Deadball era

[Orcin]

Challenge Mode creates some unique problems with configuring a league. I could just not use it but I am more inclined to work around the problems - in this case, needing to decide on minor leagues or reserve rosters at league creation time.

I have decided against enabling historical minors because it doesn't really solve my problems. I want a place for the developing players (no recalc in CM) to play and accumulate stats. There won't be any affiliated minors for quite a while, and I really want to be able to manage my own prospect pool rather than use unaffiliated teams.

I am considering adding three levels of affiliated minors with ghost players enabled and roster limits on the top two. Has anyone ever tried that? I wonder how long it will take for all three levels to be populated with players (if ever)? I wonder how long it will take for me to become annoyed with this setup? (I don't expect anyone to answer that last one.)

Edit: I am also thinking about using fictional players to populate these minor league teams. If I have the color barrier enabled, will that also prevent Hispanic and Asian players from being created for these leagues?

[Orcin]

One quick observation from my first five-year run through the early part of this era... Best Pitcher = Rube Waddell, Best Player = Nap Lajoie/Sam Crawford.

Edit: Nap Lajoie was better than Sam Crawford except for power, and Nap won the MVP 4 out of 5 years. Mathewson was a distant second to Waddell among pitchers.

[Orcin]

I started another league in 1901 with two levels of minors (AAA, AA) figuring that would be enough. Of course, very few teams have anything but ghost players there in the first year.

I did not import history prior to 1901, but I was surprised to see that all of the active players still had their career stats. This populates the record book as well. Is that the way this always worked? I actually expected a clean record book.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I started another league in 1901 with two levels of minors (AAA, AA) figuring that would be enough. Of course, very few teams have anything but ghost players there in the first year.

I did not import history prior to 1901, but I was surprised to see that all of the active players still had their career stats. This populates the record book as well. Is that the way this always worked? I actually expected a clean record book.

Yes, it's always worked that way.

I just wish we could have the option to erase all history still, so we could start with a clean slate. If Markus ever adds that option back into the game, I might dance in the streets for weeks.

[Garlon]

There is a function to erase career stats of players. You should do this upon creating the league and you will have a clean record book.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Garlon

There is a function to erase career stats of players. You should do this upon creating the league and you will have a clean record book.

Have to watch it when you use erase career stats these days. If a player happens to have missed the season you started, but returns the following year, he will import with his full career of stats.

For example, if I start a league in 1921 and erase all stats I will finish 1921 with all players having 1 season worth of stats. But, when I start 1922, Johnny Evers will be in the league. Evers played 1902-1917 and then missed 1918-1921. Thing is, when Evers returns to my previously career stats erased league, he does so with 16 years worth of stats. The leaderboard will be the Johnny Evers show.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Garlon

There is a function to erase career stats of players. You should do this upon creating the league and you will have a clean record book.

I had a function to not import history, but that's all I saw. I will have to look closer next time, I guess.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Have to watch it when you use erase career stats these days. If a player happens to have missed the season you started, but returns the following year, he will import with his full career of stats.

For example, if I start a league in 1921 and erase all stats I will finish 1921 with all players having 1 season worth of stats. But, when I start 1922, Johnny Evers will be in the league. Evers played 1902-1917 and then missed 1918-1921. Thing is, when Evers returns to my previously career stats erased league, he does so with 16 years worth of stats. The leaderboard will be the Johnny Evers show.

I would rather have what I have now, i.e. all active players with complete stats, than this.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I just wish we could have the option to erase all history still, so we could start with a clean slate. If Markus ever adds that option back into the game, I might dance in the streets for weeks.

You have been talking about this for years, but I really never understood why it was so important until this particular league. If we could only convince Markus to play historical for a while, he would surely see that some small improvements like this would be worth a lot to a loyal segment of his customer base.

There's another thread about adding historical managers - an idea that is equally appealing for me. I would take it a step further with a database of historical GMs and owners. In my current league, I am talking trade with GM Jorge Jimenez of the 1901 Baltimore Orioles and it just seems weird.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Orcin

You have been talking about this for years, but I really never understood why it was so important until this particular league. If we could only convince Markus to play historical for a while, he would surely see that some small improvements like this would be worth a lot to a loyal segment of his customer base.

There's another thread about adding historical managers - an idea that is equally appealing for me. I would take it a step further with a database of historical GMs and owners. In my current league, I am talking trade with GM Jorge Jimenez of the 1901 Baltimore Orioles and it just seems weird.

In one thread in which I talked about this, probably back in the days of OOTP17, Markus said there might be a way he could give us the option to choose whether or not we want players that missed the season we imported as a start year, to return or remain absent. Since then, any mention of this gets little to no response, so I wonder if he tried and found out it causes problems elsewhere.

The reason it's important to me, is I like to play historical, but use fictional teams and alternative setups.

[Reed]

The only way I know of to get around the problem David mentions is to play with neutralized stats but then players have artificial stats for seasons they missed IRL.

[Orcin]

In this second version, using amateur draft and free agency, I have built a pretty good team. However, I am unable to get past the Pirates juggernaut so far.



I sacrificed my 1902 first draft pick to sign free agent 3B Jimmy Collins, but the improved offense still wasn't enough to beat the Pirates.

The outlook for 1903 is more promising. Rube Waddell won 55 games for the Pirates over the two seasons, but he was injured late in the 1902 season and will miss all of the 1903 campaign.

[Orcin]

I won the World Series in 1903, thanks to Waddell's injury and my acquisition of Noodles Hahn (26-7) to front my rotation.

Does anyone else find it weird when the player/manager gets split into two bodies? Fred Clarke left Pittsburgh as a free agent and got fired as manager for finishing second. Of course, the player was signed by one team and the manager was hired by another. I guess there is no way to fix this, but it would be nice if the two bodies were somehow inseparable. If we can do two-way players, can we do player/managers?

[scott1964]

Same thing happens in 1871 to 1880.

[Orcin]

I must point out at the beginning of this post that recalc is off in my league, so names and careers are only approximations of the real thing. I have TCR set at 50, so it is a decent approximation of overall talent but aging curves etc. may be different.

It was apparent that my rotation would need an upgrade in 1904 due to the rapid decline of Deacon Phillippe into a two-pitch reliever and a similar fear about Sam Leever, also over 30 now. I was able to trade a pitching prospect, Joe Corbett, and my starting first baseman Dan McGann for Eddie Plank. Corbett went 15-12 with a 2.92 ERA for the Athletics. The Athletics needed a first baseman because their incumbent (Harry Davis) left as a free agent. I signed Davis (.289/.318/.420) to replace McGann (.284/.344/.400 with the Athletics).

At mid-season, my rotation was still struggling so I traded Leever and my best pitching prospect, Norwood Gibson (13-12, 2.45 after the trade), to the Cubs for Long Tom Hughes. This trade put me over the top as Hughes had an amazing second half (shown below). Hughes was 33-8 overall, but only finished third in the Pitcher of the Year voting despite getting my vote. Noodles Hahn won the award with Rube Waddell (25-13, 1.53) second. Plank was fourth.



We lost the first two games of the series against the Browns with Hahn and Hughes. I have no control over lineups so I watched helplessly as my AI manager (Patsy Donovan) started Powell over Plank in game 3. Powell pitched a shutout and started a four-game sweep. Powell also won the clinching game 6 and was named MVP. I guess that's why he's the manager and I am the GM.

This starting rotation is my best ever. I should be set for a while barring injury (knock on wood) with Powell the oldest at 30. Waddell is an upcoming free agent, but I plan to let other teams fight over him.

[scott1964]

Originally Posted by Orcin

This starting rotation is my best ever. I should be set for a while barring injury (knock on wood) with Powell the oldest at 30. Waddell is an upcoming free agent, but I plan to let other teams fight over him.

That is a very good rotation

One time I had Cy Young, Walter Johnson, and Christie Mathewson while I was running the Senators.

[Jerry Helper]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I must point out at the beginning of this post that recalc is off in my league, so names and careers are only approximations of the real thing. I have TCR set at 50, so it is a decent approximation of overall talent but aging curves etc. may be different.

It was apparent that my rotation would need an upgrade in 1904 due to the rapid decline of Deacon Phillippe into a two-pitch reliever and a similar fear about Sam Leever, also over 30 now. I was able to trade a pitching prospect, Joe Corbett, and my starting first baseman Dan McGann for Eddie Plank. Corbett went 15-12 with a 2.92 ERA for the Athletics. The Athletics needed a first baseman because their incumbent (Harry Davis) left as a free agent. I signed Davis (.289/.318/.420) to replace McGann (.284/.344/.400 with the Athletics).

At mid-season, my rotation was still struggling so I traded Leever and my best pitching prospect, Norwood Gibson (13-12, 2.45 after the trade), to the Cubs for Long Tom Hughes. This trade put me over the top as Hughes had an amazing second half (shown below). Hughes was 33-8 overall, but only finished third in the Pitcher of the Year voting despite getting my vote. Noodles Hahn won the award with Rube Waddell (25-13, 1.53) second. Plank was fourth.

Attachment 551637

We lost the first two games of the series against the Browns with Hahn and Hughes. I have no control over lineups so I watched helplessly as my AI manager (Patsy Donovan) started Powell over Plank in game 3. Powell pitched a shutout and started a four-game sweep. Powell also won the clinching game 6 and was named MVP. I guess that's why he's the manager and I am the GM.

This starting rotation is my best ever. I should be set for a while barring injury (knock on wood) with Powell the oldest at 30. Waddell is an upcoming free agent, but I plan to let other teams fight over him.

This is what's fun about playing historical this way, someone like Waddell doesn't end up going to the A's. So now you've got the best pitcher of the first half of that decade staying on a beastly Pirates team that was the dominant team of the national league during the first half of the decade. Thank god he got injured, you may have never even sniffed the world series until 1906

[italyprof]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Challenge Mode creates some unique problems with configuring a league. I could just not use it but I am more inclined to work around the problems - in this case, needing to decide on minor leagues or reserve rosters at league creation time.

