82 game season workaround

Riverdome · 07-11-2003, 12:07 PM

I want to play out all my games, but I also would like to get through a whole season in just 2-3 months. So I've been using an 82 game schedule. Now I understand that playing shorter seasons effects player development.

WHAT IF . . .
I play a full slate of games on April 1st, and then don't play again for a month or two. Then play out an 81 game schedule ending in late Sept. Does this have ANY chance of defeating the player development issue? They are on a major league roster for a full season, they just don't get the GP.

Plutoro · 07-11-2003, 12:10 PM

i think the not playing will hurt there development

tyler · 07-11-2003, 12:14 PM

Shorter seasons hurt development? Can someone elaborate on this for me?

-tyler

Riverdome · 07-11-2003, 12:19 PM

My understanding is that since the players are playing half as many games they will develope only "half way'. I recall Steve saying that ST isn't where the majority of development occurs, it's playing games day in and day out that turn a prospect into a star.

I've considered leaving everything alone. If the hitters and the pitchers equally don't develop, it seems to me that I should still have an okay league. Just with more 2-4 ratings and few 6-8. I don't think it matters that a hitter can't hit a 95mph fastball if the best hurler can only throw 90. know what I mean?

tyler · 07-11-2003, 12:30 PM

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm currently running a 42-game season (just for a change, and so I can play out all my games). If development really becomes a problem though, I'll just switch back to 162.

-tyler

couriers · 07-11-2003, 12:38 PM

I never understood the idea of playing a shorter season just to play out all of the games. If you plan on moving forward to a second season then why not just play a longer first season? You will end up playing out the same number of games in the end and it doesn't take any longer to do so. This would eliminate any discrepancies that may exist due to shorter season schedules.

My question is, if you had the ability to do so would you also shorten the games themselves because that would follow the same logic as shortening the seasons?

Riverdome · 07-11-2003, 02:29 PM

couriers,

Shortening the games, no. That would change the basics of the game we all love so no that would never be an option for me.

Why shorten the seassons? I love the GM aspects of the game (FA, contracts, drafting). I also love the possibility of getting fired, moving to a new team... If I play out 162 games it takes to long to get to the off season. I want to enjoy those aspects of the game more often than every 162 games.

Why play games out? I decided long ago that I wanted as much control over the on field stuff as possible. I would manage pitch by pitch (like giving signs from 3rd base) if it were an option. To enjoy all aspects of the game I need to either shorten the season, or play twice as many games at a time.

I refuse to sim because I loose all connection with my team when I sim. I know most of my 25 man roster by heart. Just like in real life I get let down and surprised in the bottom of the 9th. By playing every game I can let my emotion decide to resign a player or not. I think it's better than making decisions stricky "by the numbers".

GOD I LOVE THIS GAME.

tyler · 07-11-2003, 03:53 PM

Preach it, Riverdome.

-tyler

Eckstein 4 Prez · 07-11-2003, 05:26 PM

Also, for those of us who like to sim out the 19th century..... a short season is historically accurate.

My solo historical league (which I commish only) is currently in the 1880 postseason (Providence Grays vs. Worcester Ruby Legs - go Grays!), and our seasons are still only 84 games long. We'll be up over 100 soon, though.

couriers · 07-11-2003, 05:36 PM

And those are all good reasons. I just can't understand when someone says that they want to shorten their season because they don't have the time to play an entire 162 game season. Yet they go on to play 2 seasons with 81 games each in the same period of time. To them, they are saving time. In reality, it takes just as long.

However, all of the reasons above are good enough for me and make complete sense of the situation. Thanks.

Riverdome · 07-16-2003, 12:26 PM

Back to the orig issue of short seasons effecting development.

If that is true would playing a 190 game schedule make players develope more, or at least quicker?

tyler · 07-16-2003, 02:08 PM

That's an interesting question, I'd like to know the answer myself.

-tyler

Riverdome · 07-16-2003, 03:07 PM

Seems to me that a longer schedule would result in players getting more bumps per season when they are young. Then at the end of their career the would end up taking more bumps against. IMO

jaxmagicman · 07-16-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Riverdome
Seems to me that a longer schedule would result in players getting more bumps per season when they are young. Then at the end of their career the would end up taking more bumps against. IMO

So a short season would let players receive less bumps against, when they are older? I am really Confused now.

Riverdome · 07-16-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaxmagicman
So a short season would let players receive less bumps against, when they are older? I am really Confused now.

Don't take that as gospil but I would assume so. Since they are getting fewer bumps when they are young and playing less games I assume they don't decline as fast either since they are playing fewer games.

07-11-2003, 12:07 PM	#1
Riverdome All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 964	82 game season workaround I want to play out all my games, but I also would like to get through a whole season in just 2-3 months. So I've been using an 82 game schedule. Now I understand that playing shorter seasons effects player development. WHAT IF . . . I play a full slate of games on April 1st, and then don't play again for a month or two. Then play out an 81 game schedule ending in late Sept. Does this have ANY chance of defeating the player development issue? They are on a major league roster for a full season, they just don't get the GP. __________________ I was at the first OOTP Conference, where were you?..........

07-11-2003, 12:10 PM	#2
Plutoro Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 276	i think the not playing will hurt there development __________________ SMLB-San Diego Padres: Pre-season 2003, currently rebuilding (year 1 of 5). 15-22 now, Klesko and Burroughs are hot each hitting .325 plus, Bartosh and Keisler both making strong cases for RoY in the early season.

07-11-2003, 12:19 PM	#4
Riverdome All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 964	My understanding is that since the players are playing half as many games they will develope only "half way'. I recall Steve saying that ST isn't where the majority of development occurs, it's playing games day in and day out that turn a prospect into a star. I've considered leaving everything alone. If the hitters and the pitchers equally don't develop, it seems to me that I should still have an okay league. Just with more 2-4 ratings and few 6-8. I don't think it matters that a hitter can't hit a 95mph fastball if the best hurler can only throw 90. know what I mean? __________________ I was at the first OOTP Conference, where were you?..........

07-11-2003, 02:29 PM	#7
Riverdome All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 964	couriers, Shortening the games, no. That would change the basics of the game we all love so no that would never be an option for me. Why shorten the seassons? I love the GM aspects of the game (FA, contracts, drafting). I also love the possibility of getting fired, moving to a new team... If I play out 162 games it takes to long to get to the off season. I want to enjoy those aspects of the game more often than every 162 games. Why play games out? I decided long ago that I wanted as much control over the on field stuff as possible. I would manage pitch by pitch (like giving signs from 3rd base) if it were an option. To enjoy all aspects of the game I need to either shorten the season, or play twice as many games at a time. I refuse to sim because I loose all connection with my team when I sim. I know most of my 25 man roster by heart. Just like in real life I get let down and surprised in the bottom of the 9th. By playing every game I can let my emotion decide to resign a player or not. I think it's better than making decisions stricky "by the numbers". GOD I LOVE THIS GAME. __________________ I was at the first OOTP Conference, where were you?..........

07-11-2003, 05:26 PM	#9
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,358	Also, for those of us who like to sim out the 19th century..... a short season is historically accurate. My solo historical league (which I commish only) is currently in the 1880 postseason (Providence Grays vs. Worcester Ruby Legs - go Grays!), and our seasons are still only 84 games long. We'll be up over 100 soon, though. __________________ Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.

07-11-2003, 12:14 PM	#3
tyler Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 24	Shorter seasons hurt development? Can someone elaborate on this for me? -tyler

07-11-2003, 12:30 PM	#5
tyler Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 24	Yeah, that makes sense. I'm currently running a 42-game season (just for a change, and so I can play out all my games). If development really becomes a problem though, I'll just switch back to 162. -tyler

07-11-2003, 12:38 PM	#6
couriers All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Fort Lauderdale Fla Posts: 932	I never understood the idea of playing a shorter season just to play out all of the games. If you plan on moving forward to a second season then why not just play a longer first season? You will end up playing out the same number of games in the end and it doesn't take any longer to do so. This would eliminate any discrepancies that may exist due to shorter season schedules. My question is, if you had the ability to do so would you also shorten the games themselves because that would follow the same logic as shortening the seasons?

07-11-2003, 03:53 PM	#8
tyler Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 24	Preach it, Riverdome. -tyler

07-11-2003, 05:36 PM	#10
couriers All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Fort Lauderdale Fla Posts: 932	And those are all good reasons. I just can't understand when someone says that they want to shorten their season because they don't have the time to play an entire 162 game season. Yet they go on to play 2 seasons with 81 games each in the same period of time. To them, they are saving time. In reality, it takes just as long. However, all of the reasons above are good enough for me and make complete sense of the situation. Thanks.

07-16-2003, 12:26 PM	#11
Riverdome All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 964	Back to the orig issue of short seasons effecting development. If that is true would playing a 190 game schedule make players develope more, or at least quicker? __________________ I was at the first OOTP Conference, where were you?..........

07-16-2003, 02:08 PM	#12
tyler Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 24	That's an interesting question, I'd like to know the answer myself. -tyler

07-16-2003, 03:07 PM	#13
Riverdome All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 964	Seems to me that a longer schedule would result in players getting more bumps per season when they are young. Then at the end of their career the would end up taking more bumps against. IMO __________________ I was at the first OOTP Conference, where were you?..........