PureSim 2008 Design Discussion thread
Moderator: puresimmer
-
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:39 pm
- Contact:
PureSim 2008 Design Discussion thread
I'd like to use this thread to post some of my internal design docs and run ideas by you guys.
Developer, PureSim Baseball
-
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:39 pm
- Contact:
First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
Here is some stuff pasted directly from my notes on the design I am implementing around 40 man rosters, minor league contracts, September call-ups etc. Sorry about the formatting, I use Microsoft OneNote to organize my thoughts, so this is just pasted directly from there.
Let me know what you think.
PureSim 2008 will have a significantly re-worked financial and contract model. The following features are being introduced:
?› 40 Man Roster
?› September Call-Ups
?› Minor League Contracts
?› Minor League Eligibility Years (Think of this as a greatly simplified way of approaching the dynamic introduced with the overly complex "Options" rules in MLB. Its not really the same as options per se, but will result in a somewhat simpler enforcement of the fact that we don't want teams to be able to hoard players in the minors.
There are multiple goals for these features. First we want to introduce more interesting decisions to the human players. Secondly with the 40 man roster we'll get September call ups which will be a cool way for players to do some better talent evaluation and get more exposure to identify with their younger crop of players. In addition, by having the notion of "Minor League Contracts" we'll bring down the size of teams' overall payrolls to more "realistic" levels.
Coding risks and implications (Feature classified as HIGH RISK)
Core promotion/demotion AI will really have to be significantly re-worked
The impact on the games financial model will be huge
Initial draft AI post-round 40 will need new logic
Post season / release AI impact will be significant
A new AI module will need to be built specifically around managing the 40-man roster
40 Man Roster
In associations with greater than 35 player roster sizes (50-60) each team will have to manage a 40 man roster. This feature will ONLY be available for newly created associations. PureSim 2007 associations can be upgraded to PS 2008, but they will not be able to take advantage of this feature.
The way it will work is each team has a 40 man roster. There will be a new screen introduced to doing 40 man roster maintenance. Teams MUST have 40 players on the 40 man roster at all times. Players on the 40 man roster MUST receive a major league contract. Once a player signs a major league contract (e.g. the first time they are placed on the 40 man roster they can no longer be assigned a minor league contract salary level). Players on the 40 man roster can be on either the major league or minor league roster as long as they have minor league eligibility years remaining.
September Call-ups
As of Sep 1st (or the appropriately adjusted date based on the number of games the association schedule is configured for) team's major league rosters are expanded from 25 to 40 players. Any player currently on the 40 man roster may be called up to the majors for a total of 40 players available in major league games.
Minor League Eligibility Years
Players may only spend a total of 6 years with a status of Minor League Contract. In the 7th year, assuming the owner does not promote them to the 40 man roster, they are automatically assigned to the free agent pool and their salary demand is recalculated in standard fashion. Once a player reaches 0 minor league eligibility years they can never be placed on a minor league roster again. The "Minor League Eligibility Years:" is calculated by starting at 6 and decrementing by 1 in each season where a player appears in at least one minor league game.
Minor league contracts are reserve clause in nature, meaning the player is owned completely by the team that signs him to the minor league contract for the duration of his minor league eligibility years.
The minor league eligibility years for a player is global, meaning it does not reset if a player changes teams.
Understanding the "Minor League Contract"
The minor league contract has minimal impact on a team's overall payroll considerations. The minor league contract is a time-period adjusted minimum salary paid to all minor league players. This minimum can be periodically increased as a season moves from the early days into the modern baseball era. The base value (assuming an association starting in 2007) is $25,000 x [Financial Scale] where [Financial Scale] is a dynamic multiplier based on the year. (For 2007 [Financial Scale] = 1
What this means is in a 60-man roster association, teams will only be spending ~$500,000 total for all players not on the 40 man roster.
Initial Draft
In the initial draft, the first 40 rounds will be "Normal" meaning they will be run just like PS 2007. As of round 41 the game will announce that the next X rounds will constitute the Minor League draft.
We'll need a report/screen that a team can view to quickly and easily see the status of their players' eligibility years remaining.
Ammy Draft
Any players taken in the ammy draft are automatically signed to minor league contracts.
Let me know what you think.
PureSim 2008 will have a significantly re-worked financial and contract model. The following features are being introduced:
?› 40 Man Roster
?› September Call-Ups
?› Minor League Contracts
?› Minor League Eligibility Years (Think of this as a greatly simplified way of approaching the dynamic introduced with the overly complex "Options" rules in MLB. Its not really the same as options per se, but will result in a somewhat simpler enforcement of the fact that we don't want teams to be able to hoard players in the minors.
There are multiple goals for these features. First we want to introduce more interesting decisions to the human players. Secondly with the 40 man roster we'll get September call ups which will be a cool way for players to do some better talent evaluation and get more exposure to identify with their younger crop of players. In addition, by having the notion of "Minor League Contracts" we'll bring down the size of teams' overall payrolls to more "realistic" levels.
Coding risks and implications (Feature classified as HIGH RISK)
Core promotion/demotion AI will really have to be significantly re-worked
The impact on the games financial model will be huge
Initial draft AI post-round 40 will need new logic
Post season / release AI impact will be significant
A new AI module will need to be built specifically around managing the 40-man roster
40 Man Roster
In associations with greater than 35 player roster sizes (50-60) each team will have to manage a 40 man roster. This feature will ONLY be available for newly created associations. PureSim 2007 associations can be upgraded to PS 2008, but they will not be able to take advantage of this feature.
