 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball League Forums » Speed Leagues » Babe Ruth League » Variable Development System
Admin
I think you guys had some different distributions in mind? Meaning the % of players that are each curve? Let me know how I should set it up. I can give my input as well.
Thanks,
Tyson
Variable Development System
May 27, 2009 at 01:45PM View BBCode
We had all 16 owners vote to use the new system. I will try to get this setup for the next draft class.I think you guys had some different distributions in mind? Meaning the % of players that are each curve? Let me know how I should set it up. I can give my input as well.
Thanks,
Tyson
AllenMac
FIRST POINT - The individual player's variable development option shall remain HIDDEN. ([color=red]agreed?[/color])
Regular[color=red]45%[/color]
Young Major Leaguer [color=red]12%[/color]
Late Bloomer[color=red]12%[/color]
Enigma 1, Enigma 2, Enigma 3 [color=red]5%[/color]
Ageless Wonder [color=red]14%[/color]
Bust [color=red]3%[/color]
Gem [color=red]4%[/color]
Bust in Minors/Gem in Majors [color=red]0%[/color]
Gem in Minors/Bust in Majors [color=red]0%[/color]
Eureka 1, Eureka 2, Eureka 3 [color=red]5%[/color]
These percentages keep the current or standard development curve for 45% of new draftees. 12% for the young and older development curve - with 14% ageless wonder (a reasonable compromise between 10% and 20% - yes/no?) ONLY 3% "Busts" (and the associated frustration THAT will bring!), with 4% GEM - meaning not too many "superstuds" ... and 5% each on Eureka and Enigma ... meaning those guys will be haphazard in their development, enough to keep us all guessing ...
0% for Bust/Gem and Gem/Bust ... this I think would avoid the most uncertainty with any individual player, leading to the most frustration, especially IF the Gem in minors - BUST in majors happened to YOUR player ...
my thought process on this suggestion is that it provides some differences, spices up the game, but it should be reasonbly possible to figure out what type of player you have, and the percentages of the "new" and "unusual" types of development represents a smaller percentage of the overall talent pool ... and limits the "GEMS" to a reasonably small number ... kinda' like real baseball ...
PLEASE add your opinion to this suggestion ... obviously, there has to be SOME compromise ... no one is likely to get the EXACT percentages they think are "PERFECT" ... and we need to get a consensus ... so I hope everyone will be reasonably accomodating to everyone else's opinions ...
So, How does THIS look to EVERYONE???
PLEASE POST if you LOVE/HATE these, or if you would like to see changes, explain what the reasoning behind the change would be ... OK???
Suggested Percentages
May 27, 2009 at 02:17PM View BBCode
I suggested previously the percentages below. (based upon our discussions)FIRST POINT - The individual player's variable development option shall remain HIDDEN. ([color=red]agreed?[/color])
Regular[color=red]45%[/color]
Young Major Leaguer [color=red]12%[/color]
Late Bloomer[color=red]12%[/color]
Enigma 1, Enigma 2, Enigma 3 [color=red]5%[/color]
Ageless Wonder [color=red]14%[/color]
Bust [color=red]3%[/color]
Gem [color=red]4%[/color]
Bust in Minors/Gem in Majors [color=red]0%[/color]
Gem in Minors/Bust in Majors [color=red]0%[/color]
Eureka 1, Eureka 2, Eureka 3 [color=red]5%[/color]
These percentages keep the current or standard development curve for 45% of new draftees. 12% for the young and older development curve - with 14% ageless wonder (a reasonable compromise between 10% and 20% - yes/no?) ONLY 3% "Busts" (and the associated frustration THAT will bring!), with 4% GEM - meaning not too many "superstuds" ... and 5% each on Eureka and Enigma ... meaning those guys will be haphazard in their development, enough to keep us all guessing ...
0% for Bust/Gem and Gem/Bust ... this I think would avoid the most uncertainty with any individual player, leading to the most frustration, especially IF the Gem in minors - BUST in majors happened to YOUR player ...
my thought process on this suggestion is that it provides some differences, spices up the game, but it should be reasonbly possible to figure out what type of player you have, and the percentages of the "new" and "unusual" types of development represents a smaller percentage of the overall talent pool ... and limits the "GEMS" to a reasonably small number ... kinda' like real baseball ...
PLEASE add your opinion to this suggestion ... obviously, there has to be SOME compromise ... no one is likely to get the EXACT percentages they think are "PERFECT" ... and we need to get a consensus ... so I hope everyone will be reasonably accomodating to everyone else's opinions ...
So, How does THIS look to EVERYONE???
PLEASE POST if you LOVE/HATE these, or if you would like to see changes, explain what the reasoning behind the change would be ... OK???
Admin
I don't think Bust in Majors/Gem in Minors or Gem in Majors/Bust in Minors will be any more or less frustrating than Late Bloomer, Young Major Leaguer, Eureka, or Enigma. At least with the former ones, you have a decent shot of hitting the Gem part of the improvements. Chances are with Young Major Leaguers you'll miss out on his prime improvement years.
I don't think the code can handle partial percentages, so each curve should be a full percentage. This means the total for the 3 Eurekas, or 3 Enigmas, should be evenly divisible by 3. So you may need to bump these by 1 percentage point, or lower by 2 percentage points.
Tyson
May 27, 2009 at 03:05PM View BBCode
My 2 cents and guesses.I don't think Bust in Majors/Gem in Minors or Gem in Majors/Bust in Minors will be any more or less frustrating than Late Bloomer, Young Major Leaguer, Eureka, or Enigma. At least with the former ones, you have a decent shot of hitting the Gem part of the improvements. Chances are with Young Major Leaguers you'll miss out on his prime improvement years.
I don't think the code can handle partial percentages, so each curve should be a full percentage. This means the total for the 3 Eurekas, or 3 Enigmas, should be evenly divisible by 3. So you may need to bump these by 1 percentage point, or lower by 2 percentage points.
Tyson
CCondardo
~Corey
May 27, 2009 at 07:11PM View BBCode
I wouldn't mind seeing more Gem's and less of the "frustrating curves" might be fun to see a few more gems. Keep in mind at 4% we might never see any of these. It might help out making Rd 2 picks or late Rd 1's more valuable.~Corey
AllenMac
Regular[color=red]45%[/color]
Young Major Leaguer [color=red]10%[/color]
Late Bloomer[color=red]10%[/color]
Enigma 1, Enigma 2, Enigma 3 [color=red]6%[/color]
Ageless Wonder [color=red]10%[/color]
Bust [color=red]3%[/color]
Gem [color=red]6%[/color]
Bust in Minors/Gem in Majors [color=red]2%[/color]
Gem in Minors/Bust in Majors [color=red]2%[/color]
Eureka 1, Eureka 2, Eureka 3 [color=red]6%[/color]
Tyson, my comment on Bust/Gem & Gem/Bust was based on my perception that if a player is Bust in the minors, he may be thought to be a "bust" and never get promoted, while a Gem in the minors that gets to the majors and "busts" will be VERY frustrating .... but then, maybe I don't understand the way the total development actually works?
Based upon Tyson and Corey's comments ...
May 27, 2009 at 09:16PM View BBCode
Do these numbers look better? Worse?Regular[color=red]45%[/color]
Young Major Leaguer [color=red]10%[/color]
Late Bloomer[color=red]10%[/color]
Enigma 1, Enigma 2, Enigma 3 [color=red]6%[/color]
Ageless Wonder [color=red]10%[/color]
Bust [color=red]3%[/color]
Gem [color=red]6%[/color]
Bust in Minors/Gem in Majors [color=red]2%[/color]
Gem in Minors/Bust in Majors [color=red]2%[/color]
Eureka 1, Eureka 2, Eureka 3 [color=red]6%[/color]
Tyson, my comment on Bust/Gem & Gem/Bust was based on my perception that if a player is Bust in the minors, he may be thought to be a "bust" and never get promoted, while a Gem in the minors that gets to the majors and "busts" will be VERY frustrating .... but then, maybe I don't understand the way the total development actually works?
Admin
I think you could make a similar argument for the other four curves:
Enigma:
A guy has 2 bad years in a row in the minors, you decide to stop developing him. Or he has 2 good years in the minors, you promote him and he has 2 bad years in the majors.
Eureka:
These guys underperform in ICs their entire career except for a couple of magical seasons. You may not stick with a guy long enough to find those seasons.
YML:
You think a guy is a regular player, so you keep him in the minors until 23-24. You then promote him and his conversions stink. He could look a lot like gem in minors, bust in majors - except he won't have the gem part, only average in minors. I think these guys will end up being waiver wire gems, since ww players get major league ICs.
Late Bloomer:
Similar to others - you give up on a guy too early and only get the bad IC conversion years and miss out on the good conversion years.
I think what you'll see is some level of frustration across the board.
Tyson
May 28, 2009 at 03:14PM View BBCode
Tyson, my comment on Bust/Gem & Gem/Bust was based on my perception that if a player is Bust in the minors, he may be thought to be a "bust" and never get promoted, while a Gem in the minors that gets to the majors and "busts" will be VERY frustrating .... but then, maybe I don't understand the way the total development actually works?Yes, I see how that could be frustrating. But at least you are getting the Gem side of the equation, it may be the guys conversion % are so good he won't need the improvements by the time he is a Bust in Majors.
I think you could make a similar argument for the other four curves:
Enigma:
A guy has 2 bad years in a row in the minors, you decide to stop developing him. Or he has 2 good years in the minors, you promote him and he has 2 bad years in the majors.
Eureka:
These guys underperform in ICs their entire career except for a couple of magical seasons. You may not stick with a guy long enough to find those seasons.
YML:
You think a guy is a regular player, so you keep him in the minors until 23-24. You then promote him and his conversions stink. He could look a lot like gem in minors, bust in majors - except he won't have the gem part, only average in minors. I think these guys will end up being waiver wire gems, since ww players get major league ICs.
Late Bloomer:
Similar to others - you give up on a guy too early and only get the bad IC conversion years and miss out on the good conversion years.
I think what you'll see is some level of frustration across the board.
Tyson
Pioneers47
May 28, 2009 at 10:02PM View BBCode
And I think that is normal to a point...I can understand and appreciate the frustration...but if we are looking for realism for this, then maybe we should have a bit bigger, how should I put it...minor league system I guess.
loach
Also, yes the player's development curve should be hidden.
May 29, 2009 at 06:19AM View BBCode
Is the new system only going to apply to draftees from the current draft? Or is it a blanket change that will affect all players regardless of when they were drafted?Also, yes the player's development curve should be hidden.
AllenMac
IF we agree to the percentages that we will use, THEN we will implement the variable development effective with the NEXT draft class ... that's the plan, anyway ...
Variable Development Explanation from the Game Guide [url=http://rules.simdynasty.com/index.php/Sim_Dynasty_Game_Guide#Variable_Improvement]... may be found here...[/url]
[Edited on 7-5-2010 by AllenMac]
Yes Tim...
May 29, 2009 at 12:35PM View BBCode
The new development curves will only apply to the new minor league draft class, effective with the change being implemented. THIS current draft class will NOT be subject to variable development...IF we agree to the percentages that we will use, THEN we will implement the variable development effective with the NEXT draft class ... that's the plan, anyway ...
Variable Development Explanation from the Game Guide [url=http://rules.simdynasty.com/index.php/Sim_Dynasty_Game_Guide#Variable_Improvement]... may be found here...[/url]
[Edited on 7-5-2010 by AllenMac]
AllenMac
The Babe Ruth league will implement Variable Development effective with our next draft ...
I like the percentages in the BRL (shown above) because 45% (+/-) will be the same as what we're used to ... the rest of the newly drafted players will have those "options" for their future development ... meaning only 55% will present the new and different "development" curves ... statistically, only a small number of each different type ...
The Variable Develoment ONLY effects the NEW DRAFT players ...
the existing players stay just as they are (were) ... so over time, more players with the new "development options" will be in the league, but right now, ALL players have the "standard" development curve ... only the future draft class will have players with "different" development curves ... and even then, 45% (or so) will be just like always have been, with 55% (about half) having one on the new development curves ...
There are roughly 640 players in the league (16 teams, 25 major league players, 15 minor league players - total 40 players per team {more or less})
The draft brings 80 new players into the league each year (5 rounds of the draft, 16 players each round = 80 players)
out of those 80 players, 45% will be the same as we've always had (36 players) and 55% of the drafted players will be a "different" development curve (44 players)
if you accept the concept that ONLY 1st and 2nd round drafted players are LIKELY "good enough" to eventually make the majors ... the total number of 1st and 2nd round picks equals 32 players ... (48 players in round 3, 4, 5) THUS, applying the 55% (different development curve) of the 32 players in round 1 and 2, THEN you could assume that with each draft, 17 or 18 players will have the possibility of a new development curve, AND fit into the category of a player that any individual team will be planning on developing into a major leaguer (maybe some 3rd rounders will be being developed too - but just using round numbers for evaluation purposes).
you can do the math for any of the variable development curves percentages and see what number of any single development curve number of players will be in each draft class ... and also see that over time we are still talking about a small number of the overall player pool...
IN stating THAT, IS EVERYONE "OK" with the following percentages????
[color=red]No response is necessary... UNLESS you have "heartburn" with the percentages shown and would like to see some sort of change ... [/color]if there is no groundswell of opposition, these are the percentages I will tell Tyson to use to establish Variable Development in the Babe Ruth League...
Not hearing or seeing
June 03, 2009 at 02:32PM View BBCode
any opposition .. I will proceed with the modified percentages as shown above ...The Babe Ruth league will implement Variable Development effective with our next draft ...
I like the percentages in the BRL (shown above) because 45% (+/-) will be the same as what we're used to ... the rest of the newly drafted players will have those "options" for their future development ... meaning only 55% will present the new and different "development" curves ... statistically, only a small number of each different type ...
The Variable Develoment ONLY effects the NEW DRAFT players ...
the existing players stay just as they are (were) ... so over time, more players with the new "development options" will be in the league, but right now, ALL players have the "standard" development curve ... only the future draft class will have players with "different" development curves ... and even then, 45% (or so) will be just like always have been, with 55% (about half) having one on the new development curves ...
There are roughly 640 players in the league (16 teams, 25 major league players, 15 minor league players - total 40 players per team {more or less})
The draft brings 80 new players into the league each year (5 rounds of the draft, 16 players each round = 80 players)
out of those 80 players, 45% will be the same as we've always had (36 players) and 55% of the drafted players will be a "different" development curve (44 players)
if you accept the concept that ONLY 1st and 2nd round drafted players are LIKELY "good enough" to eventually make the majors ... the total number of 1st and 2nd round picks equals 32 players ... (48 players in round 3, 4, 5) THUS, applying the 55% (different development curve) of the 32 players in round 1 and 2, THEN you could assume that with each draft, 17 or 18 players will have the possibility of a new development curve, AND fit into the category of a player that any individual team will be planning on developing into a major leaguer (maybe some 3rd rounders will be being developed too - but just using round numbers for evaluation purposes).
you can do the math for any of the variable development curves percentages and see what number of any single development curve number of players will be in each draft class ... and also see that over time we are still talking about a small number of the overall player pool...
IN stating THAT, IS EVERYONE "OK" with the following percentages????
Regular[color=red]45%[/color]
Young Major Leaguer [color=red]10%[/color]
Late Bloomer[color=red]10%[/color]
Enigma 1, Enigma 2, Enigma 3 [color=red]6%[/color]
Ageless Wonder [color=red]10%[/color]
Bust [color=red]3%[/color]
Gem [color=red]6%[/color]
Bust in Minors/Gem in Majors [color=red]2%[/color]
Gem in Minors/Bust in Majors [color=red]2%[/color]
Eureka 1, Eureka 2, Eureka 3 [color=red]6%[/color]
[color=red]No response is necessary... UNLESS you have "heartburn" with the percentages shown and would like to see some sort of change ... [/color]if there is no groundswell of opposition, these are the percentages I will tell Tyson to use to establish Variable Development in the Babe Ruth League...
CCondardo
... can't wait to punch through my screen when I get the first bust!
~COrey
June 03, 2009 at 02:37PM View BBCode
Thanks or all the work you have done on this Allen...... can't wait to punch through my screen when I get the first bust!
~COrey
Admin
Tyson
June 03, 2009 at 04:39PM View BBCode
Thanks Allen, create a thread in Support when you are ready for me to put this in place.Tyson
LannisG
June 07, 2011 at 01:40AM View BBCode
I think we should look at changing a few percentages for certain types of VD players. My main concern is young major leaguers. At 10 % there are 24 minor leaguers who are currently young major leaguers that have all their good VD years before the age of 23. With our current minor league system all almost all owners never put a player in the majors early and certainly not long enough to get an idea that the player is a young major leaguer. In my opinion we are wasting 10 % of our talent. Thoughts?
cubfan531
In all seriousness, I think it's alright how it's set up. In real-world baseball, you've got to wonder how many guys become the victims of mis-management by their parent organizations (Heath Bell by the Mets comes to mind).
June 07, 2011 at 06:42AM View BBCode
Heh. VD.In all seriousness, I think it's alright how it's set up. In real-world baseball, you've got to wonder how many guys become the victims of mis-management by their parent organizations (Heath Bell by the Mets comes to mind).
CCondardo
--Corey
June 07, 2011 at 07:01PM View BBCode
also consider that 10% of all players are included in those that are not drafted. Since a majority of 4/5/ rounders are not placed on a final roster you could assume that only like 6% are the players in question. I'm okay going either way with this.--Corey
Pages: 1