Balance issues

[Farsight]

I've noticed a couple of balance issues in this fine game...

It seems too common for the large market teams to become TOO good... In one of my leagues, there are -3- teams that are 30+ games over .500 only 45 games into the season...?!?

I think the following are the main reasons the teams can get so unbalanced:

Debt:

A team in my league which has acquired a debt of -219 and growing... and has continued to increase the debt through trades for big name players...

They're 39-9... would a real team really be able to continue trading for high-priced talent if they were $50 million in the hole?

Free Agency:

It's currently too easy to out-click people for solid talent. I know the guys are working on this one, so hopefully it will be resolved...

Overpaid/Underpaid Players:

Some mid-range players routinely start asking for high paychecks, even if they've never been a regular starter. I think the contract system could use a bit more work... Young players should -never- accept long-term contracts except at -extremely- high prices (like their maximum potential value). Players that don't play should behave similarly, with more reasonable short-term costs.

Currently, it's very difficult for a small market team to keep decent players, because they commonly start asking for way more than they're worth. Conversely, large-market teams can wrap up hordes of players into long-term deals under market value, without worry about getting stiffed on a few deals...

Just my two cents...

[Farsight]

Just as an update... in FastSim19, we have the following:

Colorado 76-14 (3.64 ERA?!?!?)
Chicago (NL) 70-20
St. Louis 62-28 (the wild card?!?)
NY (AL) 68-22
Toronto 63-28

also

Phil. 27-65
Florida 24-67
Pitt. 26-64
Arizona 24-67

uhhh... ?

in another league, FastSim18:

Atlanta 72-18
St. Louis 63-28
SF 63-27
Detroit 63-27

and

Pitt. 19-71

and finally, in League B, which just ended:

LA 111-51
Atlanta 104-58
Florida 100-63
NY (NL) 99-64
Chicago (NL) 94-68
Colorado 93-69
St. Louis 92-70
Chicago (AL) 113-49
Boston 109-53
Anaheim 101-61
NY (AL) 99-63
Tampa Bay 95-67
Texas 91-71

Pitt. 43-119
SD 49-113
Cinc. 52-110
Mil. 65-97
Baltimore 51-111
Oakland 52-110
Cleveland 58-104
Seattle 64-98
KC 71-91


Sorry for the flood of numbers, but I wanted to make clear that what should be VERY rare extremes of W-L seem to be the norm in the Mogul world...

I hope the causes of these extreme numbers can be addressed, because it has the nasty side effect of dropping any team that isn't playing .600 ball, about 10-20 games out OF THE WILD CARD by the halfway point, pretty much ending their season... My teams are struggling to play about .550, and were pretty much eliminated in May/June (25 games out)...

I've rambled enough, but I'll just end by saying that I think the best solution is the option to play on a level financial playing field. An accurate simulation of the financial baseball apocalypse is just depressing... :)

[TGG]

I agree.......and disagree........



Mitch Meluskey C 32 15 points through 2007
Damon Minor (1) 1B 32 7 points through 2008
Travis Ferguson 2B 21 1 point through 2007
Bruno Park 3B 23 1 point through 2008
Alex Rodriguez SS 30 45 points through 2008
Shannon Stewart LF 32 56 points through 2007
Ben Altshuler CF 22 9 points through 2006
Trot Nixon RF 32 9 points through 2008
Arturo D'Angelo DH 27 1 point through 2006
Luis Moiseyenko RF 27 3 points through 2006
Kelvin Oconnor IF 25 1 point through 2007
Scott Hatteberg C 36 7 points through 2008
Britt Cantera 3B 22 1 point through 2008
Brian Ulrich OF 28 1 point through 2006 )
Terry Terbeey LF 34 7 points through 2008
Chris Pritchett 1B 36 1 point through 2009
Marv Ghiorso C 25 1 point through 2007
Rey Sanchez IF 38 4 points through 2008
Junior Bryson C 22 1 point through 2007
Trevor Ingalls OF 23 1 point through 2007
Shea Wong SS 25 1 point through 2006
Derrick Wolf SS 24 1 point through 2007
Fausto Du LF 22 1 point through 2007
Karl Dejauregui IF 21 1 point through 2008
James Hewitt OF 19 1 point through 2008
Craig Biggio 2B 40 7 points through 2009
Casey Blake 3B 32 10 points through 2006 8 points
Pitchers P Age Earning Seeking
Kris Benson 31 29 points through 2007
Curt Schilling 39 16 points through 2011
Justin Thompson 33 3 points through 2010
Jarrod Washburn 31 6 points through 2007
Kevin Heaney 22 1 point through 2008
Trevor Hoffman 38 4 points through 2009
Brett Tomko 33 10 points through 2008
Mike Lincoln 30 3 points through 2009
Luis Silverstone 25 1 point through 2008
Thad Willard 20 1 point through 2007
Theodore Casey 19 1 point through 2008
Stan Belinda 39 3 points through 2010
Eric Cammack 30 4 points through 2006
Enrico Sievers 36 2 points through 2007
Junior Seslar 21 1 point through 2007
Shea Wildberger 24 1 point through 2006
Curtis Udall 33 3 points through 2008
Kenny Bariski 25 1 point through 2006 1 point
Daniel Delen 22 1 point through 2007
Quincy Frankel 38 1 point through 2007

That is my team.......286 payroll
ANAHEIM 98 42 .700 -- Won 1 4-6 .318 4.51

I am 1 game behind a ball club that has a payroll of 792
( I have the second best record over all in the league)

I agree that it is to easy to get players by out clicking someone else.

But as for the payrolls........

Players will over bid all the time....over pay for players.....etc....

I am in the hole -150........ an that was because of a bug that hit our league........or I would have been hitting at least +50 every year.

Any type of cap will hurt more then it helps........it will make things very stale.

I have talked about revenue sharing......... I think that would work great......but still teams would over pay over an over again.
This is a issue in real sports all the time.....the have's an the have not's.

If something should really be done........"train" other players......about playing the game.....the "art" behind it etc......

Sure the quick win works......but most teams will pay for that for may years after.....and we all know that once a team wins an then falls into dept.....that "owner" will quit that league an move on to a new one. Making some kind of standard for players might help but would be very hard to put into effect. ( baseball tries to do this by over riding trades that clearly show a team just trading away talent because they are over buget. i.e. teams can not trade away high priced free agents purely for cash any longer)


Without it boring people to tears I will shut up now...........

[Farsight]

Well, I would expect any financial balancing to be an option, as I'm sure many people enjoy the realistic financial model... Personally, I feel it's by far the worst thing about the real game of baseball, and it's something I would prefer not to see mimicked in Mogul...

There is also the issue you raised of accountability... unfortunately, there's not any... Even a "quit" rating would only help after someone had already helped ruin a few leagues, which doesn't seem the best solution to me...

I just want a nice even slate, without a way to win fast by going bankrupt... without that, I'll be unlikely to pay to play Mogul, even though I really like the product. It's currently too frustrating and too exploitable, IMO...

Of course, this is a beta, so I'm still hopeful... :)

[wbricks]

You think that's bad - in my league (fast sim 7), Baltimore won 104 games and didn't make the playoffs - they finished third behind the yankees and red sox (no surprise there).

My Chicago Wheat Sox finished the season tied with the Cleveland Homeless Bums with 93 wins, mostly because Cleveland went waaay over budget the last couple years and are in a slow decline. They still have more than double my payroll (when the **** did Chicago become a small market????) but I'm happy winning 90+ games with a sub 300 point payroll (mine is 268).

I do agree that there should be a league where you equalize cities - even Tampa Bay deserves a chance to win and I just don't see how they could ever do that in the American League East the way it is. Boston, New York, and Baltimore just generate too much revenue for any competent owner to screw up.

