Suggestions for 24

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by snarls200

I wouldn't be surprised 2 takes awhile due to major features not in GO.

On 3 I thought the game already had ability for you to do both

What is 6 about?

3 does happen on its own but it's not exactly comprehensive because the game isn't really comprehensive about cities and stadia and so on. It'd be awesome to see that but I suspect that would be a or the major/primary feature to release in a season.

Inside the Park Baseball was an attempt at an OOTP-based role playing game that came out like 15 years ago. I assume the OP added it as a joke, since it's dead and buried.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

Who cares if the Red Sox win a World Series when the Yankees tear down their team for a rebuild? The goal should be for the Yankees to improve their team the most, not worry about who they are trading with (if they aren't contending for a division in this season).

In this situation the Yankees wouldn't care because of the asymmetrical nature of that rivalry. I doubt the Red Sox, especially the non-Theo Epstein Red Sox, would make a blockbuster trade with the Yankees because the fans would riot and whoever conducted that trade would get fired.

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

In this situation the Yankees wouldn't care because of the asymmetrical nature of that rivalry. I doubt the Red Sox, especially the non-Theo Epstein Red Sox, would make a blockbuster trade with the Yankees because the fans would riot and whoever conducted that trade would get fired.

As a sox fan who has lost a lot of energy for today's game, I think you would be absolutely correct about fans hating this in the 1995-2010 range. I would say now, while there would be a vocal section against it, I just don't think it would be as big of a deal

[joefromchicago]

Right now, a team's rotation size and starting rotation mode (e.g. start highest rested) are controlled by a setting at the league level. In history, however, there were times when some teams, for instance, had five-man rotations while other teams had four-man rotations. Those items, therefore, should be controlled by means of manager strategy settings rather than league settings.

Also, the rotation size setting shouldn't be linked to pitcher stamina.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Right now, a team's rotation size and starting rotation mode (e.g. start highest rested) are controlled by a setting at the league level. In history, however, there were times when some teams, for instance, had five-man rotations while other teams had four-man rotations. Those items, therefore, should be controlled by means of manager strategy settings rather than league settings.

Also, the rotation size setting shouldn't be linked to pitcher stamina.

To piggy back this, I still think the early years should come with the option of having a pitching staff instead of a rotation and bullpen. For example, a staff of 6 or 7 pitchers. All could be used to start if called upon. The game should give the meat of the starts to the top 2 or 3 on the staff and spread the rest accordingly,.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by David Watts

To piggy back this, I still think the early years should come with the option of having a pitching staff instead of a rotation and bullpen. For example, a staff of 6 or 7 pitchers. All could be used to start if called upon. The game should give the meat of the starts to the top 2 or 3 on the staff and spread the rest accordingly,.

I completely agree. Right now, you can sorta' do that by making the rotation size equal the staff size. Obviously, that only works for staffs that have six or fewer pitchers, since OOTP's max rotation size is six. But, as I mentioned in my post, the league rotation size is also connected to pitcher stamina, so a bigger league rotation size means that pitchers recover from starts more slowly. That leads to ahistorical results where the pitchers at the bottom of the "rotation" get too many starts.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I completely agree. Right now, you can sorta' do that by making the rotation size equal the staff size. Obviously, that only works for staffs that have six or fewer pitchers, since OOTP's max rotation size is six. But, as I mentioned in my post, the league rotation size is also connected to pitcher stamina, so a bigger league rotation size means that pitchers recover from starts more slowly. That leads to ahistorical results where the pitchers at the bottom of the "rotation" get too many starts.

Yup. I tried the 6 man staff with not relievers in bullpen. You described what happens perfectly.

[dannibalcorpse]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

Hard pass, or the ability to turn it off please. I want the AI making the trades it thinks helps its team most, not worrying about nonsense like whether they're trading with a rival or a team from the other league.

