More realistic spring training

[buffalo_pete]

Capturing the intricacies of the scheduling weirdness and split squad games and how the Twins somehow manage to play the Red Sox 700 times in a month is probably a lot to ask, but it would be nice if there could at least be separate and arbitrary spring training leagues, like the Grapefruit and Cactus Leagues.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by buffalo_pete

Capturing the intricacies of the scheduling weirdness and split squad games and how the Twins somehow manage to play the Red Sox 700 times in a month is probably a lot to ask, but it would be nice if there could at least be separate and arbitrary spring training leagues, like the Grapefruit and Cactus Leagues.

I agree that it would be nice if there was a way to incorporate split-squad games, but first we'd need the ability to have non-roster invitees to spring training. Right now, we only have access to use the 40 players on the 40-man roster, so split-squad games would wear down the pitching staff pretty quickly.

On a side note, the Twins and Sox play each other so much because they're both located in Fort Myers. If you look at all spring training schedules, teams play other nearby teams a lot to cut down on travel. For instance, the Phillies play 17 games next spring against the Jays, Rays, Yanks and Tigers because Dunedin, Port Charlotte, Tampa and Lakeland are all within 20 minutes of Clearwater.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I agree that it would be nice if there was a way to incorporate split-squad games ...

I don't think split squad games are really necessary. Just get the spring training schedule up to a more realistic 32-34 games and that ought to be enough even with non-roster invitees.

[struggles_mightily]

I have a great affection for split-squad games (first of the season, looks at players you don't get to see very much), but yeah, I think NRIs are the most important thing. I think (it's been a while since I played ST) that the AI still gives pitchers an IP or 2 too many in early spring games too. After that I'd look at things like split-squad and schedules based on proximity of camps (the latter not being that important to me).

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I don't think split squad games are really necessary. Just get the spring training schedule up to a more realistic 32-34 games and that ought to be enough even with non-roster invitees.

I didn't say they were necessary. I said they'd be nice.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I didn't say they were necessary. I said they'd be nice.

Even as just nice additions they still seem unnecessary.

I don't have an exact count handy at the moment, but the number of split squad games is relatively small, a few games out of a team's spring training total. (There's a bit more than usual nowadays because of odd numbers: 15 teams train in Arizona and 15 in Florida. That necessarily means one MLB club in each area would have to be idle each day in a normal schedule.)

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Even as just nice additions they still seem unnecessary.

I don't have an exact count handy at the moment, but the number of split squad games is relatively small, a few games out of a team's spring training total. (There's a bit more than usual nowadays because of odd numbers: 15 teams train in Arizona and 15 in Florida. That necessarily means one MLB club in each area would have to be idle each day in a normal schedule.)

This is a "suggestions" thread, not a "we must have this or else" thread. Some of us suggested split-squad games would be a nice addition, hence it was suggested and supported.

Anything that brings us closer to being realistic would be nice, in my opinion. Not sure why you keep interpreting that as me insisting split-squad games are necessary. There are a lot of things in the game now that aren't necessary, but are nice, and I and others would include split-squad games on that list. That's all I'm saying.

There are more important things that are necessary, such as building the game to handle all the goofy tiebreakers that are now possible with the second wild card.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

This is a "suggestions" thread, not a "we must have this or else" thread. Some of us suggested split-squad games would be a nice addition, hence it was suggested and supported.

And others can suggest the merits of the suggestion are perhaps lacking or need more discussion/refinement.

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Anything that brings us closer to being realistic would be nice, in my opinion.

Practicality requires assessing whether a given aspect of reality is worth recreating in terms of the effort required and the game play benefit gained. (The user, for example, would have to define two separate active rosters for every game listed as a split squad contest since that is the point of them.) Split squad games in and of themselves would seem to add little. Having a longer spring training schedule basically provides the same result (enough games to assess all the talent brought to training camp).

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

And others can suggest the merits of the suggestion are perhaps lacking or need more discussion/refinement.

Up until now, you hadn't done that other than to keep calling them unnecessary when nobody here had said they were to begin with.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Practicality requires assessing whether a given aspect of reality is worth recreating in terms of the effort required and the game play benefit gained. (The user, for example, would have to define two separate active rosters for every game listed as a split squad contest since that is the point of them.) Split squad games in and of themselves would seem to add little. Having a longer spring training schedule basically provides the same result (enough games to assess all the talent brought to training camp).

No disagreement to any of that. That's exactly why I would consider split-squad games nice, but not necessary. I know nothing about coding a game, so I can't comment on the effort required to put it into the game. If Markus were to say, "It's just too much work," that would be more than acceptable to me.

I manage all aspects of my teams, so setting separate active rosters is fine with me, but I understand that it probably isn't something the majority would want.

However, I would argue that users gain the benefit of more opportunity to evaluate players because two games on one day creates more time on the field for each player because of less backups on the roster. A lengthier schedule of all single games doesn't necessarily accomplish that because the AI rarely allows a position player to go nine innings in spring training. So if the user wants a certain player or players to see extended playing time over the span of a few games, the user has to either play out every single game or micromanage lineups and depth charts while using the "bench player" feature. And micromanaging is exactly what you appear to be arguing against with split-squad games.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I agree that it would be nice if there was a way to incorporate split-squad games, but first we'd need the ability to have non-roster invitees to spring training. Right now, we only have access to use the 40 players on the 40-man roster, so split-squad games would wear down the pitching staff pretty quickly.

On a side note, the Twins and Sox play each other so much because they're both located in Fort Myers. If you look at all spring training schedules, teams play other nearby teams a lot to cut down on travel. For instance, the Phillies play 17 games next spring against the Jays, Rays, Yanks and Tigers because Dunedin, Port Charlotte, Tampa and Lakeland are all within 20 minutes of Clearwater.

Port Charlotte is over an hour drive. It takes at least 30 minutes just to get to the Sunshine Skyway assuming that you don't hit any traffic in between Gulf to Bay and Belleair. Or, hit any traffic at the one-lane merge on Rooselvelt/Ulmerton (Those 3 lights there are horrible).

After that you have to trek at least another 30 minutes to Sarasota on 75. Probably more like an hour and 15 to get to Port Charlotte from Drew and 19.

Lakeland is also quite a trek from Drew and 19. Best is probably north on McMullen then east on 580. McMullen has lots of traffic but 580 moves good. But once you hit the Hillsborough side it will slow down a bit. More like 40-45 minutes to Lakeland. Tampa you can make in 20--the Courtney Campbell moves at about 65-70 mph. Possibly get to Dale Mabry/MLK with light-traffic quicker than you can get to Douglas and Beltres in Dunedin...just so many lights along the way and so many 35 mph zones. Even if you took Drew to CR1 it's like 15-20 to the Blue-Jays.



Excluding Port Charlotte you are pretty much spot-on.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

Port Charlotte is over an hour drive. It takes at least 30 minutes just to get to the Sunshine Skyway assuming that you don't hit any traffic in between Gulf to Bay and Belleair. Or, hit any traffic at the one-lane merge on Rooselvelt/Ulmerton (Those 3 lights there are horrible).

After that you have to trek at least another 30 minutes to Sarasota on 75. Probably more like an hour and 15 to get to Port Charlotte from Drew and 19.

Lakeland is also quite a trek from Drew and 19. Best is probably north on McMullen then east on 580. McMullen has lots of traffic but 580 moves good. But once you hit the Hillsborough side it will slow down a bit. More like 40-45 minutes to Lakeland. Tampa you can make in 20--the Courtney Campbell moves at about 65-70 mph. Probably get to Dale Mabry/MLK with light-traffic quicker than you can get to Douglas and Beltres in Dunedin...just so many lights along the way and so many 35 mph zones. Even if you took Drew to CR1 it's like 15-20 to the Blue-Jays.



Excluding Port Charlotte you are pretty much spot-on.

Sorry, I was thinking of when the Rays used to be in St. Petersburg, which was 20-30 minutes. I just assumed Port Charlotte was nearby, as well.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Sorry, I was thinking of when the Rays used to be in St. Petersburg, which was 20-30 minutes. I just assumed Port Charlotte was nearby, as well.

You point was exactly right. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to discuss my backyard.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Now to the point of the discussion.

I think if we simply separated the Grapefruit League from the inferior Spring Training league at least the schedule would be better.

As far as non-roster invitees...I think it would be pretty cool but I agree with what's-his-face that it would create additional work. You make a good argument there at the tailend talking about how you have to micromanage to get the AB's/IP's how you want them but I think the overall impact would be additional micromanagement.

I am all for additional micromangement. The problem would be when you start to pair rosters down. Unless the game would help out a bum once in awhile we'd be pretty much left with our 40-man anyway.

[BIG17EASY]

I agree. That's why I think the non-roster invitees and split-squad games would be nice additions, but aren't necessary. I don't know the first thing about game coding, so I don't know what kind of work it would involve or how it might affect other aspects of the game. But the work of managing the roster even more actually appeals to me. I realize, though, that those of us who enjoy that type of micromanagement are probably in the minority.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

A lengthier schedule of all single games doesn't necessarily accomplish that because the AI rarely allows a position player to go nine innings in spring training.

Which is precisely why there needs to be AI revisions to spring training. Player usage in training camp is not the same as in the regular season. My feeling is OOTP does not do a good enough job at recreating that particular aspect of real life.

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

So if the user wants a certain player or players to see extended playing time over the span of a few games, the user has to either play out every single game or micromanage lineups and depth charts while using the "bench player" feature. And micromanaging is exactly what you appear to be arguing against with split-squad games.

Yes, because while it's all well and good for you as the user to be willing to do it, the AI has to be able to handle it on its own split squad games since most clubs in a league will be run by the AI. (Unless, that is, you personally wish to handle the spring training for every club in your league.)

So any suggestion which offers something to the user must also be capable of being handled by the AI in a reasonably competent way.


Yesterday I crunched the numbers on the published MLB 2012 spring training schedule.

Total number of games scheduled (includes split squad games and games against minor league and college teams)
Minimum: 27
Maximum: 36
Average: 33.3
Median: 34

Number of split squad games (includes games against other split squads and games against minor league and college teams)
Minimum: 2
Maximum: 12
Average: 5.7
Median: 6

If OOTP had a spring training schedule of about 32-33 normal games, it would provide as many contests for player evaluation as in real life (which includes split squad matches).

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

I think if we simply separated the Grapefruit League from the inferior Spring Training league at least the schedule would be better.

If clubs in OOTP could be assigned dedicated spring training locations, then such separation could happen largely naturally based on where the spring training parks geographically cluster.

I've suggested in the past that, for fictional leagues, spring training be customizable in that the user would select how long spring training is in their league. In real life the length of training varies depending on the league, and so it should in OOTP. My suggestion would be to have a spring training that can be selected as either being 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 weeks long. With each length there'd be a set length of schedule (about 4, 10, 18, 24, 32, and 38 games, respectively). To recreate the current MLB era, you'd select 5 weeks (about 32 games).

For historical leagues, slightly modified versions of the actual spring training schedules could be used (easily usable going back to the early 1950s; before then more modification would be necessary since there were many more games against minor league clubs in earlier periods).

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

As far as non-roster invitees...I think it would be pretty cool but I agree with what's-his-face that it would create additional work.

If coupled with AI changes to how it handles players in spring training (something which ought to happen regardless of whether any other suggestion for spring training is adopted), then perhaps that would make NRIs easier to accommodate.

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

The problem would be when you start to pair rosters down.

I am on record as advocating mandatory roster reductions in spring training, for the reason that in real life clubs tend to cut their rosters down in spring training on a somewhat orderly and regular basis. (One can get a feel for this by simply looking over the transaction records from spring training.) Mandatory roster reductions would basically emulate what happens in real life.

[Honorable_Pawn]

nice research

[PSUColonel]

It would be great to have a third ballpark for MLB teams with accurate weather etc... Also the ability to enter a third ballpark image.

[ezpkns34]

As long as there's an option to disable the extra ST stuff

Personally, I wouldn't want to spend the extra time on trivial Spring Training results. More games would be fine, but having to divy up split squads & the like would be a net negative change for my enjoyment

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

As long as there's an option to disable the extra ST stuff

Personally, I wouldn't want to spend the extra time on trivial Spring Training results. More games would be fine, but having to divy up split squads & the like would be a net negative change for my enjoyment

Which i'd like to point out is exactly what LGO said before a couple folks tried jumping on him. Not you ezpkns... others.