OOTP Developments Forums

OOTP Developments Forums (https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com//index.php)
-   OOTP 20 - General Discussions (https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com//forumdisplay.php?f=3956)
-   -   Active rosters to 26 - Implement via league evolution? (https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com//showthread.php?t=299576)

bwburke94 03-05-2019 11:39 PM

Active rosters to 26 - Implement via league evolution?
 
Link to NBC Sports article discussing the subject. Active rosters likely going to 26 players for the 2020 season, with expanded rosters reducing to 28 players.

In the likely event that this is implemented in real life, it would be possible to "hardcode" the end-of-year-1 league evolution in OOTP 20, as we did in OOTP 13 with the Astros move to the AL. My question isn't whether it's possible, because we've done it before; my question is whether we'll do it again.

As was the case in OOTP 13, those who turn off the relevant section of league evolution would not see any changes.

a5ehren 03-06-2019 01:12 PM

I was going to ask the same thing.

r0nster 03-06-2019 02:57 PM

you can do this easily on your own and only have to do it once. Its easy to do.

Hooray Saturday 03-06-2019 05:10 PM

there are also talking about a limit of 13 pitchers on the 26 man roster. as well as upping the minimum batters faced to 3 for a reliever. I like all these ideas and hope they make it in to real life and OOTP.

r0nster 03-06-2019 07:51 PM

1 Attachment(s)
this should help you accomplish what you looking for

tejdog1 03-06-2019 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hooray Saturday (Post 4446716)
there are also talking about a limit of 13 pitchers on the 26 man roster. as well as upping the minimum batters faced to 3 for a reliever. I like all these ideas and hope they make it in to real life and OOTP.

This rule is terrible.
Bullpen specialization is also terrible, but that rule is worse.

low 03-06-2019 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tejdog1 (Post 4446800)
This rule is terrible.
Bullpen specialization is also terrible, but that rule is worse.

Agreed. I wonder how they're going to police all the fake injuries that are going to occur. You want to improve speed of play? Roster limits or less warmup pitches. Shouldn't these guys be warm when they come in from the bullpen anyways? Either way, this potential new rule is stupid.

JaBurns 03-06-2019 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r0nster (Post 4446793)
this should help you accomplish what you looking for

2076 in your league is impressive.:thumbup1:

r0nster 03-06-2019 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaBurns (Post 4446806)
2076 in your league is impressive.:thumbup1:

the point of the picture is to show we can make the changes that the original post wanted. He didn't have to wait for Markus or the team to make the changes

I am in preseason of 2079 awaiting OOTPXX as I just stopped playing it for a 2 week vacation from game as it were

TomVeal 03-07-2019 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r0nster (Post 4446808)
the point of the picture is to show we can make the changes that the original post wanted. He didn't have to wait for Markus or the team to make the changes

I am in preseason of 2079 awaiting OOTPXX as I just stopped playing it for a 2 week vacation from game as it were

It would be harder, though, to limit teams to 13 pitchers (though I don't imagine that the AI would often want more), and there's no way to implement the three-batter rule, which strikes me as monumentally stupid. As someone has already said, limit relievers to, say, three warmup pitches after they come in. I'd also require them to start walking to the mound no later than when the manager leaves the dugout to make the change.

I'm surprised that the union doesn't object to the rule. After all, it diminishes work opportunities for LOOGY's.

endgame 03-07-2019 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwburke94 (Post 4446400)
Link to NBC Sports article discussing the subject. Active rosters likely going to 26 players for the 2020 season, with expanded rosters reducing to 28 players.

In the likely event that this is implemented in real life, it would be possible to "hardcode" the end-of-year-1 league evolution in OOTP 20, as we did in OOTP 13 with the Astros move to the AL. My question isn't whether it's possible, because we've done it before; my question is whether we'll do it again.

As was the case in OOTP 13, those who turn off the relevant section of league evolution would not see any changes.

After my mind stopped spinning, seeing your post in tandem with advocacy of league evolution, I smelled my drink, checked my tobacco pouch, and of course then realized you were referring to real league evolution. Yes, I'd imagine that should be implemented for those adhering to historical rules and developments. :thumbup1:

backspace4353 03-08-2019 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hooray Saturday (Post 4446716)
there are also talking about a limit of 13 pitchers on the 26 man roster. as well as upping the minimum batters faced to 3 for a reliever. I like all these ideas and hope they make it in to real life and OOTP.


I can't see the minimum of three batters for obvious reasons. The AL could get away with it however the NL would have problems. The main one is its the bottom of the eight with two out and you hold a one run lead, your starter had pitched his last pitch at 112pc, as he got the first two batters out however has just walked the last two batters and faces two out with two on. You need to go to the pen and bring in a reliever. The reliever gives up the tying run and gets the next batter out to end the inning. Top of the ninth you load the bases with two out and who is coming up to bat, you guessed it, that reliever, meanwhile you have your best pinch hitter on the bench and can't use him because your reliever had just pitched to two batters in the last inning and has to face one more.

Le Grande Orange 03-08-2019 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwburke94 (Post 4446400)
Link to NBC Sports article discussing the subject. Active rosters likely going to 26 players for the 2020 season, with expanded rosters reducing to 28 players.

Hasn't happened yet. Just because they are discussing it doesn't mean the suggestions will be adopted. Best to wait and see.

Matt Arnold 03-08-2019 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backspace4353 (Post 4447459)
I can't see the minimum of three batters for obvious reasons. The AL could get away with it however the NL would have problems. The main one is its the bottom of the eight with two out and you hold a one run lead, your starter had pitched his last pitch at 112pc, as he got the first two batters out however has just walked the last two batters and faces two out with two on. You need to go to the pen and bring in a reliever. The reliever gives up the tying run and gets the next batter out to end the inning. Top of the ninth you load the bases with two out and who is coming up to bat, you guessed it, that reliever, meanwhile you have your best pinch hitter on the bench and can't use him because your reliever had just pitched to two batters in the last inning and has to face one more.

From what I read, the 3 batter minimum doesn't carry over between innings. So it's more like "3 batters or finish an inning", so you could still pinch hit in that above case.

Of course, that point is moot as well since they're obviously bringing in a universal DH too, which everyone loves, right?

r0nster 03-08-2019 07:25 AM

I despise the new rules the MLB is trying. If they really wanted to shorten the game or improve the speed of the game then dump the commercials as that is 3 to 4 minutes these days so you can add up how much time that is on its own. Since I love History I decided a while back to look up game times and reasoning for the longer length of time at each turn, Radio used to not have commercials and the game went from 90 minutes to a bit over 2 hours and commercials were done by the announcers at that time then it became a full fledged commercials which boosted the game length time up to 2 hours and 30 minutes as TV did the same exact thing as well only they would cut to a commercial then each commercial break would get longer thus longer games. Even back during the radio days they KNEW what was causing the length of games to get longer. Revenue for the station and game. No way will they touch that. So they will blame other things and say the changes are for the fans and players. ridiculous such a scam we buy hook line and sinker

bailey 03-08-2019 11:55 AM

If they go to 26 with the extra man being a batter can 2 DH's be far behind? One for the pitcher and one for the catcher.

Le Grande Orange 03-08-2019 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r0nster (Post 4447508)
I despise the new rules the MLB is trying. If they really wanted to shorten the game or improve the speed of the game then dump the commercials as that is 3 to 4 minutes these days so you can add up how much time that is on its own.

I can post the data again, but it is interesting to view the average time length of a standard game across all leagues. Asian leagues have game times longer than MLB's; the affiliated minor leagues have shorter lengths.

TomVeal 03-09-2019 11:38 AM

Has anyone anywhere considered the possibility that game lengths are a product of audience preferences? After spending $50 per person for tickets, plus the cost of parking, for an afternoon at the ballpark, does a fan really want to be sent home after 90 minutes? I haven't thought about this hypothesis deeply, but I wonder whether anybody else has thought about it at all.

Le Grande Orange 03-09-2019 03:18 PM

I found the 2017 data. Below is the average game length in minutes for normal duration games (8½–9 innings, 51–54 outs) in that league. Also included is the minimum and maximum length, standard deviation, and number of games in the sample.
Code:

Lg    Mean  Min  Max  StDev    n=
------------------------------------
CPBL  205.8  147  318  28.0  215
KBO  196.5  129  290  24.1  654
***  188.1  127  266  22.5  771
------------------------------------
MEX  185.4  103  278  24.2  714
------------------------------------
MLB  185.2  125  273  20.9  2247
------------------------------------
INT  167.9  118  233  18.8  794
PCL  173.4  121  252  20.0  954
EAS  161.8  114  283  18.9  637
SOU  165.0  117  240  18.9  547
TEX  165.6  112  230  17.9  479
CAL  173.2  116  278  19.4  502
CAR  168.9  115  254  20.1  534
FSL  157.7  109  220  18.9  635
MID  168.8  107  229  20.1  926
SAL  165.4  107  233  19.8  760
------------------------------------
NYP  169.0  122  243  19.9  406
NWL  177.4  125  238  19.9  274
APP  169.8    99  239  21.2  272
PIO  175.4  129  258  24.2  277
------------------------------------
ALPB  175.7  127  310  21.6  436
AAIB  171.2  112  243  19.7  487
CAA  187.4  117  334  27.9  257
FRON  166.4  110  298  24.2  463
------------------------------------
AFL  155.6  116  209  16.9    83
DWL  207.4  137  290  28.1  137
MPL  192.7  128  258  23.1  243
RCPL  182.0  139  236  24.9    22
VWL  208.0  148  281  27.2  214
ABL  176.8  111  239  24.8    88


r0nster 03-09-2019 04:29 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by TomVeal (Post 4447365)
It would be harder, though, to limit teams to 13 pitchers (though I don't imagine that the AI would often want more), and there's no way to implement the three-batter rule, which strikes me as monumentally stupid. As someone has already said, limit relievers to, say, three warmup pitches after they come in. I'd also require them to start walking to the mound no later than when the manager leaves the dugout to make the change.

I'm surprised that the union doesn't object to the rule. After all, it diminishes work opportunities for LOOGY's.

This might help you


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments