19th Century "Minor Leaguers"

[Spritze]

Wondering if it would help or hurt to add new historical baseball players to the database for the 19th century.

They would not all be new of course as quite a number appeared in the MLB at some point and in many cases the data would fill in much of those careers.

Lots of new players are involved too of course.

What I notice in this forum is that 19th century gamers seem to be solely MLB players. Since we do not even have real MLB play in this century all these players would need to be added as free agents. I am wondering if this would make things too "messy" for gamers. Leaving well enough alone is always an option.

As a for instance 177 additional new players could be added to 1871 as well as 30 players who appeared later in the MLB.

In 1871 the "minor leagues" appear to be the players who did not travel with the MLB team but played other non-major teams ad-hoc. The 177 are the other known ad-hockians. Many of those appear in the record for a number of years.

Just wondering how this might effect game play. I have not brought this idea up to OOTP yet.

[mitchkenn]

While i haven't played this era - the idea of more players seems to be a good one, BUT as you pointed out we don't have real MLB play in this era. My feeling is that should be resolved before adding more players. Of course, the people who actually play this era, their voices should be counted and heard as most important.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by mitchkenn

While i haven't played this era - the idea of more players seems to be a good one...

Agree

Originally Posted by mitchkenn

... BUT as you pointed out we don't have real MLB play in this era. My feeling is that should be resolved before adding more players. Of course, the people who actually play this era, their voices should be counted and heard as most important.

What would be the downside to having these additional players? More guys importing as free agents (which could be a downside to one gamer and plus to another)?

Baseball Man should probably be heard from on this, as he this the most-prolific 19th-Century player/poster. I think.

[BaseballMan]

I think its a good idea.

The new players would help reduce not enough players message.
Then using the actual historical teams and schedules might work better.
You would still need to adjust roster limits and other rules if you want to mimic 19th century play. Having a 25 man roster for a 80 game season would not make sense unless your playing a more relaxed anything could happen scenario.

If you choose to play a more historical accurate sim as i have tried to do then the new players could remain in the minors or maybe there could be an option to add the players.

In any case i think adding more players would be better as i would prefer to have more players whether real or fictional and real expansion than the fictional expansion. Its much easier to delete players than manually change the teams each year.

[BaseballMan]

If this will help eliminate the fake historical expansion I am all for it.
I don't know how others feel but i wanna smash
the computer screen when I see a current AL team in the 19th century instead of the real historical teams

[Spritze]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

If this will help eliminate the fake historical expansion I am all for it.
I don't know how others feel but i wanna smash
the computer screen when I see a current AL team in the 19th century instead of the real historical teams

I have asked to have this removed every year I can remember. No luck so far.

At this point all that needs to happen AFAIK is the computer code for 1901-2016 just needs to extend back to 1871. All the other "impossible" challenges have been fixed over the last 6 years as they are now necessary due to the changes in the modern mlb structure.

[swampdragon]

I'll add my voice to those who want real 19th century MLB.

[Spritze]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

I'll add my voice to those who want real 19th century MLB.

Unfortunately we are still waiting for M.H. to want it.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Spritze

I have asked to have this removed every year I can remember. No luck so far.

At this point all that needs to happen AFAIK is the computer code for 1901-2016 just needs to extend back to 1871. All the other "impossible" challenges have been fixed over the last 6 years as they are now necessary due to the changes in the modern mlb structure.

I agree. All i did in the league i started in ootp 17 was 1871-1991 is change the league abbreviations for batting, hitting and fielding. The real teams showed up and rookies went to their correct teams.
I had to make the real trades but even that can be done automatically if they allowed us to edit the transaction data.

They dont want to do it but you cant just put any date for the real life trans actions of the 19th century in which there is no data. You have to look at
the teams on that date. Granted the positions may not be perfect but it does help lower the not enough players on roster. This can be done automatically if they just let us edit the database. I know keeping it simple and using fictional teams was the best solution a few years ago but it can be improved now.
It would be nice if they allowed a team to work on improving it.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by Spritze

Wondering if it would help or hurt to add new historical baseball players to the database for the 19th century.

They would not all be new of course as quite a number appeared in the MLB at some point and in many cases the data would fill in much of those careers.

Lots of new players are involved too of course.

What I notice in this forum is that 19th century gamers seem to be solely MLB players. Since we do not even have real MLB play in this century all these players would need to be added as free agents. I am wondering if this would make things too "messy" for gamers. Leaving well enough alone is always an option.

As a for instance 177 additional new players could be added to 1871 as well as 30 players who appeared later in the MLB.

In 1871 the "minor leagues" appear to be the players who did not travel with the MLB team but played other non-major teams ad-hoc. The 177 are the other known ad-hockians. Many of those appear in the record for a number of years.

Just wondering how this might effect game play. I have not brought this idea up to OOTP yet.

You have to be awfully careful with the printed stats when you go that far back. "Fragmentary" is a generous description of what is on BB Reference. My books are a little better, and I guess season final stats are available from the Sporting News that are even better. But you have to check for stats that don't pass the smell test and have a decent way to fill in the gaps, or you're just playing fictional.

[Spritze]

In general gaps are filled in by other seasons in a players career that do not have the same gap. Books are used (yeah, old school paper) as BBref is an abject failure in many cases.

[DawnBTVS]

Originally Posted by Spritze

In general gaps are filled in by other seasons in a players career that do not have the same gap. Books are used (yeah, old school paper) as BBref is an abject failure in many cases.

I'm all for more players as I'm fascinated by 19th Century baseball and the evolution of the Negro Leagues/Minor Leagues. Currently blowing through Scott Simkus' "Outsider Baseball" (great read for anybody interested in 1900-1950 era NLB and MiLB).

[AESP_pres]

That would be great if we had the minor league structure (they are independant teams so it's not like if it would changed the fact we can't get real the19th century structure) to go with those players too. Nothing wrong with adding more players (since those guys played) but without the minor league most of them will stay there entire career on the reserve list and made no appearance in the ML.

[WFIL73]

More players wouldn't be bad, but as stated, there would have to be a minor league or a great majority would not play a single game.