OOTP 2007 BLB Change List

[Andrew]

I'm going to start posting everything that will change for the BLB in OOTP 2007. I get the last beta build on Monday so there shouldn't be any major changes to 2007 after that.

This thread is for rules changes, settings, etc. Some of these will be changed out of necessity and some are up for debate. Feel free to post any ideas you have.

[Andrew]

Change List
Updated: 3/9 11:20am

- Waiver Time changed from 15 days to 14 days. The extra day is no longer needed due to the automatic pullback option.

- Revenue Sharing disabled. The game now allows you to turn off revenue sharing with a Cash Max enabled. Teams will no longer be bailed out if they are in the red.

- DFA time expiring. 2007 will automatically try to move a player whose DFA time expires and if they refuse, will release them. I will be using these options so people will need to be diligent about keeping players with large contracts or recently acquired players off of DFA.

- Personnel can now be signed in game. Thank god I don't have to sign these guys anymore. They still don't negotiate however.

- Stats based AI. The default is 50% ratings, 30% current year, 15% last year, 5% 2 years ago. I'll probably tweak this more towards stats though.

- Almanac. Saves the html files from each year. So all previous years will be accessible. (not sure about 1978-1980 though) These will be made available via a zip file on the server.

- Morale System. This will be turned on.

- Facegen. Obviously this will be turned on. We'll need to update our uniforms though. I'll probably post an updated zip file containing the pictures twice a year. (Opening day and after the trade deadline)

- Financial settings. TBD

- Draft date. The draft class will now be available on January 1st. I'm also going to try to implement an online draft utility that other leagues have been using.

- Draft players. The draft will still be 15 rounds long, however I'll probably create enough players for 17 rounds so there will be some undrafted FA's.

- Additional Leagues. I know we had talked about adding a Rookie league and a Winter League. We also have the option of adding Feeder Leagues. I'm going to play around with a few different options and figure out how much it increases the League File Size before doing anything.

- Minor League roster limits. I'm going to cap minor league teams at 30 players each. This should be enough for your regular roster and to account for any injuries.

- Articles/Game Recaps. Articles and Game Recaps can now be sent to me, to include in the game generated HTML. I still haven't decided how to handle bonuses for this.

- Awards. I still plan on maintaining our awards outside of the game.

- All-star teams. All-star teams are now editable so we can hold our own voting. I'm undecided on this

[Squint]

I PM'ed you about this but wasn't around to catch your reply.

Can we open discussion on moving to a 20 point rating system rather than an 8 point rating system?

We went to 8 points when all the player values were going to be the same for every team due to the lack of scouts. Now that we have scouts and their pool isn't very deep (concerning their talent evaltuation skills....just look at the FA's), would it benefit us to have a broader scale for player evaluations?

[Andrew]

Here's another one I'd like to open discussion on:

By default players Overall rating is determined by comparing them to players at their positions. For example if there aren't many good 3B in the league but there's a ton of good SS's. A 60 rated SS might actually be better than a 70 rated 3B just because his position is deeper.

However, there is an option to compare them to all players. Thoughts?

[Andrew]

I PM'ed you about this but wasn't around to catch your reply.

Can we open discussion on moving to a 20 point rating system rather than an 8 point rating system?

We went to 8 points when all the player values were going to be the same for every team due to the lack of scouts. Now that we have scouts and their pool isn't very deep (concerning their talent evaltuation skills....just look at the FA's), would it benefit us to have a broader scale for player evaluations?

I'll start a poll on the front page for this but please discuss here as well.

[Squint]

Here's another one I'd like to open discussion on:

By default players Overall rating is determined by comparing them to players at their positions. For example if there aren't many good 3B in the league but there's a ton of good SS's. A 60 rated SS might actually be better than a 70 rated 3B just because his position is deeper.

However, there is an option to compare them to all players. Thoughts?

I'd like it based universally rather than by position. You can always sort what your viewing parameters are to show one particular position and a "57" rated SS is still going to be better than a "51" rated SS if in a universal system.

[Andrew]

I'd like it based universally rather than by position. You can always sort what your viewing parameters are to show one particular position and a "57" rated SS is still going to be better than a "51" rated SS if in a universal system.

I agree with you, but for some reason everyone over on the OOTP boards likes to compare players by position. Anybody have a good reason why we would want to do it by position? And contrary to the OOTP boards, "Because this is how 6.5 worked" doesn't fly here.

[robster1225]

I like it by position for the simple fact that when I'm looking for players, I am looking for a specific position, usually, so I'd like to know how that player stacks against the rest at his position. I see your point though, if we have it rated versus every position, then I just filter, and I'd get the same result. So, i guess I just talked myself into liking Overall ratings...

[BradleyB]

I think I'd prefer if it were overall. Seems like it would help for trading and drafting. Like Robster said, if you want to know how a player is doing by position, then there are filters for that.

I do have a couple questions about the minor league rosters though... I thought we were now going to have a disabled list for minor league teams, wouldn't this do away with having to have extra spots for injured players?? If that's the case, maybe we could drop the limit to 27 or 28 players. That would still allow some room to maneuver and wouldn't allow "stockpiling" as much. Also, what happens after the draft when our A club gets flooded with 15 new players? Do we have to move players around prior to the draft?

[robster1225]

There is no minor league Disabled list in 2007. As far as having to do roster moves prior to the draft, that is a good question, and something we can look into. I would assume that players should get placed on the DFA, but I honestly haven't tested that, though I'm sure some have.

[Squint]

Any discussion concerning the ratings scale.

I'm all about increasing it.

[robster1225]

Honestly, I like our current rating scale.

[liquidcrash]

I also like our current 2-8 scale. I've tried out the different scales in my single player games, but always end up going back to 2-8. I like the ambiguity of our rankings, makes it less of an exact science.

[Squint]

I also like our current 2-8 scale. I've tried out the different scales in my single player games, but always end up going back to 2-8. I like the ambiguity of our rankings, makes it less of an exact science.

I agree with the ambiguity as well. But the depression sets in when I check the quality of the FA scouts (and even some on my team). There is nothing, I mean ZERO, scouts that have anything at all to offer as far as any of their evaluation skills are concerned.

That being the case, shouldn't we offset the part of the game/league that is lacking with the ability to get a bit more of an in-depth read on some of these players.

I don't think this would have a dramatic effect, but when a scout currently rates a pitchers control at a marginal 5 out of 8, he could rate him anywhere from an 11-14 on a 1-20 scale. Add that up over different attributes, and it could be the deciding factor between signing or drafting certain players.

[Andrew]

I actually like what Heath is talking about here.

Right now I basically rely on two scouts, my head scout and the next best guy. When they disagree on a guy it's usually only by a point on the current rating scale. However, it would take a lot more thought and make player evaluation a lot more difficult if we widened that gap. To me more difficult=better.

The point of having ambiguous ratings was to make player evaluation tougher without scouts. However, now that we have scouts, why shouldn't those scouts be able to give us more specific ratings?