View Poll Results: Leave it alone or superflip?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • A - Do Nothing

    2 22.22%
  • B - Superflip

    7 77.78%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Player Dev model implementation Poll

  1. #1

    Player Dev model implementation Poll

    https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...lopment-model/

    TL/DR: They are implementing a fix of the current player Dev system originally implemented with the USB back last June. We have an option of having a "super-flip" which will retroactively apply the corrected model to players under age 30, giving us a huge spike in development. Or, we can do nothing and let the under-developed players cycle through the league.

    Option A (do nothing) is the most fair because it affects everyone equally.

    Option B (Superflip) would benefit younger teams with many players under 30 more, and benefit older teams less.
    2ML 1906, 1928, 1931, 1968, 1990, 1991, 1995, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2025
    BD 1993,1994, 2004, 2041, 2044, 2064, 2065, 2080, 2098
    CBF 2056, 2060, 2071, 2075, 2087, 2088, 2092, 2105,2106,2116,2137,2138,21402150, 2152
    CWS 1953, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1971, 1976, 1984
    HR 1903, 1906, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1934, 1943, 1950, 1953, 1955,1966, 1970, 1971
    CarL 2026, 2039, 2070
    Brockmire 1995
    88-57 WS

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Bermuda Triangle
    Posts
    538

    Re: Player Dev model implementation Poll

    Initially I liked B but if that’s chosen then nobody over 30 will probably be in a trade unless they r really good ...so I switch to option A

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia,Canada
    Posts
    620

    Re: Player Dev model implementation Poll

    I am bias, and would like to abstain from voting. I am for what the majority feel.
    =(:.) The Lew Abides =(:.)

    Historical Replay: 1947, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1981
    Galactic B L: 2012, 2032, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2059, 2072, 2092, 2113, 2122, 2123, 2125, 2132, 2137
    All Star Gala: 2084, 2105, 2113, 2123
    MajorLeagueBaseball: 2071, 2130, 2138, 2146

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NW Chicago Suburb
    Posts
    5,434

    Re: Player Dev model implementation Poll

    Voted A to keep parity
    Chicago Cubs (MLB Str8 8's)
    Chicago Orphans (National League)
    Cleveland Indians (MLB Str8 8 Sweetness)
    Denver Elevation (Lawn Chair League)
    Iowa Cubs (MLB Remake AAA)
    Los Angeles Angels (MLB Classic)
    Las Vegas Vandals (National Pastime)
    Megadeth Rattleheads (Hippystock Moshpit)
    Philadelphia Phillies (MLB ShowDown)
    San Diego Storm Surge (CSFBL Justice)
    Seattle Mariners (Historical Replay)
    Toronto Blue Jays (Two Major Leagues)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petoskey, Mi
    Posts
    12,215

    Re: Player Dev model implementation Poll

    https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...t-model/?amp=1

    Leagues can choose their transition plan.


    Option ALeave current players alone – wait for the changes to player aging/development to cycle through the league over time.

    PRO – Everyone will be impacted the same way,
    CON – it will take awhile for new ‘normal’ development to cycle through the league


    Option BDevelop current players extra (superflip) at the next season flip, to jumpstart the transition and make younger players most closely resemble players in the new aging/development model. This is a ONE-TIME option as we move towards more gradual/optional changes to game mechanics. How it works:

    *Players 20-21 year olds will receive one additional year of development
    *Players 22-23 year olds will receive two additional years of development
    *Players 24+ will receive three additional years of development
    *The “superflips” won’t age players extra or add decline

    PRO – Current players under 30 will most closely resemble new players coming into the league.
    CON – All players/teams won’t be impacted the same way – older players will change very little.

    __________________

    There is no perfect way to make big changes without shaking up existing leagues, but we wanted to give leagues the additional option. We’ll leave it to you folks to figure out what’s best for your league.

    By default, your league will remain as is – if your league is interested in Option B (extra development), please PM citizenclone before the end of Friday, January 27 and he’ll coordinate the details with you before your next season flip.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petoskey, Mi
    Posts
    12,215

    Re: Player Dev model implementation Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulpecula View Post
    https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...lopment-model/

    TL/DR: They are implementing a fix of the current player Dev system originally implemented with the USB back last June. We have an option of having a "super-flip" which will retroactively apply the corrected model to players under age 30, giving us a huge spike in development. Or, we can do nothing and let the under-developed players cycle through the league.

    Option A (do nothing) is the most fair because it affects everyone equally.

    Option B (Superflip) would benefit younger teams with many players under 30 more, and benefit older teams less.
    This is not exactly accurate. I have posted Clone's write-up for a more subjective view.

    https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...t-model/?amp=1

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    3,937

    Re: Player Dev model implementation Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulpecula View Post
    https://blogs.csfbl.com/2023/01/20/t...lopment-model/

    TL/DR: They are implementing a fix of the current player Dev system originally implemented with the USB back last June. We have an option of having a "super-flip" which will retroactively apply the corrected model to players under age 30, giving us a huge spike in development. Or, we can do nothing and let the under-developed players cycle through the league.

    Option A (do nothing) is the most fair because it affects everyone equally.

    Option B (Superflip) would benefit younger teams with many players under 30 more, and benefit older teams less.
    I don’t think option A is “most fair”. A lot of the teams that have a lot of young players (such as mine) are that way because they have had down years and have been trying to build up talent in the minors again. But since development is broken, that has been a disaster, and all those young players (and the draft picks used to acquire them) are worthless. Which has been very unfair to the teams that have been down.

    Option B could put things CLOSER to where they SHOULD be.

    -Wayne

  8. #8
    I could live with either way because I am committed to this league. I voted B for two reason. Fear we might lose owners because of the slow pace. And let’s just get the shot in the arm over with to see where we stand.
    BIGDUKESIX

  9. #9

    Re: Player Dev model implementation Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by wfn71 View Post
    I don’t think option A is “most fair”
    It's most fair as in it benefits nobody, whereas the superflip benefits younger teams, like yours, more than veteran teams, like mine. A treats every team the same, B helps 'down' teams more. That is, it is most fair in a vacuum, taking the league as it is now and not considering the past.

    That being said, I'm still in favor of the superflip.

    Where it may be more fair, and this is what you meant, is that 'down' teams have suffered more than veteran teams since USB, and this will somewhat correct that.
    2ML 1906, 1928, 1931, 1968, 1990, 1991, 1995, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2025
    BD 1993,1994, 2004, 2041, 2044, 2064, 2065, 2080, 2098
    CBF 2056, 2060, 2071, 2075, 2087, 2088, 2092, 2105,2106,2116,2137,2138,21402150, 2152
    CWS 1953, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1971, 1976, 1984
    HR 1903, 1906, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1934, 1943, 1950, 1953, 1955,1966, 1970, 1971
    CarL 2026, 2039, 2070
    Brockmire 1995
    88-57 WS

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petoskey, Mi
    Posts
    12,215

    Re: Player Dev model implementation Poll

    Just a reminder that if we are selecting option "B", which seems to be the case by the poll (so far anyway) that Citizenclone needs an PM or DM on Discord by Friday, asking him to put the league down for choice B. Otherwise, the default will be choice A

    As a point of note, the "superflip" (option B) will be a 1 time thing only, it will not happen each season. Further details about both options can be found on the link I posted above

    Ciao

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •