PureSim is on a roll / PureSim 2008 brainstorming thread!

[SittingDuck]

Van Scoy, I realize what you're looking for.  But I'll admit, if the ratings go up then that is the system revealing 'yes, this guy really has improved, just as the stats support'.  And I really don't want that.  I want to have to judge for myself whether this has happened.  And as usual, one season usually isn't enough to judge a player's progress.

So if the game dynamically upgrades (or worse yet, downgrades) ratings during the season, then that takes my guesswork right out of it. And cheapens the game, IMO.

[Woodruff]

Vanscoy, my argument against that would be...why let the player's ratings drive what you do with him during the season? Shouldn't his performance drive it?

I've had a VERY MEDIOCRE shortstop give me one very good season, and then blow for the other four or five seasons I had him. But for that season (or at least most of it, probably), his ratings didn't reflect his value to the team at all.

Beginning of the season (and during trade talks) is really the time when ratings "matter". And that's mostly the only time(s).

Or maybe I'm just weird.

[Amaroq]

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck
Van Scoy, I realize what you're looking for. But I'll admit, if the ratings go up then that is the system revealing 'yes, this guy really has improved, just as the stats support'. And I really don't want that. I want to have to judge for myself whether this has happened. And as usual, one season usually isn't enough to judge a player's progress.

So if the game dynamically upgrades (or worse yet, downgrades) ratings during the season, then that takes my guesswork right out of it. And cheapens the game, IMO.

Wow, I think I'm very much in opposition to you, guys - I'm with VanScoy.

My interpretation of the current game is that there is only one point - Spring Training - when a player actually improves or ages. That doesn't make sense to me, in the real world: a young player may well improve from day to day, and an older player may not have the speed in September that he started the season with in April.

Consequently, I want the *engine* to perform aging calculations intermittently throughout the season, perhaps once a month or so.

The thrust of your argument with VanScoy seems to be that you want the dynamic changes, but hidden from the user, to keep the challenge of guesswork.

I think you'll still get that - you can see that a player is declining, but he's still putting up the numbers, and the trade deadline is approaching: do you keep him, hoping he'll continue to produce through the playoffs, or do you move him *for a worse player*, because you're worried about him being worse by season's end?

From a metaphor point of view, I don't think that makes sense: the players on my team, my coaches (and me!) are seeing every day, in bullpen sessions, in batting practice, etc, so it makes sense to have more information than just 'stats' to judge by. Obviously, opposition teams we have scouts looking at.

To the difficulty point, I actually think that makes the game more difficult - I can't simply hoard the best 25 players, and run them out there all season. In fact, a team which is the best on Opening Day, if left unchanged, might not be the best come the start of the playoffs. That's cool - it requires me to pay more attention to your club on a day-to-day basis.

On the trading front, I think it makes the game more dynamic, as you get teams where, on April 1st, the veteran catcher was better than the young backup... but by June 30th, the AI can see that, not only is the younger player performing better, but the ratings have changed enough that he's rated the better player, too - and that encourages the team to make a trade.

[Nukester]

Bump

[KG Erwin]

Good points being raised, but I prefer the end of season ratings changes, at least for way I play.  Following stats in the minors as the season progresses gives you a hint as to whether a particular player is in the proper level. 

For me, to have to track the individuals' ratings changes during the season is too much detail, and requires too much micromanagement.  You guys know how I feel about adding unneccessary complications.

In my view, spring training is the time when you sit back and evaluate your players' progressions or regressions.   Once a year. 

A few players wear two hats --one as GM, and the other as day-to-day manager.   I'm one of that group, so I may be representing a minority opinion here. 

One more point -- a guy in the minors might see a 10-point jump in a rating during the course of season (using the 1-100 scale), but do I wanna be informed every week or two that Joe Blow in A ball has had a 1 point increase in his Power rating (from say, 25 to 26? )      

[SittingDuck]

I understand your statement, Amaroq, and if this was pre-PS2007, I'd agree. But now that ratings are absolute, I disagree. If we were back in what I think was a clearly superior system - the scouts system (and this is where I think 2007 took a big dive for innovation, speed freaks be damned) - then I would say absolutely let the ratings fluctuate (as they once did, I believe).

Obviously you are correct in what occurs IRL with the honing of skills and the degradation of skills. But currently, with the ratings being absolute and reflecting what the game perceives as the true value of the player (by its standards), it is a much easier game, and thus has lost something (to me).

I think - know - that losing scouts/managers was a backwards move. Adjusting how/when the scouts did their analysis was, IMO, the route to go. That should have eliminated some processing time and would have still left you with what you are desiring, the 'input' of the coaching staff and scouts. Have a hidden rating that drives stuff, but uses the coaches/scouts (that really is what 'scouts' should be viewed as when looking at your own team) opinions as the 'feedback loop'. It makes for more uncertainty, harder work and watchfulness, and yes, it creates a bit more of a human presence in the game (even if it really is only the AI).

I think the ratings need to rise/fall at the end of the season to reflect the player's accomplishments and maybe a little (not as much as now!) after ST. Ideally you'd have the scouts doing slight changes here and there, preferably at the AS break. In fact, I would prefer an analysis after ST, at the break, and at the end of the season. In between, I must infer value and talent myself.

But I am not a coder, this is not my game and thus, whatever. But if we get a game that changes ratings dynamically through the season, thus basically taking the ENTIRE need for me to analyze out of it and being more like having God himself hold Stengel, Weaver and Anderson, etc. by the hand, then we might as well just reveal the hidden rating.

[modred]

The ability to remember seperate custom filters for batters and pitchers.

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to or not, but I find it TERRIBLY frustrating that every time I make a lineup change to my team, whatever column I had sorted by is resorted (by I believe last name).

It's not difficult to have the game simply remember how the column was sorted until I request a re-sort myself.

Please add this, as the way it is now it adds a great deal of "pain" to simply modifying my roster.

[motnahp]

A couple things I'd find very useful for Multiplayer associations in future releases:

(1) Eliminate the trading deadline of August 1st for MP leagues. Leagues should be able to use their own parameters. This would also benefit historical replay leagues where players often change rosters late in the year.

(2) Add the ability to make "cash-for-player" transactions, or waiver signings.

As it stands now, both of these issues can be worked around with the "Edit Player" function, but the change of teams does not show up in any transaction history and I think it spoils some of the beauty of the new Almanac feature.

[Amaroq]

ORIGINAL: Woodruff
I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to or not, but I find it TERRIBLY frustrating that every time I make a lineup change to my team, whatever column I had sorted by is resorted (by I believe last name).

It's not difficult to have the game simply remember how the column was sorted until I request a re-sort myself.

Please add this, as the way it is now it adds a great deal of "pain" to simply modifying my roster.

I absolutely agree. This would be a great change.

[Amaroq]

ORIGINAL: motnahp
(2) Add the ability to make "cash-for-player" transactions, or waiver signings.

I'd like to see waivers, certainly.

For 'cash', in the current build I've manually added cash as a consideration by using the 'Edit Region' button, and manually modifying the two teams' available budgets. Its not (quite) the same thing - but if your concern is for multiplayer leagues, your commisioner could certainly make that work. (Major-league player for cash plus a single-A prospect, say)

[lynchjm24]

I think a move towards a financial structure that has

0$ for Minor leaguers
League Min for 3 years
Some arbitration for 3 years
Then free agency

would be a move. This might even help the AI - as it doesn't really build much for the future with potential - the fact that high potential players would be less expensive, unlike now where a player can get very expensive because of the high potential rating even if they have very little experience.

[ravinhood]

ANIMATED GRAPICS and VOICE commentary. Lol Puresim I know this is asking more than you can produce. But, text based is borrrrrrringgggg to me. Even if it were something like MicroLeague Baseball that would be a plus. Oh and improve the AI trading and buying free agents sytems add AGE into the equation. I'm tired of seeing dying superstars getting millions in their last year or years of play when they are on the decline.

[SittingDuck]

who's that hottie, ravinhood?

[Paul Vebber]

On the ratings changing within the season thing - my take on it is that you don't want to actually change the ratings, but what you want are a number of different "variation curves" over the course of the season. This would take a LOT of work for real players (though perhaps could be automated from the Lahman DB), and for some it may be Bill James is right and its just all random statistical fluctuaaion. But I've been a fan long enough to see several patterns that repeat for players - and several "trajectories" that variation at least seems to take. THis could be an interesting option for generated player teams, or as a "random option" added to real players.

What I mean by "trajectory is - one of more of the following:

1) Pure random - the guy stays "consistently inconsistent" over teh course of the season with streaks and slumps falling where the may.
2) The "hot starter" - these guys play 5-10% over their heads in April and may and then tail off, often slumping in August and september in some aspect of his game.
3) the "hot finisher" - those guys the play under expectation the begining of the season and heat up later on. Opposit eof the hot starter.
4) the mid season slumper, a "full sign wave" from hot to troubled back to hot again.
5) the mid season sparkplug, starts and ends lackadasically, but catche fire in June and July.
6) the Roller coaster - the "multiple sinewave" guy that goes from streak to slump like a yo-yo.