The way it will work is each team has a 40 man roster. There will be a new screen introduced to doing 40 man roster maintenance. Teams MUST have 40 players on the 40 man roster at all times. Players on the 40 man roster MUST receive a major league contract. Once a player signs a major league contract (e.g. the first time they are placed on the 40 man roster they can no longer be assigned a minor league contract salary level). Players on the 40 man roster can be on either the major league or minor league roster as long as they have minor league eligibility years remaining.
September Call-ups
As of Sep 1st (or the appropriately adjusted date based on the number of games the association schedule is configured for) team's major league rosters are expanded from 25 to 40 players. Any player currently on the 40 man roster may be called up to the majors for a total of 40 players available in major league games.
Minor League Eligibility Years
Players may only spend a total of 6 years with a status of Minor League Contract. In the 7th year, assuming the owner does not promote them to the 40 man roster, they are automatically assigned to the free agent pool and their salary demand is recalculated in standard fashion. Once a player reaches 0 minor league eligibility years they can never be placed on a minor league roster again. The "Minor League Eligibility Years:" is calculated by starting at 6 and decrementing by 1 in each season where a player appears in at least one minor league game.
Minor league contracts are reserve clause in nature, meaning the player is owned completely by the team that signs him to the minor league contract for the duration of his minor league eligibility years.
The minor league eligibility years for a player is global, meaning it does not reset if a player changes teams.
Understanding the "Minor League Contract"
The minor league contract has minimal impact on a team's overall payroll considerations. The minor league contract is a time-period adjusted minimum salary paid to all minor league players. This minimum can be periodically increased as a season moves from the early days into the modern baseball era. The base value (assuming an association starting in 2007) is $25,000 x [Financial Scale] where [Financial Scale] is a dynamic multiplier based on the year. (For 2007 [Financial Scale] = 1
What this means is in a 60-man roster association, teams will only be spending ~$500,000 total for all players not on the 40 man roster.
Initial Draft
In the initial draft, the first 40 rounds will be "Normal" meaning they will be run just like PS 2007. As of round 41 the game will announce that the next X rounds will constitute the Minor League draft.
We'll need a report/screen that a team can view to quickly and easily see the status of their players' eligibility years remaining.
Ammy Draft
Any players taken in the ammy draft are automatically signed to minor league contracts.
Developer, PureSim Baseball
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:28 pm
- Contact:
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
Shaun, this looks great. It looks like PS2008 will be better than ever.
Steve
Steve
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
>>> This feature will ONLY be available for newly created associations. PureSim 2007 associations can be upgraded to PS 2008, but they will not be able to take advantage of this feature
Are you firm on this? I'm disappointed by this for two reasons:
1) I've been using the same association since PS 2004, upgrading through the new versions as they come out. I want to continue to do so for 2008, and I'd >>really<< like to be able to go for this new roster model. It sounds like a real winner.
2) I'm inferring that this feature is optional. This means that the AI will have to support both the current model and the new model. You mention in your notes the challenges to the AI to support the new model. It will be even more challenging to support two different models with the same AI. And, my prediction is that the effort on the AI will all go into the new model instead of the old (assuming the feature ends up being as exciting as I predict it will be), ultimately making PS2008 a step back compared to PS2007 for people like me who want to continue forward with their current associations.
If you could figure out a way to migrate an old association to the new financial model, that would likely be the difference maker for me in my purchase decision.
Bob
Are you firm on this? I'm disappointed by this for two reasons:
1) I've been using the same association since PS 2004, upgrading through the new versions as they come out. I want to continue to do so for 2008, and I'd >>really<< like to be able to go for this new roster model. It sounds like a real winner.
2) I'm inferring that this feature is optional. This means that the AI will have to support both the current model and the new model. You mention in your notes the challenges to the AI to support the new model. It will be even more challenging to support two different models with the same AI. And, my prediction is that the effort on the AI will all go into the new model instead of the old (assuming the feature ends up being as exciting as I predict it will be), ultimately making PS2008 a step back compared to PS2007 for people like me who want to continue forward with their current associations.
If you could figure out a way to migrate an old association to the new financial model, that would likely be the difference maker for me in my purchase decision.
Bob
Bob
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
This is a great idea, I love it. I cant wait to see 2008.
The Yankee Motto:
Use it up,
Wear it out,
Make do,
Or do without.
"God Help us, and God, come yourself.
Don't send Jesus, this is no place for children."
Use it up,
Wear it out,
Make do,
Or do without.
"God Help us, and God, come yourself.
Don't send Jesus, this is no place for children."
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
Once a player reaches 0 minor league eligibility years they can never be placed on a minor league roster again.
I think I understand why you are doing this, but I don't know if I agree with this for one reason. With the way that peak years works in the development model some players should be in AAA still in their 7th season to develop in the most optimum fashion.
Isn't playing in AAA and at least having the chance to be called up better then being a free agent? Shouldn't some free agents be willing to take the minor league contract and be assigned to the minors. Maybe they would only take one year deals and automatically become free agents at the end of every season, but there might be some sort of workaround here...
I see the value in not allowing veterans to be assigned, so that you don't see your league's stars playing out their careers in the minors as they age.
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
I should have started by saying I'm happy to be hearing about PS 08.