I have decided against enabling historical minors because it doesn't really solve my problems. I want a place for the developing players (no recalc in CM) to play and accumulate stats. There won't be any affiliated minors for quite a while, and I really want to be able to manage my own prospect pool rather than use unaffiliated teams.

I am considering adding three levels of affiliated minors with ghost players enabled and roster limits on the top two. Has anyone ever tried that? I wonder how long it will take for all three levels to be populated with players (if ever)? I wonder how long it will take for me to become annoyed with this setup? (I don't expect anyone to answer that last one.)

Edit: I am also thinking about using fictional players to populate these minor league teams. If I have the color barrier enabled, will that also prevent Hispanic and Asian players from being created for these leagues?

This how I play historical and random debut leagues - AAA, AA and A minors. How quickly they fill is completely determined by how many draft rounds you use. I go with rounds and push it to 8 if I see teams using thin benches as regulars.

Personally I hate two things:

1 such low overall quality that players with 1 AB or IP are playing or starring regularly and

2 having too many players hanging on rosters until social security kicks in.

So I sometimes run an immediate March 1 draft of 8 players to supplement the inaugural draft with another at December.

After that, with teams having a pretty good quality of playeds to play based on rhe quantity available, I set strict limits on the minors:

15 player roster limits each

A Level age limits 17-25
AA age 18-29 with 10 years max pro service
AAA age 21 to sometimes 45 sometimes higher if Satchel Paige or Bartolo Colon etc. are in the league.

This forces teams to choose and simplify. Have a 40 plus pitcher not perfoeming but with rl stats that say he should? You cannot send him down ao you keep or cut. At 30 a player should be in AAA or higher or find another line of work.

Sometimes marginal players pile up as free agents in my no free agency league. I can either run a 2 or 3 round free agent draft in case are useful to some team and retire any already cut once and now not drafted or I can retire them all at once to thin the ranks in the league.

[Orcin]

What I have learned... part 2.

Free agency has made my league too easy. I always looking for a league that challenges me but still allows me to play the game to win. This league with free agency has failed to meet that goal.

Yes, you always have to use some self-control at times, but it is disappointing to see so many great players available in free agency. In my league, I was able to sign Roger Bresnahan, Sam Crawford, Jimmy Sheckard, Christy Mathewson and Eddie Plank. Despite having recalc disabled, all of those players are who you think they are. So I literally had the best player (Crawford) and best pitcher (Mathewson) handed to me on a silver platter, along with enough side dishes to make the Thanksgiving table jealous. Sure, I could have ignored them, but that is what I mean by "play the game to win". What GM in his right mind would not pursue them given the budget that I have. Which brings me to my next point...

The financial model does not work to maintain competitive balance nearly as well in this era as it does in the modern era. Here are the financials in my league.



As you can see, even the weakest team (Washington) can afford a payroll of $60,000 (budget of $192K minus expenses of $23K = $69K). But I am the only team willing to spend even remotely close to that amount on payroll.



Brooklyn was my best competitor in the NL. It seemed that it always came down to me vs. him on these big free agents. Even if my budget were equal to my revenue, I still had virtually infinite room to keep bidding and so did Brooklyn. Yet, they always quit bidding at $4-5 thousand per year for three years and let me have the player. Teams like the Reds and Giants had oodles of budget room, yet they let players like Crawford and Mathewson walk. Come on... fight me!

So I can't play that league any longer. I have a desire to try this era one more time, and I want to find a setup that could make it competitive and interesting without being a straight replay. The Cardinals franchise is challenging enough because they were well below .500 for the first decade of the century and finished 7th or 8th six times with their best year being 1901 (4th). But what to do with the rules?

I am using Challenge Mode for this league so I can't tinker with the financials. I am not sure that it would help anyway since teams have plenty of money to spend and just won't spend it. Maybe teams would bid more if the average salaries for superstar players were higher, but I can't change that. The obvious solution is to turn off Challenge Mode, but I want to try one more time with it enabled.

I could also use a "house rule" to cap my salary at the average of the league and keep free agency. It would be more challenging but I would still be stunned by players like Crawford and Mathewson hitting the market and breaking up good teams for no apparent reason. No, I think I have to use the reserve clause.

I didn't see much competitive benefit to using minor leagues either. I thought the waiver rule would be more of a challenge, but it just ended up causing teams to shuffle one-star players among themselves with no impact on competition. So I am back to reserve rosters but I haven't decided whether to put limits on them or not. I thought that a limit might cause the number of players per team to even up over time, but I found in my first league that some teams just won't sign more players from a free agent pool unless they are desperate.

I am still uncertain about the draft. The Cardinals (my team) didn't have a lot of good players, so rookies placed on their debut team would tend to make it more challenging. But it doesn't leave much to do in the offseason except fleece the AI in trades (and I kinda want to avoid that too). The good thing about the draft is that it tends to spread the talent. In my last league, Ty Cobb ended up on Washington. If there were no free agency, they might have been able to build around him.

This is really long rambling post, so thanks if you made it this far. Thanks a second time if you have any suggestions.

[David Watts]

What about giving the reserve clause a try? That might make it so you have to fully depend on trades and the draft. Or what, about a modified free agency in which players don't become free agents until they have played 10-12 years, heck 15 years?