyzing any particular player trends. When the season is done I am looking at the Team Statistics screen to grab the totals off the bottom and then moving on to the next. Finally, I just ask for faith in my integrity as commissioner not to abuse my position for any personal game. As commissioner I will always be transparent in my actions and encourage any double checking or auditing. I genuinely prefer a strong PBL over a strong Padres franchise. 1,000 to 1. No doubt, absolutely. I realize all you have is my word on that, but there it is.
Despite the possible pitfalls noted above, I decided that my research would be much more accurate using PBL players over an entirely new fictional league.
My goal is to publish all of my research tonight along with my recommendations. I am guessing I still have another 5-10 simulations to feel comfortable with the data.
I apologize if I am spamming the league with content this off season. I beg all of your patience. Just trying to keep ya'all in the loop.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 17, 2018 17:31:11 GMT -5
Love that you are bringing us along for the ride, Ron. No issues on my end. From what i have read, it would take thousands of sims to give you a sizable sample size of player development to truly feel confident in the result of a player progression, anyway. Thanks for your transparency!
As an aside, keep in mind, as you sim the 2046 season many times, the data you accrue will help you gauge the results of our current rated players. Any development changes down the road can affect the future output. That said, if you land on modifiers you like, let's roll and keep moving forward. Tweaking modifiers is a tricky thing and I am hopeful we won't be doing this every offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 17, 2018 18:09:27 GMT -5
Love that you are bringing us along for the ride, Ron. No issues on my end. From what i have read, it would take thousands of sims to give you a sizable sample size of player development to truly feel confident in the result of a player progression, anyway. Thanks for your transparency! As an aside, keep in mind, as you sim the 2046 season many times, the data you accrue will help you gauge the results of our current rated players. Any development changes down the road can affect the future output. That said, if you land on modifiers you like, let's roll and keep moving forward. Tweaking modifiers is a tricky thing and I am hopeful we won't be doing this every offseason. Totally. What I am really trying to identify in this exercise is just what do the numbers actually mean and do. You would think if I changed a base number or a modifier I would be able to sim a season and see some results that correspond with the change. At this moment I have 10 sample seasons and so far I am baffled. Every theory I have had I have been able to debunk. I still have some time. I believe these numbers need to be locked in before the calendar year turns over in game. My absolute intention is to get to a comfort level where I can set these modifiers this season for the last time. No way we will be tweeking them every off season.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 17, 2018 18:41:32 GMT -5
Might I respectfully suggest starting a test/ALL default MLB league and jot down the default numbers and/or run a sim with those numbers. Unless, of course, you've already done that - in which case nvm.
Each year the game is tweaked to be accurate with the default numbers. It might give you a surprising result or at least show the direction you might tweak with the current PBL numbers to get back toward default (if not all the way)?
Thanks for the testing!
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 17, 2018 18:50:47 GMT -5
Might I respectfully suggest starting a test/ALL default MLB league and jot down the default numbers and/or run a sim with those numbers. Unless, of course, you've already done that - in which case nvm. Each year the game is tweaked to be accurate with the default numbers. It might give you a surprising result or at least show the direction you might tweak with the current PBL numbers to get back toward default (if not all the way)? Thanks for the testing! Good points David. Might I add, if you choose a season output that the league/commissioner/GMs are comfortable with, then just select that as the modifiers to use and every year keep doing the same. For example, if you look up 1986 league stats on baseball reference dot com, you will see the output league wide for every offensive category. Looking at the data via the baseball eras will most certainly be easier AND accurate via the game options. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 17, 2018 18:53:56 GMT -5
Love that you are bringing us along for the ride, Ron. No issues on my end. From what i have read, it would take thousands of sims to give you a sizable sample size of player development to truly feel confident in the result of a player progression, anyway. Thanks for your transparency! As an aside, keep in mind, as you sim the 2046 season many times, the data you accrue will help you gauge the results of our current rated players. Any development changes down the road can affect the future output. That said, if you land on modifiers you like, let's roll and keep moving forward. Tweaking modifiers is a tricky thing and I am hopeful we won't be doing this every offseason. Totally. What I am really trying to identify in this exercise is just what do the numbers actually mean and do. You would think if I changed a base number or a modifier I would be able to sim a season and see some results that correspond with the change. At this moment I have 10 sample seasons and so far I am baffled. Every theory I have had I have been able to debunk. I still have some time. I believe these numbers need to be locked in before the calendar year turns over in game. My absolute intention is to get to a comfort level where I can set these modifiers this season for the last time. No way we will be tweeking them every off season. Excellent, i'm with you either way. You posting a response just gives you more style points according to me. Just a random, out of the ordinary thought, should we set up a poll to see which 'era' the league prefers for a stats output perspective? Baseball reference does a great job outlining a yearly MLB output for stats. In-game, selecting that yearly output is so easy and automatically sets those modifiers to produce an environment you selected. Just a thought? Although i expect to get flamed for this approach. Just throwing it out there because...well, i am wearing my flame-repellent suit at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 17, 2018 18:59:56 GMT -5
Might I respectfully suggest starting a test/ALL default MLB league and jot down the default numbers and/or run a sim with those numbers. Unless, of course, you've already done that - in which case nvm. Each year the game is tweaked to be accurate with the default numbers. It might give you a surprising result or at least show the direction you might tweak with the current PBL numbers to get back toward default (if not all the way)? Thanks for the testing! Funny you should mention David. That is exactly the scenario I am running right now. Good call. I think even with my incomplete testing I can identify 3 factors that contributed to this last season of explosive HR production. 1 obviously altering the modifiers. 2, using the 2016 numbers as a base. 2016 had a significant upswing in HR over 2014 and 2015. 3, anomaly. I have seen some other outliers. Anomaly is valid, expected and a good thing. Even factoring in the other two factors it still appears that PBL just hit a big HR season that was intensified by the other changes.
|
|
|
Post by Wilson_DodgersGM on Mar 17, 2018 19:05:29 GMT -5
The balls are juiced!!
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 17, 2018 19:06:43 GMT -5
Certainly helped the Dodgers! I don't take your post as a negative or a positive.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_DBacksGM on Mar 17, 2018 19:51:57 GMT -5
I’m even more impressed that LA won back to back considering the difference in the seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 18, 2018 11:04:01 GMT -5
1. I am planning on doing the draft next season on Stats+. This will require everyone to register. I can still do notifications the same way I always have. But having the draft on Stats+ will allow me to maintain one draft list instead of the three I usually have to. The easiest way to register is to use slack but I believe you can use your google account as well. Send me a private message with the email you register under and I will connect your account to your team. I'm not sure why we would want to force you to do extra work. S+ gives slack notifications for drafts (and if you reach out to Dave, he had been working on an email notification at one point. Not sure if that has or will be implemented soon) but there is no reason to force you to have to send PM's to people. Also, I really don't believe there is ANY reason to give people 24 hours when it comes to the draft. Pay attention or be auto'd. If you cant set-up a list in S+ or make the effort, 6-12 hours is beyond enough time (with the timer off overnight on top of that.) Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 18, 2018 15:24:53 GMT -5
1. I am planning on doing the draft next season on Stats+. This will require everyone to register. I can still do notifications the same way I always have. But having the draft on Stats+ will allow me to maintain one draft list instead of the three I usually have to. The easiest way to register is to use slack but I believe you can use your google account as well. Send me a private message with the email you register under and I will connect your account to your team. I'm not sure why we would want to force you to do extra work. S+ gives slack notifications for drafts (and if you reach out to Dave, he had been working on an email notification at one point. Not sure if that has or will be implemented soon) but there is no reason to force you to have to send PM's to people. Also, I really don't believe there is ANY reason to give people 24 hours when it comes to the draft. Pay attention or be auto'd. If you cant set-up a list in S+ or make the effort, 6-12 hours is beyond enough time (with the timer off overnight on top of that.) Just my two cents. Correction: Agree, this would be good (and still limited) use of Slack.
|
|