Competitive Balance: The Y4 issue

[CatKnight]

Earlier tonight FRS wrote me asking me to do a Noll-Scully check on his roster. In other words, he asked me to run it for a few years and try to determine when the game loses competitiveness. I wrote him back with my results and he thought they'd be worth posting.

So...using FRS's latest roster uploaded yesterday. HE published 20 seasons worth of stats:

High Record: NY Mets (90)
Low Record: San Francisco (68)
N/S: 0.93

* The Noll-Scully ratio. This is abnormally low since 20 seasons tends to wipe out most hot/cold streaks and other aberrations. A good number for modern ball is about 1.60

Average Division GA: 2.8

* The average number of games a division was won by.

Teams with 114W/100W/60-W/48-W: 0/0/0/0

* 114 wins is a .700 winning percentage. There are only 25 or so of those in baseball history since 1901. 48 wins is a .300 or less percentage and similarly rare. While more common, 100 wins and 100 (actually 102) losses can be a good indicator that a team is either really dominant, or REALLY bad. In modern ball there's usually 0 in a season, though 1 or 2 either way isn't that horrible.
*******

Now my 10 year run:

Y1 (08)
HI: PHI (102)
LO: SF (65)
NS: 1.44
GA: 6.5
W: 0/1/0/0
WS: Phillies d. Yankees

Still excellent. The Phillies' 102 wins is just a statistical anomaly.

Y2
HI: BOS (101)
LO: KC, WAS (59)
NS: 1.74
GA: 7.3
W: 0/1/2/0
WS: Diamondbacks d. Red Sox

N/S raises in year 2, but not yet a real issue. 3 teams with 100+ wins or losses is starting to push it though.

Y3
HI: ATL (115)
LO: KC (56)
NS: 1.92
GA: 8.0
W: 1/0/1/0
WS: Athletics d. Braves

The N/S continues to rise. We're at the point where it's becoming a little noticeable, though 1.92 is still tolerable. Atlanta's 115-47 season is pretty high though.

Y4
HI: DET (108)
LO: KC (38)
NS: 2.47
GA: 8.8
W: 0/3/2/1
WS: Yankees d. Padres

...and WHAM. Though the N/S will drift back downwards, here the problems really start. I am guessing Y4 is important because a lot of contracts are up for renewal (which the small market teams aren't), and a lot of arbitration cases from players who came up in Y1 are now being resolved.

In this 10 yr run, KC will never truly recover, though they'll stop being worst soon.

The other small market teams like MIL and FLA start feeling the pinch. FLA drops from 70 wins to 54 and never again clear 67. MIL will have one bright spot (74W in Y9), but otherwise never clears the 60s. PIT is actually fairly stable, but TB never gets above 71 again, and usually has trouble breaking 65.

As for big teams, the BoSox only drop below 90 once more (Y10). The Yanks cleared 100 wins this year and never drop below 92. The Dodgers win 77 in Y4, but after that only drop below 90 once more.

Y5
HI: STL (110)
LO: KC (49)
NS: 2.12
GA: 9.5
W: 0/2/3/0
WS: Cardinals d. Athletics

N/S drops a bit, proving Y4 was a bit of an aberration. It will try to stabilize at this level. 5 teams now break 100 wins/losses - better than Y4, but far too high and it won't get much better.

Y6
HI: DET (103)
LO: MIL (57)
NS: 2.09
GA: 8.2
W: 0/2/2/0
WS: Yankees d. Mets

The Yanks will rule the AL for the next five years. The NL is still resolving itself.

Y7
HI: OAK (106)
LO: CIN, MIL (59)
NS: 2.14
GA: 12.3
W: 0/4/2/0
WS: Yankees d. Braves

Okay, the average team winning their division by 12 games is worrisome, but not as bad as...

Y8
HI: ATL (116)
LO: FLA (43)
NS: 2.65
GA: 8.2
W: 1/5/2/1
WS: Yankees d. Cardinals

In Y8 we see another major spike, and this time the league won't recover. Also we have 9 teams with 100+ W or L, two making the history books with a .700+ or .300- winning percentage. It could be this spiking continues in 4 year intervals.

Y9
HI: LAD (111)
LO: FLA (50)
NS: 2.60
GA: 9.5
W: 0/3/4/0
WS: Dodgers d. Yankees

The Dodgers secure the NL at this point.

Y10
HI: NYY, LAD (110)
LO: TB (54)
NS: 2.61
GA: 6.0
W: 0/5/4/0
WS: Dodgers d. Yankees
*******

BBM v11.06, All settings default, FRS roster as of Y1.

[3RunHomer]

You can't be surprised. Just about everything in BM is stacked in favor of high-revenue teams. The fact that they can buy the best player development, scouting and health gives them a huge advantage.

They also stockpile high-priced free agents in the minors, sign undrafted but talented prospects (because the draft is too short and the low-revenue teams can't afford to sign kids to major league contracts), etc etc.

In BM-world, the rich are merciless in exploiting their monetary advantage.

[petrel]

3RunHomer's post got me thinking about scouting.

There are three areas on which a team can spend money: minor leagues, scouting, and medicine.

There have been a hundred arguments about medical spending.

Throwing money at minor leagues and expecting improvement makes sense -- you're buying better facilities, hiring better coaches, paying off better bonus money. You should expect an immediate return.

However, it's never made sense to me that you could just throw money into scouting and expect to get perfect information if you spend enough money.

First, most scouts are under contract to other teams. The good ones have contracts signed for a particular length of time -- you can't really "get good scouting" until those contracts expire. Either that, or you have to hire scouts that you think are good and pray their picks pay off.

Second, for scouting outside of the US, scouting isn't so much a function of money as it is of time -- forming the right relationships with people so that you can get the best information.

What's the best way to handle the scouting problem? I don't know. Maybe the best way is to treat it like medicine, allowing some sort of randomness to affect the results.

--Pet

[TheNamelessPoet]

I like the idea someone had previously about having it a % of your revenue.

a 50 million revenue team putting 5 million (10%) in their spending woudl produce better than a 250 million revenue team putting 20 million (8%) in their spending.

[Alloutwar]

Throwing money at minor leagues and expecting improvement makes sense -- you're buying better facilities, hiring better coaches, paying off better bonus money. You should expect an immediate return.

I think one thing needs to be mentioned here: you can expect better improvement up to the player's potential with the above expenditures. You should NOT, by default, see potentials rise, more players meet potential, etc as much as you do today by owning the #1 farm rating.

Also, being #30 in farm spending, you STILL should have some prospects that really make it and do well. Is there a team out there today that doesn't have at least one home-grown player in their starting 9? Just because the Marlins draft A-Rod and have #30 in farm and medical spending, doesn't mean A-Rod should end up a 78/78 22 year old with injuries every month or so.

Otherwise, I like everything you said. :D

[Imgran]

You can't be surprised. Just about everything in BM is stacked in favor of high-revenue teams. The fact that they can buy the best player development, scouting and health gives them a huge advantage.

They also stockpile high-priced free agents in the minors, sign undrafted but talented prospects (because the draft is too short and the low-revenue teams can't afford to sign kids to major league contracts), etc etc.

In BM-world, the rich are merciless in exploiting their monetary advantage.

Add in 3 facets that can ameliorate the advantage of big market teams in real baseball that are notable by their absence in Mogul.

-- Rule 5 draft to pick off valuable players if big market teams stockpile too many

-- Draft pick compensation for losing free agents, which would be difficult to implement but does help teams that can't keep their players.

-- Institutionalized revenue sharing. I know you can play around in commish mode but that involves a much more in-depth look into Commish mode and the state of the league than a lot of people would want to mess with -- especially when it wouldn't be that hard to make it so that all you had to do is check a box or fil out a small dialogue script.

Add to that the fact that the computer more or less seems to neglect their ballparks and any kind of improvement to your ballpark is prohibitively expensive for a small market team (which means that as stadiums decay, already cash-strapped teams will see their revenue decline) and you have a point of no return that the bottom third of MLB can't get past without human management or a deus ex machina from the Commish.

[petrel]

Is there a team out there today that doesn't have at least one home-grown player in their starting 9?

I decide to check up on this...and you're absolutely right!

I went to Baseball-reference.com and looked at the current starting lineups to check if any team didn't have a home-grown player as a starter. I stopped looking the first time I found such a player. Here is the total list of home-grown starters -- they might not be the only such starters; they were just the first ones I found.

Orioles: Brian Roberts
Blue Jays: Aaron Hill
Red Sox: Kevin Youkilis
Yankees: Robinson Cano
Rays: Shawn Riggans

Royals: Alex Gordon
White Sox: Joe Crede
Indians: Jhonny Peralta
Twins: Joe Mauer
Tigers: Brandon Inge

Angels: Mike Napoli
Athletics: Kurt Suzuki
Mariners: Kenji Johjima
Rangers: Ian Kinsler

Marlins: Josh Willingham
Phillies: Carlos Ruiz
Mets: David Wright
Braves: Brian McCann
Nationals: Ryan Zimmerman

Cardinals: Yadier Molina
Brewers: Prince Fielder
cubs: Geovany Soto
Reds: Adam Dunn
Pirates: Ryan Doumit
Astros: J. R. Towles

Diamondbacks: Chris Synder
Padres: Khalil Greene
Rockies: Todd Helton
Dodgers: Russell Martin
Giants: Brian Bocock (*)

(*) -- his first year as a major leaguer

We really need to rethink how spending money on scouting works in Baseball Mogul.

--Pet

[Imgran]

Rays: Shawn Riggans

THAT was the first home-grown Ray you found on the same team as Shields, Upton, Sonnanstine, Crawford and Baldelli?

[3RunHomer]

Thinking about it some more, I think there's another way to look at CatKnight's interesting post:

After 3 seasons of a dynasty, the human-owned team is going to face very tough competition from the Yankees and Dodgers. This could be seen as a good thing if you consider the game "too easy."

The AI is basically doing for the Yankees and Dodgers what the human-team is usually able to do ... pile up an all-star team of talent.

PS - Does this same 4th year thing happen with BM09's default rosters? If not, why not?

[ohms_law]

I'm going to move this to the suggestions forum. It fits better there, and it won't get lost.

[HoustonGM]

THAT was the first home-grown Ray you found on the same team as Shields, Upton, Sonnanstine, Crawford and Baldelli?
See here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TBD/2008.shtml). Catcher is listed first and Riggans has the most catcher playing time for the Devil Rays, so he was listed first, thus he was the first "found." :p

[Alloutwar]

Yah - maybe my talent/farm system issue is seperate entirely. Don't want to clog up the thread.

Thank's for looking those up, Pet - I guess my point is that even on 'bad' teams that don't spend much money overall (marlins, A's, Royals, Pirates, Reds, etc) they still have good talent, and even some superstars break through, regardless of expenditure. The Yankees' farm system wasn't bad the last 10-15 years because of a lack of spending...so maybe there's a different (better) way of figuring out what effects farm, rather than a purely monetary driver.

[ohms_law]

Although I very much agree with the ideas put forth for changes to the Expenses system, I wouldn't focus on that in regards to competativeness. I'm telling yall, doing so is a red herring. While an argument can certainly be made about how much Expenses should or shouldn't affect player development, comparatively their impact is very small with the real drivers: playing time and actual talent (mostly Potential).

[CatKnight]

First....this has nothing to do with roster. It's a question of the sim engine over time, not the 'players' behind it. The only thing that changes over time is if you start in a year where teams like the Yanks are REALLY bad, it'll take them longer to take over - or another team like the Red Sox will.

3Run makes an interesting point (having one or two uber AI teams stockpiling is a good thing). Does one want effectively a 3 or 4 team league though? I dunno.

I think ohms is right here. Expenses are a component of what's going on, and personally I'd like to see scales similar to the medical one affecting how much spending changes your farm system and scouting. However, it's not the main issue.

The main reason 'big' teams dominate 'small' ones is budgetary. The AI relies on its payroll budget to make decisions. Therefore, a small market team will be far less likely to resign home grown talent or go to free agency and find more. They'll release them and make do. They could have the best farm system in the Majors....but if they release their home growns after 3 years (arbitration) then it doesn't do much good.

The big market teams on the other hand resign their people. Then invest heavily in free agency stockpiling their minors with all the small teams' home growns. This gives them more depth regardless of whether they have better medical, and overall better quality of players.

The only way I've ever found to stabilize BM from this particular standpoint was overt and direct manipulation of team budgets. Note that doesn't mean revenue sharing, at least as we do it today (cash transfers) as the small teams could care less how much cash it has. The AI just uses its budget.

Here's what I do. I realize this decision isn't for everyone (or perhaps anyone), but it works and might give you a clue which direction the answer lies.

First, I started with equalized cities. This alone is NOT enough, as the successful teams will build up fan loyalty, giving them bigger budgets, which over time lets them dominate. It just takes longer and might be the Rays instead of the Yankees.

After every season I reset the fan loyalty (considering it some sort of revenue scale instead of really having anything to do with fans). Average teams (77-85 wins) get reset to B-. Teams that do better end up in C or D range, Worse teams B and A range depending on performance.

This lets weak teams spend more to try and catch up, while strong teams need to think about cutting back. On the N/S scale the league stabilizes at about 1.90-2.00.

I suppose you could rebuild an 'unbalanced' scenario by setting the Yankees' loyalty at say A-, while the Rays etc. gets a C-. This gives the Yankees a decided advantage, but perhaps not an overwhelming one. It's also easier to justify as this could represent true revenue sharing.

(The Yanks and Rays are just examples, for the record.)

[Imgran]

I wonder whether it'd be possible to throw in some kind of compensation factor. An ideal possibility would be that big markets had a penalty to gaining Fan Loyalty and a huge boost to losing it, while small markets gained Loyalty quickly and lost it more slowly.

This would even have the advantage of being realistic, as fans of the big market teams expect to contend every year and have little patience with poor performances while fans of small market teams are more willing to wait a year or two for a decent year.

[EP Hotties]

I like ingram's idea about loyalty, it would also be accurate. But throwing around all these ideas, at least some of them have to work, right. And if some do, i suggest that these are implemented into the game as soon as possible. Instead of us all complaining about this problem, and it is, imo, the biggest problem Mogul has, why isn't a solution just put into the game? It seems like this is a simple solution.

[Imgran]

I always like to propose some kind of solution whenever I present a problem. It helps me avoid the "complaining Idiot" tag. Although sometimes it's not the best way to avoid the "fool who has no idea what he's talking about" tag.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

First....this has nothing to do with roster. It's a question of the sim engine over time, not the 'players' behind it. The only thing that changes over time is if you start in a year where teams like the Yanks are REALLY bad, it'll take them longer to take over - or another team like the Red Sox will.

3Run makes an interesting point (having one or two uber AI teams stockpiling is a good thing). Does one want effectively a 3 or 4 team league though? I dunno.

I think ohms is right here. Expenses are a component of what's going on, and personally I'd like to see scales similar to the medical one affecting how much spending changes your farm system and scouting. However, it's not the main issue.

The main reason 'big' teams dominate 'small' ones is budgetary. The AI relies on its payroll budget to make decisions. Therefore, a small market team will be far less likely to resign home grown talent or go to free agency and find more. They'll release them and make do. They could have the best farm system in the Majors....but if they release their home growns after 3 years (arbitration) then it doesn't do much good.

The big market teams on the other hand resign their people. Then invest heavily in free agency stockpiling their minors with all the small teams' home growns. This gives them more depth regardless of whether they have better medical, and overall better quality of players.

The only way I've ever found to stabilize BM from this particular standpoint was overt and direct manipulation of team budgets. Note that doesn't mean revenue sharing, at least as we do it today (cash transfers) as the small teams could care less how much cash it has. The AI just uses its budget.

Here's what I do. I realize this decision isn't for everyone (or perhaps anyone), but it works and might give you a clue which direction the answer lies.

First, I started with equalized cities. This alone is NOT enough, as the successful teams will build up fan loyalty, giving them bigger budgets, which over time lets them dominate. It just takes longer and might be the Rays instead of the Yankees.

After every season I reset the fan loyalty (considering it some sort of revenue scale instead of really having anything to do with fans). Average teams (77-85 wins) get reset to B-. Teams that do better end up in C or D range, Worse teams B and A range depending on performance.

This lets weak teams spend more to try and catch up, while strong teams need to think about cutting back. On the N/S scale the league stabilizes at about 1.90-2.00.

I suppose you could rebuild an 'unbalanced' scenario by setting the Yankees' loyalty at say A-, while the Rays etc. gets a C-. This gives the Yankees a decided advantage, but perhaps not an overwhelming one. It's also easier to justify as this could represent true revenue sharing.

(The Yanks and Rays are just examples, for the record.)

The FINANCIAL AI needs to be overhauled - using BM certain teams after Y4 just disappear from playability (parity?) whereas IRL this doesn't happen,small market teams go in cycles --- they play bad for 2/3/4 years (stock up on draftees & development) but financially are forced to improve otherwise they lose their fans/TV revenue/sponsors.These teams in general do not compete for top of the line FA's (eg A-Rod/Santana) but OVER PAY 2nd tiers to play (eg Meche in KC) --- this doesn't get reflected in BM over time.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I like the idea someone had previously about having it a % of your revenue.

a 50 million revenue team putting 5 million (10%) in their spending woudl produce better than a 250 million revenue team putting 20 million (8%) in their spending.

You mean this (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=168446&highlight=farm%2Cscouting) & yes it would solve some (even most) of the problems encountered by the sim engine as:

1) Large Markets uber profits would be cut back to normal profits & thus force the AI teams a REAL decision making process of either investment in FAs or into the minors BUT not both; &
2) small markets would develop & keep their prospects (ie a 75/85 would become a 85 not as now "peeter" out as a 81 & as he is forced to play at MLB level demand a higher than market price to be retained).


Actually one of the MAJOR finds by Catknight is the fact that small markets cannot keep players post arbitration & that logically the player in question signs with NYY/NYM & co.However,if NYY & co had less PROFIT then the small & mid market teams could (like IRL) re sign 2nd tier FAs & still remain competitive on the field of play (like FLA with Gonzo or TBD with Floyd)

[ohms_law]

Arbitration eligability (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=174115)


Although I very much agree with the ideas put forth for changes to the Expenses system, I wouldn't focus on that in regards to competativeness. I'm telling yall, doing so is a red herring. While an argument can certainly be made about how much Expenses should or shouldn't affect player development, comparatively their impact is very small with the real drivers: playing time and actual talent (mostly Potential).

and: Computer Trades (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?p=1006161)

[Imgran]

The thing I don't like is the computer releases quality players going into the first year of arbitration almost every time. That *N-E-V-E-R* happens IRL. If they can't make an agreement with the player they sign them to an arb deal and trade him away for prospects a la Miggy Cabrera.

Whatever mechanism allows the computer to consider releasing a star in the first year of arbitration is probably the single biggest part of the problem.

[ohms_law]

The thing I don't like is the computer releases quality players going into the first year of arbitration almost every time. That *N-E-V-E-R* happens IRL. If they can't make an agreement with the player they sign them to an arb deal and trade him away for prospects a la Miggy Cabrera.

Whatever mechanism allows the computer to consider releasing a star in the first year of arbitration is probably the single biggest part of the problem.

That's exactly what I addressed in the Computer Trades (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?p=1006161) thread.

[SirKodiak]

Arbitration $ needs to be brought inline with the actual value of such contracts. A 20%/40%/60%/80% of free agent value model would be a HUGE step in that direction.

[ohms_law]

You know, that's not the first time that's been said. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it, it's just that the information that I've seen on arbitration cases leads me to believe that the results of arbitration (when it's actually done, rather than the player being released) are not out of line. So, what's this idea based on? Is it really about making the game more realistic, or is it more about game balance?

[SirKodiak]

Here are the arbitration results in MLB: http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=599&Itemid=72

the 20/40/60/80 numbers are an approximation of what Tango came up with that you can see here http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/sabermetric_moves_of_the_2008_pre_season/#14 which from this thread: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/sabermetric_moves_of_the_2008_pre_season/

I would think it would address both realism and game balance.

[ohms_law]

Thanks

[HoustonGM]

SirKodiak, see this thread (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=170293). I only specifically talked about free agent contracts in the post, but arbitration deals are tied right into it.

[SirKodiak]

Yeah, general contracts need work too, though I think getting the arb years correct would have a larger impact on game balance.

I really wish Clay would overhaul the game and get periods correct, both for contracts and game play/rules. Every year doesn't have to be just right, but periods do. 1901 needs to be correct. 1929-30 needs to be correct. All of the war years. 1948 for integration. 1960-68. 69-72. 73+. When free agency comes in. When arbitration comes in. Different CBAs. Steroid era....

I mean, being able to play any year starting at 1901 is marketed very strongly for this game, but all you basically get is rosters with the current rules. And that, to me, is a misrepresentation of the game.

Being the GM is the point of the game (or was), so player development (and all it entails like Scouting, Minors, etc) needs to be upgraded/rethought also.

[Imgran]

Yeah, general contracts need work too, though I think getting the arb years correct would have a larger impact on game balance.

I really wish Clay would overhaul the game and get periods correct, both for contracts and game play/rules. Every year doesn't have to be just right, but periods do. 1901 needs to be correct. 1929-30 needs to be correct. All of the war years. 1948 for integration. 1960-68. 69-72. 73+. When free agency comes in. When arbitration comes in. Different CBAs. Steroid era....

I mean, being able to play any year starting at 1901 is marketed very strongly for this game, but all you basically get is rosters with the current rules. And that, to me, is a misrepresentation of the game.

Being the GM is the point of the game (or was), so player development (and all it entails like Scouting, Minors, etc) needs to be upgraded/rethought also.

Let's keep it simple. Get the game we already have in front of us right and then get picky about the deadball era, the reserve clause, etc.

The big thing is to find a way to get the small clubs to stay competitive against the big ones. The fan loyalty thing I suggested is possibly part of the solution. There's no way it's the solution all by itself. I suspect though that part of the solution that might surprise people with its effectiveness is A: the computer teams being more aggressive at upgrading their stadiums and B: a cheaper poor man's option to slightly upgrade a ballpark in any given year. Stadium decay affects the viability of small market teams because of the huge cash outlay it takes to completely rebuild a stadium and the fact that stadium quality degrades over time, reducing team revenues (but disproportionately affecting small market teams and the tightrope margins they operate on).

[SirKodiak]

Let's keep it simple. Get the game we already have in front of us right and then get picky about the deadball era, the reserve clause, etc.


I have been keeping it simple. I think that the 20/40/60/80 arb thing would be rather simple and would greatly increase the ability for small value teams to keep their homegrown players longer.

That last diatribe is a long time gripe of mine that I was just expressing again. I doubt it is something that can be down except between versions. But they ARE major marketing points of the game, so fixing the should be VERY important.

[HoustonGM]

The arbitration issue is HUGE. There are way too many free agents with less than 6 years of service time. That really hurts small-market teams. For example, Alex Gordon hits the free agent market after 2009, 3 years with the Royals., signs with division rival Houston.

[Imgran]

Since when is Houston a KC division rival...?

[gosensgo101]

I agree with HGM. Lowering Arbitration contracts would do wonders for competitive balance.

[HoustonGM]

Since when is Houston a KC division rival...?
Uh.

Oops? :p

Still. The point still stands. 3 years and then their star third basemen signs to another team. I don't think that has EVER happened.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

The arbitration issue is HUGE. There are way too many free agents with less than 6 years of service time. That really hurts small-market teams. For example, Alex Gordon hits the free agent market after 2009, 3 years with the Royals., signs with division rival Houston.

Arbitration Issue is only a reflection of inadequacy of the financial engine inequality & the uber profits created by the large markets who (even with your rosters/mine) after year 4 dominate the expenses category which create yearly A Rod clones & sign ALL FAs they want & this process is ever continuing.


Anyways on the arbitration example you gave - If you follow the logic (& this is a worst case scenario) then KC would sign Gordon in Arbitration & then trade him to Houston.

In the best case scenario,KC's AI would realize that Gordon is a stud & sign him to a long term deal buying out his arbitration years (a la Chris Young).


In either case they would retain his rights & thus have a tradeable commodity.If the AI can't recognize this* then it should at least trade Gordon at deadline during his "arbitration year" buT as I say isn't it more logical (even from the AI point of view) to sign & trade rather than release ?? :confused:



* & logically there should be an easy way to programme it in

[arrdog54487]

Just a few things that might help out the small market teams.

1. Have teams sign players to contracts that buy out there arbitration years and help the teams save money over all and be able to keep there homegrown talent for more then 3 years.

2. For this one to work the trade engine would need to be fixed but when teams do trade away there top young talent have a way to make sure that they get some top prospects in return.

3. Have full minor league teams that generate there own revenue to be used towards minor league player development.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Just a few things that might help out the small market teams.

1. Have teams sign players to contracts that buy out there arbitration years and help the teams save money over all and be able to keep there homegrown talent for more then 3 years.

2. For this one to work the trade engine would need to be fixed but when teams do trade away there top young talent have a way to make sure that they get some top prospects in return.

3. Have full minor league teams that generate there own revenue to be used towards minor league player development.

1° is an AI issue which as pointed out as of today AI is being illogical - cutting an arbitration player for ZERO return = POOR AI

2° Ditto

3° Not going to happen in BM09 for several reasons (including Clay would have to do it for ALL years from 1901 onwards *,most of the 08 guys left out are fillers - ie with an overall/peak below 70) & also would considerably slow the game down by 5-10 times as there would be X times more calculations per day.


Priorities for a competitive balance are still arbitration,Expenses & redoing of the financial engine (reducing the inequality in profit making) in order to stop this happening.

[JustinM]

3° Not going to happen in BM09 for several reasons (including Clay would have to do it for ALL years from 1901 onwards *,most of the 08 guys left out are fillers - ie with an overall/peak below 70) & also would considerably slow the game down by 5-10 times as there would be X times more calculations per day.

For this game to grow beyond where it is now, at some point, simulation speed absolutely must decrease. I know, if a season takes 5 seconds longer than usual to simulate, people come here and complain, but without 40-man rosters and all the rules surrounding them, without "real" minor leagues, without real contract and finance rules, this is not a sim, but a game. The statistics may be accurately simulated, but if everything surrounding them has little or no bearing on reality, it's a game. A very fun game, mind you, one that sucks way too much time out of my life, but a game nonetheless.

[ohms_law]

The sim speed has been decreasing, and it will continue to decrease (except that computers are getting more powerful, so it balances itself out somewhat).

There's not likely to be "full" major leagues because their not that important to the game, and it would take a whole lot of work to make them correct. Never mind the fact that FRS is correct that there just isn't enough information available to make full minor leagues work properly (there is no Lahman database available for minor leagues).

Anyway, Clay's stated philosophy has always been that this is a game first and a sim second. by saying: "A very fun game, mind you, one that sucks way too much time out of my life, but a game nonetheless.", that means that he's exactly on target.

[Zeth]

One quick fix that would help with trades (maybe this should be in the trades thread?) is to increase the value the AI assigns to Peak rating. I notice that AI teams will happily accept an 80/80 26-year-old relief pitcher that's been on my AAA roster for four years in return for the 69/97 20-year-old stud center fielder they drafted #3 overall a year ago. Maybe, sometimes, it'll ask me to tack on $2 million or something.

That's way out of line, and probably not too tough to fix. Not even a dumb baseball team would trade a 69/97 20-year-old for anything less than a Randy Johnson/Carlos Beltran/Johan Santana kind of deal for a superstar.

If we correct for that--and it's a delicate balance; you don't want to swing the AI TOO heavily toward Peak--we've come a long way toward helping the small market teams out. If they have a youngish star about to go FA, they can make a deadline deal and get real stud prospects in return.

Do that, and combine it with what should be a relatively easy fix to the arbitration--30% of market value in year 1, 60% in year 2, 90% in year 3, with the opportunity to negotiate a contract before the arbitration hearing--and that mostly solves the problem of small-budget teams losing all ability to compete because they lose the stars they develop for nothing.

[marc420]

Well, the big league rules around the 40 man roster like Waivers, Options and the Rule 5 draft are all in place to try to deal with the problem of some clubs wanting to stockpile talent at the minor league level.

I don't think you'd have to have a 'full minor leagues' to put these into place. You are really just talking about rules around crossing the line between minors and majors. So, you could put some of this into place just by regulating how that line is crossed. Probably a fair amount of work though, as you'd have to train the AI how to be smart around those rules. Otherwise it might just unbalance the game even more towards the human player. So, not something to be done casually.

But I think it would add a lot to the game. It would give a player more of the feel of the problems of a real GM. Problems like having someone on your big league roster that maybe isn't quire ready for the bigs yet. But he's out of options. So if you send him back to the minors you risk making him available by waivers to other teams. To me, that just adds to the fun of the game.

Of course, in some eras, the big market teams did dominate. And in modern times, even with entry drafts and waivers and such, its still big market teams most of the time. The small market teams usually come to the top for short times with young players, then lose them to FA to the Yankees and Red Sox and such.

For game play, make sure I can do that with my small market team. And let my fan loyalty grow as I do it slowly rewarding my successes with a loyal fan base that builds over time.

[Zeth]

Well, one fix would be for the game to refuse to permit a team to send anybody on a major league contract with 5 years service time to the minors. But I'm guessing as currently programmed, that would cause large-market teams to repeatedly sign and then immediately release hordes of free agents (because it tries to send them to the minors and fails). That or just crashes the game because of an overflow.

[marc420]

Based on some other comments out here, here are some other thoughts.

Scouting should build over time. It should take a sustained effort of putting money into this to build it. Give the teams a separate Scout rating. Actually, do this with all three areas, but Scouting might be the most critical. The Scout rating rises or falls based on whether your spending is above or below the league average. But its now disconnected from the dollar figure you are spending, which lets it have a lag effect. A player could be given a dollar figure to 'maintain' his current scouting level. If he chooses to spend less than this, the effect is pretty immediate as this means he's laying people off and cutting back. But if he choose to spend more than this, the effect is delayed. It takes time to hire new scouts and get the right people in place. Rising above the current maintenence level sets a new higher maintenence level for the next year. But the effect of that only comes on slowly over say maybe three or four years. It takes that long to transition up to the higher level in effectiveness, even if you have to pay the full price now. And if you cut back, its going to take time to rebuild it.

Can do the same for all three categories. To keep it simple, you have to set these levels in the off season and stick with them. In real life, you can't be firing people one month and rehiring them the next as you juggle these numbers up and down.

For minor leagues, to me this should never change a players potential ratings. To me, at some level those stay fixed since player creation. Maybe the ones my scout tell me can change because that's an impression. But to me at some basic level a player has a set potential at creation and sticks to it.

What minor league ratings can do is to control a) how fast the player grows towards his potential. b) the chance of a player being a bust should go down (not be eliminated with lots of money, just go down). Ie, if you spend money on your minor league system, you are giving your prospects a chance to succeed. Good facilities, good coaches. So they develop quicker than in a system that doesn't spend the money on this. All players should have a chance of being a 'bust' (drop in potential). Good minors can't completely prevent this. But again, good minor league coaching could make it less frequent.

If the player potential is pretty much fixed at player creation, then the entry draft can function to spread the talent across the league. The big market teams can spend more on their minors, but what it makes them is just more efficient at developing the players they get in the draft. They are still developing the 30th pick while the small market team is developing the #1 pick. That #1 pick might eventually end up at a big market team as a free agent, but the rules let the small market team have the benefit of that player for at least a few years before he moves on. May have to pay some arbitration salaries. But they can keep him and use him to have a good team for a few years before they lose him.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Based on some other comments out here, here are some other thoughts.

Scouting should build over time. It should take a sustained effort of putting money into this to build it. Give the teams a separate Scout rating. Actually, do this with all three areas, but Scouting might be the most critical. The Scout rating rises or falls based on whether your spending is above or below the league average. But its now disconnected from the dollar figure you are spending, which lets it have a lag effect. A player could be given a dollar figure to 'maintain' his current scouting level. If he chooses to spend less than this, the effect is pretty immediate as this means he's laying people off and cutting back. But if he choose to spend more than this, the effect is delayed. It takes time to hire new scouts and get the right people in place. Rising above the current maintenence level sets a new higher maintenence level for the next year. But the effect of that only comes on slowly over say maybe three or four years. It takes that long to transition up to the higher level in effectiveness, even if you have to pay the full price now. And if you cut back, its going to take time to rebuild it.

Actually the Scouing in BM needs A COMPLETE OVERHAUL.Firstly every GM knows the value (or in BM terms Ratings) of MLBers to within 1 or 2 points - heck they play against them or see them on TV or just simply day in day out scout them.Same can be applied to AAA players (most of which are either ex-MLBers or TOP prospects being groomed for call eg Bruce or a Longoria).The difference is minimal but an A scouting should have 0+/- & a D team +/- 2 at these LEVELS

The differences are at lower levels & at draft time - but only because of the resources employed - a top scouting team has 10's even 100's scouts & thus garner maximum info on players & can thus judge if A is better than B who is better than C & so on.

A bad team has limited information on players & can only judge those they have scouted.

For example (using BM terms) there are 200 draftees possible------ then an "A" scouting team would have almost perfect knowledge & thus 200 reports at +/- 1.A "B" team (less scouts out there) would have 160 reports at +/- 2 & for the 40 other players NO RATINGS at all just the College/HS stats & so on,all the way down to a "D" team who would have only 100 reports at +/- 4 & 100 'blanks'.

This would reflect the reality on why good scouting teams find "gems" deep in the draft & poor teams (why do I keep having the Pirates in my mind :rolleyes:) draft NAMES rather than talent.The same could be applied to R level upto AA level where good teams would see FULL ratings & bad teams would see STATS & only partial ratings at a +/- of 4......

The +/- of 9 is just too unrealistic & gives the user a way too large advantage over the AI in trades.







Can do the same for all three categories. To keep it simple, you have to set these levels in the off season and stick with them. In real life, you can't be firing people one month and rehiring them the next as you juggle these numbers up and down.

For minor leagues, to me this should never change a players potential ratings. To me, at some level those stay fixed since player creation. Maybe the ones my scout tell me can change because that's an impression. But to me at some basic level a player has a set potential at creation and sticks to it.

What minor league ratings can do is to control a) how fast the player grows towards his potential. b) the chance of a player being a bust should go down (not be eliminated with lots of money, just go down). Ie, if you spend money on your minor league system, you are giving your prospects a chance to succeed. Good facilities, good coaches. So they develop quicker than in a system that doesn't spend the money on this. All players should have a chance of being a 'bust' (drop in potential). Good minors can't completely prevent this. But again, good minor league coaching could make it less frequent.

If the player potential is pretty much fixed at player creation, then the entry draft can function to spread the talent across the league. The big market teams can spend more on their minors, but what it makes them is just more efficient at developing the players they get in the draft. They are still developing the 30th pick while the small market team is developing the #1 pick. That #1 pick might eventually end up at a big market team as a free agent, but the rules let the small market team have the benefit of that player for at least a few years before he moves on. May have to pay some arbitration salaries. But they can keep him and use him to have a good team for a few years before they lose him.

Problem here is that in BM after Y4 the small markets are just uncompetitive in the FARM spending & their prospects either "peeter" out in the minors (a 65/90 ends up a 80/81 max) or are brought up too soon & go into FA way too early (at 26/27) --- either way leads to the small markets going into 60 win mode & large markets 110 win mode.............:(

[HoustonGM]

The +/- of 9 is just too unrealistic & gives the user a way too large advantage over the AI in trades.
Why do you think this?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Why do you think this?

Easy HGM----- start a game in the 2000's (not this YEAR lol) with Boston or NYY (both are +/- 9 scouters ;) ) you as a Human GM know that A Rod or Manny (depending on which team you are) is gonna be huge & is rated in 90+ range in commish BUT you have this unrealistic +/- 9 which says they are 81's (& the AI also) so you can offer a "dud" PROSPECT or 2 plus a MLB VET & get them for cheap.

Same can be applied through out BECAUSE we have "knowledge" & CAN IGNORE the ratings listed & "rape" the comp for Pujols/Santana/Pedro etc etc WHICH uses the ratings as their basis for trades.Thus it has both a disadvantage in knowledge & information.

[HoustonGM]

True, but the AI also takes stats into account now.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

True, but the AI also takes stats into account now.

ONLY Partially HGM not entirely - it still uses ratings as its premise & as said in the original post NO GM in the MLB today has (in BM terms) +/- 9 ratings on a player LOL.


Every GM (even supporter ;) ) knows that A Rod is better than Garrett Atkins or Pujols is better than Derek Lee YET with BM scouting as it stands you can get the exact reverse & do those deals with the AI,HECK ST LOUIS EVEN Throws CASH IN A deal to trade Pujols for Lee (game started in 2005 btw)


THUS my belief that scouting should be split in 2 MLB scouting & MILB scouting - a team can be a great analyser at the MLB level but poor at MILB level (Billy Beane style) or bad at MLB level but good in assessing MILB talent (Dodgers),bad at both (Pirates ex management) or good at both (Colorado or Red Sox) but as it stands the human has too much knowledge & the system is to "unrealistic" (IMO°)

[SirKodiak]

Interesting. Started a game in 2007 as Colorado. Offered Atkins for ARod, no dice. But asked for a counter offer and they said throw in Jeff Baker (the Yanks obviously need another RF/1B), you got a deal. So I set the Yanks to human and checked out the ratings. The Yanks see ARod as a 94, Atkins a 84, and Baker as a 79/86.

AND offered the same deal to Colorado after turning them into a computer team, and they said something about shooting themselves. I put ARod on the trading block and no offers were made.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Interesting. Started a game in 2007 as Colorado. Offered Atkins for ARod, no dice. But asked for a counter offer and they said throw in Jeff Baker (the Yanks obviously need another RF/1B), you got a deal. So I set the Yanks to human and checked out the ratings. The Yanks see ARod as a 94, Atkins a 84, and Baker as a 79/86.

AND offered the same deal to Colorado after turning them into a computer team, and they said something about shooting themselves. I put ARod on the trading block and no offers were made.

Exactly my point Yankees would give A Rod for Atkins & Baker now that is non sensical!

Last year I remember IRL the Rockies tried to deal Helton (good player but past his prime & an injury risk) for Lester/Ellsbury & 2 prospects & was only balked at the last minute .....As said every GM knows what value (ratings) are of MLBers no one is going to see a 94 A Rod as a 85! they may say he is a 92 or 93 depending on if they still see him as a peak player or he is on the downslope (that is a subjective call) but NO ONE would undervalue him 11%!(which the AI does with +/- 9 scouting) same goes for an Atkins he is an 84 but with +/- he could be (from an AI perspective) an 75= MLB scrub/AAA player or 93= Superstar! He is neither.....

[ohms_law]

Starting in 2007, Alex Rodriguez has a $27.7 million contract through 2011. That's a $138.5 million commitment. In the best case, with +/-1 scouting, he's a 31 year old 91-93 overall player, but there aren't many teams who can deal with that sort of commitment especially if they see him as being lower skilled than that. As SirKodiak already mentioned earlier, contracts (including length!) are a very important component to trade evaluations, especially to the AI.

Jeff Baker is 25, hasn't reached his peak yet, and most importantly is making league minimum. He's an excellent value for his skill level.

Atkins is basically the same story, with the exception that he has peaked.

I'm not saying that this is perfect, and I don't necessarily disagree with changing Scouting, but let's not start throwing around "rhetoric" about all of this.

[SirKodiak]

The financial situation of the teams involved are important as well. The contract is a much more important factor to the Twins than to the Mets. That is true for free agency too, as imagine if Tampa had signed Pavano instead of the Yanks.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Starting in 2007, Alex Rodriguez has a $27.7 million contract through 2011. That's a $138.5 million commitment. In the best case, with +/-1 scouting, he's a 31 year old 91-93 overall player, but there aren't many teams who can deal with that sort of commitment especially if they see him as being lower skilled than that. As SirKodiak already mentioned earlier, contracts (including length!) are a very important component to trade evaluations, especially to the AI.

Jeff Baker is 25, hasn't reached his peak yet, and most importantly is making league minimum. He's an excellent value for his skill level.

Atkins is basically the same story, with the exception that he has peaked.

I'm not saying that this is perfect, and I don't necessarily disagree with changing Scouting, but let's not start throwing around "rhetoric" about all of this.

Firstly,it wasn't rhetoric it was a reply to HGM's question on "why +/- 9 scouting gives a human user too much of advantage in historical sims & allows them to rape AI in trades".

Secondly I stated that the system as it stands is unrealistic comparatively to how real life GMs do business/value players - no GM would "knowingly" undervalue a MLB player by 11% & nearly all would be within 1 or 2% (or in BM terms +/- 1).

You are totally right when saying that contract value/length does have a bearing on trades but you used the best case scenario for A -Rod where you see him as a 93 but in the worst case scenario he is an 84! No one (& I mean no one who plays BM) would ever consider an A-Rod an 84 & thus rightly (if they could afford it) WOULD logically rape NYY AI's assessment.

I just wanted to check so I started a game in 2005 (contract year for A Rod) using the 2 worst Scouting teams - NYY & SFG.Deal 1 as Human GM of SFG (+/-9) offer : Schmidt (86) 32,9.5 for 3 + Levine (76) 36,.99 for 2 + JT Snow (73) 37,3.65 for 2 + Giese (58/66) .0252 Arb in 08 + 2.5 mill for A Rod (89) 29,10.6 for 1 (ASKING for 10.4 for 5)

So SFG cuts roughly 3.0 mill in roll & can sign A Rod long term & lose a good SP but the rest is junk & old....


Lets do it the other way (just following Sirkodiak's lead*) this time:

offer A Rod (84) 29,10.6 for 1 (asking 10.4 for 5) PLUS 3.5 mill for Schmidt (93) ,Levine (75),Snow (76) ,Giese (64/74)

Now this 2nd deal is even more ludicrous than the 1st but the point being no way should there be a variance this large on the A Rod or even Schmidt**



* interesting to note if you CHANGE teams then your "new team" gets PERFECT scouting even if listed at +/- 9 (POSSIBLY a bug?) Anyways I started a new game as NYY to rectify this.


**btw in Commish A Rod was a 94,Snow 76,Schmidt 92,Giese 65/70,Levine 72

[ohms_law]

You are totally right when saying that contract value/length does have a bearing on trades but you used the best case scenario for A -Rod where you see him as a 93 but in the worst case scenario he is an 84! No one (& I mean no one who plays BM) would ever consider an A-Rod an 84 & thus rightly (if they could afford it) WOULD logically rape NYY AI's assessment.
Actually, in terms of this discussion, the 84 rated A-Rod would be the "best case" scenario because the lower his skill level is the worse his value becomes.

Regardless, I understand what you're saying about reducing the +/- Scouting, but I have yet to hear a good alternative. Simply making it so that everyone has something like +/-3 at worst is basically asking for the whole system to be removed. The fact is that the current system is simple and it works. Users understand it, and the AI works well with it (well enough, anyway). Even with +/-9 scouting, AI teams don't make huge trade or contract mistakes aside from the problems with the AI making deals for redundant players or getting rid of players that they really need.

I keep coming back to the point that the AI simply isn't aware of it's overall team needs. It's very good at valuing individual players in isolation, but as I mentioned above it has little concept of the fact that it is dealing or acquiring either it's only starter or a redundant starter. Add on to that the problems with Arbitration eligibility not working correctly and those are the key problems with the AI which drive everything else. I'm certain that there are other problems, but before those issues are resolved it's really impossible to tell how serious they are (or even if they really exist).

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Actually, in terms of this discussion, the 84 rated A-Rod would be the "best case" scenario because the lower his skill level is the worse his value becomes.

Regardless, I understand what you're saying about reducing the +/- Scouting, but I have yet to hear a good alternative. Simply making it so that everyone has something like +/-3 at worst is basically asking for the whole system to be removed. The fact is that the current system is simple and it works. Users understand it, and the AI works well with it (well enough, anyway). Even with +/-9 scouting, AI teams don't make huge trade or contract mistakes aside from the problems with the AI making deals for redundant players or getting rid of players that they really need.

I keep coming back to the point that the AI simply isn't aware of it's overall team needs. It's very good at valuing individual players in isolation, but as I mentioned above it has little concept of the fact that it is dealing or acquiring either it's only starter or a redundant starter. Add on to that the problems with Arbitration eligibility not working correctly and those are the key problems with the AI which drive everything else. I'm certain that there are other problems, but before those issues are resolved it's really impossible to tell how serious they are (or even if they really exist).

I agree with what you are saying BUT it is actually (I assume :o ) EASY to change.


Basically make MLBers (ie Lahmans 01s) all COMMISH rated both for the Human & AI & RETAIN the +/- system as it is (for now) but only for minor leaguers & draftees (Lahmans 51) or in historical games till they hit their MLB predicted date.

Thus the AI would trade a real "94" for a real "87" plus 2 +/- prospects (which when you think about it is what actually happens....you deal for MLBer who you "know" his real value & 2 possible stars but until they hit MLB level they are exactly that--- possible.)

[kenny1234]

I would change the system so that there is a scouting +/- that varies by player. For draftees the +/- would be high - maybe the teams vary from +/- 5 to +/-10 (or 15). While in the minor leagues scouts from all teams gain more information so the error band shrinks a little. Given some major league time the errors shrink even further - for a peak-age player the band might vary from +/-1 to +/-3. As players age past their peak errors increase again as scouts differ in their ability to foresee drops in performance due to aging.

It would be simple to understand - in each player's card there would be the +/- for that player and you could think of it as the confidence the scout places in their rating. Basically there is no scouting for a player like A-Rod - every team knows roughly what they will get with him.

[HoustonGM]

Basically make MLBers (ie Lahmans 01s) all COMMISH rated both for the Human & AI & RETAIN the +/- system as it is (for now) but only for minor leaguers & draftees (Lahmans 51) or in historical games till they hit their MLB predicted date.
I don't think that's an optimal solution. Teams see MLB players differently, and using Commish mode ratings for all MLB players makes it so every GM sees every MLB player the same, and that's not realistic. You're right in that at the high-end of the spectrum - the established stars - there's no gray area. Everybody knows A-Rod is great. However, it should most definitely not be that way for every MLB player.

[kenny1234]

Teams see MLB players differently but I don't know that it is because of scouting. Some teams value defense, or eye, or power more than others - but that is a difference in the strategy of putting together a team instead of a difference of scouting. Basically with proven major league players everyone knows what skill the player is - but they can still disagree as to how much that skill is worth.

[HoustonGM]

Yes, true. But, again, we're talking about proven major league players here. There are many major league players who have yet to establish any kind of track record, and teams definitely see them differently, both scouting-wise and value-wise. Simply giving every team perfect ratings for every major league player is not a good idea.

[kenny1234]

I agree - that's why I think the solution is to move basically halfway between the current system and the one suggested by FRS. Teams won't differ in their scouting of proven major league players very much - and no team should be +/-1 on their scouting of a 17 year old in high school.

[GreenDiamond2]

The fan loyalty market adjustment is a good idea.

Scouting range effectiveness should be tied to experience.
Inexperienced players could be dealt with using one of the following methods

1) Generate the rating numbers based on their previous performance stats. Essentially, create a rating that reflects their "statistical performance" and then have the computer choose a number between that number and their actual potential (closer to potential, with accurate scouting) as the "scouting result".

2) Have a number of players (depending on scouting investment) "accurately scouted", and the rest within a wider margin of accuracy. The probability of a player being accurately scouted would be tied to their length of service and current level. Once scouted by a team, a flag would be set and the information would remain reasonably accurate. Players within a teams system would have an increased probability of being scouted effectively.

3) Use the current system, but adjust the +/- range towards the center (absolute +/-) by 1 or 2 points per year of major league service. Also adjust towards center for each year of service within the teams organizational structure. A GM will have more detailed reports for players within their own system, although a relatively new acquisition may not be as thoroughly analyzed in terms of strengths/weaknesses/potential.

Player development (Farm Teams)
The rating should not create an absolute adjustment in terms of the players reaching their potential, but should affect that probability. A player may prosper in one system but not in another, for any number of reasons including relations with coaches, playing time, advancement opportunities and just getting the right advice and motivation at the right times.
For example: An A rated farm system might see (arbitrary, adjust as needed) 90% of their prospects reach potential, and an F rated system might see 75% reach potential. The player would either continue to develop or stagnate, rather than reach a set level of potential.
Ideally the computer would have enough awareness to move players that are competing for the same position to new positions, but that is another matter.

Medical Expenses:
Medical investment should be roughly similar between the highest rated and lowest rated teams. The additional investment might be useful specifically for scouting "health" of potential acquisitions. This would be done through medical expenditure rather than regular scouting.

Small Market Teams:
Expenditure based scouting/farm systems (as a percentage) is probably a reasonable fix for overall economic balance.
Fan loyalty upswings are probably longer lasting and quicker to achieve for small market teams. Repeated winning seasons creates an expectation. The closest in game measure is probably the "mogul rating". A team with a higher "mogul rating" should probably have to play better to maintain fan loyalty. An inverse relationship between these two should keep the league more financially competitive between various teams both for the AI and for the player.

Another stabilizing factor could be in tracking free agency expenditure over the course of a season. Teams that are relying on free agency may have to pay more to make their farm teams effective. This represents the moral effects of limited advancement prospects on these types of teams and may create a "management philosophy" decision. For practical purposes, it would make it harder for teams with higher budgets to lock up talent, as spending a fortune on free agency would have a detrimental affect on the farm system, and vice/versa.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I don't think that's an optimal solution. Teams see MLB players differently, and using Commish mode ratings for all MLB players makes it so every GM sees every MLB player the same, and that's not realistic. You're right in that at the high-end of the spectrum - the established stars - there's no gray area. Everybody knows A-Rod is great. However, it should most definitely not be that way for every MLB player.Really ?? Jus check out the multiple sites for grading players.....

um not really GM everyone "knows" that Scutaro or even Murphy are MLB average players just that OAK hasn't the need or the willingness to trade up ---the thing is that you have a system as now that a Human GM can "screw" the AI whereas in reality it would be impossible to do a Lee-Pujols trade.Basically without overhauling the system what I proposed was a "closer" to reality compromise.

Now AI to Humans deals are screwed,even AI to AI deals are BECAUSE of the +/- for MLBers.This wouldnt solve the problem BUT simply reduce it to a workable level of playability (remember we control 3.4% of teams!)

[HoustonGM]

I would agree that the scouting system should be changed, but I do not think making it so that every team scouts every MLB player perfectly and exactly the same is what should be done.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I agree - that's why I think the solution is to move basically halfway between the current system and the one suggested by FRS. Teams won't differ in their scouting of proven major league players very much - and no team should be +/-1 on their scouting of a 17 year old in high school.

That is why I said MLB players AT MLB level = perfect scouting,not at MLB level = scouting at +/- (like now),which reflects the risk of trading for a prospect whereas trading for MLBer is a known commodity.

[HoustonGM]

That is why I said MLB players AT MLB level = perfect scouting,not at MLB level = scouting at +/- (like now)
Why should whether or not a player is listed in the MLB or in the minors affect his scouting? There's differences between the general player in the MLB and proven veterans. Proven veterans, I would agree, teams should have little, if any, difference on. But the majority of MLB players are not proven veterans.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I would agree that the scouting system should be changed, but I do not think making it so that every team scouts every MLB player perfectly and exactly the same is what should be done.

GM knowing a player is a "87" is one thing but does he fit your system is another ? A great example is St Louis during the Ozzie Smith/McGee years,they would nevr have trade for a "heavy"/"slow" OF because it didnt fit their strategy although they knew he was a "85" rated player.

Heck,simply put you can easily find ratings for every player to within 1 or 2 points ie Manny is better than Willingham who is better tha Payton etc etc BUT that doesnt mean that Manny is the best FIT for you (or the AI team) ....

[HoustonGM]

Those are all established veteran players (Willingham less so than Ramirez and Payton). I agree that every team should see basically the same ratings for established veteran players. But setting it so that every team sees the same ratings for every MLB player is NOT the way to accomplish that, because most players are not established veterans.

[GreenDiamond2]

Time served in the majors and within an organization would probably affect the scouting. The more plate appearances the more likely to have been scouted. Teams in the same division (competed more against) are going to be more effectively scouted, simply since it is easy to scout games that your team is present at.

A player who is benched most of the time is going to be harder to scout, part of being noticed is getting the break, getting that shot to prove that you can (or cannot) compete at a given level of playl.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Why should whether or not a player is listed in the MLB or in the minors affect his scouting? There's differences between the general player in the MLB and proven veterans. Proven veterans, I would agree, teams should have little, if any, difference on. But the majority of MLB players are not proven veterans.

HGM work within the BM framework---- I originally said Perfect scouting FROM MLB start date,before that start date +/- thus both for Historical & Modern games you should see (& the AI simumtaneously) that Ellsbury is a 86/88 (or whatever) in 2008 but in a 2006 or 2007 sim he is a 73/89 (+/- the scouting rating)

Thus the BM rating system WOULD be retained & the work for Clay would be minimized YET reflect the reality of how GM see players.Your average GM trades for a MLB player easier than for a prospect & that prospect is exactly that a "chance"/% of being what he is rated to be.... see Josh Hamilton or Matt Bush for example

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Time served in the majors and within an organization would probably affect the scouting. The more plate appearances the more likely to have been scouted. Teams in the same division (competed more against) are going to be more effectively scouted, simply since it is easy to scout games that your team is present at.

A player who is benched most of the time is going to be harder to scout, part of being noticed is getting the break, getting that shot to prove that you can (or cannot) compete at a given level of playl.

Correct sir! Every GM "knows" that A -Rod is a "91-95" but NEVER they will rate him (à la BM +/- system) a "84" after THAT the question is (for the AI & the Human player) DOES he fit the team ??

Oakland is in rebuild today,thus A -Rod wouldn't fit,the Mets have an all star= no fit BUT these team KNOW A Rod is a GREAT player (BM terms 92+) not above average (80+)....

[HoustonGM]

But why should Ellsbury be viewed exactly the same by every team in 2008?

For guys like Alex Rodriguez, etc., I understand. They have established track records. For young guys without an established record, such as Ellsbury, each team shouldn't view them exactly the same.

[HoustonGM]

Correct sir! Every GM "knows" that A -Rod is a "91-95" but NEVER they will rate him (à la BM +/- system) a "84" after THAT the question is (for the AI & the Human player) DOES he fit the team ??

Oakland is in rebuild today,thus A -Rod wouldn't fit,the Mets have an all star= no fit BUT these team KNOW A Rod is a GREAT player (BM terms 92+) not above average (80+)....
Yes. I agree with all this.

Again, I just disagree that this should blindly be applied to every player in the majors. It should be applied for established players.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Those are all established veteran players (Willingham less so than Ramirez and Payton). I agree that every team should see basically the same ratings for established veteran players. But setting it so that every team sees the same ratings for every MLB player is NOT the way to accomplish that, because most players are not established veterans.

Established is MLB callup +1 right ? Which is exactly what I suggested - perfect scouting for ALL (not just you but also AI) for established players AT their MLB call up date (which as you know is in the edit file).Thus re using A Rod example upto 1995 you would get +/- scouting,in 1995 ( MLB +1) perfect scouting.Simple,easy & effective & would reflect REALITY (that Both you & I have always tried to push the sim towards)

[FRENCHREDSOX]

But why should Ellsbury be viewed exactly the same by every team in 2008?

For guys like Alex Rodriguez, etc., I understand. They have established track records. For young guys without an established record, such as Ellsbury, each team shouldn't view them exactly the same.

Wow Ellsbury is not established he has what 80 days of service time BUT every team "knows" he is a 78/++ not a 70/++ - remember that at +/-9 we CAN & do rape AI teams (& they do so internally) but awhat I was suggesting WAS MLB call up + 1 (ie A WHOLE SEASON) = perfect scouting,great example is Homer Bailey.He is rated top 10 in prospects,has service time BUT can you tell me his rating ? I cannot .....now after 30 odd starts (or roughly 1 season) I could...SAME could be applie to Braun/Pedrioa/Saunders etc

Simply put teams (AI & Human) should "see" their ratings after a time lag (& for simplicity) without a complete overhaul of the system & to reatin scouting this is a GOOD compromise & would solve the "inequitable" trades posted above.

[gosensgo101]

1)All MLB teams do not have the same "ratings" for each player. For example, some teams may think that Derek Jeter is a better fielder than others do.

2)The scouting reports should be based on experience at each level, especially MLB. The more experience at a higher level, the more accurate the rating. Of course this should be modified by the scouting rating.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

1)All MLB teams do not have the same "ratings" for each player. For example, some teams may think that Derek Jeter is a better fielder than others do. Untrue - the stats + scouting reports are ALL similar - bad fielder/great bat/great motivator - simply does Jeter FIT X or Y team....if traded for ,but his ratings are stable 90-ish not +/- 9 thus a 81 nor a 99!


2)The scouting reports should be based on experience at each level, especially MLB. The more experience at a higher level, the more accurate the rating. Of course this should be modified by the scouting rating.

Yep,thats what I proposed .


Actually the Scouing in BM needs A COMPLETE OVERHAUL.Firstly every GM knows the value (or in BM terms Ratings) of MLBers to within 1 or 2 points - heck they play against them or see them on TV or just simply day in day out scout them.Same can be applied to AAA players (most of which are either ex-MLBers or TOP prospects being groomed for call eg Bruce or a Longoria).The difference is minimal but an A scouting should have 0+/- & a D team +/- 2 at these LEVELS

The differences are at lower levels & at draft time - but only because of the resources employed - a top scouting team has 10's even 100's scouts & thus garner maximum info on players & can thus judge if A is better than B who is better than C & so on.

A bad team has limited information on players & can only judge those they have scouted.

For example (using BM terms) there are 200 draftees possible------ then an "A" scouting team would have almost perfect knowledge & thus 200 reports at +/- 1.A "B" team (less scouts out there) would have 160 reports at +/- 2 & for the 40 other players NO RATINGS at all just the College/HS stats & so on,all the way down to a "D" team who would have only 100 reports at +/- 4 & 100 'blanks'.

This would reflect the reality on why good scouting teams find "gems" deep in the draft & poor teams (why do I keep having the Pirates in my mind :rolleyes:) draft NAMES rather than talent.The same could be applied to R level upto AA level where good teams would see FULL ratings & bad teams would see STATS & only partial ratings at a +/- of 4......

The +/- of 9 is just too unrealistic & gives the user a way too large advantage over the AI in trades.







Problem here is that in BM after Y4 the small markets are just uncompetitive in the FARM spending & their prospects either "peeter" out in the minors (a 65/90 ends up a 80/81 max) or are brought up too soon & go into FA way too early (at 26/27) --- either way leads to the small markets going into 60 win mode & large markets 110 win mode.............:(

but got shot down by Ohms so I adjusted it (for programming & simplicity reasons)

[gosensgo101]

Untrue - the stats + scouting reports are ALL similar - bad fielder/great bat/great motivator - simply does Jeter FIT X or Y team....if traded for ,but his ratings are stable 90-ish not +/- 9 thus a 81 nor a 99!I don't think everyone should have perfect ratings. Probobly +/- 1 for top half of league in scouting, +/-2 for bottom half.



Yep,thats what I proposed. But got shot down by Ohms so I adjusted it (for programming & simplicity reasons)A simpler version could be coded. Just taking into account Major League Service time as well as age, or years pro.

[HoustonGM]

Established is MLB callup +1 right ?
No. I don't think one year of playing is enough to be established.


Which is exactly what I suggested - perfect scouting for ALL (not just you but also AI) for established players AT their MLB call up date (which as you know is in the edit file).Thus re using A Rod example upto 1995 you would get +/- scouting,in 1995 ( MLB +1) perfect scouting.Simple,easy & effective & would reflect REALITY (that Both you & I have always tried to push the sim towards)
Except it shouldn't be. Jacoby Ellsbury would be 2008. He's not established in 2008. Players need playing time in the major leagues to be established. They shouldn't be considered "established" at their MLB call up date.


Wow Ellsbury is not established he has what 80 days of service time
80 days is established? I'm talking established. As in - multiple years.


UT every team "knows" he is a 78/++ not a 70/++
But not every team would have the exact same ratings for him. That's my point.


He is rated top 10 in prospects,has service time BUT can you tell me his rating ? I cannot now after 30 odd starts (or roughly 1 season) I could...
Can you? You can know exactly what a player's rating is after 1 season? So Kyle Kendrick's definitely a very good pitcher? And Norris Hopper is a .330 hitter?


Simply put teams (AI & Human) should "see" their ratings after a time lag (& for simplicity) without a complete overhaul of the system & to reatin scouting this is a GOOD compromise & would solve the "inequitable" trades posted above.
I think that after a certain amount of time in the majors, teams should see nearly the same ratings for a player. That certain amount of time needs to be far greater than 1 year.

A sort of graduated system would be ideal, I think. The greatest variance occurs at the amateur draft. The best scouting teams have a smaller variance, but every team has variance from the "true" ratings. As the player gains minor league service time, the variance for him shrinks. Again, the good scouting teams may have it shrink at a faster pace, or just simply have less variance all around. When he gets called up to the majors, there should still be variance. After he plays one year, there should still be variance. Teams should have different ratings for him. One year of service time doesn't mean that every single team knows your true skill level, as your suggesting should be the case..

The more years he plays, the less the variance on him. After, say, 4 years (or something), he's "set" or something, and the variance maxes out at +/- 1 (it should never be perfect), and i like the idea of having the top half of the league be +/- 1 and the bottom half be +/- 2. The difference in the ratings is negligible at that level, but it still leaves variance.

[gosensgo101]

Agree with pretty much everything HGM said in that post.

[kenny1234]

That sounds right to me - and should be relatively easy to program into the game. I think that the only addition should be that scouting accuracy should drop when a player is seriously injured and when they near the end of their career.

[gosensgo101]

That sounds right to me - and should be relatively easy to program into the game. I think that the only addition should be that scouting accuracy should drop when a player is seriously injured and when they near the end of their career.I wouldn't say it'd be easy, but there's no AI adjustments to be made (as far as how the AI handles scouting expenses), which is usually the hard part of adding new features.

I like the idea of accuracy droping for players with significant players as well. When Frank Thomas came back, for example, no one knew how well he would do.

[HoustonGM]

Yeah, I forgot about that. I'd say the variance should start increasing for a player as he nears the end of his career.

I'd also suggest that the Health rating not be affected by scouting at all. Instead, use medical to set the variance of the health rating.

[SirKodiak]

Plate Appearances at the MLB level might be they way to go. Scouting could improve every 650 PA (for batters) until the max is hit (maybe 1950) then stay rather constant until decline phase begins, then decrease as the player ages.

For pitchers, I'd say every 162 IP. I realize that would take longer for relievers, but relievers are often a shot in the dark anyhow.

[ohms_law]

No one (aside from us hard core players) would understand what the heck was going on though.

More importantly, I don't see how that would have any real impact. It might be kind of neat for us users (at least for those of us who know what's going on), but it wouldn't make much of a difference to the AI. Honestly... the ratings aren't really the most important thing to the AI. An 87 and a 91 rated player are viewed largely the same. What really makes a difference to the AI is contracts (value).

[kenny1234]

Two things. First, if ratings don't really matter then why does the AI spend as much as it does on scouting? I assume ratings matter throughout the game - for things such as setting lineups to deciding whether to steal a base. If teams with poor scouting are making worse decisions in all areas of the game this might go some ways towards explaining why high-revenue teams do much better starting in year 4 (I think that is roughly the timeframe for changes in scouting ratings to occur.)

Second, what is confusing about setting up scouting as suggested? All a player sees now is a letter grade and a +/- on the player screen. This wouldn't change - all that would happen is that the +/- number for one team would be different for players at different stages in their career. I would agree that many people that play might not even notice - but that is true of almost every change that gets suggested.

[CatKnight]

Just some more random data to throw into the debate.

I tried another 10 year run, using something I suggested might be worth trying in my original post: Equalized cities, with fan loyalty used to represent big/small market teams, so the Yankees had an A-, the Marlins C-, reset at the end of each season. In theory this should give the big teams an advantage, but not as large as they enjoy under the current rules.

The results are...interesting:



Yr - High Tm Low Tm - Breakdown - Avg Ld - N/S - ALE ALC ALW ALw - NLE NLC NLW NLw - ALP NLP
08 - NYM 100 FLA 62 - 0/1/0/0 - 8.0g - 1.62 - BOS DET LAA NYY - NYM MIL COL PHI - BOS* PHI
09 - ATL 99 FLA 58 - 0/0/1/0 - 5.2g - 1.71 - BOS MIN OAK NYY - ATL STL ARI PHI - MIN* ARI
10 - COL 104 BAL 57 - 0/1/3/0 - 7.3g - 1.76 - BOS MIN TEX NYY - ATL CIN COL ARI - NYY* ATL
11 - ATL 102 KC 53 - 0/1/1/0 - 6.0g - 1.81 - BOS MIN OAK NYY - ATL STL COL PHI - MIN* PHI
12 - PHI 107 NYM 50 - 0/2/3/0 - 7.5g - 2.19 - BOS MIN TEX CHI - PHI STL COL ATL - MIN* PHI

13 - ATL 108 NYM 48 - 0/2/1/1 - 6.8g - 2.05 - TOR MIN TEX CLE - ATL MIL COL PHI - MIN* ATL
14 - ATL 101 KC 53 - 0/2/1/0 - 5.7g - 1.90 - TB MIN OAK BOS - ATL PIT LA COL - MIN* COL
LAD 101
15 - TB 105 FLA 59 - 0/3/1/0 - 8.3g - 1.98 - TB MIN OAK TOR - ATL HOU COL NYM - MIN* ATL
16 - COL 104 WAS 59 - 0/4/1/0 - 10.8g - 2.02 - BOS MIN OAK TB - ATL MIL COL ARI - TB* MIL
17 - MIN 111 CLE 52 - 0/4/1/0 - 12.8g - 2.36 - BOS MIN OAK TOR - ATL MIL COL LAD - MIN LAD*

High Tm: Highest Wins, Low Tm: Lowest Wins
Breakdown: Teams with 114+ wins/100-113 wins/49-60 wins/48- wins
Avg Ld: Average # of games a division is won by
N/S: Noll-Scully Ratio
ALE (etc.): Divisional Winners
ALP (etc.): League Champions, * denotes World Champion


This league jumped in 5 year spurts instead of 4, and not as severely (though 2.1 and 2.3 is really getting a little high.) Interestingly the TWINS, which I rated as a C (low) market team, took over for many years and still appears pretty dominant.

[ohms_law]

why does the AI spend as much as it does on scouting?
Primarily, to compete with human teams, and as a money sink. It works too, as competativeness did increase slightly with Mogul 2008 (when the Ai was made to be more aggressive on expense spending).


what is confusing about setting up scouting as suggested?
Primarily that the user would be presented with different scouting abilities for different players, and it wouldn't be immediately obvious, without telling people, why that was. This sort of idea, while it sounds good in theory, is simply bad design. I guarantee that many people would notice a change like this, immediately.


This league jumped in 5 year spurts instead of 4, and not as severely (though 2.1 and 2.3 is really getting a little high.) Interestingly the TWINS, which I rated as a C (low) market team, took over for many years and still appears pretty dominant.
That sounds to be about what I'd expect.

Look, Mogul (and real baseball as well) is a "loosers out" game. Loosing teams do exactly that, they loose, both in reality and in the game. Yes, competativeness can be made better, but it should be an incremental process. Let's focus on getting the glaring problems (arbitration, lack of team building awareness) fixed first and evaluate where we are then before speculating about what else could be changed.

[Imgran]

I do want to re-suggest the fan loyalty modifier based on market size. I suspect that that might be a good counterbalance to make sure the small-market "loser" teams would have a fanbase who could wait a few years for a true playoff run and fans of the worst teams would enjoy the odd winning season, which would lower the bar for financial progress while the biggest market teams would fall and fall hard if they failed to make the playoffs too many years in a row making it harder to simply frontrun.

It wouldn't do much for big-market dynasties but it at least might give the small teams more of a fighting chance.

[HoustonGM]

Look, Mogul (and real baseball as well) is a "loosers out" game. Loosing teams do exactly that, they loose, both in reality and in the game. Yes, competativeness can be made better, but it should be an incremental process. Let's focus on getting the glaring problems (arbitration, lack of team building awareness) fixed first and evaluate where we are then before speculating about what else could be changed.
I agree. I said on the last "super teams" thread that before we start going and adjusting things with the game engine, the team AI should be improved, teams stocking up high priced free agents in the minors should be stopped, and the arbitration issues need to be fixed. I wholeheartedly believe that with those fixes, the competive balance issue will be GREATLY lessened, and then we can go from there. Especially considering that those things (AI/arbitration) absolutely need adjustment regardless of competitive balance, we should see what kind of effect fixing them has before doing anything further.

[GreenDiamond2]

Primarily that the user would be presented with different scouting abilities for different players, and it wouldn't be immediately obvious, without telling people, why that was. This sort of idea, while it sounds good in theory, is simply bad design. I guarantee that many people would notice a change like this, immediately.
Adding a line to the help/scouting description saying that players with more playing time will be scouted more accurately should clarify that. Tying the scouting range (+/-) to plate appearances makes sense. Pitchers could be tied to innings pitched or alternately, decisions and/or games played (to better balance starters/relievers.)


Yes, competativeness can be made better, but it should be an incremental process. Let's focus on getting the glaring problems (arbitration, lack of team building awareness) fixed first and evaluate where we are then before speculating about what else could be changed.
salary and team awareness are more critical issues, AI player selection is critical in terms of competitiveness.

Fan Loyalty:

This is right to the core of the revenue generation, which is the tool the AI uses in making its decisions. Small market teams should definitely be given an advantage in maintaining fan loyalty. Large market teams need to compete and place higher to keep fan loyalty from degrading. A whiff of a good season, or a previous good year, and small market teams get excited and stay that way for a while. In my opinion, this would go a long ways towards keeping small markets competitive.

While large markets have a bigger population base, they also have a lot of competing entertainment options and usually have more sports franchises available. In a small market, baseball may be the only game in town and interest will be correspondingly higher. In a large market, if the baseball team isn't playing well, it is easy for fans to get interested in football, basketball, hockey or whatever and wait for a good season... essentially more fair-weather fans.

[CatKnight]

Look, Mogul (and real baseball as well) is a "loosers out" game. Loosing teams do exactly that, they loose, both in reality and in the game. Yes, competativeness can be made better, but it should be an incremental process. Let's focus on getting the glaring problems (arbitration, lack of team building awareness) fixed first and evaluate where we are then before speculating about what else could be changed.

*blinks* WHAT? "Losing teams do exactly that, they lose, both in reality and in the game." Uhm...yes? I suppose winning teams tend to win both in reality and in the game too?

I haven't made any speculations thank you, but I think I will now. You all can talk about arbitration (it would help), expenses (incremental help at best) and 40 man rosters (nearly ineffective from what I've seen of simulated Rule Vs), but the big killer is the financial engine. That needs to be completely revamped. It did just fine back in BM05 when draftees were introduced directly into a team's AAA system and might even start the next season. Now? Now the scope between the large and small market teams needs to be substantially narrowed. Further, fan loyalty keeps even a balanced cities league from stabilizing. Throw it out.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

*blinks* WHAT? "Losing teams do exactly that, they lose, both in reality and in the game." Uhm...yes? I suppose winning teams tend to win both in reality and in the game too? YES funnily enough in every IRL game there is 1 winner & 1 loser - amzing really! *slight sarcasm to follow your irony ;) * However,since when does a team win 10 straight WS IRL ? Since when do teams have 120 win seasons or < 50 wins ??

The answer is simply NEVER - & that is the problem that both you (& I ) have talked about.The sim is stable (even VERY good from Y1 to Y4) & then "explodes".

One can resumé it like this Y1-Y4 BM is a baseball simulation,Y5+ it is a baseball game with certain (lesser & lesser over time) simulation aspects.


I haven't made any speculations thank you, but I think I will now. You all can talk about arbitration (it would help), expenses (incremental help at best) and 40 man rosters (nearly ineffective from what I've seen of simulated Rule Vs), but the big killer is the financial engine. That needs to be completely revamped.
Yes that is the fact - looking at the "Big Picture" v Real life : In BM successful teams :
1° make profit;
2° increase fan loyalty.

Over time due to economic reasons Large markets dominate (ability to buy FAs & to maximise spending on expenses & thus re-creating continually top of the line MLB prospects).

Teams over time TREND to extremes which is the exact OPPOSITE to IRL.Never IRL has a team won more than 116 & even that 116 team only did it ONCE & didn't win the WS,in BM the highest win team win 95/100 the WS.

IRL fan loyalty is extremely stable with a ~10% fluctuation over a large period (see simply the attendences over the last 20 years).

In BM:
large markets use FA & Minors as their source of re-stocking,mid markets & small markets never (rarely) use FA.Prospect development in BM is entirely linked to farm & scouting spending & as stated above this leads to the Y5+ problem.

Also IRL small/mid markets DO use FA to fill "gaps" & not just 74-76 players but "good" players (84+) recent examples include Meche/Suppan .

The finances are the basis of the game,not the product of the game - unless you manage a small market then THEY never succeed post Y5 (Catknight's tests show this) whereas IRL their is a continual renewal (1 notable exception being Pittsburgh but that is more related to poor management rather than finances) with small markets going into build -success - rebuild as FAs hit the market - success mode.



It did just fine back in BM05 when draftees were introduced directly into a team's AAA system and might even start the next season. Now? Now the scope between the large and small market teams needs to be substantially narrowed. Further, fan loyalty keeps even a balanced cities league from stabilizing. Throw it out.

