|
Post by kevintowers on Nov 14, 2004 21:32:09 GMT -5
Oh and I dont get the instant heal thing but Im guessing that the Stone man has the ability to heal any injuries on the spot. I say we limit the number of ML players that can get hurt at one time and deal with it. If we said 2 then as soon as a 3rd went down, the gm would choose who to heal of the 2 that were already hurt. Do this for both leagues, so its fair across the board and no matter how many mor einjuries the al has, the most any al team will have on the DL is 2, same for NL.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Nov 14, 2004 21:40:21 GMT -5
Actually it sounds like Padres may be a little jealous, but whatever, cause there is no way I would have invested 55 Million dollars in 3 players if I knew I needed a bench.
|
|
|
Post by kevintowers on Nov 14, 2004 21:41:43 GMT -5
Jealous that you overspent?
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Nov 14, 2004 21:50:03 GMT -5
no that my 23456 hitters are Soriano, A-Rod, Giambi, Sosa, Piazza and I still have 7 Million dollars in cap
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stoneman on Nov 14, 2004 22:14:41 GMT -5
Here is why you would not want a solid bench, when we had NO INJURIES, we didn't have to worry about the bench, here was why I did my trades. Why would I need a bench if all the players on my team can play 100% of the games and not get hurt. NOW you are trying to say that to make it more realistic we are going to change everything, which makes my team screwed if I get 2 big injuries. It would make every team that has one player that is eligible at C go down, example OAK last year, they played someone who isn't available at C, and had TONS of SB against and errors, well if someone's catcher goes down, and they don't have one to replace him, then they are going to end up in last place in the division automatically. If we were going to go with injuries we should have started the league that way, not changed it half way through the off-season, after everyone made trades and signed there FA. My money is spent on my starting players, because I and everyone else in the league was under the impression that there would be no need for a bench if your players were always healthy. If I was voting on whether I would like to have injuries on, I would say yes, but since I am voting on whether I want the file to have an injury plagued piece of shit system doing injuries for it, and we have to do all this stupid instaheal crap to make it better, and we have to start after a season in, and after everyone has done there teams as if there were no injuries, than I have to vote no. 1) I started the injuries poll early October 12, the 3rd day of open trading. Every trade you made before that actually cut salary, you didn't really take anything on until after. So isn't totally true. 2) ------ Oakland had available catchers last year. 2 of them. He just decided he wanted a bat there instead of a good fielder, and played Kielty over Miller and Melhuse. Plus, it doesn't mean you'll get last in the division just because you don't have a guy in position. You did just fine with Davanon- a 0 familiarity- at SS last year. 3) And to what SD said in his post. That is the exact reason for injuries. It keeps teams active, no just setting lineups and checking back in a few months. It makes you manage a little. It makes the minors important. It makes prospects have value. And when a contender has an injury in season, then they can make a move to try and fix it, or make a callup to replace him who can make a big impact...like Miguel Cabrera did with the fish. It can only be a positive thing.
|
|
|
Post by Edgar Martinez on Nov 14, 2004 22:43:44 GMT -5
I really don't understand why we are revoting we already voted in favor for the injuries to occur. We will see how it works out and if there are complaints we can have another poll. Honestly I feel Commish's injury system doesn't screw anybody, and it balances things out. I agree with what Padres said that w/o injuries a gm can just be inactive for the season come back and see his team in the playoffs and etc, which kinda sucks.
Anyway yes on injuries
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Nov 14, 2004 22:48:37 GMT -5
vote is 10-8 in favor of injuries but SD said if NL doesn't get instaheal as well as AL then he is changing vote, so it is either 10-8 or 9-9, I also would change my vote to yes if NL DID get instaheal which would make it 11-7 but right now it is 9-9 if no instaheal for NL, or 11-7 if yes for instaheal for NL
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stoneman on Nov 14, 2004 22:52:22 GMT -5
There will not be an NL instaheal. It is just as proposed in the actual poll. NL having instaheal would equate to NL not having injuries, and AL having them. The instaheals only provide the balance in total injuries. Why is it fair to have the AL have so many more injuries than the NL? Yeah they're 2 seperate leagues, but it sucks to have too many injuries, and at least this provides a LITTLE control. Also, the AL will have to overuse prospects, and they'd have to stack their bench much more than the NL would if neither had it. Using prospects more means they get contracts earlier, which means we lose them or someone because payrolls go up. This way makes it even for both leagues. Stars in the AL will still go down and not be healed.
I would be 100% baffled if this didn't pass.
|
|
|
Post by rangersgm on Nov 14, 2004 22:52:49 GMT -5
Oh and I dont get the instant heal thing but Im guessing that the Stone man has the ability to heal any injuries on the spot. I say we limit the number of ML players that can get hurt at one time and deal with it. If we said 2 then as soon as a 3rd went down, the gm would choose who to heal of the 2 that were already hurt. Do this for both leagues, so its fair across the board and no matter how many mor einjuries the al has, the most any al team will have on the DL is 2, same for NL. You know, this idea may have the best of both worlds. It helps the AL with all the injuries and helps an NL team that has a freak streak on injuries. It also keeps things equal since I guess that what this whole discussion was started on. And by the way, it isn't hard to come up with replacements and bench players man. If you are so worried about it go out and spend your 7M and you will have a great bench. I only have one catcher in Rod Barajas but I signed a backup and drafted Kevin Taubensee so one of the two will be able to take over. It's not that hard to come up with a backup.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hendry on Nov 15, 2004 6:21:15 GMT -5
I also think this is a good idea. It evens out the AL vs NL instaheal debate and would limit the amount of damage the "glitch" could do to the AL. If the NL gets fewer injuries, then they would never need the instaheal.
"As an addition to this, if implemented, the American League teams would be allowed 1 Instant heal per half. This would not carry over, so if a team were to not use their first half heal, they would not have 2 in the second half. (Half designated by all star break). This would be done because HH has a known bug causing more injuries to AL teams. These instant heals would level that out, and allow us to have a more realistic sim. "
I just don't feel this addresses the issue in the best manner. I like the idea of limiting injuries to any team to x # of players. If anyone else got hurt over that #, they could be instahealed. I am not sure I agree with allowing choice over who to heal but that might be the best way to keep injuries under control for the first year we implement the injuries. This would allow us to track the number of injuries that actually take place. Injuries would still play a role into the league and managers would be forced to manage their teams.
I'd like to move to rewrite the proposal and revote based on San Diego's idea. I would also vote against injuries as a whole if the AL is favored with a way to fix their injuries and the NL isn't.
I vote yes for injuries but ONLY if there is a total league standard, not different rules for NL and AL. I didn't understand this at first and I'm assuming other voting managers didn't either. Otherwise, I can't see how any AL manager would vote against it and liekwise any NL manager would vote for it.
|
|
|
Post by metsrule101 on Nov 15, 2004 8:00:16 GMT -5
Here is why you would not want a solid bench, when we had NO INJURIES, we didn't have to worry about the bench, here was why I did my trades. Why would I need a bench if all the players on my team can play 100% of the games and not get hurt. NOW you are trying to say that to make it more realistic we are going to change everything, which makes my team screwed if I get 2 big injuries. It would make every team that has one player that is eligible at C go down, example OAK last year, they played someone who isn't available at C, and had TONS of SB against and errors, well if someone's catcher goes down, and they don't have one to replace him, then they are going to end up in last place in the division automatically. If we were going to go with injuries we should have started the league that way, not changed it half way through the off-season, after everyone made trades and signed there FA. My money is spent on my starting players, because I and everyone else in the league was under the impression that there would be no need for a bench if your players were always healthy. If I was voting on whether I would like to have injuries on, I would say yes, but since I am voting on whether I want the file to have an injury plagued piece of shit system doing injuries for it, and we have to do all this stupid instaheal crap to make it better, and we have to start after a season in, and after everyone has done there teams as if there were no injuries, than I have to vote no. There will be plenty of free agents just sign one of them to fill up your bench.
|
|
|
Post by kevintowers on Nov 15, 2004 10:05:49 GMT -5
vote is 10-8 in favor of injuries but SD said if NL doesn't get instaheal as well as AL then he is changing vote, so it is either 10-8 or 9-9, I also would change my vote to yes if NL DID get instaheal which would make it 11-7 but right now it is 9-9 if no instaheal for NL, or 11-7 if yes for instaheal for NL I guess I should have read the original poll on this issue. As it is stated, I vote against injuries. If details were changed, I'd reconsider.