Is the draft going to be an area where there is work done? I think that after the financials there is a huge opportunity to improve the game in this area. The FOF 2007 draft is amazing, that would be a great model to steal ideas from.
Is the draft going to be an area where there is work done? I think that after the financials there is a huge opportunity to improve the game in this area. The FOF 2007 draft is amazing, that would be a great model to steal ideas from.
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
I've been lobbying for an AI that would, through the Lahman dB, more closely parallel real players' actual ABs and IPs for a season. The implementation of the 40-man roster with September call-ups might get close to what I'm looking for.
It probably goes without saying, but how teams use these call-ups would depend on several factors:
(1) A team in the midst of a pennant race would be less likely to use their young (low-rated) players.
(2) Teams who have huge September leads or are already eliminiated from postseason would use these players more than the norm.
(3) Teams with many players in the last year of their contracts would, I presume, give more of a look to those call-ups, expecting that they would be losing some players in the off-season.
All these factors I mentioned revolve around the function where AI "Auto Adjusts" rosters and lineups. Shaun, I recall your reluctance to add the September call-ups in the past. Thanks for tackling this. I think I remember you saying it was a very difficult thing to code. I appreciate the effort. May you and yours have a happy and blessed holiday season.
It probably goes without saying, but how teams use these call-ups would depend on several factors:
(1) A team in the midst of a pennant race would be less likely to use their young (low-rated) players.
(2) Teams who have huge September leads or are already eliminiated from postseason would use these players more than the norm.
(3) Teams with many players in the last year of their contracts would, I presume, give more of a look to those call-ups, expecting that they would be losing some players in the off-season.
All these factors I mentioned revolve around the function where AI "Auto Adjusts" rosters and lineups. Shaun, I recall your reluctance to add the September call-ups in the past. Thanks for tackling this. I think I remember you saying it was a very difficult thing to code. I appreciate the effort. May you and yours have a happy and blessed holiday season.
"Better to sleep with old hen than pullet" - Redd Foxx
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
Sweet - thanks for the detailed update, Shaun.
I must say, I'm very excited by what you've decribed, and though - unsurprisingly - I have a few points of feedback, on the whole it sounds like an excellent step forwards for the game.
I'd think that "Decrementing by 1 in each season" period, full stop, would be sufficient.
Options, of course, are more like "Years that a player already on a big-league-contract can be sent to the minor leagues", and in that scenario requiring a game played at the minor-league level makes good sense.. but that's not what you're implementing.
This is technically not correct. IRL, teams may have no more than 40 players, but may choose to have fewer.
I think both AI and human players will want to be able to carry fewer than 40 in some situations - among other things, imagine the case where I have 39 on the 40-man roster, plus two bright young prospects, one a pitcher, and one a hitter. Both are in AAA, on minor-league contracts, and are ready for some spot appearances in the bigs. I might want to wait until I see a rash of injuries, and promote the one who corresponds to the position the injuries are in. If I'm forced to promote one at the start of the season, then I'm in a position where, if I guessed wrong, I'll have to cut or otherwise move one of my existing 40-man roster to make room for the second. If I'm not forced to act early, I have more flexibility deeper into the season.
More flexibility is always a good thing - and the AI should in some regards play to maintain its flexibility at least up through the trade deadline.
Obviously, that introduces the possibility of a team getting "stuck" with 41 players on the 40-man roster (if they signed/promoted to replace their DL'ed player). That shouldn't be any worse than checks such as 'Am I over 25 big-leaguers', etc.
It might be easier on the user to do this by having the minor-league season end on August 30th, and auto-promote all the players on 40-man rosters to the bigs. Is there any reason to force UI-input on the player in this case?
I'd expect the AI to bring up all 40 players, and possibly even to promote a few minor-league contracts to major-league contracts in order to get playing time for those players, if its below 40. (In my example from earlier, on September 1st I would pick either my hitter or my pitchers and 'commit', giving him a major-league contract so that I could call him up, if I hadn't had my hand forced earlier in the season.)
However, you might consider making veteran players who are eligible for free agency at the end of the free-agent auction rounds THEN become willing to sign minor-league contracts, for one year - and have that action add one to their minor-league eligibility.
AI teams might stockpile older players prior to Spring Training, using that: with a 60-man roster limit, almost every non-scrub might be signed, bringing most teams up to 70+ players. At the end of Spring Training, teams take a second pass to consider how much players have changed due to Spring Training... and most of these "non-roster invitees" will wind up waived again prior to Game 1.. but some might 'stick'.
For the AI teams, after Spring Training they would pick their first 25 by 'current skill', with the remainder of the lineup considered from the perspective of 'assume maximum development/growth', with a hard cap against keeping any player outside of the top 35 who is over the age of 30, perhaps.
Its obviously added complexity, possibly a post-launch patch feature rather than an initial release feature?
I think what I want most is a full-size screen that looks something like this:
Drop-down (Catchers, Infielders, Outfielders, Starting Pitchers, Relief Pitchers, Hitters, Pitchers)
Then, sortable column headers:
(MLE = Minor League eligibilty years)
or
for pitchers.
One key concept there is its a place to make a very detailed comparison between a player on the major-league roster with a player on the minor-league roster, or two compare two candidates for the 40-man roster.
The default sort order would be primary by Level, secondary by (40?) and tertiary by age, perhaps, and pressing another button would shift the secondary sort to tertiary, and the primary to secondary.
It would remember the three sort orders even when a change is made (e.g., a player promoted or demoted).
It would reload when other dialogs are closed (so that, if I make a roster move while looking at a player card, when I close the player card I will see this screen refreshed to the correct/current state).
The screen would have "Assign to" buttons for each of the "Levels" - MLB, AAA, AA, A, DL.
It should also include a "Sign to big-league-contract" button for players not currently on the 40-man roster,
"Offer contract" button for players currently on a big-league contract,
Place on DL button for injured players,
Restore from DL button for players on the DL.
Ideally, if it also included some of the current information about roster makeup, e.g.,
Players at position - MLB, 40, AAA, AA, A, DL
Players on this screen - MLB, 40, AAA, AA, A, DL
Total hitters - MLB, 40, AAA, AA, A, DL
Total pitchers - MLB, 40, AAA, AA, A, DL
Salary total + salary cap
That feature-set would make it THE place to consider most roster moves: from promoting or demoting throughout the season, managing the 40-man roster, placing players on/off the DL, all the way to other major decisions such as re-signing players for future seasons.
"Minor league contract: N years elgibility"
as one of the rows. You could do something like this for determining N:
- players 19 and under get 6 years eligibility
- players age 20 to 24 have (25-age) years eligibility
- players 25 and over have no minor-league eligilibity.
If you wanted to get fancy, you could have no players willing to accept minor-league contracts in the first 20 rounds, with young players willing to accept minor-league contracts for N years from round 21 onwards, and veterans (25 and over) willing to accept a 1-year minor-league contract after round 40.
You could also do the same thing for subsequent amateur drafts. Maybe 1st-round picks always want major-league contracts, 2nd-4th are willing to accept either, and by the 5th round players are only asking for minor-league contracts?
Let AI teams always sign young players to minor-league contracts
if possible, and deal with promoting them to the bigs at Spring
Training, or if needed.
Bob makes some very salient points in his response - I agree with the difficulty of supporting both modes of play; not easy from a technical perspective. You might well be best suited to tackle the upgrade path.
If you work the roster limits and drafts as I have described, you'll be supporting less-than 40 players, and you'll have AI code which 'promotes' players to major-league contracts as needed.
That lets you upgrade associations by putting all players currently in the majors on a big-league contract, and all players currently in the minors on a minor-league contract.
Use the '25-age' minor-league eligibility formula for all players at all levels, but ensure any player currently in the minors or with a minor-league game played thus far this season, gets 1 year of minor-league eligibility.
Let both the AI teams and human players 'manually' promote the players they need/want to, when they need/want to.
It sounds workable.
There's a fourth factor I'd like to see, taking 'young callups' into account for in-game management.
Blowout leads should result in both teams making wholesale changes to their rosters, essentially abandoning today's game to get the youngsters some big-league experience. Obviously, if the trailing team is facing elimination, they might not go that route, but I was at a Giants-D'backs game a few years ago, and after the D'backs opened up an 8-1 lead in the top of the 8th, Alou sent in all of his September call-ups. When the Giants got a bit of a rally started in the 9th, we gave them a resounding chant of "Let's go, Fres-no" to make 'em feel at home. [;)]
With a mid-size lead, teams will use the call-ups as pinch-hitters when PH for the pitcher.
Similarly, some slight preference should be given to the call-ups for certain decisions - I'm thinking specifically of "pinch runner", but I'm sure there are others, where its very common to see one of the younger players chosen even in a close game as a way to get him involved with little risk to the overall result.
. . .
Hope that's a help!
I must say, I'm very excited by what you've decribed, and though - unsurprisingly - I have a few points of feedback, on the whole it sounds like an excellent step forwards for the game.
This is added complexity, and may actually miss some of your intention. If I draft a 21-year-old, and he plays three years in the minors, and then I call him up to the majors as a 24-year-old, where he plays 13 seasons in the bigs... do we really want him serving out his remaining 3 years of minor-league eligibility at ages 37, 38, and 39?The "Minor League Eligibility Years:" is calculated by starting at 6 and decrementing by 1 in each season where a player appears in at least one minor league game.
I'd think that "Decrementing by 1 in each season" period, full stop, would be sufficient.
Options, of course, are more like "Years that a player already on a big-league-contract can be sent to the minor leagues", and in that scenario requiring a game played at the minor-league level makes good sense.. but that's not what you're implementing.
Teams MUST have 40 players on the 40 man roster at all times.
This is technically not correct. IRL, teams may have no more than 40 players, but may choose to have fewer.
I think both AI and human players will want to be able to carry fewer than 40 in some situations - among other things, imagine the case where I have 39 on the 40-man roster, plus two bright young prospects, one a pitcher, and one a hitter. Both are in AAA, on minor-league contracts, and are ready for some spot appearances in the bigs. I might want to wait until I see a rash of injuries, and promote the one who corresponds to the position the injuries are in. If I'm forced to promote one at the start of the season, then I'm in a position where, if I guessed wrong, I'll have to cut or otherwise move one of my existing 40-man roster to make room for the second. If I'm not forced to act early, I have more flexibility deeper into the season.
More flexibility is always a good thing - and the AI should in some regards play to maintain its flexibility at least up through the trade deadline.
You don't mention the D.L. in this document. IRL, the big advantage to the 60-day D.L. is that it frees up a space on the 40-man roster. A trip to the 15-day DL simply frees up space on the 25-man roster. Can we see that implemented?Disabled List
Obviously, that introduces the possibility of a team getting "stuck" with 41 players on the 40-man roster (if they signed/promoted to replace their DL'ed player). That shouldn't be any worse than checks such as 'Am I over 25 big-leaguers', etc.
That implies a manual action to call up the minor-leaguers?September Call-ups
Any player currently on the 40 man roster may be called up to the majors for a total of 40 players available in major league games.
It might be easier on the user to do this by having the minor-league season end on August 30th, and auto-promote all the players on 40-man rosters to the bigs. Is there any reason to force UI-input on the player in this case?
I'd expect the AI to bring up all 40 players, and possibly even to promote a few minor-league contracts to major-league contracts in order to get playing time for those players, if its below 40. (In my example from earlier, on September 1st I would pick either my hitter or my pitchers and 'commit', giving him a major-league contract so that I could call him up, if I hadn't had my hand forced earlier in the season.)
I can see Lynchjm's point - and one thing this system doesn't do is allow for 'career minor leaguers'. I'm not sure that's necessary, and I don't think I'd want the AI teams doing it - their preference for older players was part of what made the old 'Veteran?' boolean so complicated, as they'd wind up with too many Veterans.Isn't playing in AAA and at least having the chance to be called up better then being a free agent? Shouldn't some free agents be willing to take the minor league contract and be assigned to the minors. Maybe they would only take one year deals and automatically become free agents at the end of every season, but there might be some sort of workaround here...
However, you might consider making veteran players who are eligible for free agency at the end of the free-agent auction rounds THEN become willing to sign minor-league contracts, for one year - and have that action add one to their minor-league eligibility.
AI teams might stockpile older players prior to Spring Training, using that: with a 60-man roster limit, almost every non-scrub might be signed, bringing most teams up to 70+ players. At the end of Spring Training, teams take a second pass to consider how much players have changed due to Spring Training... and most of these "non-roster invitees" will wind up waived again prior to Game 1.. but some might 'stick'.
For the AI teams, after Spring Training they would pick their first 25 by 'current skill', with the remainder of the lineup considered from the perspective of 'assume maximum development/growth', with a hard cap against keeping any player outside of the top 35 who is over the age of 30, perhaps.
Its obviously added complexity, possibly a post-launch patch feature rather than an initial release feature?
Can we re-think the existing Minor-League screen, as well?We'll need a report/screen that a team can view to quickly and easily see the status of their players' eligibility years remaining.
I think what I want most is a full-size screen that looks something like this:
Drop-down (Catchers, Infielders, Outfielders, Starting Pitchers, Relief Pitchers, Hitters, Pitchers)
Then, sortable column headers:
Code: Select all
Player name | Pos-1 | Pos-2 | Age | Arrow | 40? | Level | Contract | Yrs Left | MLE | Bats | Con | Pow | Eye | Spd | Hnd | Arm | Rng | AB | Avg | OBP | HR | RBI
(MLE = Minor League eligibilty years)
or
Code: Select all
Player name | PitcherType | Throws | Age | Arrow | 40? | Level | Contract | Yrs Left | MLE | Stf | Vel | Con | End | Hnd | IP | K | W | L | SV | ERA
for pitchers.
One key concept there is its a place to make a very detailed comparison between a player on the major-league roster with a player on the minor-league roster, or two compare two candidates for the 40-man roster.
The default sort order would be primary by Level, secondary by (40?) and tertiary by age, perhaps, and pressing another button would shift the secondary sort to tertiary, and the primary to secondary.
It would remember the three sort orders even when a change is made (e.g., a player promoted or demoted).
It would reload when other dialogs are closed (so that, if I make a roster move while looking at a player card, when I close the player card I will see this screen refreshed to the correct/current state).
The screen would have "Assign to" buttons for each of the "Levels" - MLB, AAA, AA, A, DL.
It should also include a "Sign to big-league-contract" button for players not currently on the 40-man roster,
"Offer contract" button for players currently on a big-league contract,
Place on DL button for injured players,
Restore from DL button for players on the DL.
Ideally, if it also included some of the current information about roster makeup, e.g.,
Players at position - MLB, 40, AAA, AA, A, DL
Players on this screen - MLB, 40, AAA, AA, A, DL
Total hitters - MLB, 40, AAA, AA, A, DL
Total pitchers - MLB, 40, AAA, AA, A, DL
Salary total + salary cap
That feature-set would make it THE place to consider most roster moves: from promoting or demoting throughout the season, managing the 40-man roster, placing players on/off the DL, all the way to other major decisions such as re-signing players for future seasons.
I'm not sure that 'works' - I know when I'm drafting in the current game, I'll take flyers on high-potential youngsters earlier than round 40, and in fact will 'flush out' my major-league roster with a few picks in late rounds. I'd like to maintain that sort of flexibility, which might look more like adding a contract optionInitial Draft
In the initial draft, the first 40 rounds will be "Normal" meaning they will be run just like PS 2007. As of round 41 the game will announce that the next X rounds will constitute the Minor League draft.
"Minor league contract: N years elgibility"
as one of the rows. You could do something like this for determining N:
- players 19 and under get 6 years eligibility
- players age 20 to 24 have (25-age) years eligibility
- players 25 and over have no minor-league eligilibity.
If you wanted to get fancy, you could have no players willing to accept minor-league contracts in the first 20 rounds, with young players willing to accept minor-league contracts for N years from round 21 onwards, and veterans (25 and over) willing to accept a 1-year minor-league contract after round 40.