You don't modify the stats permanently, you overlay a variation over time on. That to me is the "missing piece". They would not be applied accross the board to ALL a players stats, just a subset. And different stats might have different trajetories.

These sort of "seasonal variations about the mean" could be overall sloped slightly positive, or slightly negative, or overlaid with a shallower sign fucntion that could be driven by teammates performace or some added personality traits to get a model for "team Chemistry" that has "feedback" but tends to be sinusoidal about a mean and hence "statistically neutral" stats wise, but reflects a reality that attention to the stats can key to (and the computer managers can be allowed to "guess right on purpose" at times if the AI manager is "good enough".

Complicated, but mathematically not that difficuly and potentially a way to add that "intangible" that allows teams to sometimes "play over their heads" because they synch up at the right time of the season and the manager reconizes it and rides along.

[Amaroq]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber
my take on it is that you don't want to actually change the ratings, but what you want are a number of different "variation curves" over the course of the season.

I wouldn't want to be paraphrased as saying that.

I'm actually thinking that, for players who are in the 'rapid growth' or 'rapid decline' stages of their careers, that I want the ratings to change over the course of the season. I want it to be possible for three months of AAA to be what is needed for a guy to really acquire the polish needed to succeed in the bigs; I want a *reason* that my April, July, September, and post-season rosters might *need* to be different.

However, your idea has brilliant merit of its own, and in fact most of those patterns could be represented with sine waves of different period and amplitude.

I think that, overlaid, those two together might create a very good model.

Obviously, the 'Lahman' question is problematic, and I imagine that there would be players who want to turn either or both off entirely (either for performance reasons, or for preference reasons).

[SittingDuck]

ok, i can see all that looking good.

[SittingDuck]

17 ballpark vectors!

Building the historical 60's ballparks, I realize just how completely vital this is, and it will give us a much more honest physics model for statistics.

[HighandOutside1]

The only things stopping me from making the complete switch to Puresim from OOTP are some of the mechanics missing in this game. Note: These observations come from just playing around with the demo and they could be wrong. 

1. To me the most important part of a baseball simulation is the in-game experience. To that end, I'd like to see the picture, player and line-up cards emphasize stats much more than ratings. DMB and OOTP 6.5 do this well.

2. I'd love the option to toggle off ratings completely. I want to learn about players through their stats. Billy Beane doesn't have ratings, he makes his choices based on a players statistical history.  

3. I don't see a bunt rating, GB% for pitchers or a pull/spray rating for hitters. These ratings can be important for setting up a team to suit a particular stadium and they just add depth to the game.

4. I'd like to see a "warm up pitchers" option. This dramatically adds to strategy.

5. I'd like to see the option to have the base coach's completely control baserunning. A manager does not tell a baserunner when to tag. The base coaches do this. It would be cool if I could toggle the aggresiveness based on the situation however. For example, late in the game I may want to signal to my coaches to be more aggressive.

Overall, a fantastic game. I hope shaun decides to continue to strengthen the little things, rather than trying to add huge new features. We saw what trying to bite off more than one can chew did to OOTP.   

[SittingDuck]

Really good suggestions.  #5 is very unique and I like the concept.  I also think you'd want to add a baserunning attitude to each player - aggressive, passive, idiotic, whatever.  That in conjuction with the baserunning coaches are good stuff.  I think that would be a major step up for game management.

I also agree totally with #3, and we had talked about the GB% thing in another thread.  It's an important part of understanding a pitcher type, in lieu of pitch types thrown (sinker, curve, etc).

Warm-up pitchers!  One of the smartest things about FPS BBpro!  Yes indeed.

I like the route of being capable of turning off ratings.  I think this would be a strong option for some owners.  I personally look at the 'ratings' as a stripped down numerical sum of what the coaching/scouting staff has determined on the player.  Without ratings or some type of verbiage feedback, you are actually working with less than any manager ever has, Beane included.  Because he does have feedback and assessments to look at, as well as HS/College stats.  Some have talked about having amateurs with school stats and it is an interesting concept.  But basically, you must have something.  Even for a 35 yo HoF slugger, there is still spring training and the eyes-on assessment that a manager has.  We can't get this via a computer game.

But absolutely great suggestions.  I hope many, if not all, become a part of the game.