Vital Historical Feature for OOTP 9 or 10

[Mike Donlin]

Originally Posted by thbroman

And finally -- where do you get all of this terrific information? I imagine you sitting there in some room with a wall full of books on baseball history, but not the kind of books that one usually sees in Barnes and Noble!

Peter Morris's two-volume A Game of Inches is very good on the development of these (and other) rules, but I'm sure LGO has even better and more obscure sources.

[Dr. P.R. Park III]

The Sporting News archives is a goldmine, just have to have the patience to sift through the masses.

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by Dr. P.R. Park III

The Sporting News archives is a goldmine, just have to have the patience to sift through the masses.

Huh . . . is that availble through ProQuest or something?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by thbroman

The most obvious issue that I see in your discussion of the Rule 5 draft is whether a really committed historical/fantasy gamer would want somehow to have the rules evolve over the decades.

The way I thought about approaching it was via the use of what I call "rule sets."

Basically, there's no way you could make each of the Rule 5 verisons and other rule changes individually selectable—it'd be a nightmare of options (some of them probably conflicting) to code and test. So, instead, the rules are bundled together into rule sets which recreate the package of rules which operated together in various real-world baseball periods.

If one wanted to have a league operate under the rules common in the mid-1960s, you'd select the rule set for that period and all the appropriate rules would be in place. By packaging the rules together in this way, it makes it easier to test them and understand how they interact (and hopefully makes it easier to code as well) as well as being historically correct.

I estimate in total there'd be between 12-24 rule sets, depending on how fine-grained one wants to get in recreating the various rule periods. (In some years, there was only a change in one rule area, so that change would require a new rule set if one was being very precise in following the rule changes which occurred.)

For historical leagues, I'd say by default the rule sets would occur automatically (since historical accuracy is the goal), though if someone wanted to go with just one rule set for the entire history of the league they could do that. For fictional leagues, the player could select which rule set they want the league to start with. After a few seasons, if they wanted to try out a different rules regime, they could select a new rule set to use.

Originally Posted by thbroman

By the way, here's a question that occurs to me: I suppose I would be correct in supposing that even after a player had been drafted, the drafting club would still have to purchase their contract from their minor-league "owner"?

The Rule 5 draft involves fixed purchase values for the contracts. That's why the major leagues wanted the draft in the first place: they could acquire players from minor league teams for prices much lower than would be the case if the player was sold on the open market.

The draft prices were originally higher in regard to an average MLB player's salary than is the case currently. In 1950, for example, the draft price for a player selected from a Class AAA club was $10,000; the average MLB salary that year was $13,288. That would be comparable today to a draft price of about $2.1 million (the actual draft price is $50,000).

Originally Posted by thbroman

Another contract question: In the 1930s-1950s or so, when players have contracts with minor league clubs in a farm system, what rights does the parent club have to just pluck the player from the team, esp. if he's not already on the 40-man roster? Or if he is on the 40-man roster?

Remember that a player on the 40-man roster and not on the 25-man active list is on option to the minor league club, and can be recalled by the major league club when desired (within certain rules of course, which have also changed over the years). Minor league teams used to also have their own players on option to lower minor leagues.

As to players not on the 40-man roster, it depends on whether there was a working agreement or not between the major and minor league clubs. Without a working agreement, any player's contract being sold by a minor league club would go to the highest bidder. With a working agreement, the major league club would have exclusive access to that player. The price paid for the player's contract was usually a fixed amount specified in the working agreement (which I believe were universal, as working agreement conditions were specified in the rules governing major-minor affairs; I still have to research that area more).

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by thbroman

And finally -- where do you get all of this terrific information? I imagine you sitting there in some room with a wall full of books on baseball history, but not the kind of books that one usually sees in Barnes and Noble!

I wish I had such a library! It'd make things a lot easier.

Everything I've found comes from a few sources:

1) Being a member of SABR. That gives one access to a large number of folks who actively research various baseball areas, and who are quite knowledgeable. If one doesn't know something about a particular area, there's a good chance there's somebody else there who does. I've gotten in touch with a few folks through SABR who have been very helpful in passing along information.

2) This section of Cliff Blau's web site. That's the site which started my interest in the rules area.

3) In terms of publications, the Baseball Blue Book is excellent. The reason is because, up until 1990 or so, the book included the complete Major League Rules, National Association Agreement, and other official documents which specified the off-the-field rules which governed major and minor league baseball. The book also included lots of information on the minor leagues generally not found in other publications.

Originally Posted by Mike Donlin

Peter Morris's two-volume A Game of Inches is very good on the development of these (and other) rules, but I'm sure LGO has even better and more obscure sources.

I picked up Volume II of that book just recently. It's a very handy reference to have.

Originally Posted by thbroman

Huh . . . is that availble through ProQuest or something?

The complete collection of the weekly editions of The Sporting News can be found online at the Paper of Record web site. The site used to be subscription based, but as of a couple of years ago, it was made free to use. The restriction is that you are limited to 250 PDF page views per day. You do have to register with the site, but that also is free.

You can find lots of interesting stuff there by sifting through issues. I know I've saved a ton of pages from that site. The only drawback is that I find its search engine isn't the greatest (could just be me though).

Issues of The New York Times newspaper from 1851-1922 and 1987-present are now also free to view online at the newspaper's web site. You can find good information from searching there as well.

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The way I thought about approaching it was via the use of what I call "rule sets."

Basically, there's no way you could make each of the Rule 5 verisons and other rule changes individually selectable—it'd be a nightmare of options (some of them probably conflicting) to code and test. So, instead, the rules are bundled together into rule sets which recreate the package of rules which operated together in various real-world baseball periods.

If one wanted to have a league operate under the rules common in the mid-1960s, you'd select the rule set for that period and all the appropriate rules would be in place. By packaging the rules together in this way, it makes it easier to test them and understand how they interact (and hopefully makes it easier to code as well) as well as being historically correct.

I estimate in total there'd be between 12-24 rule sets, depending on how fine-grained one wants to get in recreating the various rule periods. (In some years, there was only a change in one rule area, so that change would require a new rule set if one was being very precise in following the rule changes which occurred.)

For historical leagues, I'd say by default the rule sets would occur automatically (since historical accuracy is the goal), though if someone wanted to go with just one rule set for the entire history of the league they could do that. For fictional leagues, the player could select which rule set they want the league to start with. After a few seasons, if they wanted to try out a different rules regime, they could select a new rule set to use.

I like the idea of rule sets a lot. I suspect that even players who are most interested in re-creating different historical environments wouldn't want to have to re-create them on their own by going through a lengthy set of yes/no options (sometimes even the current assortment feels like too many!) I doubt that even 12 such sets could be introduced in the first iteration -- I'll bet that it would be more like 4 or 5, with perhaps more to follow in subsequent years.

But here's a another issue: Do you envision that all of these sets would be built on the same mechanisms for minor league finances, player generation, scouting and coaching, and so forth? Surely they would have to be.

[kq76]

I, too, very much like the idea of rule sets, but with your proposal are you able to say select a rule set and then change certain settings or are you stuck with what the set is? I'm thinking for fictional leagues where you'd like to start with a certain ruleset but tweak it from there.

[Le Grande Orange]

Here's the post I made in the Suggestions Forum last September about rule sets.

Originally Posted by thbroman

Do you envision that all of these sets would be built on the same mechanisms for minor league finances, player generation, scouting and coaching, and so forth? Surely they would have to be.

I would say the first step is improving the major league financials and getting minor league financials in the game so as to allow a better recreation of the essence of the major-minor relationship evolution. After that's achieved, then implementing the various transaction rule sets would follow later.

I would say though that a couple of the older rules are important enough to be added as soon as possible. These would be:

1) the restrictions against interleague trading (such restrictions were a big part of MLB trading for a long time);
2) the Disabled List limitations (at least the rudimentary implementation of such limitations);
3) outrighted players having to go through the Rule 5 draft before being reacquired (since this effects the staffing of minor league teams in earlier years).

All the other the historical rules could easily wait to be developed in detail later on.

[thbroman]

Your mention in the proposal that you linked to, describing how the a.i. would have to be taught to handle the differing historical situations, strikes fear in my heart, because that alone could make Markus deep-six it. Teaching the a.i. how to find & sign prospects out of other organizations would be directing it to do something that it has never had to do before wouldn't it? Or would Rule 5 or a trade be the only mechanisms for getting players out of other organizations or independent mior leagues? In that case, I suppose, it would not be doing anything radically different than it already does. Still, I worry how long it has taken to get it to behave "intelligently" in things like the FA market (and that's not meant as a knock on Markus), I can only wonder what it would take to implement a.i. GM's capable of giving a human a challenge in the different historical environment.

I suppose one way to make this palatable to Markus is to introduce comparatively small changes incrementally, as you have suggested.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by thbroman

Teaching the a.i. how to find & sign prospects out of other organizations would be directing it to do something that it has never had to do before wouldn't it? Or would Rule 5 or a trade be the only mechanisms for getting players out of other organizations or independent mior leagues?

First, I have no objection to simplifying the real-world rules where necessary to make things easier to code and for playability. The main point is try and capture the essence of the rules and the challenges they offered.

It terms of player acquisition, I don't think it would be all that much different mimicking an earlier baseball period. As it stands now, if a team needs a player, it looks through its own minor league system for a suitable player, or looks at players on other major league teams to fill its need. It then either promotes a player or tries to engineer a trade as needed. The difference for older periods is that the club would have to purchase the player from the minors rather than promote him. As long as the AI has some understanding of its current fiscal situation, it would not seem to me to be an overly difficult coding problem. If it can't afford the best player available, it looks for the second-best player, etc.

Originally Posted by thbroman

Still, I worry how long it has taken to get it to behave "intelligently" in things like the FA market (and that's not meant as a knock on Markus), I can only wonder what it would take to implement a.i. GM's capable of giving a human a challenge in the different historical environment.

I sometimes kind of wish Markus would hook up with the guys over at Stardock. They've garnered quite a bit of praise for the very good job they did on the AI for Galactic Civlizations II and its expansions.

[Dr. P.R. Park III]

Originally Posted by Dr. P.R. Park III

The Sporting News archives is a goldmine, just have to have the patience to sift through the masses.

Paperofrecord.com

[Cryomaniac]

I like the idea of rules sets, but only if the rule sets themselves are customizable.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

I like the idea of rules sets, but only if the rule sets themselves are customizable.

That's not really feasible, given the rather large number of changes in the rules there have been over the years. There would easily be several dozen possible combinations, if not more. It is also quite possible that people would put contradicting rules together in the same set, or that a given combination would produce unusual results. Remember that the AI has to understand how the rules operate and work reasonably well within them.

Basic rules can still be made selectable as they are currently. The more fine detail rules need to be put together into a package which ensures easier testing that they can indeed operate as a unit.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That's not really feasible, given the rather large number of changes in the rules there have been over the years. There would easily be several dozen possible combinations, if not more. It is also quite possible that people would put contradicting rules together in the same set, or that a given combination would produce unusual results. Remember that the AI has to understand how the rules operate and work reasonably well within them.

Basic rules can still be made selectable as they are currently. The more fine detail rules need to be put together into a package which ensures easier testing that they can indeed operate as a unit.

My problem with this is that it makes the rules overall less customizable.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

My problem with this is that it makes the rules overall less customizable.

Given the extent to which transaction rules have changed, I would say your fear is unfounded.

To recreate the rule changes during the free agency era alone (1976-present) there would be about seven different rule sets. Then there's all those years prior to 1976.

And some rules could still be customizable outside of the rule sets. Changing the number of option years a player can have, for example, is likely selectable independent of a rule set. Or changing the number of years of service a player needs to have before being able to refuse a minor league assignment. Or varying the waiver restrictions on interleague trading is likewise selectable outside of a rule set.

Basic settings like that are probably still individually selectable without adding undue difficulties to a rule set. Other aspects are more likely fundamental and need to be fixed within a given rule set.

It's hard to say for certain because it needs to be carefully examined in detail as to what effect each rule change has and how difficult it is to code the AI to handle it. For that matter, I still need to do more research to nail down some of the areas that are still uncertain...

[Cryomaniac]

I think a good compromise would be to give the option to choose a rule set, or be able to customize everything. It would take more work, but would please more people.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

One of the things that has to happen is for minor leagues to get their own finances.

Yes. This would be one of the two most important possible updates for me, the other being the ability to disable reserve rosters for teams without affiliates.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by NCBeachBum

I've done it before, and it worked for me. Free agency off, release everyone, and there is still a free agent pool.

Okay, just set up a quick test league in '01, all defaults except for no ST and no FA, and did it to make sure I was remembering correctly. There's a free agent pool of 424 players, and 282 of them were signed by Opening Day, with more still in negotiations.

I've tried this twice, and it doesn't work. The AI is absolutely idiotic. Several clubs fail to sign a full roster in time for the season. One team in my current attempt has signed just one starting pitcher and nearly 20 position players.

I assigned fictional financials to all clubs after releasing the players, and the league is fairly even in terms of budget. But the AI is utterly incapable of recognizing basic position needs in order to build a roster.

So sadly there seems to be no way to start a historical game in 1901 by releasing all players and allowing clubs to add players only by signing them as free agents.

[chimanbj]

I think it's great that the game is so excellent that the complaints are very complicated. Yes, it's an issue that the AI seems to have a problem building a team from scratch, but how many times does a team have to do that from scratch anyway? The expansion drafts seem to work just fine....

[Charlie Hough]

This isn't about expansion drafts. The problem is that the game cannot actually simulate the transaction model from the early decades of baseball. It's incapable of working effectively with any starting point other than an inaugural draft or the automatic population of rosters. It's also completely incapable of challenging a human GM when signing players from a large pool of free agents. A human manager can easily sign a lineup full of the best players in the league simply by meeting their contract demands.

Don't forget that there were a number of leagues like the Players League and the Federal League that DID start from scratch. They were startup leagues that sought to compete with the early major leagues. There were others that came and went before 1900 as well. Supposedly OOTP 9 will allow 19th century baseball to be simulated, but I doubt that it will be with a proper transaction model.