| 0 |
Subject: Proposed changes for TSN next year
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Tue, Oct 09, 13:55
Since we seem to have the ear of Erik and Bernie at TSN, let's toss out some suggested changes for next season's baseball game before we forget about this year's.
I'll start.
1. I think that pitching points need to be increased, probably by dampening the negative factors. This year, only 2 of the top 25 players (total TSNP) were pitchers (Randy and Curt), and only 6 of the top 50. I haven't tested the numbers, but I think a reduction in the charge for runs, hits, and walks is warranted. (Maybe someone else can run some numbers?)
2. Add a DH slot, perhaps at the expense of an OF slot. The DH slot could hold any hitter.
|
| 1 | JeffG
Donor
ID: 40451227
Tue, Oct 09, 14:12
|
Game is pretty good as is, but for tweaking sake:
- Less trades - I am in the minority for this, but I just do not get to work my team or analyze the stats every day and this would bring everyone else to my level ;)
- DH instead of 4th OF, just like it was about 4 seasons ago.
- Keep daily repricing. I was a big critic of daily re-pricing, but have been converted.
- Keep it free.
- Maybe introduce a 3-play like game where we pick an IF/C, OF, SP, RP each week and can only use each player once per season.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 488481411
Tue, Oct 09, 14:20
|
-Get rid of the Pedro/RJ dampening effect on prices;
-include batting points for pitchers.
pd
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Tue, Oct 09, 14:35
|
more points for pitcher strikeouts.
penalty for blown saves.
points awarded for relief a hold (I really like that one because if done right it could really cause a lot of variation on rotations).
extra points for sacrifices and GSs.
penalties for GIDP.
|
| 4 | VIDevilRays
Leader
ID: 0502611
Tue, Oct 09, 14:51
|
1. Add a DH-at the expense of an outfielder.
2. Increase points for strikeouts back to five.
3. Figure out some value for a "hold". There are too many quality pitchers out there with zero value.
|
| 5 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 4324316
Tue, Oct 09, 14:58
|
Pitcher walks -3 instead of -5. Hitters only get +3 and pitcher points need to be increased across the board.
I like the hold idea...
I love the DH instead of 4th outfielder idea...
NO to pitcher batting stats counting...
Maybe lower runs and rbis to only +3 or +4...this would bring the hitters scores closer to the pitchers.
|
| 6 | pogophiles
Leader
ID: 155452911
Tue, Oct 09, 15:08
|
I like the idea of including batting statistics for pitchers. Helps balance out the AL versus NL differential you currently get due to NL pitchers advantage in not facing a DH.
|
| 7 | bookie
ID: 224322218
Tue, Oct 09, 15:26
|
I have one question on the DH change. If I recall how it worked several years ago as an example...
Current roster
2 1b (Helton (listed as 1B), Bagwell(listed as DH))
3 OF (Bonds, Sosa, Luis)
Manny is on fire and I don't want to drop one of my OF's. Must I trade Bagwell to pick up Manny or can I drop Helton and Bagwell would by default become 1B? I think that is how it worked, but I'm not sure.. Is that an easy programming possibility.. Because, I like the idea better if it works that way than being forced to trade my 'DH' instead of one of the two guys that I have at one position. This way you have more flexibility.
|
| 8 | Erik B.
ID: 5592999
Tue, Oct 09, 15:29
|
All fair suggestions. We're going to come up with our Baseball product strategy in November, and these changes will be on the table.
|
| 9 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Tue, Oct 09, 15:35
|
The best and most important suggestion expressed on this thread was the 4th one mentioned by JeffG in post #1.
|
| 10 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 09, 15:50
|
bookie[7] - when they did this before, it worked the way you would want it to. If you dropped Helton, Bagwell would slide into the 1B slot, opening the DH slot for anyone.
Mattingly[9] - maybe the most important, but probably the least likely.
|
| 11 | wizard808
ID: 321542719
Tue, Oct 09, 19:09
|
i agree with guru on the need to increase pitcher points. at the minimum, hitters and pitchers need to have parallel positives and negatives for srikeouts and walks.
what about a hitter's -1 for runners LOB?
i like the DH idea. i am fairly new to the game (this was my 2nd season) and have never played it that way.
|
| 12 | wizard808
ID: 321542719
Tue, Oct 09, 19:10
|
oh yeah, and keep it free... ;)
|
| 13 | valkyrie
ID: 51815210
Tue, Oct 09, 20:46
|
I have to agree with Guru something needs to be done to beef up the pitching. I had three pretty much average gurupie teams (alright proably below average teams) but I think they are probably fairly representative. Of the three teams two scored 36.5% of their points from pitching one 38% and they say pitching is 50% of the game. As to PermDudes suggestion to eliminate the RJ/Pedro dampening just for fun I checked one team and discovered that I had earned 7.5M just from RJ and a whopping 11M from Schilling (gross increases not offsetting losses when held). Although i did have both of them most of the time I did miss a few RJ and Schill starts so I think it is fair to assume that anyone could make 20M just by trading between RJ and Schilling all year. This is far too much too easy.
I earned about 40% of my money from pitchers which with a team slightly over $100 M means every single thing I earned on pitchers could have been from RJ and Schill. I say we need more dampening or a 7 day holding period or something to prevent the no-brainer pick up of $20 M.
|
| 14 | tommyd
ID: 15912231
Tue, Oct 09, 21:00
|
Try to keep it free.
Make strikeouts +5 again for pitchers.
|
| 15 | gd.tribe
ID: 136451820
Tue, Oct 09, 21:12
|
each year, the swing seems to go from pitching to hitting and back so let's not go crazy here. I like k's being only 3 pts because it reduces the pedro\rj effect . if k's are worth 5 then the only good pitchers become k pitchers. with 3 pts the importance is on picking any good start. 2 suggestions for point modifications would be 3 instead of 5 pts for a walk and a 1 or 2 pt penalty for hitting into a double play.
|
| 16 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Tue, Oct 09, 21:31
|
I like the hold idea. There is virtually no strategy with the pitchers, especially early in the season.
|
| 17 | tomegun
ID: 208232222
Tue, Oct 09, 22:50
|
pitcher k's 5 pts.
free game-i have 6 to 8 teams, plus one pay.
Try dropping all prices 20% from the beginning, then lets see what kind of points we can make.
|
| 18 | Gangman
Leader
ID: 10434285
Tue, Oct 09, 23:06
|
Reinstate Complete Games as a pitcher stat
(15 pts).
|
| 19 | stinkypuff
ID: 24922923
Tue, Oct 09, 23:22
|
if ain't free, it ain't for me.
|
| 20 | F Gump
ID: 578382615
Wed, Oct 10, 02:13
|
(1)A site suggestion, rather than rules (Guru, you might add this idea to your Sartibles, too, maybe) ...
It would encourage me to use your Player Page, with info on the players, if you had whether the pitcher was RHP or LHP, and whether the hitter was RH/LH/SW. As it is, I am forced to go to other net sites and leave yours to dig out those very relevant pieces of info when looking at trades.
(2)An info suggestion: the real numbers crunchers at this site will "reverse-engineer" whatever price changing algorithm you devise. And there will be info "leaked" here explaining what drives price changes. SW's solution seemed to be to fiddle with the formula at times, to try to make it more complex or mysterious. Which has led to WEIRD (and arbitrary) price changes at times.
A better solution, I think: rather than tweaking it all the time - by fiddling with the formula - to hide what you are doing, and sometimes busting the software in the process, why not go the other way and just announce the "parameters" to be used. Such as $___ total per day for pitcher or hitter price changes all added together, or $__ cap on any one player price change in a day, etc. If EVERYONE knows, then no need to fiddle with it.
In that vein, just find some way to make invisible all player moves by someone else's teams, til after the freeze, when the info will no longer be usable in "sampling" to try to determine in advance the price moves.
Nothing wrong with research; but the game would be better if it was ONLY about research into Players vs their Price, rather than research into how TSN does price changes.
-----------------------------
PS - Bernie, thank you for frequenting these boards. It is encouraging to know that someone at TSN is now listening - and, since we who are here are people who are playing your games ardently, hopefully it gives you some insight as to what we like and what is frustrating us about your site at times, so it can be addressed more promptly than in the past.
|
| 21 | steve houpt
ID: 349390
Wed, Oct 10, 02:52
|
Should save this from each year.
1. Leave pitcher K's at 3. Increasing K's to 5 just seperates Johnson and Schilling and Pedro further from the pack of other pitchers. Already get 5 points for each out. Main object is get batters out and not give up runs (am for lowering of BB and H's to -3/4, -4 respectfully after checking numbers). I see in last years thread, I proposed changing K's from 5 to 3. Proposed changes for 2001
2. Nine hitter slots, five pitcher. I would think the average should be about 35.7% of your points from pitching if dollars distributed 'equally'. My top 100 team got 39.9% from pitching. Usually put more money in pitching.
3. Decrease pitcher BB to -3/4, hits to -4. Have to run numbers. Remember, a $10M pitcher slot and you trade Johnson > Pedro > Schilling > Johnson and that's 300 points for that slot. Helton > Bagwell, you lose Helton's points and gain Bagwell's. Not like pitching. You increase individual pitchers TSNP's too much and it really becomes ALL dollars in pitching (especially early) again. I think that's why pitcher TSNP/$M are started lower. I could go for a small increase of points for pitchers if it also has a corrsponding increase of pitcher prices.
4. Holds are not an official MLB stat. There used to be two different 'rules' for determining holds. May still be. It started as a sabermetric stat and has never been endorsed by MLB as 'official'. Do not know if different stat sources are still calculating different ways. There used to be an article on holds in Rob Neyer's archives at ESPN.
And there are lots of quality hitters with no 'fantasy' value either. Will always be some pitchers too.
4a. Holds and blown saves are least of my concern about 'fantasy' baseball. Leave them out IMHO.
WHY. Look at this game. LA-STL
STL pitchers got 7 holds. Look at last three. Score 6-3, start of ninth. Matthews enters game. Get's a K and gives up a walk. Leaves game with 'hold'. Timlin enters. Gets flyout and gives up 2 run homer. Leaves game with a 'hold'. Tabaka enters. Gives up single. Leaves game with a 'hold' - hey score is still only 6-5. Stechschulte enters game and gets last out. Gets the SAVE. But other three 'held' the lead and get holds.
5. Like complete game 'bonus'. Not many of them, but the possibility would be something to think about when picking up 'starters'.
6. DH and one less OF would be fine with me.
|
| 22 | IRRIDUCIBILI LAZIO
ID: 9952114
Wed, Oct 10, 05:47
|
i know it'll be very, very, difficult, but why don't consider defensive points for hitters (double, triple plays, outs, errors....)??? it's an important part of the game, and in my opinion deserves to be considered as a fantasy factor too.
|
| 23 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 269241611
Wed, Oct 10, 06:47
|
1) Most importantly, is to reduce the negative points that a pitcher generates, maybe put a cap on that, say -25
2) leave SO's at 3, as stated earlier that just seperates, RJ, Pedro, Shilling from the rest even more
Finally, forget about the game being free, as we've known it. It's not economically feasible for TSN to run a game of this magnitude for nothing- get used to it
|
| 24 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 266182910
Wed, Oct 10, 07:54
|
If you put a cap on the max number of negative points a pitcher can get, then shouldn't you also put a cap on the maximum number of positive points? Say 100? Same with hitters? -5 and 30? The idea of fantasy points is to give an accurate reflection of a players performance. If a pitcher goes 1/3 of an inning and gives up 8 ER, 8 hits, and gets the loss, then I think he deserves all the negative points he gets. The effects of that outing aren't minimized in real life, so why should they be minimized in fantasy sports? Doing so only hurts the integrity of the fantasy games. My proposed changes:
1. Lower H's and BB's to -3 for pitchers or increase K to -3 for hitters. 2. Keep "Hold" and "Blown Save" out of the game. As Source pointed out, "Hold's" are way too arbitrary. And realistically, do we want to give as much fantasy value to a middle reliever as a closer? Middle relievers are role players and the great ones are few in number. Keep them that way. And "Blown Save" doesn't really effect the game unless it turns into a loss and that usually gets tagged on the guy with the "BS", so a double negative for that seems unreasonable. If so, make it a small penalty like -10 or something. 3. 1 OF spot > 1 DH spot. The DH spot adds so much more strategy to the game. Further, you wouldn't have to list DH's as OF'ers, so managers would have to decide whether they wanted to get a regular DH, or some other player (oh, the choices!) 4. Go back to weekly repricing and lose the price dampening. RanDro would be eliminated with weekly repricing, and so would all other forms of rotation, forcing more strategy and not just blind trades. 5. 3 trades per week. Again, force more strategy compared to just blind trading. 4 and 5 are on the assumption that the game will be pay-to-play, thus, the high number of clicks required to the site for advertising could be decreased, thus no need for people to check the game every single day of the week. If these are needed to keep the game free, then by all means, keep them, which brings me to 6..... 6. Keep it free, or at least have a free version. 7. $15-20 for 3 teams for the pay game.
|
| 25 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 10, 08:05
|
Stats like grand slams, GIDP, 2-out RBI, errors, etc. might be good indicators of marginal value, but they just wouldn't amount to enough points over the course of a season to make much of a difference.
Including pitcher hitting would be an interesting tweak (would at least provide a reason to own some pitchers in Coors Field!), but is probably not a big deal either. For most pitchers, this would just take away a few points per game. Overall, I'm ambivalent about it.
One way to dampen the repricing impact of pitcher rotations is to base price changes on trades over more than just the last day. If, for example, you based pitcher price changes on trade activity over the past 5 days, then you would see the long term buy-sell trend without the distortion of day-to-day starts. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but it's worth considering. Presumably, TSN has some data to test this. Clearly, if this approach were adopted, if needs to be explicitly announced.
|
| 26 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 10, 08:12
|
Weekly repricing didn't really stop the Randro effect. Instead, we saw big gains for the stud pitchers heading into 2-start weeks, and losses for studs coming off of 2-start weeks.
It also placed undue emphasis on schedule activity over the repricing week. Randy shouldn't be more valuable just because his next starts fall on Wednesday and Monday vs. Saturday and Thursday.
|
| 27 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Wed, Oct 10, 08:25
|
I'm stilling mulling this over, but most of what I would say has already been said. I like the OF > DH idea. I like the Walks = -3 idea, symmetry (hitters get +3 for a BB) just feels right to me, though I'm not sure I would be in favor of -3 for hitter K's.
I would also add that in general I dislike bonuses for things like complete games or triple doubles in hoops. It's enough to me that that pitcher accumulated those stats to begin with. The fact that a pitcher threw 9 innings get's you an extra 15 TSNP that a pitcher throwing 8 innings doesn't get.
|
| 28 | valkyrie
ID: 51815210
Wed, Oct 10, 11:50
|
I like the idea of cutting the pitchers hits and walks down to -3, maybe we could even add a 6th pitching slot and I like the DH idea.
The thing that still bothers me the most is that even with dampening everyone can make $20 M or 40% of all the money they make each year Randro or RanSchill ing it. Not only can you make that much but you are effectively forced (by the $) to do it thereby eating up 2 trades per week just to stay even with everyone else and taking 2/3 of the skill out of pitching selections. I really don't have a solution but maybe we could have hitter repricing daily and pitcher repricing done either weekly or daily using a 5-7 day trade average as Guru suggests.
|
| 29 | Jeffy
ID: 355531314
Wed, Oct 10, 15:45
|
How about a "bench" situation, whereas, trades get minimized by using active roster vs total "team" roster. This would minimize Randro, Randling, etc.
example,
say you had 8 pitchers on team, however only 5 actively got points. Trades on and off active roster would not change $$, however, trades on/off team would. Still only give 5 trades/week. The idea may need further discussion, but pricing will definately flatline under that scenerio.
just an idea from someone that has "lurked" on this board for past couple years
|
| 30 | absolut_cdi
ID: 219421020
Wed, Oct 10, 20:54
|
hitter sac=2 or 3 pts... i believe this was brought up on the daily action boards quite often
|
| 31 | tomegun
ID: 208232222
Wed, Oct 10, 21:57
|
i agree with Gangman post#18. complete game pts are a good call. you go 9, you deserve extra pts.
|
| 32 | kentucky indians
ID: 44892522
Wed, Oct 10, 22:46
|
1.I liked two season ago when we had 5 trades per week total instead of now having three hitter trades and three pitcher trades. That rewarded a manager for holding a hitter longer with an additional pitching outing. I think it will allow people to be more patient with hitters.
2. I like daily price changes. I too have been converted. Although this does cause some frustration when a J.D.Drew misses a game with the flue going into a series at Coors field (see comment #1).
3. I have also come to accept the fact that next year I will have to pay to play the game. TSN has not said this yet but the writing is on the wall. Keep it cheap and I'm in. Thank you for keeping it free this long and tolerating us complaining about something we got for nothing.
4. DH or wild card hitter spot sounds interesting.
5. I'm not sure I think reducing the negatives for pitchers is a good idea. The Swirve game has lower negatives for runs,hits, and walks and I feel like Swirve needs to try to make the game less pitching dominated. I like the value of the hitters in the Smallworld game.
My $0.02 worth
|
| 33 | Kings Fan
ID: 16922921
Wed, Oct 10, 23:23
|
Catchers: Throwing out a runner = 5 pts. -5 pts for the opposite.
Pitchers / Catchers: Award 5 pts for a pick-off.
|
| 34 | Skidazl
Sustainer
ID: 506141811
Wed, Oct 10, 23:32
|
The only issue I have is with the five "any player" trades per week. This in effect, can give someone 5 pitcher trades a week, which would throw everything way off. At least later in the season when everybody's RV is high enough to have all the "studs" at each position and not need to use the HT's. On all of my teams, I had at least 20 HT's at the end of the season, and I know a lot of other people had a lot more. If I could have used all my trades for pitchers, my points would have been a lot more.
I have also thought of what Lazio said about defensive and actually suggested it back when this was smallworld. I have since rethought my opinions on this one because a) it would be a lot more work on TSN's side and b) depending on the stats(Putouts, errors, DP's, assists) certain positions would have a lot more points in some categories, e.g. putouts for 1st basemen, or dp's for short and second...
just my .02
|
| 35 | Skidazl
Sustainer
ID: 506141811
Wed, Oct 10, 23:35
|
and one last thing, if not possible to keep it free, at least keep it affordable, like the playoffs this year, granted they are only 3-4 weeks vs. 6 months...
|
| 36 | steve houpt
ID: 349390
Thu, Oct 11, 11:09
|
Ran some numbers. First did the (-3) BB and (-4) H. Looked good for starters, but prominent relievers were not helped much. Noticed Rivera went from 34 to 32 on SWP list, Nen from 59 to 61. Starters like Garcia had moved from 36 to 18, Mussina from 35 to 22, Clemens from 52 to 26. Made second adjustment. Plus 35 for Wins and Saves, (-20) for losses. Brought relievers back in line.
Column #1 is W-L-SV and H-BB adjustment TSNP ranking.
Column #2 is just H-BB adjustment TSNP ranking.
Column #3 is current TSNP ranking.
Column #4, #5, #5 are TSNP's to go along with rankings.
Increases pitchers in top 60 TSNP's from 11 to 24.
1 _ 1 _ 3 _ 3759 _ 3684 _ 3361 _ Johnson, R
2 _ 2 _ 1 _ 3645 _ 3645 _ 3645 _ Bonds
3 _ 3 _ 2 _ 3470 _ 3470 _ 3470 _ Sosa
4 _ 4 _ 7 _ 3459 _ 3379 _ 3064 _ Schilling
5 _ 5 _ 4 _ 3298 _ 3298 _ 3298 _ L Gonzalez
6 _ 6 _ 5 _ 3249 _ 3249 _ 3249 _ Helton
7 _ 7 _ 6 _ 3181 _ 3181 _ 3181 _ A Rodriguez
8 _ 8 _ 8 _ 2949 _ 2949 _ 2949 _ Green
9 _ 9 _ 9 _ 2878 _ 2878 _ 2878 _ Giambi, JA
10 _ 10 _ 10 _ 2854 _ 2854 _ 2854 _ Bagwell
11 _ 11 _ 11 _ 2803 _ 2803 _ 2803 _ Berkman
12 _ 12 _ 12 _ 2791 _ 2791 _ 2791 _ Abreu
13 _ 13 _ 13 _ 2772 _ 2772 _ 2772 _ L Walker
14 _ 14 _ 14 _ 2759 _ 2759 _ 2759 _ Guerrero, V
15 _ 15 _ 15 _ 2750 _ 2750 _ 2750 _ Pujols
16 _ 18 _ 36 _ 2741 _ 2681 _ 2344 _ Garcia, F
17 _ 16 _ 16 _ 2740 _ 2740 _ 2740 _ BR Boone
18 _ 32 _ 34 _ 2739 _ 2499 _ 2414 _ Rivera
19 _ 22 _ 35 _ 2693 _ 2663 _ 2377 _ Mussina
20 _ 17 _ 17 _ 2689 _ 2689 _ 2689 _ Alomar
21 _ 19 _ 18 _ 2680 _ 2680 _ 2680 _ C Jones
22 _ 20 _ 19 _ 2672 _ 2672 _ 2672 _ Giles
23 _ 21 _ 20 _ 2667 _ 2667 _ 2667 _ Suzuki
24 _ 26 _ 52 _ 2663 _ 2578 _ 2229 _ Clemens
25 _ 23 _ 21 _ 2628 _ 2628 _ 2628 _ Floyd
26 _ 27 _ 43 _ 2603 _ 2573 _ 2299 _ Maddux
27 _ 24 _ 22 _ 2598 _ 2598 _ 2598 _ Palmeiro
28 _ 25 _ 23 _ 2588 _ 2588 _ 2588 _ Ordonez
29 _ 34 _ 56 _ 2560 _ 2495 _ 2179 _ Mulder
30 _ 28 _ 24 _ 2555 _ 2555 _ 2555 _ Klesko
31 _ 36 _ 60 _ 2551 _ 2481 _ 2155 _ Morris
32 _ 29 _ 25 _ 2547 _ 2547 _ 2547 _ Thome
33 _ 61 _ 59 _ 2546 _ 2276 _ 2174 _ Nen
34 _ 30 _ 26 _ 2543 _ 2543 _ 2543 _ Beltran
35 _ 31 _ 51 _ 2534 _ 2514 _ 2229 _ Vazquez
36 _ 35 _ 64 _ 2531 _ 2486 _ 2128 _ Hudson
37 _ 33 _ 27 _ 2498 _ 2498 _ 2498 _ Aurilia
38 _ 44 _ 72 _ 2467 _ 2397 _ 2089 _ Lieber
39 _ 41 _ 75 _ 2459 _ 2434 _ 2069 _ Park, CH
40 _ 37 _ 28 _ 2453 _ 2453 _ 2453 _ J Gonzalez
41 _ 38 _ 29 _ 2448 _ 2448 _ 2448 _ M Ramierez
42 _ 39 _ 30 _ 2442 _ 2442 _ 2442 _ Sheffield
43 _ 40 _ 31 _ 2436 _ 2436 _ 2436 _ Nevin
44 _ 42 _ 32 _ 2431 _ 2431 _ 2431 _ Delgado
45 _ 43 _ 33 _ 2425 _ 2425 _ 2425 _ Glaus
46 _ 45 _ 81 _ 2394 _ 2349 _ 2005 _ Zito
47 _ 47 _ 86 _ 2381 _ 2341 _ 1972 _ Ortiz, Russ
48 _ 72 _ 78 _ 2378 _ 2153 _ 2014 _ Benitez
49 _ 54 _ 77 _ 2352 _ 2312 _ 2028 _ Buehrle
50 _ 60 _ 80 _ 2352 _ 2282 _ 2007 _ Moyer
51 _ 48 _ 82 _ 2352 _ 2332 _ 1999 _ Mays
52 _ 55 _ 85 _ 2349 _ 2309 _ 1974 _ Miller, W
53 _ 46 _ 37 _ 2341 _ 2341 _ 2341 _ Cameron
54 _ 52 _ 87 _ 2340 _ 2320 _ 1962 _ Kile
55 _ 49 _ 38 _ 2330 _ 2330 _ 2330 _ Sweeney
56 _ 50 _ 39 _ 2330 _ 2330 _ 2330 _ Koskie
57 _ 51 _ 40 _ 2326 _ 2326 _ 2326 _ Jeter
58 _ 73 _ 76 _ 2326 _ 2141 _ 2040 _ Foulke
59 _ 53 _ 41 _ 2314 _ 2314 _ 2314 _ Sexson
60 _ 56 _ 84 _ 2303 _ 2303 _ 1976 _ Burkett, J
Maybe the only thing wrong is if Bonds can't be number one with his season, maybe the pitchers don't need any scoring help, just to pitch better. :)
Just something to look at.
|
| 37 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 4324316
Thu, Oct 11, 11:57
|
Randy Johnson did have a pretty unique/incredible year too...maybe not quite as good as Bonds but I wouldn't have a problem if Johnson scored a few more points than the best hitter if it meant balancing some of the other pitchers and getting the top players a little more balanced.
BTW...great data Steve!
|
| 38 | Bernie H.
ID: 19852422
Fri, Oct 12, 00:01
|
Thanks for all the input, guys. Here's my comments.
Our general philosophy when developing our scoring systems is to make them as simple as possible while still producing realistic results. Personally, I would love it if people could read a boxscore and add up a TSNP score in their head. That's why you see us keeping our elegantly simple Hoops scoring very constant from year to year, while we struggle to settle on Baseball and Football scoring, because there's so many stats.
Thus, I agree with Guru (post #25) on why we avoid including stats that don't make a significant impact on season totals, and I agree with Steve Houpt (post #21) on why not to include holds. They expressed my opinion exactly.
We'll think about bringing back our DH slot.
Also addressed in Guru's post was an idea that we've been tossing around ourselves - basing pitcher price changes on longer trade periods, to even out the wild swings. We'll seriously consider that for next year, too.
Bernie, TSN
|
| 39 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 2711211812
Tue, Dec 18, 2001, 13:00
|
BUTT
|
| 40 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Tue, Dec 18, 2001, 16:29
|
I like the -3 for pitchers walks and +15 for complete games. Will help pitchers points stay competitive w/out affecting hitters points and won't overdue pitchers, as Steve pointed out.
.
I don't like points for holds.
I don't like even the 'dampening' of Randro, much less suggestions of more tinkering.
Guess what, Randy and Pedro are great pitchers. People want to use them. They go on different days quite often. Why should they be accounted for any differently than say Garcia, Hudson, Schilling, Estes, Randy Wolf, Cliff Politte, Luke Prokopec, Paul Quantrill, Darren Oliver etc?
If people are smart enough to wisely use 10mil for Randy on day 1 and then the same 10 mil for Pedro on day 2, why should they be compensated by different standards? We only get 3 trades per week and holding Randro uses most of those trades. Some weeks it will use all 3 trades. That is the penalty for Randro.
.
Why is there even debate about pay or free? Why not just keep it like it has been...1 free game (you have to attract your customers somehow and let them know if you've got a quality product or not) and 1 pay game.
|
| 41 | C1-NRB
ID: 250362310
Mon, Feb 04, 2002, 17:47
|
I will throw out one item I feel needs to be addressed but hasn't. (I agree with the consensuses [sp?] regarding OF-> DH; not counting "holds"; etc.)
Point-wise the most underrated achievement by hitters is the triple. I would make triples worth 20 and home runs worth 15.
My "logic" is that you already get bonus points with the HR anyway (RBI, run scored) and the 3B is rarer by far. This would put a premium on speed and adjust for cavernous ballparks that give up fewer HR.
