Broken Bat - Discussion Forum: Roster Limit

Forum >> Discussions >> Roster Limit

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#18592	05/04/2015 1:20:32 pm
elonpuckhog Joined: 02/23/2015 Posts: 36 Inactive	I'd be all in favor of a 25 man MLB roster, 25 man AAA roster, etc. It would help with prospect development, etc. I don't think it's realistic in terms of this game, but I'd be in favor of it for sure.

#18630	05/04/2015 9:21:25 pm
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	Steve has added an extremely helpful tool in evaluating players with the player development graph. He also mentioned that he's looking to retain minor league stats for 5-8 years. Those two things add a dimension to measuring players, their growth and potential. Owners who will utilize those additions should reap the rewards. Adding roster spots reduces that effect, so I'm against it. It also minimizes the consequences of good and bad planning. You don't know need to worry about when and what's going to happen; just throw handfuls of guys on the roster and let the game engine decide for you. It's like using cluster bombs instead of snipers. No, the game should reward skill. A major part of the satisfaction of playing a game comes from making choices. The more choices available to players, the better. What makes decisions satisfying is the fact that each one is important. Adding spots makes each choice less critical, which would reduce the enjoyment of the game for me. One last thing, if owners want a few more spots for the minors, they can always minimize their major league roster. The range is something like 21-30, which offers lots of choices right there. If you want more minor league spots, thin out your majors.

#18634	05/05/2015 2:43:25 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Whoa, hold up, you mean to tell me we don't agree on something Mike? I am shocked. While I agree the development tools Steve has added are nice tools to have, they aren't a time machine. They're a tool that looks backwards, not forward, so when they reveal a player isn't developing properly, do they allow you to go back and un-cut that borderline guy you drafted and cut in week five? No, so I don't really see your argument here. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. One last thing, if owners want a few more spots for the minors, they can always minimize their major league roster. The range is something like 21-30, which offers lots of choices right there. If you want more minor league spots, thin out your majors. So the 25 minor league spots to eventually fill 24 major league spots thing doesn't scan for you? Seems thinned to anorexic levels to me. This is why I'm not going to make many suggestions in the future. Contrarianism seems to win regardless.

#18637	05/05/2015 6:01:12 am
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	Mike, except in order to get a large enough sample size to know who to cut, a person must hold a player for awhile, and you don't get that development time back. Thus it is not a question of skill, it is a question of luck. In order to feel a little less like roulette and a little more like baseball development where they have entire minor league teams, it would be nice to have 5-10 more spots.

#18656	05/05/2015 2:59:31 pm
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	It's absolutely hysterical that you're arguing about how measuring and projecting a player is too much about luck, but love a completely luck driven draft. About having 24 minor league spots for 25 major league spots, no I don't think that's thin at all. If a player is in the bigs from age 25 and plays through age 33, that's nine years of service. Even if you give a guy 4.5 years to see if he's right for you, which is far greater than average, you still get two guys to consider for your one spot. Not all players pan out even if they make the majors. That's baseball.

#18661	05/05/2015 4:34:29 pm
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	... and I think it's absolutely hysterical that you are complaining about a completely luck driven draft, but not the development system. So what? You have your pet peeve and I have mine. Except that a guy has stayed on my roster far less than your estimate, and even after I get my minor leaguers in, there is no guarantee that one of two replacements will work out. Also, it can be difficult to measure whether a guy will work out in one or two seasons of minor league ball, especially for young players (16-18 year olds) which can tend to not gain skills as fast as older guys (22-25 year olds). As Haselrig said, the contrarian view looks like it will keep any changes from being made to any of the game systems as is due to the inability to form any sort of consensus on substantial changes.

#18665	05/05/2015 5:00:41 pm
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	I've supported many ideas. Some I've sat on the fence on not believing they're particularly good or bad. Based on the several reasons I've stated in a couple different posts above, I think increasing roster size would be detrimental to the game. Updated Tuesday, May 5 2015 @ 5:06:19 pm PDT

#18673	05/05/2015 6:49:56 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9600 Haverhill Halflings III.1	It would be nice to have a few more spots to play with to help cover duds, but I have to say however many spots I am given I will always have X-1 guy on my roster.

#18676	05/05/2015 6:59:46 pm
Benchwarmer Joined: 01/06/2015 Posts: 445 Inactive	I think 50 seems like a pretty reasonable number as we have it now. 30 slots for majors and 20 slots for developing new talent. Maybe adding 2 or 3 slots to the full roster might be useful, but I don't see it as needed. I'm also running a pretty rich team, so I don't know how much of a disadvantage teams that are having to nickle and dime their way along would be at if more roster slots are added.

#18678	05/05/2015 7:33:56 pm
FreddyTheEye Joined: 11/11/2014 Posts: 625 Inactive	I totally agree with Mike and Steve on this one. We have enough roster spots. IMO more would simply increase the number of claims on every waiver player and give disadvantage to the casual GM's. Also the unluckiest waiver GM's would lose out forever while everyone maxes out roster spots with 14+ pot players. Finances would have to be tweeked, guys could hoard pitchers, less spill over for new managers to chose from etc..just don't like it at all for this sim. I prefer the tougher choices on who to keep and cut.