|
|
Post by mchales_army on Sept 7, 2014 23:21:25 GMT -5
1) MWR of 41 wins at each level (not counting rookie league). Penalties levied in a tier format of 104-107 losses = 1 win penalty; 108-111 losses = 2 win penalty; 112-115 losses = 3 win penalty; 116+ losses = 4 win penalty.
2) MWR of 200 for the entire 5 minor league squads. Penalty would be 1 win per games below floor.
3) Roster minimums of 13 position players and 15 pitchers. 1 win penalty for every 10 games playing with less than the minimum.
4) No rules concerning minors at all.
Let me be perfectly clear:
I would rather just have a no holds barred type of world where there weren't any rules or restrictions at all.
I had to add some restrictions and rules to ensure that owners don't just throw out a 150M payroll with a "screw everything else" kind of attitude. This is for the continued health and viability of the world going forward.
Ultimately I don't know how much "damage" is caused by owners not maintaining their minors, because the world I played in for 15 seasons had very few issues with owners doing that.
Can anyone offer insight from experience on that topic?
I mean if there's no real bad effect, then I'd be 100% for no rules about the minors. I had an owner make the suggestion, and I thought maybe it was worth pursing, but as I said above I am not sure what real damage would be caused if we just left it alone.
I just want to make sure we maintain a world worth playing many tournaments in down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by Risingstar1 on Sept 8, 2014 2:53:29 GMT -5
I think to add realism and make it more challenging we should have MWR of at least 40 for each level except rookies and have roster minimums as well. Would be open to making the minors MWR a bit higher. No one will be tanking so guys will be called up as soon as they can contribute, so the minors win floor will keep everyone on their toes so there not just abandoned.
|
|
|
|
Post by mchales_army on Sept 8, 2014 3:29:25 GMT -5
I've had feedback that people aren't able to vote.
Perhaps only registered members can vote?
As I posted in the WC, if anyone is uncomfortable registering with their real email address, simply go create a free one at hotmail or wherever and use it strictly for this.
In lieu of registering, I guess owners may just post an opinion like RisingStar1 did.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjschumacher on Sept 8, 2014 6:28:38 GMT -5
I am logged in, but there is no voting poll. Only the list of options, labeled 1 through 4. No voting buttons.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjschumacher on Sept 8, 2014 6:36:34 GMT -5
OK, now that the coffee is starting to kick in, I can faintly see the square radio buttons. If you just click on the option you want to vote for, it checks it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nap00 on Sept 8, 2014 7:46:12 GMT -5
I vote for option 4.
I would expect the owners in a world like this to be experienced enough to maintain their minors sufficiently without rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockindock on Sept 8, 2014 7:49:45 GMT -5
I would support either rule 1 or rule 2. I think rule 2 would be my vote. I do NOT like rule 3. If you can win 40 games, I do not care how you do it. If you need 10 position guys or 20 in order to win 40 it's fine by me.
|
|
|
|
Post by themojoking on Sept 8, 2014 8:56:16 GMT -5
I agree with rockindock. I'm fine with 1 or 2. If I was forced to pick one, I'd go with idea #1, but either are fine with me. However I HATE the idea of rule #3. I am a owner that does actively take care of his minors, I would not want anyone telling me how to set my roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by iain on Sept 8, 2014 12:06:46 GMT -5
I'd prefer the roster minimums, over wins/losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by foulballz on Sept 8, 2014 16:51:06 GMT -5
I prefer roster minimums. I assume the main concern is people only having 20 on the roster and using thesaving for the big leagues. Roster minimum eliminates that, and allows people to pay attention to the minors as they see fit. I gain no satisfaction out of minors winning. I staff them, but could care less how they perform and don't want to have to spend time on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubrightway on Sept 8, 2014 22:01:41 GMT -5
I voted none. only for simplicity
|
|
|
|
Post by kahrtmen on Sept 8, 2014 23:56:32 GMT -5
I don't get the idea that we don't need a MWR because everyone is experienced. If that is true, then there should be no harm in putting the rule in.
|
|
|
|
Post by nap00 on Sept 9, 2014 6:25:10 GMT -5
Because we are talking about minor leagues, not ML. I'm not worried I couldn't meet the MWR (as I just glossed over my win totals from past seasons), but other than staffing and keeping players rested, I could not care less about minor league success. Only individual players who will make the big leagues one day.
I never have any problems with too many players retiring and not having players to field a team. But I have no problem getting Tryout players to fill out the rosters sometimes instead of a 1st, 2nd, or comp pick etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by kahrtmen on Sept 9, 2014 23:05:53 GMT -5
In my experience, plenty of seasoned owners let their minors rot. In this league you can never transfer out of prospect, so there's not much incentive to leave your draftees unsigned.
|
|
|
|
Post by mchales_army on Sept 10, 2014 3:44:10 GMT -5
This is what I was afraid of.
There are just too many restrictions on how owners run their minors no matter which way we go. MWR would fit half the owners management style better, while roster minimums fit others better.
I have gone ahead and made an executive decision to simply go back to my original rule, and also added something to address position players as well. I've posted it in the Rules section, but will also post it here:
For every 10 instances of a 0 pitcher appearance you will be penalized 1 win. This should allow for the occasional extra inning fiasco, or an owner dropping the ball for a short time, but will penalize the owner who does not address the issue in a timely manner.
Additionally, if a position player gets injured and he was playing at less than 90% you will be penalized 1 win per such injury. IOW, you may run guys out there at 20% without repercussion provided they do not incur an injury.
PLEASE NOTE :
I WILL NOT be checking every minor league game to try to find EVERY instance of a 0 pitcher appearance.
IF there is a problem brought to my attention (or that I notice on my own), I will investigate and log any infractions I find.
IF an owner accumulates 10 such infractions he will be assessed a 1 win penalty.
I WILL, HOWEVER, be periodically checking for injured players throughout the minors.
These two potential penalties should be fairly easy to avoid, provided you are running an adequately stocked staff and have even a small amount of depth on the bench.
I think this addresses the issue more directly and do not feel further discussion on it is necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by foulballz on Sept 11, 2014 22:07:12 GMT -5
Any chance of at least having one or two freebies/warnings or dropping it to 80-85% I have my ML potential players on my watch list and a quick check of that in my worlds show I have one at 87% and one at 89%. And these are prospects I pay fairly close attention to. Whatever you decide is fine, and sorry to rehash this, just seems like a stiff penalty for neglecting it for a few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by mchales_army on Sept 12, 2014 0:43:09 GMT -5
Any chance of at least having one or two freebies/warnings or dropping it to 80-85% I have my ML potential players on my watch list and a quick check of that in my worlds show I have one at 87% and one at 89%. And these are prospects I pay fairly close attention to. Whatever you decide is fine, and sorry to rehash this, just seems like a stiff penalty for neglecting it for a few days. It is easy to avoid if you simply set the AI to run the offense and set auto rest to 90%. If you did both it would take a very bad run of luck for it to ever happen. Furthermore, there is no penalty for simply playing a guy below 90%. Fatigue is the enemy as it leads to injury. My sole purpose in invoking ANY rule whatsoever, is to ensure there is a continued flow of young talent into the world even though development is going to be low on many owner's priority list for this world. |
|