[takaplan]

In FastSim 4, my team, Tampa Bay, won 102 and were 3 games back in the wild card.

[dturkenk]

Check out FastSim 6.

Oakland is 4-93...

That's gotta be impossible, even with a payroll under 50...

[playshogi]

I'd love to check out Fast Sim 6, but I'd have to quit.
Why can't you check a league out before joining it?

One possible explanation for the extreme winning and losing records especially in fast sim is the how often the player monitors his team. In fast sim 3, Arizona has all 1 point players on his team and over 800 in cash. Similar story with Philadelphia. They can be instantly competitive when great free agents become available at the end of the season. Probably, they signed up (it's free) checked it out and left.

So, it's not the fault of the game if players are inactive. Looks like the AI won't renew ANY contracts, for an inactive GM.

The game is fun only if every GM is actively monitoring his team.
If they ever charge money for playing online, it shouldn't be by the month, but by the season.

[kohut]

My team the Cleveland Indians are 26-1 =D I have won 25 straight. In this league the Montreal Expos I believe it is are 1-25. On the flip side I am the Tampa Bay Devil Rays who are small market and have a 200 point payroll and slated to make 150 point profit. Proper management is a good way to build a good team.

[dlomelino]

I think the it is a good idea to have equelized city but that is not relizitic cause in real baseball the yankees and Red Sox always have more money to spend on players than say the Expos. I think they should make a little more fair payroll like not have the yankees with a 700 point budget.
I also think that your part wrong and part right about the young players wanting so much money. i think it shoulden't be as bad like in my Colorado team I had a 25 year old wanting 27 points for 4 years! :mad: But I think if they are good enough they should get an increase like when I signed Juan Piere for 20 for 6 years:). That was fair.

[Farsight]

Realistically portraying the worst aspect of baseball (the financial inequities) doesn't matter to me. Playing a game that's fun and competitive does.

Once Mogul starts costing money, I won't have any interest in playing a team with nearly no chance to win. Conversely, I won't be interested in playing a big-market team that "should" win every year, either... That doesn't leave much...

The game is fun, but I already find myself playing it less, because the time investment doesn't seem to pay off in results... when a monetary investment is required as well, I know I'll start requiring that the game be "fair", even if the real sport isn't...

[kohut]

Many teams bring their problems upon themselves. In my 3 leagues im in many of the GM's are not doing anything to improve their team which is obvious from the fact they have no one on their team. One of my teams is the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and im putting in a full effort and im making the largest profit out of all the teams and I have a 200+ point payroll. I am tryign to rebuild but that will take time. When the internet league comes out it will be a lot better because teams will care about their own team.

[Garrett]

I think the Computer teams should have to stay within 50 points of their budget. I saw a team that was human owned become computer run go out and sign alot of FA who they didn't need. Ended up sending alot of high priced players to the minors, players that had decent seasons the year before?

They should also have it programmed that they will refuse trade offers if they are getting 3 or more players than they are giving up. It is too easy to just keep adding players until the computer finally agrees to a deal.

[chitown]

An update on Fast Sim 10 >>

It's September 3rd and the White Sox are 93-42. Impressive, right? Only they are 29 1/2 games out of first because the Cleveland Indians are 122-12 !!!! Yes, 110 games over .500.

What the %$^&%$&^%^*&%*(& ???!!!

kohut, with all due respect to your management skills, but this is insane.

If the folks @ SportsMogul don't figure out a solution to the imbalances between supposed tier 1 teams and the rest of the league, very few people will sign up and PAY to have no chance at winning. What fun is that?

This is going way beyond realism... and frankly, I'd rather see a fully balanced financial model than an attempt to mimic real-world dominance. Start teams with their current roster and equal footing and let the best managers drive attendance and financial success by the moves they make.

[kohut]

I know that record is insane thats what my friends things. I know in the real version this is impossible because the computer isnt smart enough to drop talented guys and look for cheaper replacements. BTW Eric Chavez wont be on my team after this off-season Ill be replacing him with Cole Liniak whos a mcuh cheaper replacement :)

P.S. Its about time I won the division you keep beating me by 1 or 2 games.

[ogallala]

I tend to agree with Farsight, that a fun and competitve game is better then one that trys to duplicate the financial situation of the league as it is now. I also recognize that many want the game to be more reallistic. My question is, why can't we have both? Right now there are three variations on game play (beta version, hourly and fast sim). Why not have either realistic or balanced starting financial situations be an option for the league that you join?

Another "unrealistic" option that comes to mind is a forced sale for teams that abuse the payroll. I'm sure you have all seen a team like Atlanta in Fast sim 18 who has a payroll of 873, a profit of -160 and cash of -390. I don't really care if he got that payroll by cheating or poor money managment, I do care that he can seem to keep it and not recieve any penalty(each year he flies to a division title and right into the playoffs).
My idea is that around mid season before the trade deadline, any team with a payroll of ... say ... over 300 (this would exclude bargin basement teams that are struggling to get by,and targets only the abusive payroll teams), are informed by the computer/league manager, that they will be subject to a forced sale after the trade deadline. If he can bring his profit or cash up to even or better by trade deadline then no penalty ... if not he has to select players to be sold to the free agent pool until his cash balance is brought to zero or a positive amount (in the example of Atlanta, he would have to sell 390 points of players from his 873 point payroll). He is then also excluded from bidding on free agents until the end of the year.

It could be a nightmare to try to program this idea, but there it is. Any other ideas or suggestions for improving this one?

Oh yes I almost forgot ... LOVE THIS GAME !!!
thanks guys
:)

[dougummel]

I know that this will not solve the problem of owner over spending and inequity of markets, but it would help make the game more realistic.

I know that as the game currently stands, owners cannot sign free agents if they do not have any cash. I would suggest that they not be allowed to RE-sign their own free agents if they have under a certain amount (say -40). Also, it should be doable to make sure that they cannot make any trade that would increase their payroll if they had under a certain amount (say 0).

This would eliminate the teams that consistently run deficits to compete while still allowing a team to save up a bunch of money and make a run at the World Series. However, it would make sure that there were consequences for mortgaging your future.

I think that this is fairly realistic because at some point an owner in real life would say "no" to any proposed deal that is just going to make him lose more and more money. However, he may be willing to do so for a limited period of time if he had a shot at winning the whole thing. You can bet that it would not be extened, however, or the GM would be looking for a new job.

I know that this does not address the inequities of the large vs. small markets, but it will establish somewhat of a more level playing field and be more realistic as well.

I'd be curious to hear what everyone else's reaction is to this idea.....

[adam]

i know this is a rather long thread...
but i agree..balance has got to get better...

some ideas...

1) The Office of the Commissioner makes the offer of a 100 pt loan for each franchise once. This loan will get paid back over 5 years with a fee of 5 points per year as interest. So, if you borrow $20 million...in one year you will owe 25 pts..etc, until you pay it off. That solves the issue of the person who gets screwed for being -2.

2) Revenue sharing could be in the form of a checkoff by league commish...options to share tv/radio, different % of home ticket revenue, etc...

adam

[nysteinbrenner]

I like some of these ideas, but there's one challenge left unresolved - what about those cases where new ownership takes over a team that's already -500 or -1,000 in the whole. Without some correction for this situation, some of the remedies suggested in this thread would simply penalize others, perhaps to a point where new players would avoid joining established leagues.

[kohut]

I dont think money will be an issue once it becomes a pay league. If I am paying $4.99 a month for a league im not going to fiddle around and make a team awful. Also I am sure that Clay or James or Ian or whoever will run the leagues would reverse any huge defecits in order to get someone else to join. Plus baseball Mogul has changing loyalties of the fans so a team with a A+ loyalty will for sure be just as competitive as any other large market team who has average fan loyalty