All stars without a game

[BRyMcBourbon]

I’d like for there to be a way to hold all star voting without having to have the game played

[fredbeene]

why?

[BRyMcBourbon]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

why?

I’ve always had trouble getting the All Star game to play nice with my custom schedules so I just turn it off but I think just the voting would be a nice touch

[HerbD]

This is just a work around but you could schedule the All-Star game. Wait until the voting is over and the players have it in their history and the star shows up. Then delete the game. It wouldn't even matter if the AS game was scheduled on the same day as league games as long as you remember to delete it before you get to it.

[Supermercado]

I'd like this, but to be able to set it to the end of the year + choose to have a combined competition 'Team of the Year' rather than split by leagues.

The more customisation options the merrier.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Supermercado

I'd like this, but to be able to set it to the end of the year + choose to have a combined competition 'Team of the Year' rather than split by leagues.

The more customisation options the merrier.

I've been wanting this for awhile and in case some people don't know, MLB has actually had "all-MLB teams" since 2019. Similar to the NBA's 3 teams, MLB has a first and second team. I'd very much like to have this in the game.

EDIT: I'd still want an ASG, but we all know who ends up being an all-star is terribly flawed so these all-MLB teams are definitely the way to go if you want to get a quick idea of the best players at each position in a year. I'd prefer 3 teams instead of 2 though.

[lightgrenade07]

Originally Posted by kq76

I've been wanting this for awhile and in case some people don't know, MLB has actually had "all-MLB teams" since 2019. Similar to the NBA's 3 teams, MLB has a first and second team. I'd very much like to have this in the game.

EDIT: I'd still want an ASG, but we all know who ends up being an all-star is terribly flawed so these all-MLB teams are definitely the way to go if you want to get a quick idea of the best players at each position in a year. I'd prefer 3 teams instead of 2 though.

I would *love* to have an All-MLB Team award in my game. It would be like, All Star is a major achievement denoting you're a star player - and then All-MLB would be the next step above that.

As it is, I do my best to approximate this with the Silver Slugger, Cy Young, Reliever of the Year & custom awards - so there's 8 "All-League" hitters, 1 "All-League" starting pitcher, 1 "All-League" reliever, and then the custom award ("All-League" pitcher) goes to the best pitcher who didn't win either of the other two awards.

The problem is, this creates a major issue of balance: hitters get 8 All-League slots (9 in a DH league), whereas pitchers only get 3, even though hitters & pitchers are each roughly half the league and half the overall "value created."

[kq76]

Originally Posted by lightgrenade07

...

The problem is, this creates a major issue of balance: hitters get 8 All-League slots (9 in a DH league), whereas pitchers only get 3, even though hitters & pitchers are each roughly half the league and half the overall "value created."

Yeah, I feel the same way. MLB only names 5 SPs and 2 RPs, but I'd prefer 9 pitchers like the 9 batters. And I figure 6 SPs and 3 RPs is probably the best breakdown since SPs are clearly more important as they get the bulk of the innings, but RPs are becoming more and more important. I think most teams that want to compete realize they'll probably need at least 6 SPs nowadays while since SPs often only go 6 innings, if that, and relievers only go 1 inning that you need 3 good relievers.

I'd also prefer 3 teams like the NBA has. I imagine will go to 3 teams one day. I also like that since it's closer to a full MLB roster.

[lightgrenade07]

Originally Posted by kq76

Yeah, I feel the same way. MLB only names 5 SPs and 2 RPs, but I'd prefer 9 pitchers like the 9 batters. And I figure 6 SPs and 3 RPs is probably the best breakdown since SPs are clearly more important as they get the bulk of the innings, but RPs are becoming more and more important. I think most teams that want to compete realize they'll probably need at least 6 SPs nowadays while since SPs often only go 6 innings, if that, and relievers only go 1 inning that you need 3 good relievers.

I'd also prefer 3 teams like the NBA has. I imagine will go to 3 teams one day. I also like that since it's closer to a full MLB roster.

Yeah, when I started playing around with this idea for my league last night (by hand, mind you, since the game doesn't give us this), I set it up like this:

C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, OF, OF, [Hitter]
SP, SP, SP, SP, SP, RP, RP, RP, [Pitcher]

That last hitter isn't necessarily DH - just the best hitter not already selected for one of the other slots. This way, you'll never cut out the 2nd-best hitter in the game just because the best hitter happened to play the same position.

Same with the last pitcher - they're the best pitcher not already selected to one of the other slots. That may be the 6th best starter, or the 4th-best reliever. It just depends on what happens to unfold in any given season - and as a voter, I like having that flexibility, that discretion to decide things on a season-by-season basis.

So this makes each "All-MLB Team" 18 players. Add another 18 for "All-MLB Second Team," and you get 36 overall.

There's a symmetry there, since in my fictional league, there's actually 36 teams. To build on this symmetry, I'm expanding my all star rosters to 36 players per league - so league-wide, you have 72 All Stars, and then the next rung up is the 36 players making All-League.

That's not to say that every team is guaranteed to be represented in the All Star game or the All-MLB team. However, this way, it does make All Star and All MLB feel like they're based on the overall size of the talent pool.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by lightgrenade07

C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, OF, OF, OF, [Hitter]
SP, SP, SP, SP, SP, RP, RP, RP, [Pitcher]

That last hitter isn't necessarily DH - just the best hitter not already selected for one of the other slots. This way, you'll never cut out the 2nd-best hitter in the game just because the best hitter happened to play the same position.

Same with the last pitcher - they're the best pitcher not already selected to one of the other slots. That may be the 6th best starter, or the 4th-best reliever. It just depends on what happens to unfold in any given season - and as a voter, I like having that flexibility, that discretion to decide things on a season-by-season basis.

If you're only going to do 1 team, I like that idea a lot and would use it. But if you're going to do 2 or 3 teams, I'd rather have that second best player at a position on the second team.

[lightgrenade07]

Originally Posted by kq76

If you're only going to do 1 team, I like that idea a lot and would use it. But if you're going to do 2 or 3 teams, I'd rather have that second best player at a position on the second team.

I let my pretend voters argue over that. Some of them insist on only voting a DH into that 9th hitter spot, some put the overall best remaining hitter in that spot, others (mostly older sportswriters/media analysts) leave that spot blank out of principle because they still haven't come to terms with the idea of a DH yet.

Does this make the selection process messy? Yes. Does this make the selection process inconsistent? Absolutely. Is that how baseball is? Also yes.