If the Yankees bottom out in 2024 and decide to trade Judge, they should take the best package even if that comes from Boston or the Mets, not worry about who they trade with.

to be fair, has there ever really been a new feature like this added that OOTP hasn't given you the ability to turn off?

and while I get what you're saying, I think that it should be something that is taken into account. If the Mets are looking for a relief pitcher, and the Braves have one they're looking to move, they should wind up paying a higher price than, say, the Guardians might for the same player. And in-season trades should be even more difficult in-division, because they're typically rare in real life too.

[dannibalcorpse]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

- This may seem like anathema to those who want to have all data constantly available to them but I feel like some pitchers should have injuries that are not disclosed but simply cause them to underperform. At best perhaps you notice it by playing out the games and noticing a loss of velocity or it's part of a similar story. How often does it happen that a guy has a bad year and then it turns out he had an elbow injury? It's not even always "hiding" per se; a lot of the time it's hard to tell what's a real injury and what are normal everyday aches and pains. In any case, sometimes you just don't know until it exhibits in a bigger injury that requires a lot of time off, or they just underplay their shown ratings until you or happenstance choose to rest them.

I feel like this wouldn't be hard to advance to because the "day-to-day" injury system can be tweaked to accommodate this pretty simply. Have it work more or less the same, except that if it happens to a pitcher it's a little longer of a DTD injury, and if you decide to have him pitch through it, it's a dice roll behind the scenes as to whether or not it evolves into a longer-term injury.

I also love the idea of having specific ratings be affected by injury history - maybe a guy coming from TJ surgery sees a spike in velocity, or a guy who had that thoracic outlet surgery sees a loss of control - I feel like this could be something done in a patch in 23 if they really wanted to make it happen too.

[Cryomaniac]

Can't say for 100% certainty that it wont be in 23, but I'd like many many more fictional stadiums. The ideal end point is a fictional stadium for every nickname in the game, as there are for logos now.

On which point, again, this may be in 23, but all of the default logos being in the same style (say, circular) would be kind of cool.

I'd also like options for more complex roster rules. But I'm quite quite mad when it comes to things like that.

Edit, and seeing the post about DTD injuries reminded me of something I was thinking about the other day (because I had a muscle spasm in my neck that fluctuated in severity for a few days): Injuries that can go from DTD to out or vice versa, randomly.

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by AlpineSK

Deeper chemistry. Player meetings. The chance to bring players into the manager's office and discuss performance, and make promises.

Hard pass. I want a baseball simulator, not a psychology simulator

I gave up on playing Football Manager because it became less about soccer and more about managing relationships between players, agents and the media. Not fun

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

But that’s not how it works in real life. For the Yankees to trade Judge to the Red Sox the offer would have be a lot more then any other team would offer.
Best package is one that’s helps your team out and also doesn’t help out your rivals.
How would they justify that? Yeah we traded Judge to Red Sox thereby helping them win a World Series but they offered us 50 million more then the next team.
That’s just plain stupid and pure nonsense.

Lest we forget the entire Yankees/Red Sox rivalry started with a trade JUST LIKE THAT (albeit going the other way)

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by silvam14

As a sox fan who has lost a lot of energy for today's game, I think you would be absolutely correct about fans hating this in the 1995-2010 range. I would say now, while there would be a vocal section against it, I just don't think it would be as big of a deal

It would certainly get the Massholes who call into WEEI talking...

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by David Watts

To piggy back this, I still think the early years should come with the option of having a pitching staff instead of a rotation and bullpen. For example, a staff of 6 or 7 pitchers. All could be used to start if called upon. The game should give the meat of the starts to the top 2 or 3 on the staff and spread the rest accordingly,.

This is an underrated suggestion. I'll all for it

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Can't say for 100% certainty that it wont be in 23, but I'd like many many more fictional stadiums. The ideal end point is a fictional stadium for every nickname in the game, as there are for logos now.

On which point, again, this may be in 23, but all of the default logos being in the same style (say, circular) would be kind of cool.

I'd also like options for more complex roster rules. But I'm quite quite mad when it comes to things like that.

Edit, and seeing the post about DTD injuries reminded me of something I was thinking about the other day (because I had a muscle spasm in my neck that fluctuated in severity for a few days): Injuries that can go from DTD to out or vice versa, randomly.