The thing is Large markets make over the market profits & there is no redistribution (revenue sharing) nor compensation (FA signings) plus as the expenses are $ for $ then automatically over time they dominate this category which is the MAIN source for small markets - check out TBD or FLA 25 man rosters & calculate the % of "homegrown" player vis-a-vis BOS or NYM

[Imgran]

I've said this before so I'll say it again since Frenchie just brought up part of that long-buried point.

The real issue here to me is that most of the controls that would stop big market teams from having that kind of domination IRL are nonexistent or flawed here. The only exception I can think if us draft order, and a fat lot of good that does you when you can't spend 25 million dollars annually to develop your farm system.

MIA in this game:

-- Revenue sharing as Frenchie mentioned

-- Rule V draft to prevent excessive stockpiling by big-market clubs

-- free agent compensation picks when a team loses a high-quality player to FA.

-- a luxury tax


Fan Loyalty being entirely a product of winning doesn't help either. And the level of disparity between an A+ farm system and a C+ one is too great IMHO. Even the Royals, whose farm system was considered purely worthless for years, has now cranked out Grienke, Gordon, Teahen, Butler and DeJesus within just the last 2 or 3 years. That doesn't happen in Mogul.

the expensiveness of stadium renovation plays a role here too. Big market teams can expand their salary base more easily than small market teams. This is true IRL of course but it's usually possible for a small team to finance at least a renovation whenever they need it. In Mogul, you can't renovate. Build a new stadium or die.

One possible stopgap solution: Would it kill anyone to install the *option* of a salary cap? I know the most likely consequence is that big market teams go haywire with Expenses but since the little guy has to concede Expenses anyway it might be a step forward.

[HoustonGM]

Like I said earlier, all those things (if they were to be added) should be added AFTER fixing the arbitration system, free agency (in the sense of stockpiling major league guys in the minor leagues, and team AI. Those three things are monstrous issues that need to be dealt with, and they also directly tie into competitive balance. Atfer those issues are dealt with, we should re-assess competitive balance and then decide whether or not to add more things to help the situation.

[ohms_law]

At this point, everyone participating here seems to just be retrenching their own positions, polarizing the conversation. Regardless, Clay isn't usually about making large sudden changes anyway, so it's likely that adjusting arbitration and free agency in some manner will happen first anyway.

[GreenDiamond2]

One possible stopgap solution: Would it kill anyone to install the *option* of a salary cap? I know the most likely consequence is that big market teams go haywire with Expenses but since the little guy has to concede Expenses anyway it might be a step forward.
Implementing a salary cap option would probably have the AI look at the lowest number between the cap and its budget, and using that number as the budget. This might not be overly intrusive from a programming standpoint.
If a luxury tax option is implemented, then the AI could use a percentage of its cash reserve as additional budget when considering whether to go over the luxury tax line. This would tend to redistribute wealth without teams over-committing their future finances.

It seems like this might be relatively easy to institute (?) without causing too many additional problems.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

At this point, everyone participating here seems to just be retrenching their own positions, polarizing the conversation. Regardless, Clay isn't usually about making large sudden changes anyway, so it's likely that adjusting arbitration and free agency in some manner will happen first anyway.

Well,to SAVE us time & effort,just list us the possible choices envisionable for patches in BM09 & then we can forget unreasonable ideas/suggestions such as listed in this thread & elsewhere.:(

[ohms_law]

Nah, suggest away... I'm just not going to argue them is all.

I just don't see any suggestion that involves removing or significantly changing anything that currently exists (for example, the Scouting system itself) as anything that Clay will do... he never has done that, after all.

[SirKodiak]

Here is a post I made on 05-30-2006 about revenue sharing (originally in a BMO forum, but soon after in a BM forum) and I think I brought it to Clay's attention:

This is basically how MLB does revenue sharing. It is a 2-part plan.

1. A Base Plan that basically takes 34% of all revenue by all teams, pools it, then distributes it evenly back to all teams.
2. A Central Fund Plan that takes from those who lost money in the even distribution (the Payors) and gives to those that made money in the even distribution (the Payees) on a weighted scale system, the higher your revenue the higher rate you pay and the lower your revenue the more you get.

------------------
Base Plan = 34% of total revenue of all teams pooled then split evenly
------------------
Central Fund Component = 41% of amount paid by the payor clubs to the payee clubs in Base Plan (or Net Transfer Value)
Contributors pay = Revenue * (Central Fund Component / sum of Payor clubs' Revenue)
Recipients receive = Central Fund Component * (x / y)
where
x = Difference between average revenue of all clubs and Recipient club's Revenue
y = Sum of difference between average revenue of all clubs and each Recipient clubs revenue

I'd have to look to make sure that is still exactly as they do it.

It seems easy enough to implement and applying it after the WS and before FA would seem to have minimum impact upon the AI (though some AI adjustment would have to be made). That it has not been included indicates to me that it either won't be, or is very low priority.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Here is a post I made on 05-30-2006 about revenue sharing (originally in a BMO forum, but soon after in a BM forum) and I think I brought it to Clay's attention:


I'd have to look to make sure that is still exactly as they do it.

It seems easy enough to implement and applying it after the WS and before FA would seem to have minimum impact upon the AI (though some AI adjustment would have to be made). That it has not been included indicates to me that it either won't be, or is very low priority.

Most of the "good" suggestions (like this one) are EASY to code (implement) only problem is that NO ONE knows what Clay feels are or are not priorities.From an overview of the changes since 06 on it seems that the playability (PbP - splits etc) is his focus rather than working on the financial side of the sim .

[3RunHomer]

One simple adjustment to improve long-term competitiveness may be to increase contract renewals and contract lengths. Real life baseball teams are headed that way -- there aren't a lot of star players hitting free agency anymore. Signing players long-term is a good strategy for any team.

I simmed 10 seasons with contract renewals set to +50% and contract lengths set to +50%. (Other league settings -- League revenue: +0%, promotion to A: +50%, promotion to AA: +50%). I started with HGM's rosters.

Since we're mostly concerned with the long-term, here are the playoff teams from 2014 on ...

2014: NYY*, CLE, DET, SEA, CIN, COL, LAD, ATL
2015: DET, BOS, NYY, CAL, NYM, COL, LAD, CIN*
2016: DET, NYY, BOS, TEX*, ATL, SFG, COL, CIN
2017: DET*, NYY, BOS, TEX, ARI, ATL, NYM, CIN

* = World Series champ

I was encouraged to see that the smaller-market Reds, Tigers, Rangers and Rockies show up so often.

(I hope that BM correctly uses the league settings when running multiple seasons, otherwise the above means nothing.)

[3RunHomer]

Another factor that's playing into these 10-year sims - the amount of new position player talent coming into baseball is too low. The fictional players from the draft cannot compete with the real-life players.

Hitters in 2017

I checked the starting position players on all 8 playoff teams from 2017. There is a grand total of 3 fictional players starting for those teams! Three! :eek: One each on Boston, Arizona and Atlanta. And those 3 are the worst starting position players on those teams.

By 2017, BM-baseball is dominated by old guys leftover from the real players on the 2008 rosters. The position-player talent in the drafts from 2008 on must be awful.

Pitching in 2017

In the starting rotations of the 8 playoff teams in 2017, there are only 5 fictional players. The other 35 starting pitchers are leftover from the real players on the 2008 rosters. Many of them are old and injury-prone, but they're evidently still better than the fictional player bums from the draft.

An overall shortage of prospects makes a rebuilding strategy very difficult. I think this makes dynasties easier to sustain (there's no new talent entering the league to challenge the established veterans on the good teams). :(

[ohms_law]

I definately am not seeing an "Overall shortage of prospects". Clay put in some debug text a couple of sub-versions ago that provides a list of the average position skill levels, and in most games that I've run the skill levels actually increase over time.
You did mention that you set promotion to A: +50% and promotion to AA: +50%, which may very will be slowing down and stunting player development. That's about the only thing I can think of, anyway.

[HoustonGM]

You did mention that you set promotion to A: +50% and promotion to AA: +50%, which may very will be slowing down and stunting player development. That's about the only thing I can think of, anyway.
I have it set that way because it seemed to me that it placed prospects better (ie. Jay Bruce into AA and not A, even though he really should be in AAA), but I guess I should set those to the default for my rosters, at least.

It's just pretty crazy seeing an 86-rated player placed in A-ball..

[ohms_law]

It's just pretty crazy seeing an 86-rated player placed in A-ball..
That is pretty nuts. Who's ahead of him, though? (in AA and AAA, at the same position)

[HoustonGM]

That is pretty nuts. Who's ahead of him, though? (in AA and AAA, at the same position)
I've mentioned the Bruce incident in the other threads where we discussed the auto-sort, such as here (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=174001).

Drew Stubbs, 23, rated 70, is in AA. In AAA, 25 year old Chris Dickerson, rated 75.

HOWEVER, if I change Jay Bruce's position to Right Field, rather than Center, he still gets put into A...and there's NO right fielders above him, so it's not simply an issue of a separating same-position players.

[3RunHomer]

I definately am not seeing an "Overall shortage of prospects". Clay put in some debug text a couple of sub-versions ago that provides a list of the average position skill levels, and in most games that I've run the skill levels actually increase over time.
You did mention that you set promotion to A: +50% and promotion to AA: +50%, which may very will be slowing down and stunting player development. That's about the only thing I can think of, anyway.

There definitely is a shortage of talent in the drafts. The promotion settings have nothing to do with it.

I ran another 10 year sim, this time with all default settings and the default rosters too.

By 2017, baseball is dominated by old players leftover from the real-life players on 2008 rosters. There aren't enough good players in the drafts of fictional players.

Position Players 2017

On the 8 playoff teams in 2017, there are just 6 fictional starting position players. That's 6 out of 72 starting players. The two best teams (OAK won 114 games and ATL won 106) have none.

The fictional players that do start for good teams aren't necessarily that good themselves. The 6 fictional players ratings: 75, 79, 83, 81/83, 88, 86/94. Based on overall ratings, that looks like 2 stars and 4 fill-in players.

Starting Pitchers 2017

The pitching situation is better. In the starting rotations of the 8 playoff teams, there are 10 fictional players from drafts. That's 10 of 40 starters.

But 4 of them are on one team (COL), and the two best teams (OAK and ATL) have 0 and 1 respectively. So it's still true that older real-life pitchers are dominating the fictional pitchers in 2017.

Oakland and Atlanta Dynasties

In my 10-year sim, Oakland and Atlanta are the best teams. They led their leagues in wins every year from 2013 to 2017 (usually with more than 110 wins). And they're able to do that because they hung onto real-life players from the 2008 rosters. Oakland uses no fictional players as starting position players or in the starting rotation. Atlanta uses none as position players and has just one in the starting rotation.

I think this deserves its own thread, so I'm going to start one.


Note to Ohms: does your average position skill levels test account for health? It appears that while there are highly rated players in the draft, a large proportion of those highly rated players have health ratings in the 50s and 60s.

[ohms_law]

Note to Ohms: does your average position skill levels test account for health? It appears that while there are highly rated players in the draft, a large proportion of those highly rated players have health ratings in the 50s and 60s.
Overall ratings do account for health, some actually say too much so, so yes.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

still not an account WHY the sim BLOWS in Y4 (I feel that Roster makers DO try to make an equitable:real sim BUT then the ENGINE destroys all our effort).

[CatKnight]

Might be worth it to wander to this topic. (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=174957&page=2) Adjusting the Amateur Draft Talent....helps. Alot.

[ohms_law]

If that turns out to be as true as it appears to be, then this is really an issue of roster balance rather than something with the game itself. It sounds like the players on the default rosters are being given too high Longevity...

[3RunHomer]

If that turns out to be as true as it appears to be, then this is really an issue of roster balance rather than something with the game itself. It sounds like the players on the default rosters are being given too high Longevity...

If you do a 10-year sim, you'll see that the real-life players from the 2008 rosters do show an age decline (that looks normal to me). But the younger fictional players from the draft still can't beat them out for starting jobs because ... the fictional players stink.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

If that turns out to be as true as it appears to be, then this is really an issue of roster balance rather than something with the game itself. It sounds like the players on the default rosters are being given too high Longevity...

Um Ohms THE GAME sets Roster Longevity NOT THE Rosters themselves - They only create (using csv files) their predicted stats for 08 - however the game SETS peak/longevity/potential ;)

[CatKnight]

Just tried again with 1969. 1969 has an excuse to be out of whack: You have one very young team that's coming into its own (Oakland), the other races are almost foregone conclusions (BAL, STL, SFG), there are four expansion teams, and entering the game no steps such as free agency have been taken to help the league along. The question is: How ugly does it get?

+100 Amateur Draft Talent, other settings normal



YR HIGH LOW - 100 L/T DIV N/S - ALE ALW NLE NLW - ALP NLP
69 OAK 106 SDP 43 - 3 TT 8.50 2.61 - BAL OAK STL SFG - BAL STL*
70 OAK 100 MIL 44 - 6 T 12.50 2.42 - BOS OAK STL SFG - OAK* SFG
71 OAK 110 MON 44 - 8 LT 7.25 2.83 - BAL OAK CHC SFG - OAK* CHC
72 BOS 106 KCR 42 - 7 T 7.50 2.70 - BOS OAK PHI LAD - OAK PHI*
73 OAK 104 MIL 54 - 6 10.00 2.50 - NYY OAK NYM LAD - OAK NYM*
74 BOS 108 MIL 46 - 9 ST 5.75 2.71 - BOS OAK NYM LAD - BOS* NYM
75 NYM 114 CIN 48 - 8 SS 18.50 2.92 - BOS CAL NYM LAD - CAL* LAD
76 LAD 118 CIN 47 - 11 S 11.75 3.04 - BAL OAK NYM LAD - BAL LAD*


These are 154g seasons since I modified the schedule to handle the '72 strike in my dynasty. High/Low are the High/Low Records
100 lists the number of teams that would have had 100 wins/losses over 162g
L/T lists the 'L'egends and 'T'anks, teams with a .700 or .300 winning percentage
DIV - Average games division won by
N/S - Noll Scully
ALE - Division winners
ALP - League winners, * denotes World Champ



So...amateur draft helps, but the league starts to fall apart around Y6.

FRS: Did you change any city data like Houston did? I'm seeing big market teams take over their divisions here (with default city data) with much greater decisiveness. Even though BAL and OAK won in Y8 (1976), BOS and CAL were on their tails.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Just tried again with 1969. 1969 has an excuse to be out of whack: You have one very young team that's coming into its own (Oakland), the other races are almost foregone conclusions (BAL, STL, SFG), there are four expansion teams, and entering the game no steps such as free agency have been taken to help the league along. The question is: How ugly does it get?

+100 Amateur Draft Talent, other settings normal



YR HIGH LOW - 100 L/T DIV N/S - ALE ALW NLE NLW - ALP NLP
69 OAK 106 SDP 43 - 3 TT 8.50 2.61 - BAL OAK STL SFG - BAL STL*
70 OAK 100 MIL 44 - 6 T 12.50 2.42 - BOS OAK STL SFG - OAK* SFG
71 OAK 110 MON 44 - 8 LT 7.25 2.83 - BAL OAK CHC SFG - OAK* CHC
72 BOS 106 KCR 42 - 7 T 7.50 2.70 - BOS OAK PHI LAD - OAK PHI*
73 OAK 104 MIL 54 - 6 10.00 2.50 - NYY OAK NYM LAD - OAK NYM*
74 BOS 108 MIL 46 - 9 ST 5.75 2.71 - BOS OAK NYM LAD - BOS* NYM
75 NYM 114 CIN 48 - 8 SS 18.50 2.92 - BOS CAL NYM LAD - CAL* LAD
76 LAD 118 CIN 47 - 11 S 11.75 3.04 - BAL OAK NYM LAD - BAL LAD*


These are 154g seasons since I modified the schedule to handle the '72 strike in my dynasty. High/Low are the High/Low Records
100 lists the number of teams that would have had 100 wins/losses over 162g
L/T lists the 'L'egends and 'T'anks, teams with a .700 or .300 winning percentage
DIV - Average games division won by
N/S - Noll Scully
ALE - Division winners
ALP - League winners, * denotes World Champ



So...amateur draft helps, but the league starts to fall apart around Y6.

FRS: Did you change any city data like Houston did? I'm seeing big market teams take over their divisions here (with default city data) with much greater decisiveness. Even though BAL and OAK won in Y8 (1976), BOS and CAL were on their tails.

Now that proves the ENGINE itself is out of whack - HOW many teams won 100= games during that era ? NONE How many teams LOST < 65 games ? NONE..... THUS even with REAL rosters from the period there is a major divergence from the mean,which means the actual sim engine calculations are off by X%

[FRENCHREDSOX]

.

FRS: Did you change any city data like Houston did? I'm seeing big market teams take over their divisions here (with default city data) with much greater decisiveness. Even though BAL and OAK won in Y8 (1976), BOS and CAL were on their tails.

NB City data was at BM default :)

[CatKnight]

Now that proves the ENGINE itself is out of whack - HOW many teams won 100= games during that era ? NONE How many teams LOST < 65 games ? NONE..... THUS even with REAL rosters from the period there is a major divergence from the mean,which means the actual sim engine calculations are off by X%

Y8 is particularly worrisome. Of the 24 teams in existence, 11 would have had 100+ wins or losses if I'd had my schedule set normally. That's...ugly.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Y8 is particularly worrisome. Of the 24 teams in existence, 11 would have had 100+ wins or losses if I'd had my schedule set normally. That's...ugly.Well it actually worse than ugly - it is simply "unrealistic" & BM turns into a game rather than a sim.

However,several points:

1) Historical rosters ARE worse than Default 08 rosters in their sim result creation;
2) HGM/FRS rosters are better than the Default 08 rosters in their tendency towards the mean;
3) The Y4 phenomena occurs in every sim run;
4) Historical roster sims Noll-Scully are even more accentuauted than future simming.

This leads me to believe that the problem is deep within the sim engine & linked to run creation engine.From the data you have provided it seems the discrepency between teams leads to the "winners" scoring too many runs & the "losers" giving up to many runs - thus the good teams winning division series by unrealistic amounts (eg 18-1/17-2).This was commented on in the 120 dynasty thread last year which showed teams REGULARLY scoring in excess of 1100+ runs (which has NEVER happened in IRL baseball) & SIMULTANEOUSLY having a +/- RS/RC of 800-ish.

[HoustonGM]

The run discrepency is because the big-money teams hog free agents, and steal away arbitration eligible players from the low-money teams, thus leaving the low-money teams with depleted rosters that get beat up on by the big-money teams. I doubt it has anything to do with the sim engine. It's the roster makeup and AI.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

The run discrepency is because the big-money teams hog free agents, and steal away arbitration eligible players from the low-money teams, thus leaving the low-money teams with depleted rosters that get beat up on by the big-money teams. I doubt it has anything to do with the sim engine. It's the roster makeup and AI.

I could accept that IF it was a future SIM but there WERE 3 100 wins in year 1 of his sim when "low money teams still had positive cash (also the N-S was already at a high levl 2.61...............);)

[HoustonGM]

His 1969 sim? In real life, two teams won 100 games in 1969 (Orioles had 109, Mets had 100), and another won 97. 2 teams lost 110 games.

2 teams won 100 games in 1970 and 1971 as well.

I don't think 3 100-game winners in 1969 indicates anything wrong with the sim engine. As time passes, and there are more 100 win and 100 loss teams, though, that indicates a problem, but since we already know that there are AI problems that cause imbalances in teams, we should start there. I've been saying this for who knows how long now. Fix the AI. THEN readdress the "superteam" issue if it still exists.

[3RunHomer]

I ran another 10 year sim, trying out some different league settings. The league is "coach" level, revenue +20% (the default), salary demands -10% (trying to help the small market teams), draft talent +50% (compensating for low talent in drafts). I'm using the default rosters.

In my other sim I noticed players get stuck in AAA and rookie ball, so I set promotion to ML +50%, AAA +20%, AA +20%, A +50%.

Unfortunately, the results were not greatly different from my sim using the default settings. Summary of results:


Oakland and Atlanta do extremely well again. Atlanta is in the playoffs every year; Oakland every year except 2008. This is because they have good young players and hang onto them. Small market teams Minnesota and Tampa are in the playoffs from 2009 to 2012.
Big market Yankees, Angels, Mets and Dodgers come on strong after 2013.
In 2017, the playoff teams still aren't using fictional players from the draft. Good teams rely on real-life players from the 2008 rosters. Only 7 of the 72 position players on 2017 playoff teams are fictional players. Only 8 of the 40 starting pitchers on those teams are fictional players.
Most position players from the first two rounds of the drafts are failures, despite increasing the draft talent 50%. Only 3 of the 11 position players taken in the first 2 rounds of the 2008 draft are starting in the majors in 2017. 2 of those 3 starters are real stars. 1 catcher taken in the 2nd round of the 2008 draft has already retired by 2017. He never played in the majors. I noticed that several of the draftees still get stuck in rookie ball or in AAA, which ruins their development.
All teams have between B+ and A+ for farm system, medical staff and scouting.


The nearly total lack of players moving from the draft to the majors is a real flaw in the game.

Playoff teams from 2008 to 2017, with most wins noted:

2008: CLE (97), NYY, LAA, BOS, ARI, ATL, NYM (100), CHC
2009: OAK (95), BOS, TB, MIN, ATL, ARI, COL (97), CHC
2010: MIN, TEX, OAK (101), TB, COL (103), ATL, NYM, HOU
2011: MIN, LAA, OAK (103), TB, COL, ATL, NYM (105), HOU
2012: OAK (114), CLE, MIN, TB, STL, ATL, NYM (112), ARI
2013: NYY, LAA, OAK (103), MIN, STL, NYM, ATL (114), LAD
2014: OAK (115), BOS, CLE (112), NYY (110), LAD, NYM, ATL (106), CHC
2015: NYY, LAA, OAK (105), CLE, STL, NYM, ATL (102), SFG
2016: NYY, LAA, OAK (117), CLE, ATL (109), CHC, STL, LAD
2017: NYY, LAA, OAK (112), CLE, STL (99), COL, LAD, ATL


Next I'm going to try a sim with increased contract renewal, increased contract length, and decreased trades. I think if teams keep their young players, we'll see a broader range of playoff teams. It doesn't help much to keep the crappy fictional players, but the young prospects from the 2008 rosters are very valuable over the next 10 years of the game.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I ran another 10 year sim, trying out some different league settings. The league is "coach" level, revenue +20% (the default), salary demands -10% (trying to help the small market teams), draft talent +50% (compensating for low talent in drafts). I'm using the default rosters.

In my other sim I noticed players get stuck in AAA and rookie ball, so I set promotion to ML +50%, AAA +20%, AA +20%, A +50%.

Unfortunately, the results were not greatly different from my sim using the default settings. Summary of results:


Oakland and Atlanta do extremely well again. Atlanta is in the playoffs every year; Oakland every year except 2008. This is because they have good young players and hang onto them. Small market teams Minnesota and Tampa are in the playoffs from 2009 to 2012.
Big market Yankees, Angels, Mets and Dodgers come on strong after 2013.
In 2017, the playoff teams still aren't using fictional players from the draft. Good teams rely on real-life players from the 2008 rosters. Only 7 of the 72 position players on 2017 playoff teams are fictional players. Only 8 of the 40 starting pitchers on those teams are fictional players.
Most position players from the first two rounds of the drafts are failures, despite increasing the draft talent 50%. Only 3 of the 11 position players taken in the first 2 rounds of the 2008 draft are starting in the majors in 2017. 2 of those 3 starters are real stars. 1 catcher taken in the 2nd round of the 2008 draft has already retired by 2017. He never played in the majors. I noticed that several of the draftees still get stuck in rookie ball or in AAA, which ruins their development.
All teams have between B+ and A+ for farm system, medical staff and scouting.


The nearly total lack of players moving from the draft to the majors is a real flaw in the game.

Playoff teams from 2008 to 2017, with most wins noted:

2008: CLE (97), NYY, LAA, BOS, ARI, ATL, NYM (100), CHC
2009: OAK (95), BOS, TB, MIN, ATL, ARI, COL (97), CHC
2010: MIN, TEX, OAK (101), TB, COL (103), ATL, NYM, HOU
2011: MIN, LAA, OAK (103), TB, COL, ATL, NYM (105), HOU
2012: OAK (114), CLE, MIN, TB, STL, ATL, NYM (112), ARI
2013: NYY, LAA, OAK (103), MIN, STL, NYM, ATL (114), LAD
2014: OAK (115), BOS, CLE (112), NYY (110), LAD, NYM, ATL (106), CHC
2015: NYY, LAA, OAK (105), CLE, STL, NYM, ATL (102), SFG
2016: NYY, LAA, OAK (117), CLE, ATL (109), CHC, STL, LAD
2017: NYY, LAA, OAK (112), CLE, STL (99), COL, LAD, ATL


Next I'm going to try a sim with increased contract renewal, increased contract length, and decreased trades. I think if teams keep their young players, we'll see a broader range of playoff teams. It doesn't help much to keep the crappy fictional players, but the young prospects from the 2008 rosters are very valuable over the next 10 years of the game.

Well actually it is pretty stable from 2008-11 withe top team still 105 or under - then in Y5 the engine blows up & you start getting the 110 team winners (with I assume the <50 winners at the other end of the spectrum)

[CatKnight]

His 1969 sim? In real life, two teams won 100 games in 1969 (Orioles had 109, Mets had 100), and another won 97. 2 teams lost 110 games.

2 teams won 100 games in 1970 and 1971 as well.

I don't think 3 100-game winners in 1969 indicates anything wrong with the sim engine. As time passes, and there are more 100 win and 100 loss teams, though, that indicates a problem,

Right. I prefaced by SAYING 1969 was an unbalanced year. I intentionally chose what I expected to be an ugly year to counterbalance my 2008 test, where the league's not in bad shape. It's not that 1969 is ugly that's an issue. (And if it were, that'd be the default rosters.) It's that by 1976 it's getting ridiculous that needs looking at.

The 1100 run issue is partly caused by offense being too high across all eras. That's pretty much the only thing about the actual game engine.

Let's take a step back and look at this objectively. What's going on here?

1. In an unbalanced (normal) league, things start going wrong in Y4. Sometimes it stalls to Y5, but right about then things blow up.

2. In a balanced (equal cities) league, it still happens. It just takes a little longer.

3. While a 2008 test I ran with +100 Amateur Draft talent had the league stabilize for at least 9 years, a 1969 test I ran had the league blow up around Y6-7.

4. Outright manipulation of fan loyalty seems to have some effect. petrel is testing closing the gap in his fan loyalty, and it's helped his dynasty. I'm forcibly manipulating it in my dynasty and have had very positive results.

5. However, just freezing it at a certain level (for example an equalized league where the Yanks have A- loyalty, Marlins C- to present market share) is ineffective.

6. Revenue sharing does help, but not in the way it's intended. Taking cash away from the large market teams forces them to drop players and otherwise take steps to get under their payroll budget. Personally I've found leaving a large market team with $1 makes it shape up fast. However, giving cash to small market teams is ineffective because they will still try to stay under THEIR budget.

7. The scouting differences between big and small teams are still very high. Farm system development is still very high.
********

Everything that follows is just opinion and conjecture:

I believe the reason amateur draft talent has an effect is because it overrides # 7. With incoming talent set to maximum, who cares if my scouting is bad? I'll still pick up someone decent. Who cares if my farm system is bad? These players will be in the Majors before they could have regressed too badly. Over time this evens out the level of competition league wide - however it's wildly unstable. More teams went bankrupt during these runs. The small market teams still can't afford their players, so they end up in FA.

Manipulating cash on the big teams seems to help, because the AI probably understands its nearing bankruptcy. This alone isn't enough (nor is it realistic), but it's actually quite effective. By dumping payroll, the big team's talent level is falling back towards league average. It's not that the small teams have too little talent so much as the big ones are hoarding too much. We kinda knew this.

Why does manipulating fan loyalty work so well? Two reasons.

First, the differential is to high. Using the 08 Indians as a relatively middle market team, at A+ rating their budget is 100.5m. At D it's 78.7m. That's a difference of 27.7%.

This difference is exaggerated with big teams. The Yanks at A+ have 275.4m, D 231.1m (around 19%). That's $44 million dollars. It also implies that the Yankees could stink for a generation, and there are enough diehards that NY would still have twice the revenue as Cleveland on their best day. Hm..

Anyway, back on topic. So the differential is a bit high. If this is really supposed to reflect fan loyalty, it's not even realistic. Unless a team starts a long term dynasty (like the Yanks), then their number of fans does not substantially increase if they're doing well. Sure, a few more people will see games....that year. More memorabilia will sell...that year. Isn't that already reflected in increased attendance figures? Look at the early 70s A's: The team did incredibly well. Charlie Finley still didn't know how to sell tickets. Their attendance didn't substantially rise during their Series years.

Second, the reason manipulating fan loyalty works is because it ties directly into payroll budget. This is how the AI makes its decisions. An AI with a tolerable budget WILL spend more on expenses, and WILL even dip into its cash reserves if it thinks it can get away with it.

Here is the key. It is not the AI. Well, the long term solution is teaching the AI how to run a small team vs. a big one, yes. However, the issue TODAY is that the small teams' budgets are so far inferior to the big ones' that, since the AI only has one strategy, the small teams always lose out. This tilts the scales so that all the talent rests with the big teams.

Small teams can't secure the expenses, because if they spend a similar percentage as the big teams....they lose.

They can't resign their players or go to FA....too close to their payroll budget. Big teams have more money and so can snap these players up.

On a side note, anything that increases player movement redistributes talent. I found that out in OOTP. OOTP's usually OVERbalanced, but I set up a league similar to the pre-free agency/arbitration days, where players were pretty much stuck, and it exploded in Y3-4ish. We just need to make sure any player movement is a two way street.

Sure, I have absolutely no problem with continuing to refine and strengthen the AI. I think giving the AI an 'awareness' of its team will be a major step forward...but the problem today is financial. The AI is doing what we're asking it to do! It's using its budget the best way it can to acquire talent, and other than the self awareness issue it does tolerably well....but the small teams just can't compete right now.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Right. I prefaced by SAYING 1969 was an unbalanced year. I intentionally chose what I expected to be an ugly year to counterbalance my 2008 test, where the league's not in bad shape. It's not that 1969 is ugly that's an issue. (And if it were, that'd be the default rosters.) It's that by 1976 it's getting ridiculous that needs looking at.

The 1100 run issue is partly caused by offense being too high across all eras. That's pretty much the only thing about the actual game engine.

Let's take a step back and look at this objectively. What's going on here?

1. In an unbalanced (normal) league, things start going wrong in Y4. Sometimes it stalls to Y5, but right about then things blow up.

2. In a balanced (equal cities) league, it still happens. It just takes a little longer.

3. While a 2008 test I ran with +100 Amateur Draft talent had the league stabilize for at least 9 years, a 1969 test I ran had the league blow up around Y6-7.

4. Outright manipulation of fan loyalty seems to have some effect. petrel is testing closing the gap in his fan loyalty, and it's helped his dynasty. I'm forcibly manipulating it in my dynasty and have had very positive results.

5. However, just freezing it at a certain level (for example an equalized league where the Yanks have A- loyalty, Marlins C- to present market share) is ineffective.

6. Revenue sharing does help, but not in the way it's intended. Taking cash away from the large market teams forces them to drop players and otherwise take steps to get under their payroll budget. Personally I've found leaving a large market team with $1 makes it shape up fast. However, giving cash to small market teams is ineffective because they will still try to stay under THEIR budget.

7. The scouting differences between big and small teams are still very high. Farm system development is still very high.
********

Everything that follows is just opinion and conjecture:

I believe the reason amateur draft talent has an effect is because it overrides # 7. With incoming talent set to maximum, who cares if my scouting is bad? I'll still pick up someone decent. Who cares if my farm system is bad? These players will be in the Majors before they could have regressed too badly. Over time this evens out the level of competition league wide - however it's wildly unstable. More teams went bankrupt during these runs. The small market teams still can't afford their players, so they end up in FA.

Manipulating cash on the big teams seems to help, because the AI probably understands its nearing bankruptcy. This alone isn't enough (nor is it realistic), but it's actually quite effective. By dumping payroll, the big team's talent level is falling back towards league average. It's not that the small teams have too little talent so much as the big ones are hoarding too much. We kinda knew this.

Why does manipulating fan loyalty work so well? Two reasons.

First, the differential is to high. Using the 08 Indians as a relatively middle market team, at A+ rating their budget is 100.5m. At D it's 78.7m. That's a difference of 27.7%.

This difference is exaggerated with big teams. The Yanks at A+ have 275.4m, D 231.1m (around 19%). That's $44 million dollars. It also implies that the Yankees could stink for a generation, and there are enough diehards that NY would still have twice the revenue as Cleveland on their best day. Hm..

Anyway, back on topic. So the differential is a bit high. If this is really supposed to reflect fan loyalty, it's not even realistic. Unless a team starts a long term dynasty (like the Yanks), then their number of fans does not substantially increase if they're doing well. Sure, a few more people will see games....that year. More memorabilia will sell...that year. Isn't that already reflected in increased attendance figures? Look at the early 70s A's: The team did incredibly well. Charlie Finley still didn't know how to sell tickets. Their attendance didn't substantially rise during their Series years.

Second, the reason manipulating fan loyalty works is because it ties directly into payroll budget. This is how the AI makes its decisions. An AI with a tolerable budget WILL spend more on expenses, and WILL even dip into its cash reserves if it thinks it can get away with it.

Here is the key. It is not the AI. Well, the long term solution is teaching the AI how to run a small team vs. a big one, yes. However, the issue TODAY is that the small teams' budgets are so far inferior to the big ones' that, since the AI only has one strategy, the small teams always lose out. This tilts the scales so that all the talent rests with the big teams.

Small teams can't secure the expenses, because if they spend a similar percentage as the big teams....they lose.

They can't resign their players or go to FA....too close to their payroll budget. Big teams have more money and so can snap these players up.

On a side note, anything that increases player movement redistributes talent. I found that out in OOTP. OOTP's usually OVERbalanced, but I set up a league similar to the pre-free agency/arbitration days, where players were pretty much stuck, and it exploded in Y3-4ish. We just need to make sure any player movement is a two way street.

Sure, I have absolutely no problem with continuing to refine and strengthen the AI. I think giving the AI an 'awareness' of its team will be a major step forward...but the problem today is financial. The AI is doing what we're asking it to do! It's using its budget the best way it can to acquire talent, and other than the self awareness issue it does tolerably well....but the small teams just can't compete right now.


Nice post ! I agree that the volatility in fan base is unrealistic - yes,teams that do well in a year will have an INCRIMENT increase in numbers of fans but their fan base is relatively stable (see the Pirates or the Brewers) & even the successful teams dont have a 30% increase in fans.Simply put either you like Baseball or not - just because your local team is winning doesn't mean you will automatically support them.

This also got me thinking,Baseball for roughly 1/2 its season is in a monopolistic position (compared to other major sports) but for that other 1/2 season is daily competiting against 1,2 or 3 sports.A New Yorker in April has the choice of Mets,Yankees to watch but also Islanders,Rangers,Knicks & even the Nets & he can't be at all those games.Certain cities (usually small markets) only offer 1 or 2 sports & thus can/do maximise the fans - eg Milwaukee or Cincinnati.


Also you are right small V Big in expenses (as it stands) Big always wins.


"Smalls" also get "screwed" in BM because they lose their GOOD players to FA for free* - whereas IRL they would gain extra picks (see Toronto last year as an example).


This could easily be introduced into BM by adding a 1B round in the draft for FA signings - any FA with an overall of 85+ (or whatever arbitraryfigure chosen to reflect an "A" type FA) the losing team would gain a 1B draft pick - thus the small teams would obtain 7/8/9/10 draftees in any given year & would avoid fielding an inferior team - also it would add a parameter to FA signings.


* same can be applied to non signing of arbitration guys.

[gosensgo101]

Good points FRS. I really would like to see FA compensation.

But, I have said it before and I will say it again. I believe arbitration iis the (or one of the) main causes of competitive balance. If arbitration salaries are more realistic, small market teams can bread their own talent and keep them for quite a long time, thus they remain more competitive. This also frees up more room to spend on a few veterens.

[ohms_law]

Sure, I have absolutely no problem with continuing to refine and strengthen the AI. I think giving the AI an 'awareness' of its team will be a major step forward...but the problem today is financial. The AI is doing what we're asking it to do! It's using its budget the best way it can to acquire talent, and other than the self awareness issue it does tolerably well....but the small teams just can't compete right now.
This is where I disagree. The AI is definitely doing what it's asked to do, but for small market teams that's the wrong thing. Small market teams need to be development houses. They must keep their prospects at almost any cost, and they should be really aggressive with farm system development. Then, when their "on the cusp" (when they get a mid-70 wins season and finish 2nd or 3rd), they should sell off some prospects and get aggressive on the free agent market to look for that one missing peace to "win now"!
On the other hand, large market teams should generally always be in "win now" mode.

Actually, I don't really disagree. The AI is using it's budget to acquire talent the best that it can, it's just that following that strategy is ineffective. Teams should be just looking to get by and develop talent while their on the bottom and looking for that one missing piece while their on the top. They shouldn't always be attempting to maintain as much talent as possible... basically, the AI should key on individual talent more than overall talent. Think about how all of us put together teams. We'll go after or keep that 98 overall player at almost any cost, while the 80's type players are fairly disposable. The only time to really go after an 80's overall player is when your team has a huge hole all of a sudden, and you're trying to protect your prospects. There's absolutely no reason for the Yankees, Angels, Cubs, or Sox to be gobbling up all of those guys, especially when their going to end up putting them in AAA. That's the whole key, in my opinion.

[gRYFYN1]

I also think the draft creation may need some work ... it be nice to see some 21-22 year old players that have ratings more along the lines of 75/90 - maybe 3 to 10 per year.

This would give more of a boost to low finishing teams.

[ohms_law]

It won't make any difference if they don't hang on to them though... well, not much anyway.

Regardless, everything can't be fixed all at once, and trying to do so would be a mistake anyway. One thing at a time, and I think the AI should absolutely be the #1 priority.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

It won't make any difference if they don't hang on to them though... well, not much anyway.

Regardless, everything can't be fixed all at once, and trying to do so would be a mistake anyway. One thing at a time, and I think the AI should absolutely be the #1 priority.

Which was "supposedly" the major change/improvement IN BM09 compared to 08. :(

[ohms_law]

There's been a bunch of AI fixes, and there's more on the way...

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Good points FRS. I really would like to see FA compensation.

But, I have said it before and I will say it again. I believe arbitration iis the (or one of the) main causes of competitive balance. If arbitration salaries are more realistic, small market teams can bread their own talent and keep them for quite a long time, thus they remain more competitive. This also frees up more room to spend on a few veterens.

Yes WE ALL agree to that - but FA Compensation is actually a "simple add in" - the sim KNOWS who a FA played for & if he is rated 85+ (an "A" type FA) all it would require is a supplementary round between 1 & 2 & the sim to ask if a team lost a player in FA (a YES/NO code) & compensate those who did.

Example using Catknights' 2008 run

Milwaukee lose to FA (for WHATEVER reasons*) in 2010 Braun (87),Weekes (86) & Hardy (83) then at draft time after Round 1 the sim would ask - did MIL lose a 85+ player ? YES so they would get a #3X pick,then move onto the 2nd drafting team & repeat the process for all thirty teams until ALL "No's" would be received (a loop program) & then draft would resume its normal procedure.In this example MIL would get #1,#31 (Comp for Braun)---- 6 other teams lost 85+ FAs---- & #38 (Comp for Weekes) but no comp for Hardy.

Thus MIL still would be penalized short term but in all essence would benefit from those losses unlike today in BM without a major "recoding" necessary.;)



* either straight FA losses or as of now Arbitration non re-signing (which seems to be the major culprit & difficult to fix &s it has been an issue for 2 whole years)

[3RunHomer]

Sure, I have absolutely no problem with continuing to refine and strengthen the AI. I think giving the AI an 'awareness' of its team will be a major step forward...but the problem today is financial. The AI is doing what we're asking it to do! It's using its budget the best way it can to acquire talent, and other than the self awareness issue it does tolerably well....but the small teams just can't compete right now.

I like your analysis and think you're right ... but how do you account for the small-market Oakland dynasty over the next 10 years? Just a fluke? They're a great team in every 10 year sim I run, and get stronger as years pass.

And large market teams obviously do well over the next 10 years, but it's not because of player development. They're not developing many good players (at least not from the draft of fictional players), but neither are the poor teams.

Anyway, I'm sure your main point is correct. Fixing the finances seems like a fairly easy way to make the game better for multiple-year play and would be more realistic too.

[HoustonGM]

I don't see how free agent compensation would at all fix the problem. It just perpetuates it. Sure, the small market teams get some extra draft picks, but 3 years after those guys reach the majors, they'll hit the free agent market and be gobbled up by the big market teams.

Fixing the AI would do a TON more for this than adding a new feature for which the AI has to be coded to work with (ie. do we want to let this guy go and give up a draft pick, or resign him and keep the draft pick? etc.). I don't at all think it'd help anything. If anything, it'll worsen things.

Please, let's fix the AI and finances before trying other solutions.

[ohms_law]

Nevermind the whole problem with the fact that there's only 6 draft rounds in Mogul...

[3RunHomer]

(Another) plug for my favorite idea: the easiest way to quickly improve the financial side of the game (and improve competitive balance) is to eliminate the budget sliders. It gets rid of the large-market advantage in scouting and player development (not to mention medical). It also frees up cash that small-market teams can use to sign players -- the large-market teams already have all the money they need to sign players so there's no added advantage to them in that area.

Simpler, more realistic game (nothing could be more unrealistic than buying player development, scouting and health). But nobody else seems to like the idea. Go figure.

[ohms_law]

Personally, I'd rather have actual personnel which would need to be hired than having the sliders. If teams have to hire a souting, medical, and minor league coaching team and hire them to contracts (just like players), then that portion of the game is much more stable and manageable. Having to hire a major league coaching team which would set your team strategies would be nice too, but that's for the future.

Anyway, the Expenses are a money sink. Having the big market teams spending money on expenses (and competing with each other for them) lowers the amount of money they have available for players. Removing that would likely make competitive balance worse, not better. Expenses are the lowest priority for AI teams, so it doesn't really affect the small market teams that badly.

[gRYFYN1]

Expenses are the lowest priority for AI teams, so it doesn't really affect the small market teams that badly.


Isnt that a bit of the issue though, With Small market team lacking any scouting or minor league spending they can routinely undervaule prospects and allow good prospect to peter-out in the minors for too long, or burn them out too soon.

[3RunHomer]

Anyway, the Expenses are a money sink. Having the big market teams spending money on expenses (and competing with each other for them) lowers the amount of money they have available for players.

Only true in theory, not in practice. The teams that are rich enough to upset the competitive balance (the New York and LA teams) have so much revenue that the expenses mean nothing to them. They rank #1 in expenses spending and still have so much money left in their budget that they go out and sign the top free agents and a bunch of the lesser free agent for their AAA teams.

Expenses are only an issue for small-market teams. They cannot afford to pay for top grades in scouting/development/medical and still resign their players. I just went through this with my Virginia Beach Blues dynasty, and finally moved the team to Newark. :D

Hmm ... maybe the "solution" to competitive imbalance is to put a 3rd team in both New York and Los Angeles?

[3RunHomer]

I figured out why Oakland does so well in my 10-year sims: BM doesn't consider Oakland a small market. Their projected revenues for 2008 are $117.9M (darn good). Their payroll is only $48.9M and their payroll budget is $105.9M.

So the As have plenty of budget room and revenue to sign their young players long term. And that's all it takes to set them up for the best 10-year run in baseball.

I guess finances really are important. :)

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Actually I lean towards FRS suggestion of weighting expenses. I'm a huge proponent of it. Then after being #1, they wouldn't have the cash to sign everything out there.

And besides, you don't have to rank in the top 3 to have dercent farm/scout/medical. Even around 10-14 yields decent results.

Still it makes more sense to spend on infrastructure. Lets make it easier for small teams to do this.

Thanks & INCREDIBLY it would be EASY to program (NO overahaul of anything just an extra 1 or 2 lines of code) & would reduce large markets profits & WOOH! also make small markets competitive;)

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I figured out why Oakland does so well in my 10-year sims: BM doesn't consider Oakland a small market. Their projected revenues for 2008 are $117.9M (darn good). Their payroll is only $48.9M and their payroll budget is $105.9M.

So the As have plenty of budget room and revenue to sign their young players long term. And that's all it takes to set them up for the best 10-year run in baseball.

I guess finances really are important. :)

yep FINANCES are the base (game should be called STOCK MARKET BASEBALL MOGUL)

[CatKnight]

Personally, I'd rather have actual personnel which would need to be hired than having the sliders. If teams have to hire a souting, medical, and minor league coaching team and hire them to contracts (just like players), then that portion of the game is much more stable and manageable. Having to hire a major league coaching team which would set your team strategies would be nice too, but that's for the future.

You know, I've actually come around to this idea for one reason: Personnel stabilizes the expense system. You don't have to keep crawling into that menu every two weeks or so to see what the AI's done relative to you.

However, something still needs to be done to make it possible for the small teams to compete for the A+/A/A- contracts. FRS' use of percentage/revenue may be useful here.


Anyway, the Expenses are a money sink. Having the big market teams spending money on expenses (and competing with each other for them) lowers the amount of money they have available for players. Removing that would likely make competitive balance worse, not better. Expenses are the lowest priority for AI teams, so it doesn't really affect the small market teams that badly.

I...don't understand how you can say that.

First, if expenses are only a money sink to the AI, then the AI's priorities need help.

Last year it was proven how important it was to put money into medical. So important that Clay finally added a slider.

There are posts somewhere around here about comparative development in farm systems, and since the +/- rating in scouting apparently refers to standard deviations rather than actual overall/peak points?

I think if you polled the players here, you would find anyone who's played the game for awhile considers expenses a high priority. The AI should value it as well.

If this is really intended to be a money sink, then the solution is simple: Give the game sliders controlling how important scouting and farming differentials are (just like for medical.) That way people can turn it off, the AI won't know, and the big teams will just be sinking money into nothing.

Adding those sliders is an effective, and probably not that difficult way to take the expenses question off the table. If Y4-5 still blows up after that, we know to look elsewhere.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

You know, I've actually come around to this idea for one reason: Personnel stabilizes the expense system. You don't have to keep crawling into that menu every two weeks or so to see what the AI's done relative to you.

However, something still needs to be done to make it possible for the small teams to compete for the A+/A/A- contracts. FRS' use of percentage/revenue may be useful here.



I...don't understand how you can say that.

First, if expenses are only a money sink to the AI, then the AI's priorities need help.

Last year it was proven how important it was to put money into medical. So important that Clay finally added a slider.

There are posts somewhere around here about comparative development in farm systems, and since the +/- rating in scouting apparently refers to standard deviations rather than actual overall/peak points?

I think if you polled the players here, you would find anyone who's played the game for awhile considers expenses a high priority. The AI should value it as well.

If this is really intended to be a money sink, then the solution is simple: Give the game sliders controlling how important scouting and farming differentials are (just like for medical.) That way people can turn it off, the AI won't know, and the big teams will just be sinking money into nothing.

Adding those sliders is an effective, and probably not that difficult way to take the expenses question off the table. If Y4-5 still blows up after that, we know to look elsewhere.

Personally I am a fan of K.I.S.S. but when K.I.S.S. works - simply put K.I.S.S is great upto Y4/5 then it "stinks".As I have said "one has to look" at how X or Y teams get to the pôint of 25 man rosters & it seems that LARGE markets use FA as their primary source whereas small markets use Draft & "usage" of trades.

In BM this "ideology" is mis represented because of the $ for $ principle.IRL "smaller companies" invest more in development (in BM terms farm) tthan large Co.s who develop any existing product - this facet is missed in BM.Under the % system a re EQUILIBRIUM is tended too (not achieved) but helps a median baseline over time.

Funnily it is my experience in BMO WHICH has developed this idea - BMO is "more equal" than BM as you don't have AI but small markets need constant help (& has been achieved in "good" leagues through extra cuts/revenue sharing etc) but the equilibrium achieved in % would revolutionize the sim -----------------when NYY would have to spend 60 mill to simply be equal with a 10 mill FLA then AI would have to decide whether to spend on FA OR expenses but certainly NOT BOTH!

[3RunHomer]

Want more competitive balance? Moving another team into New York and LA works fairly well.

I moved the Rays to Newark NJ and the Marlins to LA. Using all default settings and default rosters, I simmed 10 seasons. Playoff teams with high wins noted:

2008: OAK (94), BOS, DET, TB, ARI, PHI, ATL (95), CHC
2009: KC, NYY, TB (100), TEX, COL, NYM, ATL (97), CHC
2010: OAK (108), DET, TB, CLE, CHC (97), COL, LAD, PHI
2011: OAK (99), BAL, TB, MIN, PIT, LAD, SD (99), ATL
2012: NYY, TEX, OAK (101), MIN, NYM, CHC, STL (96), COL
2013: OAK, BOS, NYY (105), MIN, ATL, SD, LAD (99), HOU
2014: OAK, NYY, TB (103), MIN, ATL, STL, CHC (99), COL
2015: OAK (98), TOR, NYY, MIN, ATL (108), COL, STL, SF
2016: MIN (99), SEA, OAK, TOR, ATL (110), SF, CHC, LAD
2017: OAK (103), NYY, MIN, TB, MIL, PHI (99), ATL, SF

TB = NEWARK


Only once in 10 years did a team win 110 games - Atlanta in 2016.
21 different team made the playoffs (if I counted correctly).
The NY and LA teams don't dominate in later years; even the Yankees didn't make the playoffs every year.
As, Twins and Braves are hugely successful. This comes from the high level of talent in their organizations on the 2008 rosters.
The Rays did quite well with their new revenue stream. I don't know why, but the Marlins' revenue is still 2nd lowest in the National League in 2017. Their high win total was 77 in 2011, and their low was a nasty 42 in 2016.


It'd be great to see even more variety of teams in the playoffs and less of the Athletics, Twins and Braves dynasties. But at least the rich teams aren't running away with everything.

EDIT: The results aren't as good as I thought. I checked for bad seasons, and found many. 16 times teams won less than 60 games in a season. Ouch. There was some hope for these bad teams though -- the Brewers won only 55 games in 2010 but recovered to win 95 in 2017.

[Big Mikey]

I'm on 3Runhomer's side here. I'm just thinking out loud and don't have the patience to test it out but we could just move all the small market teams into bigger markets. You don't have to move them so they will have the exact same budget as say the yankees but move them to areas so it will more accuratley reflect how they spend money in real life. Its not the best solution but might work as a quick fix until actual improvments with the game are made.

[HoustonGM]

I don't think that any "quick fixes" should be implemented - for this or any other issue. The time spent on the "quick fix" would be better spent actually fixing the problem, even if the "quick fix" is "quick."

[Big Mikey]

At least the game would be playable though. As a guy who loves moguls I don't find it fun knowing that after year 4 or 5 I'm only going to have to beat a handful of teams. It makes the game pointless. You might aswell delete every small market team and just play against the big ones because thats all you're really doing anyway. I can't even play BBM knowing that every single time it turns out like this. I play in online leagues using BBM but never solo. If my proposed idea did work then it could make the game playable, but that doesn't mean people are going to stop looking for the real solution.

[ohms_law]

First, there's plenty that you can do manually to even the playing field some. What we're talking about here are pure AI games, but there's definatly no harm in interfering where nessesary. You can outright give teams that are in trouble loans, improve their stadiums, override trades and/or force trades, force signings, etc...

That's not to say this topic isn't important, it is. However, if you're allowing this issue to ruin gameplay for you then really you only have yourself to blame. While it would be really good not to see these issues, we do have the tools to manually fix the problems.

[Big Mikey]

Could you give me some ways on how to improve the game? I don't mean having to resign computer teams players for them. I mean I can get around from ripping off the computer alreday but I don't really wnat to have to stop and take the time to do the work for the computer like resignings and things like that. But if with the sim settings and league settings which I've never really touched could be tweaked to vastly improve the game I would be very apreciative of you or someone posting your settings. That helps the league stay competitive so I don't have to keep competing with the same teams everytime. The latest game I have is BBM08 just so you know.

[ohms_law]

Well... stadiums are a good place to start. The Marlins actually do great with a good stadium, for example. Miami is hardly a small market, after all.

Cash infusions help somewhat.

You don't really need to stop playing to check the AI teams though. At the end of the season just go through and check who's about to go to arbitration or free agency (sortable stats makes this easy) and ensure that the AI teams don't let their most important players go.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

First, there's plenty that you can do manually to even the playing field some. What we're talking about here are pure AI games, but there's definatly no harm in interfering where nessesary. You can outright give teams that are in trouble loans, improve their stadiums, override trades and/or force trades, force signings, etc...

That's not to say this topic isn't important, it is. However, if you're allowing this issue to ruin gameplay for you then really you only have yourself to blame. While it would be really good not to see these issues, we do have the tools to manually fix the problems.

Ohms',& no disrespect intended here,the point is that WE as users shouldn't have to manually adjust the running of the finances or interfere in trades at Default - that is the point of this thread.

The very 1st post by Catknight highlighted a major problem of default settings & the sim engine (Y4),just to remind you:



Earlier tonight FRS wrote me asking me to do a Noll-Scully check on his roster. In other words, he asked me to run it for a few years and try to determine when the game loses competitiveness. I wrote him back with my results and he thought they'd be worth posting.

So...using FRS's latest roster uploaded yesterday. HE published 20 seasons worth of stats:

High Record: NY Mets (90)
Low Record: San Francisco (68)
N/S: 0.93

* The Noll-Scully ratio. This is abnormally low since 20 seasons tends to wipe out most hot/cold streaks and other aberrations. A good number for modern ball is about 1.60

Average Division GA: 2.8

* The average number of games a division was won by.

Teams with 114W/100W/60-W/48-W: 0/0/0/0

* 114 wins is a .700 winning percentage. There are only 25 or so of those in baseball history since 1901. 48 wins is a .300 or less percentage and similarly rare. While more common, 100 wins and 100 (actually 102) losses can be a good indicator that a team is either really dominant, or REALLY bad. In modern ball there's usually 0 in a season, though 1 or 2 either way isn't that horrible.
*******

Now my 10 year run:

Y1 (08)
HI: PHI (102)
LO: SF (65)
NS: 1.44
GA: 6.5
W: 0/1/0/0
WS: Phillies d. Yankees

Still excellent. The Phillies' 102 wins is just a statistical anomaly.

Y2
HI: BOS (101)
LO: KC, WAS (59)
NS: 1.74
GA: 7.3
W: 0/1/2/0
WS: Diamondbacks d. Red Sox

N/S raises in year 2, but not yet a real issue. 3 teams with 100+ wins or losses is starting to push it though.

Y3
HI: ATL (115)
LO: KC (56)
NS: 1.92
GA: 8.0
W: 1/0/1/0
WS: Athletics d. Braves

The N/S continues to rise. We're at the point where it's becoming a little noticeable, though 1.92 is still tolerable. Atlanta's 115-47 season is pretty high though.

Y4
HI: DET (108)
LO: KC (38)
NS: 2.47
GA: 8.8
W: 0/3/2/1
WS: Yankees d. Padres

...and WHAM. Though the N/S will drift back downwards, here the problems really start. I am guessing Y4 is important because a lot of contracts are up for renewal (which the small market teams aren't), and a lot of arbitration cases from players who came up in Y1 are now being resolved.

In this 10 yr run, KC will never truly recover, though they'll stop being worst soon.

The other small market teams like MIL and FLA start feeling the pinch. FLA drops from 70 wins to 54 and never again clear 67. MIL will have one bright spot (74W in Y9), but otherwise never clears the 60s. PIT is actually fairly stable, but TB never gets above 71 again, and usually has trouble breaking 65.

As for big teams, the BoSox only drop below 90 once more (Y10). The Yanks cleared 100 wins this year and never drop below 92. The Dodgers win 77 in Y4, but after that only drop below 90 once more.

Y5
HI: STL (110)
LO: KC (49)
NS: 2.12
GA: 9.5
W: 0/2/3/0
WS: Cardinals d. Athletics

N/S drops a bit, proving Y4 was a bit of an aberration. It will try to stabilize at this level. 5 teams now break 100 wins/losses - better than Y4, but far too high and it won't get much better.

Y6
HI: DET (103)
LO: MIL (57)
NS: 2.09
GA: 8.2
W: 0/2/2/0
WS: Yankees d. Mets

The Yanks will rule the AL for the next five years. The NL is still resolving itself.

Y7
HI: OAK (106)
LO: CIN, MIL (59)
NS: 2.14
GA: 12.3
W: 0/4/2/0
WS: Yankees d. Braves

Okay, the average team winning their division by 12 games is worrisome, but not as bad as...

Y8
HI: ATL (116)
LO: FLA (43)
NS: 2.65
GA: 8.2
W: 1/5/2/1
WS: Yankees d. Cardinals

In Y8 we see another major spike, and this time the league won't recover. Also we have 9 teams with 100+ W or L, two making the history books with a .700+ or .300- winning percentage. It could be this spiking continues in 4 year intervals.

Y9
HI: LAD (111)
LO: FLA (50)
NS: 2.60
GA: 9.5
W: 0/3/4/0
WS: Dodgers d. Yankees

The Dodgers secure the NL at this point.

Y10
HI: NYY, LAD (110)
LO: TB (54)
NS: 2.61
GA: 6.0
W: 0/5/4/0
WS: Dodgers d. Yankees
*******

BBM v11.06, All settings default, FRS roster as of Y1.

BM is "sold" & "used" as a Baseball simulation & from Knights' run it does that for 4 years (the N-S scores show that) BUT then it becomes a game not a simulation because of engine difficulties not roster issues (otherwise Y1-Y4 would be statistically inaccurate).

Default game settings should,in Cats' & IMH Opinion,be as close to reality as possible & any tweaking should if anything deviate from reality - not the other way round - otherwise BM should be renamed Baseball Fantasy Mogul or drop the "simulation tag".(Please remember I AM A FAN of the game as you!°)

[ohms_law]

That's not what Big Mikey was asking about. I was trying to help him out, not address the issues in this thread.

[Big Mikey]

Yeah, I was trying to think up a work around like move the small market teams to a bigger city to help reflect how they would realistically spend money. Not put them all in the biggest but maybe bigger than what they are currently in until the real issued is solved.

Ohms, do you suggest I make everyones Stadium awesome? And any tips for the league settings and simulation settings and what not? I'm not going to go in and sign the CPU's players that are comming due because although its not a lot of work to do that how would I know exactly who they should keep and let go? If there is anything can make the game even go 15 years before exploding that would make a huge help.

If this desereved its own thread then I'll make one if advised to do so. As I'm trying to figure out just how to keep things from going to **** after year 4 even if you have to do some unrealistic things to make everything seem realistic on the surface.

[ohms_law]

If this desereved its own thread then I'll make one if advised to do so.

Actually, I think it does... so I copied the relevant posts to a new thread here: Workarounds to improve competative balance (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=175282)

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Still an issue with 11.11. :(

[ohms_law]

No single patch is going to resolve everything in this thread. This is something that's going to need continuous tweaking, not a "golden bullet" fix.

Keep testing. It's a really good idea to post small ideas that can be implemented slowly. The smaller the better actually, since their more likely to be included and are easier to evaluate.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

No single patch is going to resolve everything in this thread. This is something that's going to need continuous tweaking, not a "golden bullet" fix.

Keep testing. It's a really good idea to post small ideas that can be implemented slowly. The smaller the better actually, since their more likely to be included and are easier to evaluate.

I realize this but the AI enhancement (as stated in 11.11) hasn't altered neither the "blow up" nor the timeline (still Y 4-ish) ;)
as for the suggestions well Clay is still focused more on tweaking rather than changes (eg Closers' IPs)

[HoustonGM]

The AI for team construction and finances was not changed, which is why there was no change in this issue. The only AI that was touched was the in-game AI (ie. relief pitcher usage, tagging up, and the like).

[FRENCHREDSOX]

The AI for team construction and finances was not changed, which is why there was no change in this issue. The only AI that was touched was the in-game AI (ie. relief pitcher usage, tagging up, and the like).

Amazing HGM it is exactly "what I said" ....:p

[dolfanar]

Honestly, although there are tons of things I think could be done, imo, the priorites should be as follows:

1 - Arbitration awards. The 20/40/60/80 logic posted above seems to be a simple way to go.

2 - 5 and 10. 'nuff said. Though, to do this you need a seperate DL so you can put people ont he DL without sending them to the minors. And YES there can be exceptions to the 5 and 10... but I'm not worried about rehab assignements, and failing major leaguers right now.

3 - Minor league free agency. 6 years from being drafted, if a player doesn't have X number of days on the MLB roster... out he goes. It's a slightly warped version of the real rule, but it's a must since i don't think BBM will ever have real roster rules (options and what not).

Other stuff (40 man rosters) I don't think we'll likely see any time soon. Heck if we JUST got the arbitration thing sorted before the next official patch would be HUGE!

[HoustonGM]

Amazing HGM it is exactly "what I said" ....:p
Well you said:


I realize this but the AI enhancement (as stated in 11.11) hasn't altered neither the "blow up" nor the timeline (still Y 4-ish)

And I'm simply saying that there was no reason to even begin to expect that, considering the AI that was enhanced has nothing to do with these issues...

[GreenDiamond2]

The overstocking of free agents by large market teams has the side effect of blocking promotion of new talent, which compounds the problem league wide. Depth charts may help this somewhat, haven't tried 2009 yet.

A "quick fix" which makes sense and wouldn't overly affect the long term aspects of better changes, would be for teams to check the amount of salary or number of players with major league service time that they have tied up in the benches and minors before acquiring a free agent. Teams that have reached a high enough level of "stocked talent" would only acquire the free agent if they improved the starting lineup, or not at all.

Teams that had "excess talent" could then go to the trading block, possibly with reduced expectations on what they could get in return.

While this might increase trades somewhat, it would probably help balance the league out and would be an interim step in setting up rule V drafts as it would look at similar factors from the AI point of view.

[HoustonGM]

The overstocking of free agents by large market teams has the side effect of blocking promotion of new talent, which compounds the problem league wide. Depth charts may help this somewhat, haven't tried 2009 yet.
They don't. The depth chart is really nothing except a visual representation of separating Sortable Stats by position and sorting by level..

[GreenDiamond2]

Thanks for the clarification. I would imagine that it does set the groundwork for the AI to better analyze its teams. Probably at some point in the depth chart the AI should do a salary check or consider a position move, trade or something besides buying up another free agent.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Thanks to Sirkodiak & WHAK I may have come up with a solution to the financial imbalance that exists in BM (ie lack of Revenue sharing & Luxury tax)


From the current CBA:



So the intent is that each team puts 48% of their revenue in a pool, and that pool is redistributed evenly amongst the teams. BM could do this.

This is the schedule from the CBA:

14945

Since accounting is perfect in BM, payment 5 could be skipped. Reporting, Payment, and Distribution dates could be simultaneous. Having a regular schedule (maybe monthly?) would help to keep Cash from being depleted before payment is made.

I don't think that this would even require an AI change, since the projected numbers can be added to the projected revenue and projected expenses.

I would recommend this be optional for historical reasons.

Using the above info then it is easy to operate a formula so as to reduce/increase each teams revenue as follows:

Yp = Y0 - (12 x Y0/25) + (Y0 + Y1 + Y2 + ................... + Y29)/30 - 2 x(P0 - 170)/5

if (P0 - 170)/5 < 0 then result = 0 ------ this is the luxury tax
Where :

Yp = Adjusted Revenue
Y0 = Predicted Team Revenue
Y1....Y29 = Predicted Revenue of all other teams
P0 = predicted Payroll


Using the result of Yp then one could adjust each team's City data (WHAK's data) BY simply altering City INCOME to Obtain the Yp result for all 30 teams thus:

Hypothetical Example below
NYY - Projected Revenue under WHAK City data = 300 million Projected Roll = 200 Profit = 60 million Average League Revenue Share 75 million

FLA P.R. 80 million,Payroll 30 mill
thus using the above formula:

FOR NYY:
Yp = 300 - (300 x 12)/25 + 75 - 2 x(200 - 170)/5
= 300 - 144 + 75 - 12
= 219

For FLA:
Yp = 80 - (80 x 12)/25 + 100 - 2 x (80 - 170)/5
= 80 - 38.4 + 75 - 0
= 116.6


Suddenly NYY would no longer be making uber profits & small markets would "no longer" be DE FAVOURISED as now - basically Large markets would subsidize small markets & the Revenues would be streamlined.

now if someone wants to do it & post a zip file ;)

[CatKnight]

You just made my head hurt, and I think I'm pretty good at math.

:rubs eyes a few times:

Okay....yes, this works IF the AI knows the money's coming. In other words, the Florida team's revenue would have to go up accordingly, so that positively impacts their payroll budget and the AI knows it's safe to start spending for them again.

:squints at numbers again:

So without changes by your numbers NYY has a nearly 4-1 monetary advantage on Florida, which looks about right just off the top of my head. Afterwards it's closer to 2-1. FLA will still be struggling, but it should be a closer match.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

You just made my head hurt, and I think I'm pretty good at math.

:rubs eyes a few times:

Okay....yes, this works IF the AI knows the money's coming. In other words, the Florida team's revenue would have to go up accordingly, so that positively impacts their payroll budget and the AI knows it's safe to start spending for them again.

:squints at numbers again:

So without changes by your numbers NYY has a nearly 4-1 monetary advantage on Florida, which looks about right just off the top of my head. Afterwards it's closer to 2-1. FLA will still be struggling, but it should be a closer match.

Actually it is a "pretty" simple operation - all that is required is "someone" to calculate from 2007 season figures what each team actually earned & then place it into the above formula & obtain the re adjusted figures of real Y (Adjusted revenue with revenue sharing & luxury tax payments).

After that it would simply involve "tweaking" the City data (which WHAK did) to obtain the adjusted Y

In the above example,using WHAK's REAL city data:

Brooklyn has 2.4 mill popn & 48397$ per Capita
Bronx 1.33 & 38397$

Miami 4.04 mill & 34686$

under this format then New York would have its per Capita reduced by 27% (to obtain the 219 million revenue level) & FLA would have its per capita increased by 45.75% (to obtain the 116.6 revenue thanks to its share of luxury tax & revenue sharing)

thus Brooklyn per capita = 35329$
Bronx 28030$
Miami 50555$

[CatKnight]

FRS...interesting idea, but some cities (New York) are a little harder to quantify. For example you mentioned Brooklyn and Bronx...Manhattan would have to be hit also, right?

Have you tested this manipulation of the per capita income to see if:

1) The team revenue raises/falls to expected numbers from your formula,
and 2) it has a positive effect on league balance?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

FRS...interesting idea, but some cities (New York) are a little harder to quantify. For example you mentioned Brooklyn and Bronx...Manhattan would have to be hit also, right?

Have you tested this manipulation of the per capita income to see if:

1) The team revenue raises/falls to expected numbers from your formula,
and 2) it has a positive effect on league balance?

I am working on it - & yes YOU are right for NY et al you would have to adjust all the boroughs.

Let's make this simple - BM is a FINANCE driven simulation,it has been shown this by:
1) All the threads on the subject & 2) more particularly this thread.
It is no coincidence that the sim is STABLE in its results Y0 to Y4 (& reflects reality) because the sim cannot override the contracts in place BUT as soon as the liberal economy occurs (in BM Arbitration/FA/expenses) then the percieved results eschew.

Why do CERTAIN teams not resign Arbitration Players ? FINANCE

Why do certain teams sign all FAs ? FINANCE

Why do teams dominate expenses ? FINANCE

Why do dynasties exist over time? ALL the above create Uber teams & did I mention FINANCE ?


This re adjustment in Per Capita is simply a copy of IRL revenue sharing & the luxury tax but at the BASE LEVEL*.This essentially cuts large Markets revenue by (using the example) 27% & increases the small markets by 45% - what happens?

1° Large Markets still make Profit BUT LESS
2° Small Markets NO LONGER exist they become MID markets & woo & behold make profit!
3° All teams have the REVENUE to resign Arb players & spend on a leveler field of play expenses.







* think of it a TAXATION of the individual - the rich cities are taxed (thus the drop in Per Capita) & this income subsidizes the poor cities (thus the INCREASE in Per Capita)

[GreenDiamond2]

Glad to see that you are actually testing this. Finances are the current biggest issue in the game, as it has deep implications to the league balance. In theory sounds good, probably takes a while to actually test by editing cities annually. Curious to see what the results are.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Glad to see that you are actually testing this. Finances are the current biggest issue in the game, as it has deep implications to the league balance. In theory sounds good, probably takes a while to actually test by editing cities annually. Curious to see what the results are.

LOL,the thing is City Data HAS NOT been updated since BMXX (at least 5 years) & WHAKS City Data(in the Mod forum) although accurate actually WORSENS the imbalance* (ie Cincinnati with 08 rosters & WHAKs data are set to lose 1.3 million Y0 & NYY set to make 100 million profit with a 200 MILLION roster!).

It is clear that Clay has other issues to work on (bugs & BMO update ;);) )& the finance engine is "pretty simple".

How does it work you ask ?

Well it is Ticket Price X Attendence with effects of Per Capita Revenue (+/- Fan Base) & Area Popn

SO More an area has the MORE Attendence can be drawn
Higher the PCR the Higher the tickets can be set.

Now under the CBA 48% of ALL Income is re evaluated & EQUALLY distributed thus this is progressive tax with a median variable level of the 15th team to reflect this taxation element,like IRL,all one has to do is tax the source - in BM PCR

Also as INFLATION is now integrated into league revenue distibution then over time the inequalities between Large & small markets ACTUALLY will tend to A Zero mean revenue distribution as long as there is a constant increase in average per capita normalisation with a standard increase of 2.2% increase in National population.

As Catknight pointed out,correctly,the alternative is equalising cities but this only "solves" the imbalance temporarily ~+ 67/68 Months because of the implicit imbalance due to the creation of alleviated Fan Adhesion (simply put good teams create a fan base & thus rake in more money &,as PCR is median standardised,they maximise expenses & create dynasties)


Here PCR is alleviated of that processus as Cities continue to grow & the differential reduces.










* thus causing MORE than Default Arbitration issues encountered by HGM in his sim results (as he has used WHAKs data without any external interference)

[GreenDiamond2]

Ya, pretty much have a handle on the implications of the situation, compounding effects of financial disparity.

I think the 4 year thing may also have something to do with a wave of re-signings, seem to recall seeing some teams with some very expensive (and poorly rated) rosters dragging them down. Probably further compounds the effect.

Was sort of under the impression that someone was testing that particular transition point by resetting cities using the editor under your formula guidelines. Major hassle, but might provide some interesting insights if done for a few years and not interacting with the game at a managerial level.

For that matter, using a balanced league as a baseline and then making the adjustments. Lot of work, but it might identify the extent to which the financial engine is disrupting things or if there are other factors that are causing major problems.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Ya, pretty much have a handle on the implications of the situation, compounding effects of financial disparity.

I think the 4 year thing may also have something to do with a wave of re-signings, seem to recall seeing some teams with some very expensive (and poorly rated) rosters dragging them down. Probably further compounds the effect.

Was sort of under the impression that someone was testing that particular transition point by resetting cities using the editor under your formula guidelines. Major hassle, but might provide some interesting insights if done for a few years and not interacting with the game at a managerial level.

For that matter, using a balanced league as a baseline and then making the adjustments. Lot of work, but it might identify the extent to which the financial engine is disrupting things or if there are other factors that are causing major problems.

Catknight is doing a spread sheet & I WILL now be tweaking too ( I just updated my roster set so am "free" for a month LOL to work on this).

Sirkodiak's post IS the basis OF the IDEA & funnily enough IT IS A SIMPLE formula to work with - just using the hypothetical example I posted YOU cut NYYs revenue by 80 odd million & boost FLA by 40 on 1 Fiscal Year - that implicitly means FLA resigns ALL its arbitration GUYS/& increase Expense allotment WHEREAS NYY loses that uber profit.

From an AI to AI perspective it changes the ground rules a 10% spike in inflation


Brooklyn has 2.4 mill popn & 48397$ per Capita
Bronx 1.33 & 38397$

Miami 4.04 mill & 34686$

under this format then New York would have its per Capita reduced by 27% (to obtain the 219 million revenue level) & FLA would have its per capita increased by 45.75% (to obtain the 116.6 revenue thanks to its share of luxury tax & revenue sharing)

thus Brooklyn per capita = 35329$
Bronx 28030$
Miami 50555$


means FLA CPR ups 5000$ per head where as Bronx only ups 2800$ which counteracts the disparity in population between the 2 areas :)

[GreenDiamond2]

Cool, will be interesting to see what degree of effect that really has. Probably quite significant.

Also liked the idea of a random walk of city/income growth reduction rolled each year. Probably best to isolate the variables before adding that in, however.

[CatKnight]

Okay, using the formula FRS published above I punched in each team's "predicted revenue" according to HGM's rosters (since he did some work on the cities) as well as payroll. I then adjusted each city's per capita income until their revenue matched what they would get after the luxury and payroll tax was applied, and zeroed out each city's population growth so that variable would remain stable over time.

Here we go. HGM's rosters, cities changes as per above, other settings as per my other recent experiments.