You could also do the same thing for subsequent amateur drafts. Maybe 1st-round picks always want major-league contracts, 2nd-4th are willing to accept either, and by the 5th round players are only asking for minor-league contracts?
Let AI teams always sign young players to minor-league contracts
if possible, and deal with promoting them to the bigs at Spring
Training, or if needed.
It will be even more challenging to support two different models with the same AI.
Bob makes some very salient points in his response - I agree with the difficulty of supporting both modes of play; not easy from a technical perspective. You might well be best suited to tackle the upgrade path.
If you work the roster limits and drafts as I have described, you'll be supporting less-than 40 players, and you'll have AI code which 'promotes' players to major-league contracts as needed.
That lets you upgrade associations by putting all players currently in the majors on a big-league contract, and all players currently in the minors on a minor-league contract.
Use the '25-age' minor-league eligibility formula for all players at all levels, but ensure any player currently in the minors or with a minor-league game played thus far this season, gets 1 year of minor-league eligibility.
Let both the AI teams and human players 'manually' promote the players they need/want to, when they need/want to.
It sounds workable.
It probably goes without saying, but how teams use these call-ups would depend on several factors: (list of 3)
There's a fourth factor I'd like to see, taking 'young callups' into account for in-game management.
Blowout leads should result in both teams making wholesale changes to their rosters, essentially abandoning today's game to get the youngsters some big-league experience. Obviously, if the trailing team is facing elimination, they might not go that route, but I was at a Giants-D'backs game a few years ago, and after the D'backs opened up an 8-1 lead in the top of the 8th, Alou sent in all of his September call-ups. When the Giants got a bit of a rally started in the 9th, we gave them a resounding chant of "Let's go, Fres-no" to make 'em feel at home. [;)]
With a mid-size lead, teams will use the call-ups as pinch-hitters when PH for the pitcher.
Similarly, some slight preference should be given to the call-ups for certain decisions - I'm thinking specifically of "pinch runner", but I'm sure there are others, where its very common to see one of the younger players chosen even in a close game as a way to get him involved with little risk to the overall result.
. . .
Hope that's a help!
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
I like the proposed changes, but I'd also like to suggest an additional related change, and that is the Rookie of the Year criteria. Right now, a player is only eligible for Rookie of the Year in the first year that he plays in the majors. So if you call up a promising youngster to be an injury fill-in for a week, then send him down, he's lost any chance of being Rookie of the Year in his first full season. Adding September call-ups will make the problem worse. I'd like to see PureSim's definition of a rookie be closer to the current MLB criteria (fewer than 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the major leagues and fewer than 45 days on a major league roster).
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
As always Amaroq, you put many of us to shame with your insight.
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
Thank you, my friend. Not my intention, I've just been thinking about this genre for 20+ years, now, and have 8+ years of professional game design experience.ORIGINAL: lynchjm24
As always Amaroq, you put many of us to shame with your insight.

Speaking of 'put to shame', I'm shocked that I missed that. [:D]ORIGINAL: acm14850
I like the proposed changes, but I'd also like to suggest an additional related change, and that is the Rookie of the Year criteria. Right now, a player is only eligible for Rookie of the Year in the first year that he plays in the majors. So if you call up a promising youngster to be an injury fill-in for a week, then send him down, he's lost any chance of being Rookie of the Year in his first full season. Adding September call-ups will make the problem worse. I'd like to see PureSim's definition of a rookie be closer to the current MLB criteria (fewer than 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the major leagues and fewer than 45 days on a major league roster).
Yes, I'd consider that fairly high on the list of requirements, probably below D.L. and September, but above my proposed draft strategy and lynchjm's additional-minor-league-free agency in my mind.
The 45 days clause, however, might give people a reason why they wouldn't want to auto-call-up everybody on the 40-man roster. (Trying to preserve 'rookie' status.) Maybe AB's and IP's would be sufficient?
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
I certainly think that a slight revamp of the awards would be a nice upgrade, but that seems much easier then anything else that Shaun might be trying to do in his post.
I wouldn't want to auto call up all 40 players on the roster. Honestly I'm not even sure why the 40 man roster is really needed if you only have players for 6 minor league years. It seems you are defeating the same problem twice. Now expanding to any 40 makes sense to me, but without waivers and a rule 5 type draft I'm not even sure why a 40 man roster makes sense.
I wouldn't want to auto call up all 40 players on the roster. Honestly I'm not even sure why the 40 man roster is really needed if you only have players for 6 minor league years. It seems you are defeating the same problem twice. Now expanding to any 40 makes sense to me, but without waivers and a rule 5 type draft I'm not even sure why a 40 man roster makes sense.
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
ORIGINAL: lynchjm24
As always Amaroq, you put many of us to shame with your insight.
I was actually posting the exact same thing at the exact same time, but decided to let Amaroq take the credit! [:D]
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
[:D]ORIGINAL: sposfan
I was actually posting the exact same thing at the exact same time, but decided to let Amaroq take the credit!
I'm quite tired this evening, so when I first read lynchjm's "I'm not sure why the 40-man roster is really needed if you only have players for 6 minor league years" post, I had no response.
IRL, the 40-man roster serves 2 purposes
1. Players must be on the 40-man roster to be named to the 25-man roster, to the 40-man roster during September, or to the 25-man playoff roster.
2. Players on the 40-man roster are protected from the Rule 5 draft.
As lynchjm says, without Rule 5, the 40-man roster doesn't feel quite as limiting.
