Adjustable Minor league Roster Size

J P Falcon · 04-05-2002, 10:55 PM

I would like to be able to adjust the roster size on the minor league level, especially for A ball. This would prevent the AI from signing so many minor league contract free agents and have a glut at various positions. You should be able to set it at 15-20-25-30 and be able to do it idividually for all three minor league clubs.

Scott Vibert · 04-06-2002, 08:44 AM

Excellent suggestion... currently there is a 40man limit on these rosters and its probably too high.

J P Falcon · 04-06-2002, 10:07 AM

Thanks for the support Scott....In responding to other posts on similar subjects, it dawned on me that it would not do any good to reduce the roster size to, lets say 20, if the AI is going to still have a roster skewed towards one or two positions. For example, out of the 20 man roster there are 9 middle relievers and 6 first basemen. I wonder if it would be possible to set the parameters on how many players at any one position can be in your minor league club. If I had a chance to set these numbers on a 25 man minor league roster, I probably would go:
Starters -5
Middle Relievers-3
Closer-1
Catcher -2
Firstbase -2
Secondbase -2
Shortstop -2
Thirdbase -2
Leftfield -2
Rightfield -2
Centerfield -2

I think this is a good mix but you can adjust it accordingly. Of course if you were to lower the minor league size then that would even increase the challenge of which positions you develope.

As an added thought. You could have the reduced roster size take effect after you run spring training. Then you can review your squad and make the necessary cuts. Prior to spring training, you would have a 40 man roster. So there is an added challenge and fun in deciding who stays and who goes!

[ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]

[ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]

[ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]

Scott Vibert · 04-06-2002, 10:27 AM

[quote]Originally posted by J P Falcon:

Starters -5
Middle Relievers-3
Closer-1
Catcher -2
Firstbase -2
Secondbase -2
Shortstop -2
Thirdbase -2
Leftfield -2
Rightfield -2
Centerfield -2

<hr></blockquote>

I'd change these values a bit:
Starters-4
Relievers-4
Closer-1
Floating Pitchers - 2
Catchers - 2
First-1
Second-1
Third-1
Short-1
Floating IF - 2
Left-1
Center-1
Right-1
Floating OF - 2
Floating Any - 1

If you used a 25 man roster that is what I do... although this would fully fix the AI's issues... they still make some questionable choices of who to play at each level, but this should prevent the 6 catchers at A ball and playing the oldest 2 (who are the worst prospects) phenomenon I tend to see.

I wanted to add some floating positions in there to ensure the AI can keep their best prospects, which will help prevent scavenging for top notch prospects who are bunched at certain positions.

My personal taste I might limit the minor league rosters to 20, but some wouldn't like that.

Killebrew · 04-06-2002, 10:36 AM

This is a very cool idea, and maybe a nice stopgap solution for current minor league logjams on the AI squads until a more detailed AI roster decision-making code can be incorporated in future OOTP versions. It would also be a nice tech support tool, to suggest adjusting minor league rosters down to a certain size for users that experience slower game speed or memory-related crash issues.

Scott Vibert · 04-06-2002, 11:08 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Killebrew:
This is a very cool idea, and maybe a nice stopgap solution for current minor league logjams on the AI squads until a more detailed AI roster decision-making code can be incorporated in future OOTP versions. It would also be a nice tech support tool, to suggest adjusting minor league rosters down to a certain size for users that experience slower game speed or memory-related crash issues.<hr></blockquote>

Yup.. I added this positional size enhancement to my original AI Culling its minor league ideas feature in the beta forum... so maybe if Markus sees it in both places (with the ideas fleshed out a bit more) we stand a better shot at getting this implemented.

c-man · 04-06-2002, 12:15 PM

I like this idea... I think having some "floating" positions is a must though, as for example, I wouldn't want to see the AI turn down trades involving really good prospects because they already have that roster spot filled in the minors. I think there would need to be some sort of safe guard against that potential problem--

Also, as has been discussed extensively, I would really support adding some age limitations. These two ideas together would really help the AI IMO and neither seems extremely complicated... (but what do I know about programming?)