|
|
|
Post by joegaragiola on Nov 16, 2004 20:27:35 GMT -5
I want realism....yes on injuries
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Nov 16, 2004 22:17:49 GMT -5
Realism I vote yes to, instaheals I vote no to, if it is supposed to be real then instaheals make no sense, if there is a glitch, then make it to where there is a limited amount of injuries possible per half for both NL and AL, otherwise my vote is no to injuries. Only way to keep it fair to both leagues is if both AL and NL have the same instaheals or amount of injuries possible. Maybe limit it to 3 injuries per half for both leagues. then any after three are not counted, that way some teams in NL will have 3 and no team in AL will have more then 3. That is the most fair way to do it. This way there is no way for an AL team to have 10 injuries and all Nl teams to have 6 or less, this way all teams will have 6 or less.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stoneman on Nov 17, 2004 3:53:33 GMT -5
I think an "injury cap" as proposed is FAR more unrealistic than the instaheals. The NL just doesn't have injury problems. If the AL was the same in the game as the NL, it would be great. Sure there might be a big injury once in a while, but it happens. The problem is that the AL gets many more of these, and it needs to be fixed. It's not that the NL and AL even have to have even injuries. Like someone said before, they rarely play each other anyway. The problem is that the AL 1)Has to build a very very very good bench to counteract it, or 2) has to have a great farm, and has to lose those guys early due to caling them up early b/c of injury. If this wasn't a worry, I wouldn't see a problem with injuries without instaheal.
I don't think it's far from realistic. If injuries get excessive, you get rid of 1 and it helps a little. They still need to be "strategic", because if you use one on the wrong guy then you may be hurt later. There's a good possibility teams don't even use them for any number of reasons.
I am in a league that uses this same system, and it works great. For the record, I am an NL team in that (the Mets). I had one major guy get injured, but it was for a short time, and no big deal. He has been my only injury so far, and we are just about at the AS break. It works well in that league, and I consider that to be the best league out there right now. That is why I don't see why it can be bad for this league.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hendry on Nov 17, 2004 12:36:19 GMT -5
I think you and I are attacking this from the extremes. This is a sim game, hence not real, but I agree fully that adding injuries to the game will enhance the realism behind managing a team to run the sim. Where I disagree is the manner by which negotiationg injuries is being addressed. This is my first sim league, I've never used the 2k3 editor. I can only take your word that the glitch is severely weighted towards laming the AL players. I believe what you are saying but I don't see how the idea of capping a teams injuries at 2 for the 1st year is so out there and worse that allowing the AL to instaheal one player. If your Angels lose 5 guys in the first 2 months, you are down 5, 4 if you choose to burn an instaheal. If my Cubs lose 5, then I lose 5. You say things like "the NL doesn't usually get hit hard" but you can't say it wouldn't happen. What I am proposing still involves all 5 of those players getting injured. After your first 2 are on the shelf, when the 3rd one goes down, you pick one of the 2 to come back. When the 4th goes down, you pick one of the 2 on the DL and same when the 5th goes down. All 5 guys still get hurt and spend time on the DL and the manager is forced to deal with the injuries, all 5, working bench and minor leaguers into each position. If no NL team gets more than 2 injuries in the season, then this doesn't even come into affect thus, NL has no use for instaheal and you don't worry about it. What this does is make the rules EVEN for both leagues, for all teams in the case that by glitch one league or team gets hit harder than others OR harder than expected for its league. I guess all I am trying to do is protect the NL team that gets nailed with multiple injuries given there is no evidence it couldn't happen. This way all teams deal with injuries the same way no matter how many or how few injuries a team faces. If the AL turns out a ridiculous amount more of injuries, the AL will still in sense benefit because they will have more opportunities to pull one of its already disabled players off the shelf. I respect everything done for the league and the fact that there are plenty here with much more experience than I, but I question the fact that we are voting on whether or not to have injuries without voting on how we are going to handle them. I;ve read lots of "yes for injuries" and "no injuries" votes but only a few have spoke up and out wih substance on the instaheal issue, for and against and based on that I wish more would and we could vote on how we would handle injuries IF they were voted on before we vote on IF we have injuries. I also wish I'd get off this PC and start doing some work for class. Jim Hendry in 2008
|
|
|
Post by Mohandas Gandhi on Nov 17, 2004 17:02:52 GMT -5
i agree with the cubs dude except for one thing. instead of choosing which player gets taken off the DL, the one who is due to come back first of the two on the DL gets taken off the DL. this way, if a team has a player injured for 5 days and another one injured for 120 days lets say, he wouldnt just take the one with 120 days off so he'd have both of them back in a few days anyways.
|
|
|
Post by kevintowers on Nov 17, 2004 20:08:36 GMT -5
It seems as if the best thing to do is not have injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stoneman on Nov 18, 2004 8:15:29 GMT -5
I think this is getting alot more complicated than it needed to be.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Nov 18, 2004 10:44:41 GMT -5
I agree with Cubs solution, that would limit the amount of injuries possible, and keep each team with only a max of 2 injuries on DL at a time, and that way if AL has a injury for a long period, and the bug is in fact a true bug(which I am not in doubt of), then all they have to do is wait for another injury to get the long injury off the books, This way it helps the NL, in case a couple NL teams end up hit as bad as the AL does.
|
|