Thinking about it, here are the 'impacts' I came up with, which stem from Shaun's original proposal.
1. Waivers are almost implied: if you sign a 41st player, you will have to release somebody to make room. It might not be the formal, inverse-order waivers process MLB uses, but a 40-man roster ensures that releases will happen.
2. The 40-man roster makes it more difficult to arrange a "Major-leaguer for minor-leaguer" trade. If both teams are both at exactly 40 men, the team receiving the trade would need to waive somebody to make room.
Corrolaries:
- a. The AI will need to keep that in mind.
- b. That's another argument for letting teams sit under the 40-man limit, if desired, as it gives them a lot more trade flexibility.
But, here's another thought:
Rule 5 is *essentially* the ability to offer a major-league contract to your opponents' minor leaguers who have played more than 3 minor-league seasons. (In essence, you have to guarantee a spot on your 25-man roster to a player who didn't have a spot on the other team's 40-man roster, but .. close enough.)
What if we simply opened that up: no official 'draft', but the ability to "poach" players
a.) on a minor-league contract, and
b.) with 3 or fewer MLE years remaining
by offering them a major-league contract (and a spot on your 40-man roster).
The player still has accept/reject ability.
It could be limited to occur *during free agency*. (The real Rule 5 draft is over winter)
AI teams would have to be aggressive about ensuring that they sign their top prospects to major-league contracts rather than exposing them to poaching in that way.
In a no-financials league, this wouldn't be possible.
I haven't given this a thorough think-through, but I wanted to see if it "makes sense" to people, and if it sounds like a reasonable implementation.
RE: First topic: 40 Man rosters etc...
ORIGINAL: Amaroq
What if we simply opened that up: no official 'draft', but the ability to "poach" players
a.) on a minor-league contract, and
b.) with 3 or fewer MLE years remaining
by offering them a major-league contract (and a spot on your 40-man roster).
The player still has accept/reject ability.
It could be limited to occur *during free agency*. (The real Rule 5 draft is over winter)
AI teams would have to be aggressive about ensuring that they sign their top prospects to major-league contracts rather than exposing them to poaching in that way.
In a no-financials league, this wouldn't be possible.
I haven't given this a thorough think-through, but I wanted to see if it "makes sense" to people, and if it sounds like a reasonable implementation.
Unless there is going to be a rule 5 look-a-like draft, then the more I think about it the less sense it makes to have a 40 man roster. Why force the AI into even more decisions then necessary?
It's just going to be another way to exploit in single player.
Otherwise why not just open up the rosters to *any* 40 on 9/1 - and allow *any* 25 on the playoff roster. For all intents and purposes the major league rules pretty much allow anyone on to the playoff rosters at this point.
- jeremy7227
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:45 pm
- Contact:
RE: PureSim 2008 Design Discussion thread
Great thoughts for '08 so far. You are the James Brown of software developers, hardest working man in the biz.
I'd like to see an online head to head play option that could be incorporated into the more robust online league features. This is not so much a request of you but I guess also a challenge to the community to create some more leagues and help get the buzz out tot he baseball gaming public. With an online h2h option gamers start interacting and sharing game experiences, the board is good at this but the posts are just uncorroborated anecdotes. H2H makes memories of pennant races and crazy strategy that surprises and amazes which transcend the game itself. You don't need to mimic the depth of SOM or the arcade play of EA to create a rich experience that makes two guys want to play h2h.
The other area that would really make me happy to see fixed is the expansion draft logic. I love what you did in PS07 to allow for custom expansion realignment. But the draft is still broken. Sometimes not all of the teams participate in the draft. While always the drafted players are scrubs and better FA are left undrafted. Also only the human owned team loses 5 minor league players but those players just go to the FA pool and not to one of the expansion clubs. So it's busted but it can be managed by manually building expansion team rosters. In PS08 I hope to see it working to the full potential.
To the other posters, PS08's success shouldn't just be on Shaun. Let's keep our posts frequent and constructive during the beta. Also, if you have lots of experience in some particular aspect of the game, wiki it. Tutorials for editing the XML, writing add ons, editing the lahman db (say to force import to add NNL players and force Babe Ruth to enter as an OF in his true rookie season). And let's proselytize the game to the baseball gaming world at large through more online leagues and web resources.
Thanks again Shaun.
I'd like to see an online head to head play option that could be incorporated into the more robust online league features. This is not so much a request of you but I guess also a challenge to the community to create some more leagues and help get the buzz out tot he baseball gaming public. With an online h2h option gamers start interacting and sharing game experiences, the board is good at this but the posts are just uncorroborated anecdotes. H2H makes memories of pennant races and crazy strategy that surprises and amazes which transcend the game itself. You don't need to mimic the depth of SOM or the arcade play of EA to create a rich experience that makes two guys want to play h2h.
The other area that would really make me happy to see fixed is the expansion draft logic. I love what you did in PS07 to allow for custom expansion realignment. But the draft is still broken. Sometimes not all of the teams participate in the draft. While always the drafted players are scrubs and better FA are left undrafted. Also only the human owned team loses 5 minor league players but those players just go to the FA pool and not to one of the expansion clubs. So it's busted but it can be managed by manually building expansion team rosters. In PS08 I hope to see it working to the full potential.