J P Falcon · 04-06-2002, 12:29 PM

Good ideas to help flesh out the possibilities. If a trade is to be made and one or the other team's roster's are all full then someone would need to be released in order to complete the deal. This wouldn't be a problem with even exchanges but a roster spot(s) would need to be cleared in a 2 for 1 type deal. Presently the AI teams release and sign players all the time so I presume the mechanics are already in place for such movements to occur...perhaps just tweaked a bit to prevent what c-man illustrated... The floating position players should help as well.

Specs · 04-06-2002, 12:38 PM

With the weak development of pitching that can often happen, I think that 9 pitchers is not enough. Pitchers never develop as they should, or so I've found, so I like to increase my chances of getting a random success story in the middle of all the failures. Think about it. 11 pitchers in the majors. Let's say you lose two a year in the free agency market and one to retirement/trade. So let's say you need to replace one with a prospect. If you've only had 4 starters in AAA, chances are that you don't have one good enough. Same with MR and especially CL. I like to keep 5 starters, 6 MR, and 2 CL in each level if I can, but then again, I draft 12 rounds and cut some minor leaguers each year...

Killebrew · 04-06-2002, 12:40 PM

[quote]Originally posted by c-man:
...... I wouldn't want to see the AI turn down trades involving really good prospects because they already have that roster spot filled in the minors. ....<hr></blockquote>

Mostly I agree, but maybe the AI should turn down a trade for prospects if it already has prospects at those positions. Currently it is a walk in the park to trade-shark any AI team and overload them with "quasi-prospects" (AVG rated and young) and this is almost always hurting them more than helping

. Really good prospects (GOOD+ and young) should ideally trigger some kind of over-ride/release function for the AI, since those prospects are so rare.

J P Falcon · 04-06-2002, 12:56 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Specs:
With the weak development of pitching that can often happen, I think that 9 pitchers is not enough. Pitchers never develop as they should, or so I've found, so I like to increase my chances of getting a random success story in the middle of all the failures. Think about it. 11 pitchers in the majors. Let's say you lose two a year in the free agency market and one to retirement/trade. So let's say you need to replace one with a prospect. If you've only had 4 starters in AAA, chances are that you don't have one good enough. Same with MR and especially CL. I like to keep 5 starters, 6 MR, and 2 CL in each level if I can, but then again, I draft 12 rounds and cut some minor leaguers each year...<hr></blockquote>

Well I was thinking more of controlling the AI minor league rosters, not so much the Human contolled, with the exception of minor league roster size which would be the same for all, once set. If you are concerned about having a lack of pitching, you can make the choice of keeping a large roster to accomadate them. Perhaps keeping a larger AAA roster, where most of your pitching callups would come from, than AA or A. It would need to be customizable to suit many tastes.

c-man · 04-06-2002, 01:15 PM

Killebrew--i agree 100%. I was thinking of the AI not replacing career minor league player types with good prospects because the roster spot was filled. It seems that this is where it could start getting complicated:

how do you define when a prospect is good enough for the AI to refuse trades that would replace him for a limited roster spot?

but maybe i am over-analyzing this one...just trying to think of any possible pitfalls...

[ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: c-man ]

Killebrew · 04-06-2002, 01:15 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Specs:
With the weak development of pitching that can often happen, I think that 9 pitchers is not enough. ...<hr></blockquote>

You probably know this but having too many pitchers per level actually stunts development. I have seen no weak devel of pitching in my solo v4 leagues, out of about 6-9 pitchers I have per minor league level (on average), I probably get close to 2 MLB-ready young pitchers per year. That is with no coaching help (coaches turned off) and drafting among the final 5 teams each year in a 4 round ammy draft. Maybe you have too many pitchers right now and that is having a negative impact on their progress.

Tiger Fan · 04-06-2002, 03:14 PM

Some great ideas here.
Maybe going to a second Class A minor league team for version 5 would help give the room for extra pitchers to develop a bit more.

Edit - Post 715. I dedicate this one to Al Downing.

[ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: Tiger Fan ]

hellfrozeover · 04-06-2002, 05:11 PM

IMO, the AI should also cut all the minor leaguers in it's system who have scouting reports of "Joe Schmoe should not be a big league player". These guys have no futures and crowd the minor league systems. Yet, I still see them in many teams farm systems. The only exception could be if the player is on the active roster because he plays 95 different positions. This is the only real exception that I can see for this, otherwise the AI controlled teams shouldn't allow those future-less players to clog up the farm system. This is part of the reason why I only ammy draft 3 rounds and never fill the minors, it makes the minor leagues much less crowded with scrubs.

henry296 · 04-08-2002, 04:47 AM

I think the should be limited to 25 players and the AI should set their rosters as if they are real teams. That would force them to balance their rosters to try to make a usable lineup if at all possible.

Todd

J P Falcon · 04-08-2002, 06:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by henry296:
I think the should be limited to 25 players and the AI should set their rosters as if they are real teams. That would force them to balance their rosters to try to make a usable lineup if at all possible.

Todd<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps this is indeed the easiest and most efficient way to handle the minor league AI rosters. There could also be a "Rookie League" where you would not have this restriction, but for the 3 other minor league teams, this may well be a good idea and perhaps the easiest way to program it.

[ 04-08-2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]

mtw · 04-08-2002, 01:09 PM

I *really* like the idea of the AI handling its minors the way it does the majors, and cutting the excess scrubs at the A level. Two things I would add:

1) I really want customizable roster sizes, especially for the major league level.

2) The AI will currently only allow itself 5 SP's at AAA and AA, even if those are the only pitchers at those levels. It keeps any other pitchers designated as SP's who are ready for AAA or AA at the A level. If the AI does not have its relief roles filled out at AAA or AA, then I would like to see the AI fill out those roles with the ready-for-promotion SP's at the A level. The same goes for putting ready-for-promotion RP's at the A level into vacant SP roles at AAA and AA.

c-man · 04-09-2002, 03:27 PM

I remember that with franchise baseball, (joe's last project that was not completed) the minor league teams were set up as has been suggested here.(in screenshots, that is

) Each level of the minors and the majors were treated as equal and independent teams, with their own schedules, games, box scores, etc. The majors conceptually were not really given different treatment in any regard, but were treated as the "highest" level in the organization. i really think this could be an effective way to think about the future structure of the game in many regards...

Bald Eagles · 04-10-2002, 12:29 PM

The spot I noticed that the AI gloms on is the closer role. I picked up two closers off of one 25-man (MLB) roster (out of the four they had up there) and put them in my minor league system, where I only had one closer other than the one I had on my 25.

When I look at other rosters around the league, I noticed that many teams have 2 MRs and 3 or 4 CLs.

04-05-2002, 10:55 PM	#1
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	Adjustable Minor league Roster Size I would like to be able to adjust the roster size on the minor league level, especially for A ball. This would prevent the AI from signing so many minor league contract free agents and have a glut at various positions. You should be able to set it at 15-20-25-30 and be able to do it idividually for all three minor league clubs.

04-06-2002, 10:07 AM	#3
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	Thanks for the support Scott....In responding to other posts on similar subjects, it dawned on me that it would not do any good to reduce the roster size to, lets say 20, if the AI is going to still have a roster skewed towards one or two positions. For example, out of the 20 man roster there are 9 middle relievers and 6 first basemen. I wonder if it would be possible to set the parameters on how many players at any one position can be in your minor league club. If I had a chance to set these numbers on a 25 man minor league roster, I probably would go: Starters -5 Middle Relievers-3 Closer-1 Catcher -2 Firstbase -2 Secondbase -2 Shortstop -2 Thirdbase -2 Leftfield -2 Rightfield -2 Centerfield -2 I think this is a good mix but you can adjust it accordingly. Of course if you were to lower the minor league size then that would even increase the challenge of which positions you develope. As an added thought. You could have the reduced roster size take effect after you run spring training. Then you can review your squad and make the necessary cuts. Prior to spring training, you would have a 40 man roster. So there is an added challenge and fun in deciding who stays and who goes! [ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: J P Falcon ] [ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: J P Falcon ] [ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]</p>

04-06-2002, 10:27 AM	#4
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,267	[quote]Originally posted by J P Falcon: <strong> Starters -5 Middle Relievers-3 Closer-1 Catcher -2 Firstbase -2 Secondbase -2 Shortstop -2 Thirdbase -2 Leftfield -2 Rightfield -2 Centerfield -2 </strong><hr></blockquote> I'd change these values a bit: Starters-4 Relievers-4 Closer-1 Floating Pitchers - 2 Catchers - 2 First-1 Second-1 Third-1 Short-1 Floating IF - 2 Left-1 Center-1 Right-1 Floating OF - 2 Floating Any - 1 If you used a 25 man roster that is what I do... although this would fully fix the AI's issues... they still make some questionable choices of who to play at each level, but this should prevent the 6 catchers at A ball and playing the oldest 2 (who are the worst prospects) phenomenon I tend to see. I wanted to add some floating positions in there to ensure the AI can keep their best prospects, which will help prevent scavenging for top notch prospects who are bunched at certain positions. My personal taste I might limit the minor league rosters to 20, but some wouldn't like that.