We all know a triple is a more exciting play than a home run.
Is there any way to get a bonus for inside-the-park home runs? ;)
|
| 42 | Mr. Nice Guy
ID: 421124113
Mon, Feb 04, 2002, 23:48
|
very good ideas. I definently like the triple idea.
|
| 43 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 08:35
|
I like the idea, but it does put an emphasis on fantasy on a part that is not emphasized in reality.
At the same time though, you would see guys like Helton, Bonds, Sosa et all loose some of their points and speedsters pick some of them up. There are so few triples I don't think it would have a HUGE difference for the top tier players, but maybe the cheaper players and middle tier players might get shuffled around a bit due to the extra points for using speed.
Might also be interesting to see because a lot of teams seem to be gearing up for more speed and small ball and less home runs for 2002.
|
| 44 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 09:35
|
Why should a hit that does not generate any runs in and of itself be worth more than one that does? A triple doesn't necessarily drive anyone in, and the hitter may not end up scoring himself. A homerun generates a run for the team without any help from other baserunners or hitters. It is inherently more valuable and should be worth more points than a triple.
The notion that a triple is more fun to watch is subjective. I think it IS exciting, but that doesn't mean it whould be worth more.
Now, you could make an argument (along the lines of the runs produced stat) that a homerun shouldn't doubly reward the hitter with a run scored and a run driven in, but I don't think that logic seems appropriate in this environment. I think it would make hand scoring unnecessarily complicated i.e. Bonds was 3 for 4 with 1 HR 2 runs, and 3 RBIs, oh wait one of those RBIs doesn't count because of the homerun...
|
| 45 | pogophiles
Leader
ID: 155452911
Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 11:18
|
Why should a triple be worth more than a single and two stolen bases? Or a double and a stolen base?
|
| 46 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 11:28
|
It is worth more than a walk and 2 SB though...
|
| 47 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 5031911
Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 14:01
|
walk + 2 SBs = 23 points
Stolen bases are worth 10 points...
Speedsters already get this advantage of stolen bases being worth inflated values.
|
| 48 | Ender
ID: 18053178
Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 14:40
|
Oops, forgot SB's were worth more last year. IIRC they were worth 5 at one time.
|
| 49 | butt
ID: 48140515
Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 15:40
|
Early roster freeze for Boston's annual Patriots Day game:
Monday, 04/15/2002
Yankees @ Red Sox
11:05 a.m. ET
|
| 50 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Tue, Feb 05, 2002, 16:21
|
LOL, thanks butt. Man, the two months between the Superbowl and opening day has got to be just like morphine withdrawl. MarchMadness MarchMadness MarchMadness I hate college hoops.
|
| 51 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 06, 2002, 14:25
|
I've been playing around with an idea for the last few days that could be instituted in the baseball game but would probably be even better in next year's basketball game.
It has long been a concern of mine that price gravity can really hurt managers that are trying to make up ground by differentiating. Also, getting on "money trains" early is almost discouraged unless you can predict the exact day that the player will escape gravity. Seeing as you may take losses in the first few days then the first few days that the price goes up you are penalized for having the forsight to get on eventhough noone has been selling while you were holding the player. My solution to this:
Recoverable Gravity
I think that there should be an amount of money that can be recovered upon the sale of any player that was lost due to gravity. This would reward the managers that got onto a player in the early stages instead of penalizing them.
Ex. I recently purchased Dale Davis in Ultimate. The first 3 days I took 60-90k losses due to gravity. Following a few good price increases I have now made 50k on the investment. Though many managers who bought Davis after I did have grossed over 100k. I think that in the financial report there should be a column for "Gravity Losses" and that 100-50k of gravity losses should be added to your bank upon selling a player who has taken these losses. In this manner the price of the player will continue to fall so there wouldn't have to be a "freeze" on the players price on your roster only and it also wouldn't be beneficial to hold a player for too long hoping to recover all the losses you are taking on him.
In the above example, if I was compensated for say 50k of Davis initial losses I am now up to a more respectable 100k gain on my investment. (Though I think perhaps 2-3 days of gravity should be able to be recovered.)
Any thoughts?
|
| 52 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Feb 06, 2002, 14:44
|
I dont play Ultimate Hoops, but I would strongly disagree with that suggestion for the baseball game. First, 30k per day is really no big deal. Second, if you jump on at the right time, you are compensated enough in the points your player is earning you that few other managers are receiving. Third, what constitutes "getting on early"? If I buy a cheap player because I forsee moderate or better production from him in the coming days and he disappoints at first but then picks up, and and becomes widely owned, are you saying I deserve to be financially compensated from the time I picked him up? Fourth, what if I buy a cheap player because I forsee moderate or better production from him in the coming days and he disappoints so I sell him? Should I still be compensated for getting in early? If not, what are the standards for "sufficient production" and do you expect this to be something that TSN could handle smoothly?
|
| 53 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 06, 2002, 15:20
|
That's exactly what I'm saying MITH.
To handle all of your scenarios separatley.
1. Then it shouldn't be a big deal to compensate people who have taken these losses.
2. This was brought to my attention by another gurupie and though I agree that the points are the main objective and differentiating might lead to more points I have to ask myself. Once you are behind does it mean that you have to sacrifice money for points? If you continue to follow the price gainers all year you will not gain ground on anyone thus you have to differentiate so this means you are going to take a money hit. This makes it very difficult to make any headway especially once you start getting close to the top 250 because though you might be gaining points you are falling behind in money meaning the points you are gaining will soon be cancelled out by a team in front of you with a higher roster value.
3. This is the reason that only a portion of gravity is recovered. If your scenario plays out and your player disappoints for the first few games that you have him it is reasonable to think that you would lose gravity on him for about 7-9 days (2 bad games with a day off in between followed by 3 good games with 1 or 2 day in between which puts him on the radar) days meaning a lose of 210k - 270k. Therefore, after recovering a portion of gravity you'd still see over 100k in losses.
4. Don't you think the waste of 2 trades and the poor point production is enough of a penalty. Why add on the effects of gravity which would make one trade a total disaster.
Basically I think that the idea behind gravity is to make player's prices more attractive. Once they start reaching the threshold where people find them as feasible options, why should they be penalized for trying to capatilize earlier than others. This does not eliminate the idea totally as it still will effect players who are injured or overpriced but it will not effect managers who buy them in hopes that in a few days down the road they will start gaining money.
Price changes are supposed to be driven by buy and sells, so why do managers get penalized for holding players that are neither bought nor sold. I think a small amount of compensation for holding a player effected by gravity adds another dimension of strategy to the game for those that can't follow the pack once they find themselves falling behind midseason.
|
| 54 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Wed, Feb 06, 2002, 15:39
|
You are rewarded for picking up hot players early on. You get the points the everybody else lost out on.
Like you said, points is the main objective. Sure the other managers got more $, but you got more points.
|
| 55 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Wed, Feb 06, 2002, 17:48
|
I think that one way to handle gravity would be the following: 2 numbers:
Qualified Games (QG) - Similar to qualifying for the batting average title. A number of games (maybe 50% of their teams total games) to that point in the season that makes a player "qualified"
Target TSNP/Gm - A minimum TSNP/Gm for a player that is based on their price. A formula could be 1.5 x $M so that a player priced at $8.00M would have a Target TSNP/Gm of 12.0. If a player is at, or above, the current QG and at or above their Target TSNP/Gm, then they will be excluded from gravity.
|
| 56 | C1-NRB
ID: 1613611
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 10:18
|
Having seen everyone's thoughts on my triple suggestion I have to say I sortof agree with where guys like Ender and pogophiles are coming from. I was just hoping to add a new wrinkle.
Change
I like KKB's last post regarding escaping the effects of gravity. It seems too bad that player of "a certain caliber" would continually lose money throughout most of the season while being a solid workhorse and "keeper" for your team.
|
| 57 | Ira
ID: 1591458
Sun, Feb 10, 2002, 20:52
|
lol, I remember a couple years back when Randro was happening, it was like this
Gainers
Johnson, Randy +1,000,000
Blah, Blah +100,000
Some, Guy +90,000
ect.
Losers
Martinez, Pedro -1,000,000
ect.
I loved this, lets keep it that way
|
| 58 | beastiemiked
ID: 17414316
Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:33
|
Butt
|
| 59 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 16:42
|
This is last year's thread that was butted by beastiemiked, prtobably to refresh our memories about ideas that were floated in the past.
That's fine. But please put further comments in the new thread that discusses Suggestions for the 2003 game
Thanks.
|
| 60 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 17:08
|
Get rid of 5 day pitching price change. Even 4-day would be better--but it works in reverse IMO of how this game was developed. The more people buying, the more price should go up. I know it inflates rosters, but haven't come up with a better solution.
Credit 3 points for a sacrifice.
Put in a DH or Flex position, like it was 5 yrs ago.
Keep stolen bases where they are. This helps out non-power hitters and makes them more playable. Credit -5 for getting picked off and credit a pitcher for a pickoff if that is possible--I dion't think it is--but that's a big play and they should get more than an out. They should get that hit back--which is likely 5 points (3 for a walk of course).
10 or 15 points for a Hold. This makes middle relievers more playable. Right now no one uses them. They are virtually useless.
|
| 61 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 17:48
|
Ref - thanks for following instructions.
:-P
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|