|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Oct 2, 2014 20:19:58 GMT -5
I like both ideas, upping the injury setting one bump and changing the TCR from what it is. It's damn exciting to have a noted low-rated minor-leaguer grow into a potential star, just as excruciating it is to lose that potential star to scrub status. I think we need a 2 way street on this one.
I can't find it, what is the TCR currently set to? I would be in favor of a 120, 130 level. Open to thoughts on this.
I rarely suffered an injury this year, but I do target players that are durable or iron-men. That said, it is fair to expect our fair share of injuries and I would love to have depth matter in this league. Trade blocks would pick up steam and trades to fill holes due to a 3 month injury would happen more often.
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Oct 3, 2014 0:41:18 GMT -5
As a team that has been hit hard by injuries the last few seasons, i love moving it up. I'm all for realism, and injuries are part of the game. I haven't seen what i consider a good reason not to move injuries up. Great idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 2:02:02 GMT -5
The only possible reason not to up injuries is OOTP AI decision making. Basically, if you get a guy hurt early in a sim, it will do strange things to your line-up for the remaining 5 or 6 days of the sim. This can be partly mitigated with either fully filled depth charts or 7-day line-ups, and only on those occasions where an injury is mid-sim.
The benefits are much higher than this one quirk, shared by all, for a few games only.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Oct 3, 2014 7:23:56 GMT -5
The only possible reason not to up injuries is OOTP AI decision making. Basically, if you get a guy hurt early in a sim, it will do strange things to your line-up for the remaining 5 or 6 days of the sim. This can be partly mitigated with either fully filled depth charts or 7-day line-ups, and only on those occasions where an injury is mid-sim. The benefits are much higher than this one quirk, shared by all, for a few games only. I disagree in terms of that quirk is a bigger thing than people realize. Ill be disappointed when this passes and we don't even consider increasing roster size to accommodate it the AI issues.
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Oct 3, 2014 9:24:32 GMT -5
The only possible reason not to up injuries is OOTP AI decision making. Basically, if you get a guy hurt early in a sim, it will do strange things to your line-up for the remaining 5 or 6 days of the sim. This can be partly mitigated with either fully filled depth charts or 7-day line-ups, and only on those occasions where an injury is mid-sim. The benefits are much higher than this one quirk, shared by all, for a few games only. I disagree in terms of that quirk is a bigger thing than people realize. Ill be disappointed when this passes and we don't even consider increasing roster size to accommodate it the AI issues. This quirk happens now on occasion. It gives no team an advantage or disadvantage. Raising the roster size basically makes the game easier. The game is what it is. Will this quirk ever get fixed, probably not, but if we play ootp, we live with it. Again, it does not give anyone an advantage. Raising the injury level's make this game harder. I'm all for that.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Oct 3, 2014 11:04:29 GMT -5
I agree with the points made by Luc, Rob, and others who support increasing the injury setting. I support bumping it up one notch to the OOTP Classic setting. The MLB Realistic setting produces even more injuries, thus emphasizing depth even more than the Classic setting, but I believe a jump to that setting would be too drastic at this point. I think we should introduce the Classic setting and then evaluate the impact over several years.
Speaking of the impact, does anyone know what the expected number of injuries per season per team is over time using each of the settings? I haven't searched the OOTP boards, but it seems that someone must have studied this.
I agree with Anthony that the AI does a terrible job of setting the lineup for games occurring after a key player has been injured. It seems to do a better job adjusting a lineup when a starter is tired and a sub replaces him. I don't understand why the difference exists. It seems that the logic would be the same. Regardless, the logic definitely needs to be improved.
Regarding the impact of the crappy logic, I have seen instances where the AI has inserted a scrub to replace a stud in the heart of the order and the scrub has delivered with a couple of hits, some RBI, etc. Of course scrubs have had bad games, too. Although it feels like the lineup may be very weak, and would not be a lineup I would use, I don't have any statistical evidence to indicate that the outcome of games has been negatively impacted.
That said, I can live with less than desirable lineups for a few games. I am more interested in increasing overall realism by bumping the injury setting to OOTP Classic.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Oct 3, 2014 13:29:25 GMT -5
Good discussion. All my points have been made better than I could make them. I will just weigh in to say if this were up for a vote I would vote to increase the injury setting but keep the major league roster size as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Oct 3, 2014 15:17:45 GMT -5
The discussion is pretty one sided right now with the vast majority in favor of bumping injury settings up one level and unless there is some turn of the event dispute that sways this debate I don't know why we don't try it out. I think the points were presented very well, it will indeed add value to role players and I think has much more positive than negatives. I was big into the idea of expanding rosters and when you do a search for it there are people who think they should expand to 26 or 27 man rosters. (one source: here) Mike Scioscia thinks the MLB should adopt a 35 man roster where 25 are active per night. i don't see how adding 1 more roster spot would be so harmful but for some reason its not gaining any traction. We expand to 40 man rosters in September and that's no issue. I would also argue that expanding rosters by 1 would also open up more trading because teams would be looking to identify a specific need such as lefty specialist, base running threat, defensive infielder/outfielder, etc etc. I'm going to continue to weigh both options and make an official decision before we start Spring Training games.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Oct 3, 2014 16:46:40 GMT -5
It's an interesting idea to increase injuries cause using depth is fun and exposes teams well but I think it would turn off and frustrate too many GMs ultimately. Wonder what other ideas could take advantage of depth or shake things up some? This is why I like injuries, and agree with Derek's points. One other bonus of injuries is that prospect progression is less assured. With OOTP15 upping the consistency of development (with less stars developed but more likely to make it), the universal tactic of rebuilding around a few surefire stars is too obvious, leading to a stagnant market. The other way to need depth and make the long term rebuild less of a default route is to increase the Talent Change Randomness factor, especially if we never raised it after lowering in OOTP13. I could easily get on board to increasing injuries. Would make for some unexpected playmakers.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Oct 3, 2014 17:13:55 GMT -5
The only possible reason not to up injuries is OOTP AI decision making. Basically, if you get a guy hurt early in a sim, it will do strange things to your line-up for the remaining 5 or 6 days of the sim. This can be partly mitigated with either fully filled depth charts or 7-day line-ups, and only on those occasions where an injury is mid-sim. The benefits are much higher than this one quirk, shared by all, for a few games only. I disagree in terms of that quirk is a bigger thing than people realize. Ill be disappointed when this passes and we don't even consider increasing roster size to accommodate it the AI issues. Before I can be onside with your opinion of roster increase Anthony, I need to understand your argument here. Why is both injury setting increase and roster expansion mutually exclusive for you?
If an injury happens during the sim, the AI will pull someone from your existing roster. It has been noted, the AI makes some real head-scratching decisions. That said, in the middle of a sim you cannot do anything here and once the sim plays out, you can opt the injury player to the DL, fill the hole with someone else and then export. There is no need to have an extra roster spot (or two) to my knowledge.
If the argument here is during the sim the AI can pick from one (or two, depending on the roster expansion) extra player than we have now, well, I'm not sure how this makes sense to me. We already agree that the AI makes odd decisions so there are zero guarantees the AI would select who you wish to have in there. What advantage does having an expanded roster in this case?
You have been passionate about this, so I must be missing something that you are attached to. Can you please elaborate to help me connect to your opinion of roster expansion?
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Oct 3, 2014 17:14:41 GMT -5
This is why I like injuries, and agree with Derek's points. One other bonus of injuries is that prospect progression is less assured. With OOTP15 upping the consistency of development (with less stars developed but more likely to make it), the universal tactic of rebuilding around a few surefire stars is too obvious, leading to a stagnant market. The other way to need depth and make the long term rebuild less of a default route is to increase the Talent Change Randomness factor, especially if we never raised it after lowering in OOTP13. I could easily get on board to increasing injuries. Would make for some unexpected playmakers.I love the positive, glass half-full thought here.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Oct 3, 2014 17:18:00 GMT -5
I disagree in terms of that quirk is a bigger thing than people realize. Ill be disappointed when this passes and we don't even consider increasing roster size to accommodate it the AI issues. Before I can be onside with your opinion of roster increase Anthony, I need to understand your argument here. Why is both injury setting increase and roster expansion mutually exclusive for you?
If an injury happens during the sim, the AI will pull someone from your existing roster. It has been noted, the AI makes some real head-scratching decisions. That said, in the middle of a sim you cannot do anything here and once the sim plays out, you can opt the injury player to the DL, fill the hole with someone else and then export. There is no need to have an extra roster spot (or two) to my knowledge.
If the argument here is during the sim the AI can pick from one (or two, depending on the roster expansion) extra player than we have now, well, I'm not sure how this makes sense to me. We already agree that the AI makes odd decisions so there are zero guarantees the AI would select who you wish to have in there. What advantage does having an expanded roster in this case?
You have been passionate about this, so I must be missing something that you are attached to. Can you please elaborate to help me connect to your opinion of roster expansion?
I absolutely hate the way the AI handles injuries. I dont understand why everyone is against increasing rosters even by one spot. Ive watched OOTP take my closer and randomly start him. Ive watched Ackley be put at SS for no reason. Ive seen outfielders be put at catchers, all when players were on my bench can play those positions. Personally i dont know how i would handle the extra roster spot. Maybe a long reliever/spot starter to cover myself incase a sp goes down. I just dont understand how everyone is on board with more injuries when the AI sucks at making roster choices.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Oct 3, 2014 17:25:34 GMT -5
Before I can be onside with your opinion of roster increase Anthony, I need to understand your argument here. Why is both injury setting increase and roster expansion mutually exclusive for you?
If an injury happens during the sim, the AI will pull someone from your existing roster. It has been noted, the AI makes some real head-scratching decisions. That said, in the middle of a sim you cannot do anything here and once the sim plays out, you can opt the injury player to the DL, fill the hole with someone else and then export. There is no need to have an extra roster spot (or two) to my knowledge.
If the argument here is during the sim the AI can pick from one (or two, depending on the roster expansion) extra player than we have now, well, I'm not sure how this makes sense to me. We already agree that the AI makes odd decisions so there are zero guarantees the AI would select who you wish to have in there. What advantage does having an expanded roster in this case?
You have been passionate about this, so I must be missing something that you are attached to. Can you please elaborate to help me connect to your opinion of roster expansion?
I absolutely hate the way the AI handles injuries. I dont understand why everyone is against increasing rosters even by one spot. Ive watched OOTP take my closer and randomly start him. Ive watched Ackley be put at SS for no reason. Ive seen outfielders be put at catchers, all when players were on my bench can play those positions. Personally i dont know how i would handle the extra roster spot. Maybe a long reliever/spot starter to cover myself incase a sp goes down. I just dont understand how everyone is on board with more injuries when the AI sucks at making roster choices. Ok cool. I can appreciate your side of it. To be honest, the issue here is the game and it's ability (lack of, really) to properly execute intelligent decisions when starters go down to injury. Solution-wise, fix the game is where we all agree on this.
The extra roster spot, well, again to be honest I'm not fully onboard unless I can hear an argument that helps me to connect to the pro side of the argument. Remaining open minded on that one.
IMHO, a higher injury setting will increase the need to have depth to cover those injuries. A GM skill is to find enough quality arms and bench-players to cover an entire 162 game season sufficiently enough without leaning on 'injuries' as a crutch. I see this as more of a challenge, so sign me up for that. It also helps that it makes it more realistic, thus rewarding if you are a team that can enjoy winning seasons.
All good man. I appreciate you giving us your perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Oct 3, 2014 17:54:41 GMT -5
I am not convinced an extra roster spot addresses the AI handling injuries. Like it has been mentioned I have seen the AI make ridiculous decisions when I have perfectly good options on my bench. Why do we think it would handle it any better with more options to choose from?
I am for increasing injuries to increase the difficulty, reward depth over building a top 9, and hopefully increasing trade activity.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Oct 3, 2014 18:22:57 GMT -5
One other note on injuries, albeit anecdotal. Our current injury transaction log (in the off-season) has 13 total players listed as injured among all 32 teams. The MLB injury transaction log (in the off-season) has 14 among 3 teams (A's, Braves and Dbacks)!! Just another sign we could do with a bump in injuries.
|
|