04-06-2002, 10:36 AM	#5
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	This is a very cool idea, and maybe a nice stopgap solution for current minor league logjams on the AI squads until a more detailed AI roster decision-making code can be incorporated in future OOTP versions. It would also be a nice tech support tool, to suggest adjusting minor league rosters down to a certain size for users that experience slower game speed or memory-related crash issues. __________________ FOBL Capital City Metropolitans CDL Minnesota Twins

04-06-2002, 11:08 AM	#6
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,267	[quote]Originally posted by Killebrew: <strong>This is a very cool idea, and maybe a nice stopgap solution for current minor league logjams on the AI squads until a more detailed AI roster decision-making code can be incorporated in future OOTP versions. It would also be a nice tech support tool, to suggest adjusting minor league rosters down to a certain size for users that experience slower game speed or memory-related crash issues.</strong><hr></blockquote> Yup.. I added this positional size enhancement to my original AI Culling its minor league ideas feature in the beta forum... so maybe if Markus sees it in both places (with the ideas fleshed out a bit more) we stand a better shot at getting this implemented.

04-06-2002, 08:44 AM	#2
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,267	Excellent suggestion... currently there is a 40man limit on these rosters and its probably too high.

04-06-2002, 12:15 PM	#7
c-man Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 130	I like this idea... I think having some "floating" positions is a must though, as for example, I wouldn't want to see the AI turn down trades involving really good prospects because they already have that roster spot filled in the minors. I think there would need to be some sort of safe guard against that potential problem-- Also, as has been discussed extensively, I would really support adding some age limitations. These two ideas together would really help the AI IMO and neither seems extremely complicated... (but what do I know about programming?)

04-06-2002, 12:29 PM	#8
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	Good ideas to help flesh out the possibilities. If a trade is to be made and one or the other team's roster's are all full then someone would need to be released in order to complete the deal. This wouldn't be a problem with even exchanges but a roster spot(s) would need to be cleared in a 2 for 1 type deal. Presently the AI teams release and sign players all the time so I presume the mechanics are already in place for such movements to occur...perhaps just tweaked a bit to prevent what c-man illustrated... The floating position players should help as well.

04-06-2002, 12:40 PM	#10
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	[quote]Originally posted by c-man: <strong>...... I wouldn't want to see the AI turn down trades involving really good prospects because they already have that roster spot filled in the minors. ....</strong><hr></blockquote> Mostly I agree, but maybe the AI should turn down a trade for prospects if it already has prospects at those positions. Currently it is a walk in the park to trade-shark any AI team and overload them with "quasi-prospects" (AVG rated and young) and this is almost always hurting them more than helping . Really good prospects (GOOD+ and young) should ideally trigger some kind of over-ride/release function for the AI, since those prospects are so rare. __________________ FOBL Capital City Metropolitans CDL Minnesota Twins

04-06-2002, 12:56 PM	#11
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	[quote]Originally posted by Specs: <strong>With the weak development of pitching that can often happen, I think that 9 pitchers is not enough. Pitchers never develop as they should, or so I've found, so I like to increase my chances of getting a random success story in the middle of all the failures. Think about it. 11 pitchers in the majors. Let's say you lose two a year in the free agency market and one to retirement/trade. So let's say you need to replace one with a prospect. If you've only had 4 starters in AAA, chances are that you don't have one good enough. Same with MR and especially CL. I like to keep 5 starters, 6 MR, and 2 CL in each level if I can, but then again, I draft 12 rounds and cut some minor leaguers each year...</strong><hr></blockquote> Well I was thinking more of controlling the AI minor league rosters, not so much the Human contolled, with the exception of minor league roster size which would be the same for all, once set. If you are concerned about having a lack of pitching, you can make the choice of keeping a large roster to accomadate them. Perhaps keeping a larger AAA roster, where most of your pitching callups would come from, than AA or A. It would need to be customizable to suit many tastes.