To the other posters, PS08's success shouldn't just be on Shaun. Let's keep our posts frequent and constructive during the beta. Also, if you have lots of experience in some particular aspect of the game, wiki it. Tutorials for editing the XML, writing add ons, editing the lahman db (say to force import to add NNL players and force Babe Ruth to enter as an OF in his true rookie season). And let's proselytize the game to the baseball gaming world at large through more online leagues and web resources.
Thanks again Shaun.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:03 am
RE: PureSim 2008 Design Discussion thread
I have two things I would like to have considered for the 2008 version:
1--- One thing I would like to see concerns the initial association draft. Currently we have to do the whole draft at once. I would like to see a way to save at any particular round, and continue later.
I tend not to turn-over the drafting of my team to the AI. So my drafts for a new association can take a long time, as I like to compare ratings/age/salary/etc...and then make my decicsion.
2.--- Deleted by original poster - I realized the feature I originally asked for already worked correctly in current-version.
From reading Shawn's notes at the beginning of this thread, it sounds like he is going to create yet another outstanding game.
1--- One thing I would like to see concerns the initial association draft. Currently we have to do the whole draft at once. I would like to see a way to save at any particular round, and continue later.
I tend not to turn-over the drafting of my team to the AI. So my drafts for a new association can take a long time, as I like to compare ratings/age/salary/etc...and then make my decicsion.
2.--- Deleted by original poster - I realized the feature I originally asked for already worked correctly in current-version.
From reading Shawn's notes at the beginning of this thread, it sounds like he is going to create yet another outstanding game.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:39 pm
- Location: The Army--Ft. Sill, Ft. Polk, Ft. Meade, Reno
- Contact:
RE: PureSim 2008 Design Discussion thread
To expand the thoughts on the expansion draft from a previous post, I too would like to see it expanded and/or fixed. I've posted this before so sorry if it is redundant to some of the folks who have been around all year.
I would like the challenge of using a current day MLB set-up but then creating an expansion team to play in that league. This was best represented on a console game from a couple of years back called All Star Baseball 2005. Basically, it allowed you to pick a team city and name, league, and then draft unprotected players from all the other teams.
Right now, the expansion feature makes it very difficult to replicate this. First, with a modern day set up, the only options are to add 6-10 new teams (we need an option to add 1-2). Second, the player cannot make the picks themselves. The computer does it and has the faulty draft logic stated in a previous post. So even if you take control of that team after the draft, it is full of fictional players and bad fictional players at that.
I may be in the minority on playing this way, but I love the challenge of seeing how long it takes me to turn around a scrub team that I built from day one (as opposed to just playing as KC or TB). ASB started the expansion thing in 2003 and I remember that year that you had to use your first pick on Nick Johnson as a rookie or the veteran Robin Ventura to build your new franchise around as they were the two best players available and the other expansion team would pick the one you didn't. In later years they "cheated" a little putting too many good players in the draft to appease the fans but I would love to only be able to pick from the overpaid veterans or bench players no one has heard of.
Right now in PS07, I replaced a team (KC), dumped all the players, and picked my team from the other teams with no more than 2 picks per team, and protected 15 players (9 starting fielders, 3 starting pitchers, 1 closer, and the 2 best rookies not protected). This is a crude work around but I enjoyed the challenge.
Also, I play every game if that also helps for a point of reference.
If you could put this one feature in, you'd have a customer for life (of course, who am I fooling--I already am a customer for life!).
I would like the challenge of using a current day MLB set-up but then creating an expansion team to play in that league. This was best represented on a console game from a couple of years back called All Star Baseball 2005. Basically, it allowed you to pick a team city and name, league, and then draft unprotected players from all the other teams.
Right now, the expansion feature makes it very difficult to replicate this. First, with a modern day set up, the only options are to add 6-10 new teams (we need an option to add 1-2). Second, the player cannot make the picks themselves. The computer does it and has the faulty draft logic stated in a previous post. So even if you take control of that team after the draft, it is full of fictional players and bad fictional players at that.
I may be in the minority on playing this way, but I love the challenge of seeing how long it takes me to turn around a scrub team that I built from day one (as opposed to just playing as KC or TB). ASB started the expansion thing in 2003 and I remember that year that you had to use your first pick on Nick Johnson as a rookie or the veteran Robin Ventura to build your new franchise around as they were the two best players available and the other expansion team would pick the one you didn't. In later years they "cheated" a little putting too many good players in the draft to appease the fans but I would love to only be able to pick from the overpaid veterans or bench players no one has heard of.
Right now in PS07, I replaced a team (KC), dumped all the players, and picked my team from the other teams with no more than 2 picks per team, and protected 15 players (9 starting fielders, 3 starting pitchers, 1 closer, and the 2 best rookies not protected). This is a crude work around but I enjoyed the challenge.
Also, I play every game if that also helps for a point of reference.
If you could put this one feature in, you'd have a customer for life (of course, who am I fooling--I already am a customer for life!).
RE: PureSim 2008 Design Discussion thread
My suggestions for new features or suggested upgrades:
1. Online play!!
2. Further support and features for leagues.
3. Tighten the features and methods for those who enjoy historical replays.
4. Era specific XML files.
5. Allow for the printing of player cards for an entire active roster, with pictures.
1. Online play!!
2. Further support and features for leagues.
3. Tighten the features and methods for those who enjoy historical replays.
4. Era specific XML files.
5. Allow for the printing of player cards for an entire active roster, with pictures.
DNeely
PureSim Vet
PureSim Vet