YR HIGH LOW 100 DIV N/S - ALE ALC ALW ALw - NLE NLC NLW NLw - ALP NLP
08 NYM 99 FLA 46 - 1@ 4.00 1.84 - BOS MIN TEX TBR - NYM CIN LAD PHI - TBR NYM*
09 TBR 101 CIN 55 - 4 4.50 1.79 - TBR MIN LAA BOS - NYM MIL LAD COL - TBR* COL
10 LAD 103 BAL 60 - 4 11.50 1.56 - TBR CLE OAK NYY - NYM CHC LAD ARI - OAK* ARI
CIN 60
11 CLE 97 DET 60 - 1 4.67 1.58 - NYY CLE OAK MIN - ATL MIL COL FLA - NYY* COL
12 ATL 101 KCR 62 - 1 4.67 1.56 - BOS CLE OAK LAA - ATL CIN ARI LAD - OAK* ARI
WAS 62
13 PIT 103 HOU 63 - 1 4.83 1.43 - TOR CLE LAA OAK - NYM PIT ARI ATL - LAA ATL*
14 CIN 102 BOS 65 - 2 8.50 1.61 - TBR CLE OAK LAA - ATL CIN COL NYM - OAK COL*
NYY 65
15 COL 104 NYY 63 - 1 5.17 1.52 - BAL MIN LAA CLE - NYM MIL COL ARI - CLE COL*
16 NYM 100 CHW 60 - 3 7.83 1.77 - TBR MIN OAK LAA - NYM MIL COL ATL - TBR COL*
HOU 60
17 ATL 117 SDP 58 - 5@ 9.33 2.29 - TBR CLE LAA TOR - ATL MIL COL NYM - LAA COL*

@ - One team had a .700 or .300 winning percentage
* - World Series winner


The league doesn't even THINK about blowing up until Y9. Years 4-8 are excellent.

My only question is why the Yankees are in trouble towards the end, but I think I know the answer. Since I didn't adjust any team's fan loyalty, their market was reset when they were A/A+. When their fan loyalty started drifting back to Earth, they were hit harder than other teams would have been.

I would THEORIZE (someone with a faster computer and patience would need to test this) that if you reinput the numbers every 3-5 years or so, you can keep the league stable. Colorado's late dominance and the rising N/S at the end could be due to fan loyalty throwing off the revenue figures.

Keeping the city population stable helps. For example, using Houston's figures both Cleveland and Pittsburgh are losing people. It would reach the point where you either have to give their people a per capita income of $500,000....or concede the market isn't workable anymore. As it is, with their poor fan loyalty I had to reset Florida's to $100,000 to give them what they'd earn in revenue sharing.

So...yes, FRS. This works. This weekend sometime if people are interested I'll publish the numbers I reset each city to.

[HoustonGM]

For example, using Houston's figures both Cleveland and Pittsburgh are losing people.
I should fix that.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Okay, using the formula FRS published above I punched in each team's "predicted revenue" according to HGM's rosters (since he did some work on the cities) as well as payroll. I then adjusted each city's per capita income until their revenue matched what they would get after the luxury and payroll tax was applied, and zeroed out each city's population growth so that variable would remain stable over time.

Here we go. HGM's rosters, cities changes as per above, other settings as per my other recent experiments.



YR HIGH LOW 100 DIV N/S - ALE ALC ALW ALw - NLE NLC NLW NLw - ALP NLP
08 NYM 99 FLA 46 - 1@ 4.00 1.84 - BOS MIN TEX TBR - NYM CIN LAD PHI - TBR NYM*
09 TBR 101 CIN 55 - 4 4.50 1.79 - TBR MIN LAA BOS - NYM MIL LAD COL - TBR* COL
10 LAD 103 BAL 60 - 4 11.50 1.56 - TBR CLE OAK NYY - NYM CHC LAD ARI - OAK* ARI
CIN 60
11 CLE 97 DET 60 - 1 4.67 1.58 - NYY CLE OAK MIN - ATL MIL COL FLA - NYY* COL
12 ATL 101 KCR 62 - 1 4.67 1.56 - BOS CLE OAK LAA - ATL CIN ARI LAD - OAK* ARI
WAS 62
13 PIT 103 HOU 63 - 1 4.83 1.43 - TOR CLE LAA OAK - NYM PIT ARI ATL - LAA ATL*
14 CIN 102 BOS 65 - 2 8.50 1.61 - TBR CLE OAK LAA - ATL CIN COL NYM - OAK COL*
NYY 65
15 COL 104 NYY 63 - 1 5.17 1.52 - BAL MIN LAA CLE - NYM MIL COL ARI - CLE COL*
16 NYM 100 CHW 60 - 3 7.83 1.77 - TBR MIN OAK LAA - NYM MIL COL ATL - TBR COL*
HOU 60
17 ATL 117 SDP 58 - 5@ 9.33 2.29 - TBR CLE LAA TOR - ATL MIL COL NYM - LAA COL*

@ - One team had a .700 or .300 winning percentage
* - World Series winner


The league doesn't even THINK about blowing up until Y9. Years 4-8 are excellent.

My only question is why the Yankees are in trouble towards the end, but I think I know the answer. Since I didn't adjust any team's fan loyalty, their market was reset when they were A/A+. When their fan loyalty started drifting back to Earth, they were hit harder than other teams would have been.

I would THEORIZE (someone with a faster computer and patience would need to test this) that if you reinput the numbers every 3-5 years or so, you can keep the league stable. Colorado's late dominance and the rising N/S at the end could be due to fan loyalty throwing off the revenue figures.

Keeping the city population stable helps. For example, using Houston's figures both Cleveland and Pittsburgh are losing people. It would reach the point where you either have to give their people a per capita income of $500,000....or concede the market isn't workable anymore. As it is, with their poor fan loyalty I had to reset Florida's to $100,000 to give them what they'd earn in revenue sharing.

So...yes, FRS. This works. This weekend sometime if people are interested I'll publish the numbers I reset each city to.

The "North East" problem is actually a cyclical problem linked to census data (closure of heavy/Primary industry) all that needs to be done is simply is set them to a small positive.

Thus it seems that Arbitration & FA were NOT the problem (cause) BUT the reaction of the failings of FINANCES (in other words 'the tree that hid the forest') & once FINANCES are corrected to reflect reality then Clay's system works & teams do resign players & compete in FA.

One your NYY problem I assume that it is also "arbitrary"*,ie if NYY were "successful" between Y0 & Y8 then the fan base WOULD NT have collapsed BUT it is logical after a time a disenchantment (remember when Steinbrenner bought them & their financial position at the time ?°)

Also if the formula was actually integrated into the game the 2nd part would have to be constantly checked (ie Payroll < or > 170 million,if NYYs roll drops at any time below 170 then their revenue/PCR would re-increase to actually account for falling below Luxury tax theshold )



I wonder if you could :
1° Publish a ZIP file of the City data in Mods forum (or here)
2° E Mail Clay with a link to this thread/send your zip file as it seems that a simple integration & continual check of YEARLY Payroll & Revenue would over time solve this problem - which is what exactly happens IRL they update the CBA revenue sharing/Tax AFTER every season. ;)


* as you did a 1 sim in the 20 sim I did for my new update there was a fluctuation where NYY finihed 1st to 3rd.......

[GreenDiamond2]

Great work FrenchRedSox, definitely adds weight to the need for revenue sharing and moves things closer to baseline. Looks like some dynastic issues exist, NLW seems to be the most contentious.

Does appear to provide a mechanism to at least get the game generally working and the w/l in more acceptable ranges.

Hopefully this gets fast tracked, especially since this should be an extremely easy fix.

[CatKnight]

I'm going to do some more runs over the next few days. If the pattern continues I'll publish accordingly. One ten year run is statistically....well, not enough.

It's a good sign though :)

[GreenDiamond2]

True, but you do seem to have only one run-away season in the mix instead of mostly run away seasons, so has potential. If additional work corroborates this, then it would be a huge improvement. Contributing factors could then be addressed to deal with dynastic elements if they turn out to be too prevelant.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

True, but you do seem to have only one run-away season in the mix instead of mostly run away seasons, so has potential. If additional work corroborates this, then it would be a huge improvement. Contributing factors could then be addressed to deal with dynastic elements if they turn out to be too prevelant.

That's why I asked Catknight to add a Zip file (thus allowing us to "test" it independently & also possibly tweak some data)

The MORE we test Cats' file the better :) but IT definately shows that the AI isn't the MAJOR issue that was at fault - it was working (& still is) fine,the arbitration/FA signings were simply a RESULT of the inefficiency of the FINANCES being out of line with real distribution of team at the END of the FISCAL season.

[CatKnight]

Alright, I've now done five runs. Here are the N/S ratings:



Y1 1.84 1,88 1.96 1.45 1.89
Y2 1.97 1.65 1.77 2.07 1.58
Y3 1.67 1.76 1.92 1.94 1.76
Y4 1.51 1.78 1.80 1.77 1.76
Y5 1.55 1.77 2.03 1.86 2.00
Y6 1.41 1.98 1.63 2.06 1.95
Y7 1.68 1.97 1.74 1.63 2.02
Y8 1.47 2.12 2.08 2.04 1.99
Y9 1.74 2.41 1.91 1.97 2.36
Y10 2.31 2.04 1.86 1.80 2.32


Session 1 is showing signs of trouble by Y10, possibly beginning in 9
Session 2 hiccups in Y8-9, but seems to be heading back down in 10
Session 3 is stable for all 10 years, as is session 4
Session 5 is starting to balk in Y9


In the attached zip file:

cities.txt is my exported city file. Note that only cities with MLB teams have been changed, *AND* I moved the Rangers to Dallas. Possible ideas include moving the Rays to Tampa (they're in St. Pete) and the Angels to Los Angeles to directly compete with the Dodgers (in Anaheim).

The Excel spreadsheet has three worksheets:

#1 lists my own settings, so you can either play with them or try something different.

Below that are the 'summaries' that I've been posting on here, listing who won each division, the N/S rating, etc. Since I did a lot of this checking by hand, don't be surprised if there's an error or two. The gist of it should be good though.

#2 is my calculations based on the formula FRS provided earlier and HoustonGM's city information. Put the team's current revenue (or projected rev in Y1) and payroll into the yellow columns, then manipulate the target city until projected revenue matches the blue column.

#3 are my Noll-Scully calculations. To the right is a brief explanation how it works so you can make your own calculations.

Good luck

[FRENCHREDSOX]

GREAT WORK Catknight - what it shows is that if the Finances are stable (or should I say in line with the CBA redistribution) then the sim is stable 3 hiccups in 50 years of simming is well excellent.!

[CatKnight]

Right. The spikes are a little high (and there are still too many 100W /60-W teams), but the leagues seem to reset themselves pretty fast.

It's also worth noting I only reset the city finances ONCE in Y1. Recalculating revenue share periodically SHOULD keep the league stable over the long term. (As I noted, my 'puter is really too slow to go into extensive testing. I leave it on when I go to work or sleep if I'm doing a ten year run.)

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Right. The spikes are a little high (and there are still too many 100W /60-W teams), but the leagues seem to reset themselves pretty fast.

It's also worth noting I only reset the city finances ONCE in Y1. Recalculating revenue share periodically SHOULD keep the league stable over the long term. (As I noted, my 'puter is really too slow to go into extensive testing. I leave it on when I go to work or sleep if I'm doing a ten year run.)

Well if Clay can convert the formula into code he could simply put it into the game as of now & the sim would auto update at a Date line (would be most logical at the end of the playoffs but simpler at the end of the season).Thus teams in decline (field wise) would receive a boost just before FA & the "uber profits" would be slashed simultaneously ;)

[GreenDiamond2]

If it tests well, as it appears to be doing, it should be a priority change.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

If it tests well, as it appears to be doing, it should be a priority change.

I have done 10 10 year runs (using 5 times default & 5 times a custom roster) & as yet never had a N-S over 2.3 in any of the 50 years - which all things considered is amazing.

The results would have even been better if I had used Cat's idea of re evaluating the Income every 3 years or so but I wanted to be sure that it was stable & worked. :):D

[GreenDiamond2]

I like this a lot, you may have noticed its at the top of the list, in the trade exploit thread, of how I would prioritize things to maximize my personal enjoyment of the game.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Right. The spikes are a little high (and there are still too many 100W /60-W teams), but the leagues seem to reset themselves pretty fast.

It's also worth noting I only reset the city finances ONCE in Y1. Recalculating revenue share periodically SHOULD keep the league stable over the long term. (As I noted, my 'puter is really too slow to go into extensive testing. I leave it on when I go to work or sleep if I'm doing a ten year run.)

Thanks to you I have been able to update my rosters (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?p=1068048#post1068048) with this data file & have obtained an even better N-S result post Y4 (I also calculated that if introduced at a set date line of October 1 then the sim automatically stabilises for 40+ years) 6 simplicity itself & also solves the problems encoutered by small markets who NOW resign their Arbitration guys & also can play the expense market.:)

[HoustonGM]

Just to be clear, installing the cities files from CatKnight in post 186, alone, helps greatly, or must more be done in addition to that?

Also, does it preserve the differences in markets, while also allowing for competitve balance?

Also, if I understand your last post FRS, to implement this in a league that's already begun, its best to do it right after the reuglar season, before the playoffs?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Just to be clear, installing the cities files from CatKnight in post 186, alone, helps greatly, or must more be done in addition to that? Nothing needs to be added & Yes IT SOLVES the Y4 problem almost instantneously (ie FLA & CO no longer trade away talent & sign their Arb guys plus invest in expenses) = STABLE sim & NO longer 120 win syndrome




Also, does it preserve the differences in markets, while also allowing for competitve balance? What occurs,like IRL,is that NYY still have the highest revenue BUT not as high as it would be normally WITHOUT redistribution.

Think of it as taxing Citizens in NYY & giving subsidies to citizens in FLA.Simple hypothesis - before Tax NEW YORKERS earn 200$,MIAMI earns 150$ after the redistribution of CBA Income NYers earn say 170$ & Miami Citizens 230$ BUT 170 X 12 million people will still be more than 230 X 4 million etc etc




Also, if I understand your last post FRS, to implement this in a league that's already begun, its best to do it right after the reuglar season, before the playoffs?

The logic is (I mean for Clay) that at 162 game mark you would have ACTUAL league INCOME & thus the calculation for redistribution would make sense at that juncture - as it would redistribute the cash & allow small markets to sign its FAs to be or FAs post November.

As said I have used the data from Catknight in my latest roster set as it is BUT if Clay introduces the formula then yearly the update would roll over at this period when the sim engine has little or nothing to do (as the sim drops from 15 games a day to the 4 playoff series) thus no loss in speed.

[HoustonGM]

So, just to be perfectly clear, inserting that city data file, alone, does a huge amount of good for the competitive balance issue?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

So, just to be perfectly clear, inserting that city data file, alone, does a huge amount of good for the competitive balance issue?

YES & that is without THE YEARLY update - Catknight & myself ONLY adjusted at the start of the sim - THAT IS WHY we have been pleading with Clay (via E mails) to introduce into code as a yearly update - if you get a 10 year stable sim using ONLY 1 redistribution imagine how stable if it is YEARLY redistributed ?





.



YR HIGH LOW 100 DIV N/S - ALE ALC ALW ALw - NLE NLC NLW NLw - ALP NLP
08 NYM 99 FLA 46 - 1@ 4.00 1.84 - BOS MIN TEX TBR - NYM CIN LAD PHI - TBR NYM*
09 TBR 101 CIN 55 - 4 4.50 1.79 - TBR MIN LAA BOS - NYM MIL LAD COL - TBR* COL
10 LAD 103 BAL 60 - 4 11.50 1.56 - TBR CLE OAK NYY - NYM CHC LAD ARI - OAK* ARI
CIN 60
11 CLE 97 DET 60 - 1 4.67 1.58 - NYY CLE OAK MIN - ATL MIL COL FLA - NYY* COL
12 ATL 101 KCR 62 - 1 4.67 1.56 - BOS CLE OAK LAA - ATL CIN ARI LAD - OAK* ARI
WAS 62
13 PIT 103 HOU 63 - 1 4.83 1.43 - TOR CLE LAA OAK - NYM PIT ARI ATL - LAA ATL*
14 CIN 102 BOS 65 - 2 8.50 1.61 - TBR CLE OAK LAA - ATL CIN COL NYM - OAK COL*
NYY 65
15 COL 104 NYY 63 - 1 5.17 1.52 - BAL MIN LAA CLE - NYM MIL COL ARI - CLE COL*
16 NYM 100 CHW 60 - 3 7.83 1.77 - TBR MIN OAK LAA - NYM MIL COL ATL - TBR COL*
HOU 60
17 ATL 117 SDP 58 - 5@ 9.33 2.29 - TBR CLE LAA TOR - ATL MIL COL NYM - LAA COL*

@ - One team had a .700 or .300 winning percentage
* - World Series winner


The league doesn't even THINK about blowing up until Y9. Years 4-8 are excellent.

So...yes, FRS. This works. .

PS You have also to set NYY to Bronx,Angels to Anaheim,Tampa to St Petersburg (basically WHERE they are actually located) & also it helps HAVING the right Stadium data (but I assume you have it right ;))

[HoustonGM]

I have all the teams set to the right cities (except I think CatKnight mentioned he made Texas = Dallas?), and I'm using WHAK0895's stadium data.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I have all the teams set to the right cities (except I think CatKnight mentioned he made Texas = Dallas?), and I'm using WHAK0895's stadium data.

I set TEXAS to Arlington (& I used simply ESPN Stadium data) eg Boston Fenway's Day attendence .

[HoustonGM]

Just wondering then what

cities.txt is my exported city file. Note that only cities with MLB teams have been changed, *AND* I moved the Rangers to Dallas.
means...is that inconsequential to the results then?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Just wondering then what

means...is that inconsequential to the results then?

It is a Choice thing - as Dallas/Arlington are the same area SO they pull the same fans anyways THE ONLY changes I made to his City DATA file is I made every city have + growth (the infamous Pittsburgh death scenario) whereas Cat has set ALL MLB clubs to 0 growth - this is not a major factor now BUT does become one 20/25 years down the line.

Hopefully Clay will add it into a 11.2X official patch & all this becomes secondary
(similar to Stadium data should have been updated in BM09)

[CatKnight]

It's not quite a choice thing.

Go ahead and start a normal game. Take a look at Texas' revenue.

Now move them to Dallas. Take another look. It's jumped a little bit - I don't remember clearly, but I think around $7 mil. That's why I moved them. I haven't tested it, but I'm very curious what moving the Rays to Tampa, Angels to LA, and Yanks/Mets to Manhattan do...but that's just fine tuning. It's not mandatory by any means.

To answer your question, yes. Using that cities.txt file stabilized the league for at least ten years. I did nothing else after that: In fact, as I recall I went to work and left my 'puter on while it cycled through the ten seasons.

I added the settings I personally use, that may or may not have an ancillary benefit, but it's definitely altering the cities.txt file to manipulate each city's incoming revenue that turned the tide. I'm sure you still see some weird stuff like signings that should/shouldn't happen, but now the weaker teams are much more active and much more able to hold their own.

The time to add it would be....just before playoffs works. The key is making sure the AI has the 'new' numbers to work with when approaching re-signing players and free agency. Expenses and so forth will regulate themselves over time.

I ran another test where the Yanks had an overinflated budget like they sometimes get IRL. They 'paid for it' and fell hard for Y3-4 ... so hard I was starting to worry, but the AI VERY quickly readjusted, and by Y6-7 it was back to winning 90+ games and fighting for the AL East.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

It's not quite a choice thing.

Go ahead and start a normal game. Take a look at Texas' revenue.

Now move them to Dallas. Take another look. It's jumped a little bit - I don't remember clearly, but I think around $7 mil. That's why I moved them. I haven't tested it, but I'm very curious what moving the Rays to Tampa, Angels to LA, and Yanks/Mets to Manhattan do...but that's just fine tuning. It's not mandatory by any means.

To answer your question, yes. Using that cities.txt file stabilized the league for at least ten years. I did nothing else after that: In fact, as I recall I went to work and left my 'puter on while it cycled through the ten seasons.

I added the settings I personally use, that may or may not have an ancillary benefit, but it's definitely altering the cities.txt file to manipulate each city's incoming revenue that turned the tide. I'm sure you still see some weird stuff like signings that should/shouldn't happen, but now the weaker teams are much more active and much more able to hold their own.

The time to add it would be....just before playoffs works. The key is making sure the AI has the 'new' numbers to work with when approaching re-signing players and free agency. Expenses and so forth will regulate themselves over time.

I ran another test where the Yanks had an overinflated budget like they sometimes get IRL. They 'paid for it' and fell hard for Y3-4 ... so hard I was starting to worry, but the AI VERY quickly readjusted, and by Y6-7 it was back to winning 90+ games and fighting for the AL East.

Frankly I am amazed that NO ONE (neither Forum users nor Clay himself) tried this before,just to see what would happen.

It seems (& I maybe wrong) but 60/70% of the complaints we have had for the simulations' faults* are solved by simply addressing the finances issue.

This is not to say that other issues wouldnt improve the stability (for example compensation for "A" type FA loss/more equilibriated system for expenses or even redoing the Scouting variance) but this clearly is the KEY for any modern /future sim stability.


* from non resigning Arbitration guys to NYYs multi signings of FAs just to CUT excess cash etc etc

[HoustonGM]

CatKnight, would you suggest keeping every city with zero growth, or have you played around with that at all?

FRS, how did you decide what growth to apply to each city?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

CatKnight, would you suggest keeping every city with zero growth, or have you played around with that at all?

FRS, how did you decide what growth to apply to each city?

I simply used WHAKs data & halved it for MLB cities(as the main difference is that Cat adjusted MLB cities only ---so certain areas/regions grow much quicker than others eg CAL/FLA compared to the Northern states) BUT essentially IT WORKS - not for 1 or 2 years BUT 10 years & that is with multiple simulations.Using your rosters or mine or whoevers the SIM blows in Y4 here it is COMPLETELY stable FOR 10 YEARS & that is with only 1 manipulation.I re iterate IMAGINE if it is YEARLY updated that means the game understands & thus 10 years is multiplied.It means that you can move to Honululu because the CBA redistribution will stake you for the low revenue potential............

ANYWAYS,The aim for me was to retain + growth for all 30 MLB teams (especially for Pittsburgh) but as I say that is NOT a problem if & when Clay puts the formula in because the 48% counteracts any fall in attendence/revenue - thus a team like Tampa which gets IRL 60 odd million attendence revenue BUT gets like 60-70 million in CBA redistribution.*

Thus in the game their City/Area size could fall BUT those would be countered by A SHARP increase in Income per Person - remember this is a "work around" till Clay gets to work on it (he formula is SIMPLE to code as it is 30 additions divided by 30 & then +/- the team's actual revenue which then would be simply converted into upping or lowering the MLB City net income)


Thanks to Sirkodiak & WHAK I may have come up with a solution to the financial imbalance that exists in BM (ie lack of Revenue sharing & Luxury tax)



Using the above info then it is easy to operate a formula so as to reduce/increase each teams revenue as follows:

Yp = Y0 - (12 x Y0/25) + (Y0 + Y1 + Y2 + ................... + Y29)/30 - 2 x(P0 - 170)/5

if (P0 - 170)/5 < 0 then result = 0 ------ this is the luxury tax
Where :

Yp = Adjusted Revenue
Y0 = Predicted Team Revenue
Y1....Y29 = Predicted Revenue of all other teams
P0 = predicted Payroll


Using the result of Yp then one could adjust each team's City data (WHAK's data) BY simply altering City INCOME to Obtain the Yp result for all 30 teams thus:

Hypothetical Example below
NYY - Projected Revenue under WHAK City data = 300 million Projected Roll = 200 Profit = 60 million Average League Revenue Share 75 million

FLA P.R. 80 million,Payroll 30 mill
thus using the above formula:

FOR NYY:
Yp = 300 - (300 x 12)/25 + 75 - 2 x(200 - 170)/5
= 300 - 144 + 75 - 12
= 219

For FLA:
Yp = 80 - (80 x 12)/25 + 100 - 2 x (80 - 170)/5
= 80 - 38.4 + 75 - 0
= 116.6


Suddenly NYY would no longer be making uber profits & small markets would "no longer" be DE FAVOURISED as now - basically Large markets would subsidize small markets & the Revenues would be streamlined.

Note that Catknight has done the work & the above example still is true but now USING real figures [/I];)




* easiest is to download my roster & run 10 years (hands off & see the results) & then use Cat data/your rosters with 0 growth & compare the 2 ;)

[CatKnight]

I would strongly recommend ZERO growth. I realize there's a realism factor in there, but this is worse than a needless detail. I think it hurts. Here's why:

Let's assume two cities with one million population. City A grows at 100,000 per year, City B at 10,000.

