2018 Rule Changes  

  RSS

Ahrensku
(@big-tuna)
Day 1 Supporter
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 148
24/01/2018 3:39 pm  

So I was thinking about the current rulebook and how I'd like to see 2 changes for the 2018 version.  

First, I'd like to see the Closer limit removed.  I kinda see the point, but at the same time if you wanna trot Jansen and Britton out there and want to pay for it, why can't we.

Second, I'd like to see the cards in hand limit raised.  I see the point here (to prevent card hoarding), but we can't play 2 cards that affect the same attribute in the same at bat already, and it would make some cards like Triple Play and Productive Out, etc more valuable because they are pretty specific and get discarded pretty quickly with the lower limit.  I personally would like to see no limit, but I'll settle for a raised limit.


ReplyQuote
CommunitySalad
(@communitysalad)
Online League Champion
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 264
25/01/2018 12:35 am  
Posted by: Ahrensku

So I was thinking about the current rulebook and how I'd like to see 2 changes for the 2018 version.  

First, I'd like to see the Closer limit removed.  I kinda see the point, but at the same time if you wanna trot Jansen and Britton out there and want to pay for it, why can't we.

Second, I'd like to see the cards in hand limit raised.  I see the point here (to prevent card hoarding), but we can't play 2 cards that affect the same attribute in the same at bat already, and it would make some cards like Triple Play and Productive Out, etc more valuable because they are pretty specific and get discarded pretty quickly with the lower limit.  I personally would like to see no limit, but I'll settle for a raised limit.

I disagree with both of these.

For the CP, it reflects actual baseball. Teams roster specific pitchers to be their closers. If you were to change the limit, it should be in the other direction (O CP mandatory) to reflect a closer-by-committee idea. Additionally, it seems like CPs are better for their cost than RPs (See Kimbrel v Benoit, KRod v AS Neshek, Davis v Strop).

As for the strat limit, it's necessary. Seeing how much certain strats impact the game, hoarding is a huge deal. I can't tell you how many times I've drawn Late Inning Fireworks in my opening hand and if I knew I could stash it, the problem eliminates itself. I think 7 is a great number because it allows managers to accumulate certain strategies that benefit their team while still forcing managers to make decisions about which strats are critical to the projection of the game.


ReplyQuote
BearDownForWhat
(@beardownforwhat)
Day 1 Supporter
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 228
25/01/2018 2:33 am  

Respectfully disagree with both.


ReplyQuote
Ahrensku
(@big-tuna)
Day 1 Supporter
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 148
25/01/2018 4:20 pm  
Posted by: CommunitySalad
Posted by: Ahrensku

So I was thinking about the current rulebook and how I'd like to see 2 changes for the 2018 version.  

First, I'd like to see the Closer limit removed.  I kinda see the point, but at the same time if you wanna trot Jansen and Britton out there and want to pay for it, why can't we.

Second, I'd like to see the cards in hand limit raised.  I see the point here (to prevent card hoarding), but we can't play 2 cards that affect the same attribute in the same at bat already, and it would make some cards like Triple Play and Productive Out, etc more valuable because they are pretty specific and get discarded pretty quickly with the lower limit.  I personally would like to see no limit, but I'll settle for a raised limit.

I disagree with both of these.

For the CP, it reflects actual baseball. Teams roster specific pitchers to be their closers. If you were to change the limit, it should be in the other direction (O CP mandatory) to reflect a closer-by-committee idea. Additionally, it seems like CPs are better for their cost than RPs (See Kimbrel v Benoit, KRod v AS Neshek, Davis v Strop).

As for the strat limit, it's necessary. Seeing how much certain strats impact the game, hoarding is a huge deal. I can't tell you how many times I've drawn Late Inning Fireworks in my opening hand and if I knew I could stash it, the problem eliminates itself. I think 7 is a great number because it allows managers to accumulate certain strategies that benefit their team while still forcing managers to make decisions about which strats are critical to the projection of the game.

So if closers are cheaper than RPs, then yes, I agree.  But we've been given no indication that they are.  And if they are, then I really see no point to the rule.  Plenty of teams have signed a 2nd closer that could close if needed. Currently the Cardinals are going into the season with 0 closers.  I just don't think that we should be limited on who we can use in our bullpen if they are all equal points formula.

