Player Designation

[Giants44]

Now I could probably fill 10 pages of ideas for future additions, updates, versions, etc. But none one of us wants to deal with that so I will simply give you one that I have been thinking about quite a bit.

Considering the scope of this, I would think this is probably more of a v7 thing then a patch to v6, of course I wouldn’t be upset if it made its way into a v6 update.

A frustration I have that I know is shared by many players is not only the obvious AI problems (such as cutting Chipper Jones) but as much the subtle ones – for example a Carlos Delgado leading off. Now I have seen the studies about how players like him SHOULD lead off, but the fact of the matter is for the most part in real life they don’t. For the most part lineups tend to be fairly predictable at least for 1-5. So my thought is for each player to have some “designations” that are 100% controlled by the user, the AI never sets these designations. This would give solo players (especially historical ones) tremendous control over their leagues.

The designations are as follows:

Force Position: Default is a null value, but if you want to make sure that the AI always plays a player at a certain position and plays this play over anyone else on the roster. For example if you designate Andru Jones as the CF – He will be the starting CF, he won’t play left, the AI won’t place someone else above him in the depth chart (it still would of course place backups)

Force Order: Like position default is a null value – But if you want a player to always bat in a certain spot in the order you would set it here. For example the AI will almost never bat Rickey Henderson leadoff because of his power. But with this you could set this to “1” and the AI would set him 1 in all lineups.

Franchise Player: When set to yes – AI will always try and resign him, will never cut him, never trade him. Take a player like Tony Gwynn – set this to yes and he remains with San Diego his entire career (or until to change his designation)

Major Player: Default is no, only other option is yes. Not as powerful as franchise, this designation (when set to yes) simply prevents a player from being cut or sent down to AAA. Solves the Chipper Jones type issue. You don’t always want the Braves to re-sign him, or not trade him – But clearly during the prime of his career you don’t want to see them cut him.

These seem like pretty simple things to implement (to me anyway BUT I know 0 about programming) but for me would absolutely skyrocket my immersion factor in my solo leagues. (and could even prove usefull in my on-line league if for example I want to hit “auto-lineup” one day when I am pressed for time but I still want player X to hit third.)

My thought on this is you would probably only set these designations on 1-2 players per team, with of course the more detailed oriented ones using it a little more and the less so, probably not at all.

[rogmax11]

This is good stuff.

[scprideandms]

me likes

[kmcbrayer]

Adding to your post about players batting out of position, in my game the computer has Juan Pierre batting 4th for the Marlins.

[Giants44]

bump, so it doesn't get lost.

would this be usefull to you guys?

[kingpin1976]

yeah lets see The Cards have Scott Rolen leading off, the Astros have Richard Hidalgo #1,San Diego has Phil Nevin or was it klesko? Braves have Andruw Jones leadoff Rafael Furcal #3,Why is the AI thinking it best to have the greatest OPS hitter #1 shouldnt the reasoning be get men on base first for that player with a high OPS?

[eriqjaffe]

The only thing I would change would be that the franchise player "never" gets traded, as we should all know to never say never. We've seen plenty of "franchise" players traded IRL...Griffey, A-Rod, Brian Giles...

However, the LIKELIHOOD of those players getting traded is pretty slim, and any trades involving them would have to be blockbusters.

What I'd like to see implimented is the 10/5 rule. If a player has ten years of ML experience, the last 5 of them with his current team, he has the right to VETO a trade. That would make it a heck of a lot harder to dump your high-priced aging stars for prospects.

--Eriq.

[kingcharlesxii]

Good ideas and adding the 10/5 rule would cut down on a lot of the trades. However, I would suspect that AI releases would increase unless things got tweaked quite a bit.

[eriqjaffe]

The 10/5 rule could also be used to protect players from being cut...I know that's not how MLB does it, but it could fix that potential issue.

[jgross68]

Originally posted by eriqjaffe
The only thing I would change would be that the franchise player "never" gets traded, as we should all know to never say never. We've seen plenty of "franchise" players traded IRL...Griffey, A-Rod, Brian Giles...

However, the LIKELIHOOD of those players getting traded is pretty slim, and any trades involving them would have to be blockbusters.

What I'd like to see implimented is the 10/5 rule. If a player has ten years of ML experience, the last 5 of them with his current team, he has the right to VETO a trade. That would make it a heck of a lot harder to dump your high-priced aging stars for prospects.

--Eriq.

Might as well add in no-trade clauses as well for contract negotiations with extensions and free agents. Look how those came back to bite the Texas Rangers in the butt last year with Palmeiro and Gonzalez. Eastside Hockey Manager has had no-trades for as long as I can remember, but I don't remember how (or if) that game handles players waiving their rights.

[SoxWin]

I don't think it does Jg, allow players to waive their rights that is.

[Mike D]

Altough, in the last year of their deal, if you resign them to a deal without a no-trade clause, then you can move him. Although some might consider that to be dishonest, how else do you move Amonte after he's washed up.

[jgross68]

I suppose you could try and build some logic that might tie to the player's desire to play for a winner and/or loyalty with his willingness to waive a no-trade clause. Something as simple as a random number generator on a sliding scale could do the trick.

[Giants44]

Originally posted by eriqjaffe
The only thing I would change would be that the franchise player "never" gets traded, as we should all know to never say never. We've seen plenty of "franchise" players traded IRL...Griffey, A-Rod, Brian Giles...

However, the LIKELIHOOD of those players getting traded is pretty slim, and any trades involving them would have to be blockbusters.

What I'd like to see implimented is the 10/5 rule. If a player has ten years of ML experience, the last 5 of them with his current team, he has the right to VETO a trade. That would make it a heck of a lot harder to dump your high-priced aging stars for prospects.

--Eriq.

No - I am not saying that it doesn't happen - simply that in at least one of the solo leagues I play I would prefer the abilty to prevent it, so much so that I set certain teams to human and run them myselves just to make sure certain plays (like the infamous fictional pirates outfield of Brothers Felipe, Craig and Marty Galios)

[Giants44]

I was thinking about this and the "Lock" depth chart function that we see int TPF and FOF would do the trick for most of this.

For example lock Jones as the CF and the AI will play him there and not move him to left.

or lock Juan Pierre at #1 and the AI will keep him at leadoff.

doesn't solve the trade problem (which I acknowledge is probably not on as many peoples radar) but certainly most people want to see Rickey Henderson batting leadoff and playing LF. Not batting 4th and playing right.