JG's IPA 2.0

[jg2977]

...

[jg2977]

....

[jg2977]

......

[jg2977]

,

[jg2977]

,,

[jg2977]

,,,

[jg2977]

,,,,

[jg2977]

,,,,,

[jg2977]

1899 Awards

[jg2977]

I'm going through each team's financials. I'm trying to make all budgets and market sizes as equal as possible so that the same teams don't sign all the top free agents and dominate the league.

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

1900 is likely your last testing season before the MLB comes in, jg2977. So I would suggest you use this to test your planned statistics and strategy settings and all before the end of the 19th Century in your dynasty here, as best as you can. Just a suggestion, of course, because I'm not actually the one controlling your dynasty here, as you know.

I think it might be a good idea for you to consider four-man rotations as the standard rotation size, with a deep bench of hitters, and a pitching staff of no more than about eight or nine total pitchers per active roster. That would perhaps help the starting pitchers accumulate more statistics over their careers, and give them a better chance to be on the career and/or seasonal leaderboards than a standard five-man rotation might, for certain statistical categories, for instance.

You already know how I generally feel about the DH, but I'm not in actual control of this particular dynasty, ultimately. However, if you'd perhaps want a more strategy-style situation to be present for at least one league in it, I'd eliminate it entirely, if already present, or not even start using it at all, in said league or leagues.

Talk more with you later, as time allows and all, I'm sure. Lord willing and all here, of course, you know, jg2977. Thank you for your time and attention and all here, then. Looking forwards to seeing what the next generation of your dynasty will be like, though, to be sure, as well, starting with GC and AG and others, in any case. CD out.

[jg2977]

I like the DH, but am open to having two-way players so that the pitchers with better batting ratings have the opportunity to hit. However, I'd rather not have the 9-hole be occupied by light-hitting pitchers who bat below .100.

How do I make the four-man rotation the norm?

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

Accessible through League Settings, with or without going through Game Settings, then through Stats & AI tab, it seems. As for changing finances based on a particular year's details, after a dynasty game has started, I'm not quite sure at the moment how you can do that, and when, to be sure. You may not be able to do it once a season has reached Opening Day or gone past it, until the offseason, if I'm not too mistaken here.

You may want to ask around, so that before you hit the calendar year of 1901, you can finally set the financial details sufficiently as appropriate and as desired for a certain length of time in your dynasty, for any or all of your leagues in it, with or without a salary cap in place, in any case, jg2977. At least that is what I would possibly do, anyway, if it were me, whether it was for a fictional league or a historical league, I think. CD out.

[jg2977]

Maybe I'll post a screenshot on the general discussion forum of how my league financials are setup and explain my situation. Why are a few teams in my dynasty dominating, winning 120 games or more, and always signing the best available free agents?

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

That's a very good idea. Especially if you want more of a fair and level playing field, so to speak, for your leagues' teams and all. Nothing wrong with having dynasty-capable teams, of course. But after a while, it gets a bit boring, most likely, for a lot of people, if the dominance continues for too long, you know.

Yes, it would probably be better if starting ratings for players were more realistic, even for our created players. I know you prefer more offense, generally, in your games than I do, so you've probably boosted certain ratings a bit more than most might, when it comes to players in your IPA. That's probably meant that many of your IPA players' statistics have been significantly higher in many categories than would normally be expected or desired, and vice versa, in terms of realisticity in a typical baseball world.

Not criticizing you here at all, of course, jg2977. But I'm just saying that many people's worlds wouldn't see many players with over a thousand career home runs in regular-season play, or even 700 or 800 home runs, for instance. They might often see hitters with at least 500 home runs for a career in many leagues, but not 700 or more.

Also, most people probably don't see many active pitchers with at least 300-350 career wins nowadays with the way pitchers are often used these days, unfortunately. That's seeing as instead of using four-man rotation as was quite common decades ago, teams are using five-man or even six-man rotations, or perhaps even openers and followers, now quite often. I realize that's probably because they're potentially afraid of losing highly-paid players to injuries, at least in part, if so. But you typically don't get better at something unless you work at it more, often. No matter what it is, for sure, in life. Pitching is no exception, of course, to that principle, you know. CD out.

[jg2977]

Originally Posted by Clovidequano Dovatha

That's a very good idea. Especially if you want more of a fair and level playing field, so to speak, for your leagues' teams and all. Nothing wrong with having dynasty-capable teams, of course. But after a while, it gets a bit boring, most likely, for a lot of people, if the dominance continues for too long, you know.

Yes, it would probably be better if starting ratings for players were more realistic, even for our created players. I know you prefer more offense, generally, in your games than I do, so you've probably boosted certain ratings a bit more than most might, when it comes to players in your IPA. That's probably meant that many of your IPA players' statistics have been significantly higher in many categories than would normally be expected or desired, and vice versa, in terms of realisticity in a typical baseball world.

Not criticizing you here at all, of course, jg2977. But I'm just saying that many people's worlds wouldn't see many players with over a thousand career home runs in regular-season play, or even 700 or 800 home runs, for instance. They might often see hitters with at least 500 home runs for a career in many leagues, but not 700 or more.

Also, most people probably don't see many active pitchers with at least 300-350 career wins nowadays with the way pitchers are often used these days, unfortunately. That's seeing as instead of using four-man rotation as was quite common decades ago, teams are using five-man or even six-man rotations, or perhaps even openers and followers, now quite often. I realize that's probably because they're potentially afraid of losing highly-paid players to injuries, at least in part, if so. But you typically don't get better at something unless you work at it more, often. No matter what it is, for sure, in life. Pitching is no exception, of course, to that principle, you know. CD out.

I'm not looking for absolute realism here. I like some players to be superhuman. However, once this generation retires I will make the newly created players more realistic.

When that happens there will be more traditional scores in the playoffs, such as 3-2 and 5-3, rather than the 15-12 type games I'm getting now.

Furthermore, there will be no super players on the MLB side of things. So that league should progress naturally. I will include your players with the ratings that you give me, but I will increase their potential so that they have the opportunity to become Hall-of-Famers, although that certainly won't be a given.

[jg2977]

1900 RU North Champions: Glasco Celtics (15)
1879 1880 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1896 1897 1898 1900

[jg2977]

1900 RU South Champions: St. John Crusaders (3)
1897 1899 1900

[jg2977]

1900 RU East Champions: Sugar Valley Rattlers (10)
1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900

[jg2977]

1900 RU West Champion: Fort Benton Defenders (10)
1871 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1893 1894 1895 1897 1898 1899 1900