04-06-2002, 01:15 PM	#12
c-man Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 130	Killebrew--i agree 100%. I was thinking of the AI not replacing career minor league player types with good prospects because the roster spot was filled. It seems that this is where it could start getting complicated: how do you define when a prospect is good enough for the AI to refuse trades that would replace him for a limited roster spot? but maybe i am over-analyzing this one...just trying to think of any possible pitfalls... [ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: c-man ]</p>

04-06-2002, 03:14 PM	#14
Tiger Fan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ontario Canada Posts: 9,873	Some great ideas here. Maybe going to a second Class A minor league team for version 5 would help give the room for extra pitchers to develop a bit more. Edit - Post 715. I dedicate this one to Al Downing. [ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: Tiger Fan ]</p> __________________ Cliff Markle HOB1 greatest pitcher 360-160, 9 Welch Awards, 11 WS titles

04-06-2002, 05:11 PM	#15
hellfrozeover All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,130	IMO, the AI should also cut all the minor leaguers in it's system who have scouting reports of "Joe Schmoe should not be a big league player". These guys have no futures and crowd the minor league systems. Yet, I still see them in many teams farm systems. The only exception could be if the player is on the active roster because he plays 95 different positions. This is the only real exception that I can see for this, otherwise the AI controlled teams shouldn't allow those future-less players to clog up the farm system. This is part of the reason why I only ammy draft 3 rounds and never fill the minors, it makes the minor leagues much less crowded with scrubs. __________________ FBA Chicago Syndicate Former Owner: WBL Minnesota Twins 2004 - 2007 AL Central Division Champs OOL Chicago Whales 2006, 2009 UL East Champs; 2006, 2009 United League Champs IBA Lehigh Valley Diamonds 2006 Governor's Cup Champions VSLB New York Yankees 2001, 2002 AL East Division Champs ILBL Commissioner/Chicago Cubs 2002 NL Central Division Champs; 2002 National League Champs ASBL New York Yankees 2006 AL East Division Champs

04-08-2002, 04:47 AM	#16
henry296 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 514	I think the should be limited to 25 players and the AI should set their rosters as if they are real teams. That would force them to balance their rosters to try to make a usable lineup if at all possible. Todd

04-08-2002, 06:19 AM	#17
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by henry296: <strong>I think the should be limited to 25 players and the AI should set their rosters as if they are real teams. That would force them to balance their rosters to try to make a usable lineup if at all possible. Todd</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Perhaps this is indeed the easiest and most efficient way to handle the minor league AI rosters. There could also be a "Rookie League" where you would not have this restriction, but for the 3 other minor league teams, this may well be a good idea and perhaps the easiest way to program it. <small>[ 04-08-2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]</small>

04-08-2002, 01:09 PM	#18
mtw All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 653	I really like the idea of the AI handling its minors the way it does the majors, and cutting the excess scrubs at the A level. Two things I would add: 1) I <strong>really</strong> want customizable roster sizes, especially for the major league level. 2) The AI will currently only allow itself 5 SP's at AAA and AA, even if those are the only pitchers at those levels. It keeps any other pitchers designated as SP's who are ready for AAA or AA at the A level. If the AI does not have its relief roles filled out at AAA or AA, then I would like to see the AI fill out those roles with the ready-for-promotion SP's at the A level. The same goes for putting ready-for-promotion RP's at the A level into vacant SP roles at AAA and AA. __________________ Over-Zealous Apologist

04-09-2002, 03:27 PM	#19
c-man Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 130	I remember that with franchise baseball, (joe's last project that was not completed) the minor league teams were set up as has been suggested here.(in screenshots, that is ) Each level of the minors and the majors were treated as equal and independent teams, with their own schedules, games, box scores, etc. The majors conceptually were not really given different treatment in any regard, but were treated as the "highest" level in the organization. i really think this could be an effective way to think about the future structure of the game in many regards...

04-10-2002, 12:29 PM	#20
Bald Eagles Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Waveland & Sheffield Posts: 402	The spot I noticed that the AI gloms on is the closer role. I picked up two closers off of one 25-man (MLB) roster (out of the four they had up there) and put them in my minor league system, where I only had one closer other than the one I had on my 25. When I look at other rosters around the league, I noticed that many teams have 2 MRs and 3 or 4 CLs.