25-man vs. 40-man?

[vizioN]

What exactly are the benefits between the two when starting a franchise with either one of them? I know that 25-man keeps the lineups after Spring Training when 40-man will screw them up, but what exactly else?

With OSFM v2 approaching, I'm ready to finally begin my franchise, but I want to be as prepared as I can be so I can get it started as soon as it hits.

[Toad79]

It will screw up not only the lineups but who makes the Opening Day 25-man rosters, as well. If you start a franchise using OSFM 40-man rosters, at the end of Spring Training even if you have all the lineups/rosters set up how you like, they won't "stick" because the CPU will change all teams' (included user teams) Opening Day, 25-man rosters so the best 25 players out of 40 make the team. As a domino effect, all the lineups will be affected unrealistically, as well IMO (Carlos Santana batted 9th for CLE when I tested mine).

For example, the Yankees. If you use a 40-man, when you begin the regular season Gary Sanchez and Rob Refsnyder will make your OD roster, while Romine and Ackley will begin in AAA. Even if assigned to AAA, when you "End Spring Training" the CPU will re-assign those players to MLB because they're rated lower than Sanchez/Refsnyder. It's fine if you don't mind having the best players, ratings-wise, making your team. But so many people want the real-life OD rosters so the only way to ensure that is to use the OSFM 25-man rosters, then add everyone to the 40-man after you begin the regular season (that's not required, however; I usually just add to 40-man roster as I go when calling someone up to the bigs).

[vizioN]

Quote: Originally Posted by Toad79

It will screw up not only the lineups but who makes the Opening Day 25-man rosters, as well. If you start a franchise using OSFM 40-man rosters, at the end of Spring Training even if you have all the lineups/rosters set up how you like, they won't "stick" because the CPU will change all teams' (included user teams) Opening Day, 25-man rosters so the best 25 players out of 40 make the team. As a domino effect, all the lineups will be affected unrealistically, as well IMO (Carlos Santana batted 9th for CLE when I tested mine). For example, the Yankees. If you use a 40-man, when you begin the regular season Gary Sanchez and Rob Refsnyder will make your OD roster, while Romine and Ackley will begin in AAA. Even if assigned to AAA, when you "End Spring Training" the CPU will re-assign those players to MLB because they're rated lower than Sanchez/Refsnyder. It's fine if you don't mind having the best players, ratings-wise, making your team. But so many people want the real-life OD rosters so the only way to ensure that is to use the OSFM 25-man rosters, then add everyone to the 40-man after you begin the regular season (that's not required, however; I usually just add to 40-man roster as I go when calling someone up to the bigs).

Thanks a lot for the quality response. I just don't understand why anyone would want a 40-man OSFM roster in that case then?

[Brandwin]

I could be wrong, but the 25 man team has injuries and those guys are in A ball, the CPU will never call them up with 25 man rosters.

40 man are injury free.

[SilverBullet1929]

Quote: Originally Posted by vizioN

Thanks a lot for the quality response. I just don't understand why anyone would want a 40-man OSFM roster in that case then?

As someone who's leaning towards starting a 40 man OSFM franchise, I really want someone to answer the above question because now I'm curious.

[Spooky]

Quote: Originally Posted by vizioN

Thanks a lot for the quality response. I just don't understand why anyone would want a 40-man OSFM roster in that case then?

I can only speak for myself here (although from what I read, I feel many people are in the same boat). The 25 man roster makes even less sense to me than the 40 man roster. While many teams keep a pretty steady 1-4 hitters in their lineup for most of the season - although even that is hardly a guarantee - baseball is so fluid from a roster standpoint that almost nothing is out of the question (outside of Mike Trout batting 9th, Dee Gordon batting 4th, etc.). From my sim tests, I haven't seen anything like this though.

It really just depends on your preferences. I like to start a franchise with accurate rosters and minors, and then let my in-game world "take a life of its own". Its also the same reason I don't care about equipment and facial hair accuracy in rosters. If one of those players all of a sudden decides to shave, all of a sudden the super accurate facial hair in the game is no longer accurate...thats literally all it takes. A guy changes batting gloves or sunglasses, and its completely blown up. That stuff has always stricken me as quite odd, actually.

And finally, having every injury accurate doesn't make sense to me in this video game, unless you could set the injury timeline. Why would I want to play in a world where a major star is completely out of the game, just because he has a 6-week real life injury? I suppose I could control all 30 teams, but as a grown up now, I barely have time time to even control 1 team.

Anyway, thats my .02.

[adamjsav]

Quote: Originally Posted by Spooky

I can only speak for myself here (although from what I read, I feel many people are in the same boat). The 25 man roster makes even less sense to me than the 40 man roster. While many teams keep a pretty steady 1-4 hitters in their lineup for most of the season - although even that is hardly a guarantee - baseball is so fluid from a roster standpoint that almost nothing is out of the question (outside of Mike Trout batting 9th, Dee Gordon batting 4th, etc.). From my sim tests, I haven't seen anything like this though. It really just depends on your preferences. I like to start a franchise with accurate rosters and minors, and then let my in-game world "take a life of its own". Its also the same reason I don't care about equipment and facial hair accuracy in rosters. If one of those players all of a sudden decides to shave, all of a sudden the super accurate facial hair in the game is no longer accurate...thats literally all it takes. A guy changes batting gloves or sunglasses, and its completely blown up. That stuff has always stricken me as quite odd, actually. And finally, having every injury accurate doesn't make sense to me in this video game, unless you could set the injury timeline. Why would I want to play in a world where a major star is completely out of the game, just because he has a 6-week real life injury? I suppose I could control all 30 teams, but as a grown up now, I barely have time time to even control 1 team. Anyway, thats my .02.

I get what you're saying mate. But at least if you start with 25 man and add to 40 man later on, you get get a realistic experience and then let the world take over from there. For that reason I don't know why you would prefer 40 man.

Further to that point, having a bit of say regarding other teams rosters is crucial to the in game experience. To give you just one example, I start a franchise and the Red Sox have David Ortiz playing first and Hanley DHing. That's the kind of stuff that drives me nuts.

[Fiddy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brandwin

I could be wrong, but the 25 man team has injuries and those guys are in A ball, the CPU will never call them up with 25 man rosters. 40 man are injury free.

So, once i start the regular season (with 30 team control), then go in and put all roster control, moves, etc and set them to auto, they still won't fill up the 40 man over the course of the season?