As for the strat rule, I see why we have it.  It could ruin a showdown game at the end because of all the changes.  But possibly increasing it could help make some harder to use cards a little more valuable.  I don't need the unlimited hands, but 8-9 may be helpful.  I didn't know why 7 was chosen. Plus hoarding cards is more difficult since you can only have 2 or 1 of each card and you can't double up on a stat.

Was just trying to start a convo on some things I noticed (as I tend to do) and see if anybody else had other things (although it wasn't specifically mentioned in the original post).


ReplyQuote
Catastrophe
(@catastrophe)
Inaugural Tournament Champion
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 76
29/01/2018 9:35 am  

I think the 7 card limit is a good thing for game flow and balanced deck building while making the game more interesting by encouraging Strategies to be played by the end of the 3rd inning. I could also see scenarios where a larger limit would enable exploitation of decks geared around late-inning cards.

Regarding RP/CP, I’ve occasionally wished there was no distinction, especially with very few game instances where it matters. But overall, I like it for an extra deck building requirement. Long term, with more CPs and more cards that affect each type of pitcher, I think it’ll be less of a complaint.

I’d like to see some sort of card someday about demoting a CP and promoting an RP to the Closer spot. I’ll let someone else decide what other effects the card(s) could have.

 

Patiently waiting for the Omar Vizquel 1999 Career Year card - .333/.397/.436 - AS, GG, SB


ReplyQuote
mattinthehat
(@mattinthehat)
Day 1 Supporter
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 85
29/01/2018 11:59 am  

RE: CP req.

Especially with irl baseball changing how they use bullpens I think eliminating the CP req is an interesting idea. Doing this, however, might mean a RP/CP salary adjustment.


BOBtheBULL liked
ReplyQuote
Lefty2215
(@lefty2215)
Day 1 Supporter
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 70
29/01/2018 3:06 pm  

Even though I’m a fan of using a bullpen as need regardless of who closes, I think Clutch should keep closers. I just like having the extra building requirement. It gives it a position that requires some thought. Because once you get to that position you need a guy who you can rely on. 


BOBtheBULL liked
ReplyQuote
CommunitySalad
(@communitysalad)
Online League Champion
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 264
31/01/2018 4:40 am  
Posted by: Catastrophe

 

I’d like to see some sort of card someday about demoting a CP and promoting an RP to the Closer spot. I’ll let someone else decide what other effects the card(s) could have. 

The problem is that there's no requirement that you pitch your CP in the 9th inning. This could be a fun idea for an offensive card that causes a CP to be demoted to an RP, but there's truly no benefit of eliminating the distinction (especially since Enter Night is significantly stronger than Coming In Hot).


ReplyQuote
EverettBAL
(@everettbal)
Triple-A
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 85
13/02/2018 11:59 am  

I would love to see the "infield in" rule changed or simply officially removed. You always call it as it is, it’s not a strategic choice, and it makes ground ball pitchers way better than strikeout pitchers, since I think you have to pay extra for Ks.


ReplyQuote
ATB
 ATB
(@atb)
Draft Pick
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 4
13/02/2018 1:22 pm  

On CL removed link RP, it really comes down to how the salaries for these positions are created (based on icons, strategy cards affected, removed link ).  If they're the same formula, then there shouldn't be a requirement or a removed link   My brother and I allowed more than 1 closer for a handful of games, with one caveat:  you had to designate one of them as your official "closer" for purposes of Enter removed link   removed link , you couldn't just pick and choose each game which one you wanted to have Enter Night be effective removed link

 

On the increased hand limit, my brother and I experimented with (1) increasing the hand limit to 10 and (2) increasing the initial cards to removed link   The first made the game nearly unmanageable (and slowed pace of play considerably) as there were too many cards to keep track of at a given removed link   We didn't notice any late-inning exploits, but these are of course possible, as other posters have removed link

The reason behind increasing the initial strategy cards drawn is that we often ran into situations where your SP (by luck of the die) gets lit up and you might have no cards that could otherwise prevent or limit the removed link   We ultimately decided that 5 was too many to begin with, but 4 is the right amount--we've been using 4 in our hands to start for the past couple removed link


ReplyQuote
Share: