Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball >> Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes - 2/5/2008 11:48:36 PM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

The default size of 35 players is insufficient. At least 40-45 players, with multiple minor-league levels, is a must, IMHO.

I say this because I'm seeing injuries having devastating effects on teams. With just ten minor-league reserves, the prospects of developing a meaningful historical career are lessened.

The obvious problem is the availability of real players for a given season. Therefore, what we need is a choice of roster sizes, say, 35-40-45, for historical career associations.

This allows the maximum input of real players from Lahman, and minimizes use of fictionals, all dependent on the historical timeframe. The further back you go, the fewer real players are available. This particularly applies to the pre-1920 era.

So, does a setup limitation make sense? Historical roster sizes based on timeframe?

Another thing that would be required is a ratings penalty for fictional generated players. In other words, a cap on their ratings. That means the fictionals would be weeded out as more real players become available.

Post #: 1

RE: Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes - 2/6/2008 2:24:56 AM

GNDN

Posts: 179
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

I agree with the idea of a fully stocked minor league with limits based on time frame. How I wish I was able to fill out all 3 levels of my farm system. It would also open up more trade possibilities and player movement, IMO. With today's increased PC capabilties, the increased data load should be manageable, no?

I also think fictional players should be allowed if you are like me and prefer to re-play (and go beyond) the current year.

_____________________________

Nobody leaves this place without singing the blues....

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 2

RE: Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes - 2/6/2008 6:59:59 PM

jeremy7227

Posts: 161
Joined: 1/24/2006
Status: offline

KG -

I like what you are saying but I think 35 players is fine as a roster size for historical leagues. What I think is the issue is that you have to expand the association in later years to beyond 30 teams so that you don't "waste" talent. I have been able to pretty well marginalize the impact of fictional players. I think the bigger issue is that the AI can't seem to manage a 35 man roster. I have no problem stocking a team with ample depth at 35 players, why can't the AI? I think that is exacerbated by enabling finances too. So if you play historical you almost have to turn off finances today or the AI can't even maintain a 35 man roster. It would be nice to be able to go to 40 or 45 but I would like to see what we have for options be improved some before introducing more variables....

I'd be more eager to see more options for association configuration and expansion. Those enhancements have worked out really well and I think there's some room to try some new things there. Is that related to this topic???

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 3

RE: Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes - 2/6/2008 7:01:08 PM

jeremy7227

Posts: 161
Joined: 1/24/2006
Status: offline

BTW - GNDN - nice Adventures in Babysitting reference. You don't see that often enough. Way underrated flick.

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 4

RE: Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes - 2/6/2008 9:24:36 PM

Max 86

Posts: 699
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline

Agreed. I have had a lot of pitcher injuries and just don't have anyone left to bring up of any quality.

_____________________________

No problem Chief!

(in reply to jeremy7227)

Post #: 5

RE: Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes - 2/6/2008 10:53:51 PM

motnahp

Posts: 1837
Joined: 8/22/2005
Status: offline

I've had (too) many cases where a team runs out of decent pitching and either signs a fictional scrub or calls up some clown who only pitched in a few games and has very low STUFF, CONTROL, and VELOCITY. This had led to some very interesting and unrealistic game scores and ERAs.

I have never used the early import feature (does it still exist?), but am tempted to go that route when my next replay time rolls around. If I decide to NOT go that way, I will look into manually importing players from the following season, reducing their ages by one year, and letting the AI put them wherever it wants to put them.

Having never replayed anything "older" than 1969, I can only comment on that year to the present. There were some teams (Baltimore comes immediately to mind) that only used 9 pitchers for the entire season. This automatically puts the user in a big hole if one or more pitchers go on the DL. Who's coming up? There is no one else, so the AI signs/promotes a fictional scrub. If a team had a total of 12-13 pitchers on their 35-man roster, perhaps a "sorry" real player gets promoted. I've seen it time and time again.

I had a thread involving Pete Vuckovich in his rookie year. Jim Kaat was injured for the White Sox and poor Vuke got called up and abused. He became the team's #4 starter and was kept in the rotation until Kaat was activated. I won't duplicate that thread with all of the details, but I will say that this experience was a learning process for me as a PS user.

The farther back into time one goes, the more difficult it gets to fill a roster with 35 real players capable of keeping things close to realistic. In today's MLB, teams tend to put MORE players on the DL, so some of those "sorry" real players get to play enough to give them realistic cards. They have greater numbers of at-bats and greater numbers of innings pitched. Because of this, their mere presence on the roster doesn't skew entire assn's stats.

Fortunately, Shaun has opened up enough of the program for we the users to make changes where it suits our own needs best. Because of this flexibility and many other reasons, I am in the "Customer for Life" category.

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 6

RE: Once More on Historical Career Roster Sizes - 2/6/2008 11:36:14 PM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: motnahp

Fortunately, Shaun has opened up enough of the program for we the users to make changes where it suits our own needs best. Because of this flexibility and many other reasons, I am in the "Customer for Life" category.

I think Shaun can tap into a substantial market by making PS more customizable within the game itself. There is a significant group of disenfranchised OOTP'ers that are not happy with the direction of OOTP6/7/8 and preferred the 6.5 version. Puresim is very similar to OOTP6.5 and making PS more customizable would appeal to that group.

(in reply to motnahp)

Post #: 7