Historical question

Historical question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball

Message

gibby290 -> Historical question (5/11/2006 9:16:04 PM)
First of all, let me say, I love your line of products, Shaun. I have had hours of fun playing PS, but I am a baseball addict, so I guess that isn't a huge suprise. I had a question about Lahman database support. I was considering starting in 1900 and playing a century+ of baseball. I realize there is an entry draft each year for new players who were rookies that year in baseball. So what happens in years when teams are added to the Major League? I.E. 1993 when Colorado and Florida join? Will my league still be in a 1900 configuration? Thanks in advance for an answer.

Amaroq -> RE: Historical question (5/11/2006 9:40:51 PM)
gibby, I love doing almost exactly what you're describing. For PureSim 2005, you got expansion, but it was at your discretion, and didn't necessarily follow the history of MLB - you wouldn't see the New York Giants move to San Francisco, for example, and when expansion happened, teams would wind up in the wrong divisions. For PureSim 2007, Shaun decided to remove the expansion feature entirely - one of those where he felt it wasn't "right", and doesn't want to have features which don't meet his high standards in the game. So, if you're going to undertake the 'all of MLB' replay, I recommend that you start in 1901, with the 16-team configuration that lasted sixty years. That should be ample for your enjoyment! ... Also, please note that with 2007, if you choose a 35-man association you should see only 'real' players - but if you choose a 60-man association (with minor leagues), the game will create 'fictional' players to fill out the association on creation. So, if you want to play with only real-life players, you'll want to play a 35-man association.

gibby290 -> RE: Historical question (5/11/2006 10:07:28 PM)
SO what happens when the number of teams gets larger? Do I have a ton of great free-agents?

MizzouRah_slith -> RE: Historical question (5/11/2006 10:26:03 PM)
..and if you only choose a "35" man configuration.. no minor leagues? or 10 players in the minors?

Amaroq -> RE: Historical question (5/12/2006 2:29:01 AM)
gibby - yes, eventually I think you'd hit a point where you had a ton of draftees... but remember, they'll only develop if they're given playing time, so you won't wind up with All Star-quality players sitting on your bench. You'll end up with players who were All-Stars in real life.. but who never broke into a team in your association, and so didn't develop as you remember them doing in real life. (Alternate history!) MizzouRah - the latter, you still have the 'minor leagues' screen. So you have 25 players on your major league roster, and 10 players in the minors. You just don't get that 'living breathing minor-league system' feeling that you do from a 60- or 70- man association... but that might be good, because you can't hoarde talent as easily. [;)]

MizzouRah_slith -> RE: Historical question (5/12/2006 3:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaroq gibby - yes, eventually I think you'd hit a point where you had a ton of draftees... but remember, they'll only develop if they're given playing time, so you won't wind up with All Star-quality players sitting on your bench. You'll end up with players who were All-Stars in real life.. but who never broke into a team in your association, and so didn't develop as you remember them doing in real life. (Alternate history!) MizzouRah - the latter, you still have the 'minor leagues' screen. So you have 25 players on your major league roster, and 10 players in the minors. You just don't get that 'living breathing minor-league system' feeling that you do from a 60- or 70- man association... but that might be good, because you can't hoarde talent as easily. [;)] Thanks for the reply.

Amaroq -> RE: Historical question (5/12/2006 3:44:52 AM)
You're welcome. The board is hopping today! [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: Amaroq ??hoarde?? Apparently, I can't spell as easily, either. hoard, I meant! [:D]

redeck -> RE: Historical question (5/12/2006 5:56:19 AM)
i simply wrote off your spelling to maybe your canadien......[:D]

Fouts -> RE: Historical question (5/12/2006 8:30:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaroq gibby - yes, eventually I think you'd hit a point where you had a ton of draftees... but remember, they'll only develop if they're given playing time, so you won't wind up with All Star-quality players sitting on your bench. You'll end up with players who were All-Stars in real life.. but who never broke into a team in your association, and so didn't develop as you remember them doing in real life. (Alternate history!) Is this part true? Don't players develop based solely on potential, not playing time?

Amaroq -> RE: Historical question (5/12/2006 9:04:14 AM)
Hmm. I can answer for PureSim 2007 / fictional players for sure, it is a complicated function which takes into account - age - level (majors, AAA, AA, A) - potential - spot in the development curve - playing time So its not as simple as 'draft the high-potential guy every time'. [:)] And, you have to worry about promoting guys too quickly, or too slowly. I think you'll find it a lot more challenging! What I'm not certain of is how much the development of real players is related to playing time, or if it is strictly related to their potential.

Fouts -> RE: Historical question (5/12/2006 9:32:17 AM)
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware the player development was this in-depth. Sweet.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7636719