Doubt the extra fictional stadiums will happen because

a) bandwidth
b) the in-game stadium creator, and most importantly
c) all of the awesome-looking community-created fictional stadiums in these very forums

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

Doubt the extra fictional stadiums will happen because

a) bandwidth
b) the in-game stadium creator, and most importantly
c) all of the awesome-looking community-created fictional stadiums in these very forums

I think a) is the most likely actual reason.

The current stadium creator is no match at all for bespoke stadiums, and I'm a believer that developers shouldn't just go "eh it's been done by mods / community content so I don't need to do it".

[Scipio Africanus]

I'd love to see a small number of additional major league and minor league fictional stadiums -- maybe just 2 or 3 more for variety. I added a post requesting this in the forum section for future versions of OOTP a few weeks ago. I doubt it will ever happen but a guy can ask...

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I completely agree. Right now, you can sorta' do that by making the rotation size equal the staff size. Obviously, that only works for staffs that have six or fewer pitchers, since OOTP's max rotation size is six. But, as I mentioned in my post, the league rotation size is also connected to pitcher stamina, so a bigger league rotation size means that pitchers recover from starts more slowly. That leads to ahistorical results where the pitchers at the bottom of the "rotation" get too many starts.

Wanted to pull this back... I think there are two specific, actionable things here:

1. Allow the AI to use rotation sizes other than the one set in the game. In the fictional 1970 "replay" I'm doing, I'm getting good mileage from having the game set to a 4 man rotation and then setting many/most teams to 5 man rotations with the schedule as written (which, from the advent of air travel and well into at least the 70s and maybe even the 80s, summer schedules were absolutely insane at times - 8 games a week (including a doubleheader), an off-day every 3 weeks at times) and then flipping them into a 4 man due to injury, the time of the season (the schedule is clearer in April and September, and of course with the latter you'll often want to consolidate your rotation anyway). I of course have to do all of this manually but the stamina actually works.

2. As a stretch goal, eliminate that set rotation size altogether and have it become one of the things that's approximated in a config file (a number like 4.5 for example) and then perhaps tweaked along with the rest of the settings in the Opening Day sim. Even if you don't do that, I think it would be a good idea to have this set to some number other than "4" or "5" and figuring this out by either the top 10% in games started or (ideally, since this data is available on BBRef) the ratio of starts on short, "normal" (in BBRef terms that's 4 days rest exactly) or "long" rest.

To edify the latter part of the second point, take a look at these numbers from BBRef for a couple of different eras:

short	4 days	long
41.94%	25.81%	32.26%
36.42%	37.04%	26.54%
7.41%	58.02%	34.57%
1.23%	51.23%	47.53%

Those are percentages from 1950, 1970, 1990, and 2010. I don't want to necessarily lock anyone into a formula but I think you can definitely see where 1950 should use a rotation in the low 4s, 1970 in the mid 4s (there I think the fact of a little over a third of the starts coming on exactly 4 days rest is more telling than the increase in the short rest/long rest ratio due to the train vs plane factor I mentioned above), then something right around 5 for 1990 and definitely over 5 for 2010, when roughly half of all starts come with 4 days rest and roughly half with more than that amount.

I'd have gone back further than that but a. box score data isn't available before I think 1915, and b. box score data is also not available for Negro Leagues (additionally I suspect pitchers were used differently in those leagues given radically different schedule sizes and as such even if we did have that data it ought to be used separately).

[MathBandit]

Just thought of something that's a small enough deal it almost certainly didn't get fixed in 23 but would like to see fixed either during 23 or for 24.

I play with the Manfred runner in extras (for a lot of reasons I think it's a significant improvement to the game), and I am pretty sure that the Win Probability Graph doesn't know about the rule since Extra Inning games always have wild rollercoasters in WP, presumably since the game sees a runner on 2nd with no outs.

[BigRed75]

I don't understand the problem, though. A runner on 2nd with no outs is a runner on 2nd with no outs. Wouldn't the adjustment in WP be the same, regardless of if he hit a leadoff double or if the commish put him there?