In year 1 each city has 1 million people. No problem.
In year 10, City A is up 2 million, City B at 1.1 million. Yes, a revenue sharing program would help City B, but it gets worse.
Year 20: 3 million, 1.2 million
Year 30: 4 million, 1.3 million

City B's going to start running into trouble sooner or later. In fact, depending on the population and growth rate of the rest of the league, either City A's going to start running away from the pack, or City B's going to be unplayable.

While one could argue that it's realistic that say...New York will continue to grow faster than Cleveland, isn't the point already made by raw population/revenue figures? Do we really want players HAVING to move the Indians/Pirates 20 or 30 years into their game because they're no longer viable? Shouldn't a player's decision to move a team be based on their sense of what would be fair/interesting, and not on sheer playability?

So...I recommend zero. We have accurate city data thanks to your research. We know who the big and small cities are....Clay's inflation numbers take care of rising revenue as inflation continues into the future...I think the point's well made.

[HoustonGM]

CatKnight, what changes to the League Settings do you suggest?

I inputted the cities in my rosters, and ran one sim with all default settings, and after one season, most teams have a large amount of cash on hand ($20 mil plus), except Detroit who is in debt, the Mets who have just $2 mil, and the Red Sox and White Sox with $10 mil each. Is that how it should be?

[ohms_law]

CatKnight, what changes to the League Settings do you suggest?

I inputted the cities in my rosters, and ran one sim with all default settings, and after one season, most teams have a large amount of cash on hand ($20 mil plus), except Detroit who is in debt, the Mets who have just $2 mil, and the Red Sox and White Sox with $10 mil each. Is that how it should be?

That's all that doing this really does, is to give everyone tons of money. You can get the same effect much easier simply by turning the League Revenue setting up to +100%.

At least, that's what I've noticed...

[FRENCHREDSOX]

That's all that doing this really does, is to give everyone tons of money. You can get the same effect much easier simply by turning the League Revenue setting up to +100%.

At least, that's what I've noticed...

Well then my maths must be wrong because taking revenue away from large markets & upping small markets actual revenue is different from giving everyone +100% revenue.

Also if it doesn't have any effect on sim stability why does the N-S results shift from Y4 to Y10+ ?

Anyways,just to check I did 2 sims (both using my rosters but I assume it would be same for any rosters) Picture 1 & 2 are with +100% revenue

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Below is using Cat's Data:

[FRENCHREDSOX]

No-one said it was perfect but what is clear is the expected Profit differential



Team -------Projected Revenue ---------------- projected Profit

at +100%
AL
NYY ----------- 415.0-----------------------------173.7
TBR-------------112.9----------------------------- 47.8

NL
NYM------------287.4-----------------------------102.9
FLA-------------111.8-----------------------------82.0

Under the Revenue Sharing
AL

NYY-----------256.4------------------------------15.5
TBD----------- 99.3 ------------------------------33.4

NL

NYM---------- 216.0------------------------------15.5
FLA----------- 105.4 ----------------------------- 72.0


So essentially the difference is the PROFIT margins produced (remember that this is before simming & that expenses will go up as teams invest more heavily).

What is clear is that the small franchises (using 2008 real payroll) in the latter model MAKE more profit than the large franchises with equivalent projected revenue - & thus can use that either to resign their arbitration guys or spend it on expenses (or even FAs!)

Also the differential in Earnings between top & bottom is halved - in the +100% NYY has roughly 4X the Revenue & uber profits (nearly 200 million!) whilst under Revenue sharing they only have 2.5X advantage BUT their profits have disintegrated (thus they are no longer able to stockpile FAs & be #1 in expenses UNLESS they shed roll)

Personally I see a major difference between the 2 formats (& also why the sim N-S results are stable in the latter as all small markets are competitive profit wise)

[3RunHomer]

I see that Baltimore is getting the shaft in the "Cat's data" image above (post #211). Does anyone know why?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I see that Baltimore is getting the shaft in the "Cat's data" image above (post #211). Does anyone know why?

I assume it is for 2 reasons they have a low projected revenue:
1° they no longer have the monopoly of baseball in the area &
2° it is based on BM basic League settings (I didnt mess at all with this for the screenshots) - they are ranked as C fan loyalty & -5% casual Fan base

Below is the adjusted Per Capita Income of both cities concerned




Baltimore,MD,631366,2658405,0,49000,33,3920000,-7650000,-5,27,0,0,0
Washington,DC,581530,5290400,0,39900,153,3870000,-7700000,-5,29,0,0,0



if you up Fan Loyalty to A+ their Projected Revenue becomes 106.6 million
& if you equally increase Fan Base to:
0 ----------- 118.4
+5---------- 130.4
+10 -------- 142.1
+15 -------- 154.0
+20 -------- 165.8

[ohms_law]

Below is the adjusted Per Capita Income of both cities concerned
Why is the region so small for Baltimore? That's why the Orioles are getting "screwed" (or, at least, the primary reason).

[CatKnight]

That's all that doing this really does, is to give everyone tons of money. You can get the same effect much easier simply by turning the League Revenue setting up to +100%.

At least, that's what I've noticed...

ohms: I think you know the financial system better than this. For more cash to actually enter the game, either the AI would have to not be spending, or everyone's revenue across the board would have to go up.

The cash is being reallocated, so instead of teams like the Yanks and Bosox having it, other teams have a share as well. More correctly, it increases their revenue to make them more active.

It's been proven, and I'm sure you'd agree anyway, that the AI relies very heavily on its budget to determine what to do. If it is far below budget it will be more active in free agency and more active in resigning their players.

So....if you take a team like Florida (using made up numbers) and increase their budget from $40 million to $60 million....the AI *will* try to use that 20 million.

If you lower the Yankees' budget from $200 million to $140 million, the AI WILL start dumping payroll. (Unfortunately meaning the Yanks may suck for a few years.) They WILL restabilize though.

Houston, I suspect (not sure) you're seeing extra cash because the small market teams WERE keeping to their old budgets...and now they have all this new revenue to play with. In the above example FL would make $20 million profit in year 1. In year 2-3, their budget SHOULD rise and stabilize around the higher mark.

Pulling up the 5 runs I did a few weeks ago with 'my' city data and your rosters:
1st run: Lowest Cash: $2.9m (NYY), Highest: $54.7 (LAA)
Pulling up a team like FLA, they made $75.4m profit in year 1....then started raising their budget. By year 10 they have $39m cash.

2nd run: Low $1.3m (CHC), High $139.5 (NYM) (Eep)

3rd: $1.8m (TB), $51m (ATL)

4th: $4m (MIN), $44m (FLA)

5th: $1.5m (NYY), $47m (FLA)


Houston: It's worth noting that I played all five runs at +20 Revenue. I'm guessing (from your rosters) that you're used to -30. That might be the next thing to try if you feel the numbers you're getting are too large.

I think you need to expect some awkwardness in year 1-2 though. The teams that benefit the most from having their revenues raised WILL have incoming cash untl their payroll rises to match their new budget - which it will do. Similarly, teams that get hit hardest like NYY, and LAD...will probably lose money short term until their payroll falls to the new level.

EDIT: As for Baltimore's region size, I can't answer that. I made my mods based on Houston's city list for his roster. Houston? Does that look right to you above? I just checked - that's the data I used for the O's.

[HoustonGM]

Houston: It's worth noting that I played all five runs at +20 Revenue. I'm guessing (from your rosters) that you're used to -30. That might be the next thing to try if you feel the numbers you're getting are too large.
I'm not "used" to -30...it's just what I set it to in order to prevent the league from being flooded with money...


EDIT: As for Baltimore's region size, I can't answer that. I made my mods based on Houston's city list for his roster. Houston? Does that look right to you above? I just checked - that's the data I used for the O's.
I have no idea. The city data in my rosters is that from WHAK0895 in the mods section.

So, basically, it's okay to just ignore the really high cash totals, or "get used" to them? :p

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I'm not "used" to -30...it's just what I set it to in order to prevent the league from being flooded with money...


I have no idea. The city data in my rosters is that from WHAK0895 in the mods section.

So, basically, it's okay to just ignore the really high cash totals, or "get used" to them? :p

The thing is Baltimore size has been affected by the Nationals more than before they moved to Washington (& as city based code hasn't been updated the internals are still being treated as of old).

On the cash front yes Cat is right in saying that the "memory" of being poor is still place for small markets & thus they do run a cash profit BUT the thing is they do adjust quickly to their new finances & sign all those guys that under the old system where they would be traded/unsigned.

Now for the cash excess problem I think WHAKs data has maybe too inflated the basics of the Game - if you notice Cities have almost doubled in Income per Head compared to Clay's data (2000 data if I remember correctly).

I don't know how the 2 came up with their calculations but I assume that Clay's is Income after Taxes & WHAKS is gross.Thus a logical way "forward" would be to scale down WHAKs data figures by 5-10-15% to find an equilibrium level (remember a 10% scale down affects way more the Yankees than say the Marlins - which again is what the CBA/Revenue sharing's aim)

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Why is the region so small for Baltimore? That's why the Orioles are getting "screwed" (or, at least, the primary reason).

OK I found out the discrepency WHAKs data is from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore#Economy) & that states



Population (2006)[10]
- City 640,961
- Density 8,058.4/sq mi (3,039/km²)
- Urban 2,178,000
- Metro 2,658,405

but also The Baltimore Metropolitan Area, which includes the city's surrounding suburbs, has approximately 2.6 million residents. Baltimore is the largest city in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area (CMSA) of approximately 8.1 million residents. Baltimore's metropolitan area is the 20th largest in the country.


Also from this source I have found the Discrepency in Income


The median income for a household in the city was $30,078, and the median income for a family was $35,438. Males had a median income of $31,767 versus $26,832 for females. The per capita income for the city was $16,978.

So it seems WHAKs original data is USING the Median Income as his base & not the Per Capita thus the PCI should be based (as for ALL cities) on this later data.Thus using the formula BALTIMORE would have a PCI of ~ 29000$

[ohms_law]

The problem is that what's being proposed above isn't actually a solution to the real issue in the game, which is why I bowed out of the thread about 30 posts ago. Changing the city data is a workaround, which only hides the problem. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not trying to slam your guy's work here, but it shouldn't be the ultimate solution.

The real problem is that the AI needs to tailor it's strategy to work with what it has available to it, financially. The current AI seems to be "tuned" to the mid-market team level, and the teams at the extremes are causing cascade effect problems which end up affecting the whole sim.

The current AI evaluates all players in terms of value (very basically, skill level vs. cost), and it does it extremely well on the individual level in my opinion. Both in negotiations and in trades, the AI finds the value of each player and then decides whether or not to make a contract offer or accept a proposed trade based on that value and it's financial resources. That's the reason why I refer to value all the time when I'm talking about the AI. To the AI, everything comes down to value.

Teams in different markets need to be able to value players at different levels. Large market teams should place a premium value on established, veteran (expensive) players. Mid market teams should remain about where they are right now. Small market teams should value youthful (inexpensive) talent. Currently, all teams value players using the same weight, so the large markets are able to gobble up all of the free agent and trade talent that they like since they almost always have the resources to outbid other teams, while the small market teams are unable to outbid anyone. Additionally, the small market teams don't then realize how important prospects and young players are to them.

Then there's also the issue of lack of team awareness. The AI just doesn't know what it needs in order to field a competative team, or really even what it currently has available to it. There are occasionally situations where mid or small market teams will end up with two or three great players, at good value for each individually, but they all play the same position or have the same pitching role. Part of the solution here should be for the AI to determe value added, comparing the value of the player being evaluated against what it already has available.

Anyway, like I said, there's nothing wrong with your method as a workaround (although personally I think it'd be easier to simply equalize cities). I just don't see it as an actual solution, is all.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

The problem is that what's being proposed above isn't actually a solution to the real issue in the game, which is why I bowed out of the thread about 30 posts ago. Changing the city data is a workaround, which only hides the problem.

Well actually THE problem WAS & is that under NON altered Financial model using any rosters the sim stops being a SIM in Y4 (thus the title of the thread) & becomes a FANTASY game.

Funnily with the introduction of a basic 1 time CBA revenue sharing REDISTRIBUTION the problem disappears & the sim becomes stable for at least 10 years in 10 different sims (using varied roster formats).


There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not trying to slam your guy's work here, but it shouldn't be the ultimate solution.
No one said it was,actually we all wish that the Revenue sharing formula would be introduced "in game" through a patch.


The real problem is that the AI needs to tailor it's strategy to work with what it has available to it, financially. The current AI seems to be "tuned" to the mid-market team level, and the teams at the extremes are causing cascade effect problems which end up affecting the whole sim.


Teams in different markets need to be able to value players at different levels. Large market teams should place a premium value on established, veteran (expensive) players. Mid market teams should remain about where they are right now. Small market teams should value youthful (inexpensive) talent. No disagreement here BUT the actual finances CREATED by BM are WRONG.Below is IRL finances of the Milwaukee Brewers with data upto 2006 being entirely correct & 07 & 08 being estimated on their Revenue provision


2000 2001 2002 2003
Paid Attendance (m) 1.6 2.8 2 1.7

Operating Revenue
Local baseball rev. 39.6 83.3 68.6 59.4
MLB rev. 20.2 21.6 25 29.4
Revenue Sharing 6.4 1.5 9.1 24.7
Other 1.5 3.6 1.7 2.4
TOTAL 67.7 110 104.4 115.9






2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 estimate
Paid Attendance (m) 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2

Operating Revenue
Local baseball rev. 65.6 72.3 79.5 87.2 95.5
MLB rev. 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4
Revenue Sharing 19.7 23.5 25.0 26.6 28.4
Other 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
TOTAL 120.7 131.2 139.9 149.2 159.3





Now under the BM system as it stands Milwaukee earns "Local Revenue" only & leaves out MLB revenue* & Revenue Sharing** which by 2006 (last REAL data available) accounts for 60 odd million or 41% of their ACTUAL PERCEIVED
income.

Below is 2005 MLB ADJUSTED Revenue figures (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-can-gms-increase-the-value-of-their-franchise/)




Team Rev
Yankees 277
Red Sox 206
Mets 195
Dodgers 189
Mariners 179
Cubs 179
Phillies 176
Astros 173
Braves 172
Giants 171
Angels 167
Cardinals 165
Padres 158
White Sox 157
Orioles 156
Rangers 153
Indians 150
Jays (est) 150
Tigers 146
Diamondbacks 145
Nationals 145
Rockies 145
Reds 137
Athletics 134
Brewers 131
Pirates 125
Marlins 119
Royals 117
Rays 116
Twins 114


So it is clear that the Yankees are still head & shoulders ahead of everyone else BUT the RAYS are "earning" 116 Million,so what is their outlay (expenses)
below 2005 Payroll (http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Years/2005/Payroll.asp)



2005 PAYROLLS 2005 PAYROLLS
2004/2006

RANK TEAM AVERAGE TOTAL
1 New York Yankees $8,679,451 $208,306,817
2 Boston Red Sox $5,146,047 $123,505,125
3 New York Mets $4,221,076 $101,305,821
4 Anaheim Angels $4,071,888 $97,725,322
5 Philadelphia Phillies $3,980,083 $95,522,000
6 St. Louis Cardinals $3,837,785 $92,106,833
7 San Francisco Giants $3,758,313 $90,199,500
8 Seattle Mariners $3,656,431 $87,754,334
9 Chicago Cubs $3,626,372 $87,032,933
10 Atlanta Braves $3,602,388 $86,457,302
11 Los Angeles Dodgers $3,459,958 $83,039,000
12 Houston Astros $3,199,125 $76,779,000
13 Chicago White Sox $3,132,417 $75,178,000
14 Baltimore Orioles $3,079,764 $73,914,333
15 Detroit Tigers $2,878,833 $69,092,000
16 San Diego Padres $2,637,118 $63,290,833
17 Arizona Diamondbacks $2,597,049 $62,329,166
18 Cincinnati Reds $2,578,858 $61,892,583
19 Florida Marlins $2,517,035 $60,408,834
20 Minnesota Twins $2,341,083 $56,186,000
21 Texas Rangers $2,327,042 $55,849,000
22 Oakland Athletics $2,309,407 $55,425,762
23 Washington Nationals $2,024,229 $48,581,500
24 Colorado Rockies $2,006,458 $48,155,000
25 Toronto Blue Jays $1,904,979 $45,719,500
26 Cleveland Indians $1,729,271 $41,502,500
27 Milwaukee Brewers $1,663,951 $39,934,833
28 Pittsburgh Pirates $1,588,875 $38,133,000
29 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $1,536,708 $36,881,000
30 Kansas City Royals $1,236,628 $29,679,067


Which allows us to calculate a rough n ready "Gross Profit" after which teams can use to invest in Expenses/stadiums/off the field staff etc




1 Indians 150 - 41 = 109m
2 Dodgers 189 - 83 = 106 m
3 Jays 150 - 45 = 105m
4 Rangers 153 - 56 = 97m
4 Rockies 145 - 48 = 97m
6 Astros 173 - 77 = 96m
7 Nationals 145 - 49 = 95m
7 Padres 158 - 63 = 95m
9 Mets 195 - 101 = 94 m
10 Cubs 179 - 87 = 92 m
11 Brewers 131 - 40 = 91m
11 Mariners 179 - 88 = 91 m
13 Pirates 125 - 38 = 87m
13 Royals 117 - 30 = 87m
15 Braves172 - 86 = 86m
16 Diamondbacks 145 - 62 = 83m
17 Orioles 156 - 74 = 82m
17White Sox 157 - 75 =82m
19 Giants 171 - 90 = 81m
20 Phillies 176 - 96 = 80m
21 Rays 116 - 37 = 79m
21 Athletics 134 - 55 = 79m
23 Tigers 146 - 69 = 77m
24 Reds 137 - 62 = 75m
25 Red Sox 206 - 123 = 73 m
25 Cardinals 165 - 92 = 73m
27Angels 167 - 98 = 69m
27 Yankees 277 - 208 = 69 m
29Marlins 119 - 60 = 59m
30 Twins 114 - 56 = 58m


So unlike BM where large markets make the most Profit the CBA re adjustment has allowed small/mid & large markets the possibility of making profits (ie the Royals who had the "lowest" Revenue made 87 million whereas the NYY "only" made 69 million)

That is what the Cat Knight data provides & is in line with IRL - also it changes a 4 year stabilility TO a 10 year+ & only with 1 update.Yearly updates would even improve on this performance.




* MLB Revenue: This relates to the national TV contract and internet revenues from MLBAM. Let’s assume that this revenue increases in line with the historic five-year growth rate, which happens to be 11 percent.


**Revenue sharing: There are three components to revenue sharing outlined in the 2002 CBA:


1. 34 percent of local revenue goes in to the pot, divided equally. This is called Base Plan
2. Central fund where richer clubs give cash to poorer clubs based on the last three years of revenue sharing. The idea is that at full implementation the central fund will equal 41 percent of the Base Plan. The central fund component ramps up at 60 percent in 2003, 80 percent in 2004 and 100 percent in 2005 and 2006
3. A small discretionary fund for the commissioner to distribute as he sees fit

This was changed to 48% in the 2004 flat plan in 2004





Currently, all teams value players using the same weight, so the large markets are able to gobble up all of the free agent and trade talent that they like since they almost always have the resources to outbid other teams, while the small market teams are unable to outbid anyone. Additionally, the small market teams don't then realize how important prospects and young players are to them.

Then there's also the issue of lack of team awareness. The AI just doesn't know what it needs in order to field a competative team, or really even what it currently has available to it. There are occasionally situations where mid or small market teams will end up with two or three great players, at good value for each individually, but they all play the same position or have the same pitching role. Part of the solution here should be for the AI to determe value added, comparing the value of the player being evaluated against what it already has available.

Anyway, like I said, there's nothing wrong with your method as a workaround (although personally I think it'd be easier to simply equalize cities). I just don't see it as an actual solution, is all.

As you wish Ohms,simply BM accentuates the differentiation between sample size markets because of lack of redistribution & because large markets dominate Expenses.

You keep saying the same thing that AI should be improved but it hasn't changed - 120 win syndrome STILL exists (& the sim blows 4 years in),here not only is it stable BUT reflects WHAT actually is in place & has been for 10 odd years & seemingly will continue from CBA to CBA.

[ohms_law]

The problem here is that you and cat are missing part of the picture, the "behind the scenes" picture of what the AI is actually doing as the game sims. I'm trying to impart some of that information here. The AI teams, even the small market teams, can and do bid on the arbitration eligable and free agent players. That's simply part of the program, and using debug messages I've seen it in action. The information that I'm telling you, that you can't normally see, is that the small market and mid-market teams are just as active as the large market teams. All teams try to sign just as many players as the large market teams do. The problem is, as you've pointed out, that they don't have the financial resources to do that. It's easy enough to give them the resources to compete with the large market teams, and that's certainly a usable workaround, but it doesn't solve anything.

Small market teams should not be competing at the same level as the large market teams, they should be concentrating their resources in the area's that would help them the most. They should be maintaining some of the highest levels of Farm development, and retaining as many of their prospects as possible, in order to feed the major league club. Then, they should maintain their players all the way through arbitration, and possibly a couple of key players beyond that if possible.

Large market teams need to concentrate their resources on those players who will have the highest impact for their team, and the largest market teams ought to be willing to spend anything that it takes to get them. They should not simply be bidding on as many players as possible, which is what they currently do. Because all teams do behave in the same manner, a large majority of players end up on large market teams. Mid market teams end up with the scraps distributed throughout their organizations, and small market teams occasionally end up receiving a couple of players. It's a cascade effect caused by all of the teams using the same valuation for players, and it's most noticeable after 3-5 years simply because that's when the majority of contracts begin to expire after beginning the game.

Again, I'm not putting down the work that you've done here. What you've put together is a good, usable workaround to the problem (although, it's to much work for it to be enjoyable to me, and very likely most other users). All that I'm saying is that there's some information that you can't see which feeds right into this, and the reason that I keep harping on player valuation is that it's the absolute key to the whole problem, in my opinion. It's not that the smaller market teams don't and/or can't compete, it's that their playing the wrong game. In real life, no one can compete with the Yankees or Boston, but the game already smooths out some of their inherent advantages (there's no MASN or MSG networks, wholly owned by the franchises, for example). The Rays and the Marlins should not be attempting to play the same game as the Yankees or the Red Sox. It's as simple as that, and what you're seeing is primarily the effect of the small (and mid) market teams trying to outspend the large market teams.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I realize that you have insider information but just LOOK at the numbers below is IRL Revenue & the screenshot is a "brand new game" with original City Data set at +50% (I did this to get NYY as close as I could to IRL 05 figures) & look at the discrepency between the 2

Below is 2005 MLB ADJUSTED Revenue figures (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-can-gms-increase-the-value-of-their-franchise/)




Team Rev
Yankees 277
Red Sox 206
Mets 195
Dodgers 189
Mariners 179
Cubs 179
Phillies 176
Astros 173
Braves 172
Giants 171
Angels 167
Cardinals 165
Padres 158
White Sox 157
Orioles 156
Rangers 153
Indians 150
Jays (est) 150
Tigers 146
Diamondbacks 145
Nationals 145
Rockies 145
Reds 137
Athletics 134
Brewers 131
Pirates 125
Marlins 119
Royals 117
Rays 116
Twins 114

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Team Rev BM Rev at +50 +/- BM Rev at +90% +/-
Yankees 277 279.1 2.1 307.0 30.0
Red Sox 206 182.3 -23.7 203.4 -2.6
Mets 195 177.2 -17.8 199.3 4.3
Dodgers 189 158.9 -30.1 183.4 -5.6
Mariners 179 130.4 -48.6 150.0 -29.0
Cubs 179 146.7 -32.3 163.2 -15.8
Phillies 176 140.6 -35.4 163.6 -12.4
Astros 173 134.3 -39.7 154.8 -18.2
Braves 172 138.0 -46.0 166.3 -5.7
Giants 171 133.9 -37.1 161.5 -9.5
Angels 167 140.8 -26.2 163.2 -3.8
Cardinals 165 157.0 -8.0 180.8 14.2
Padres 158 110.6 -47.4 129.0 -29.0
White Sox 157 135.9 -21.1 162.8 5.8
Orioles 156 107.3 -48.7 131.3 -25.7
Rangers 153 129.9 -23.1 152.4 -0.6
Indians 150 89.9 - 60.1 109.9 -40.1
Jays (est) 150 113.8 -36.2 137.8 -12.2
Tigers 146 133.7 -12.3 155.0 9.0
Diamondbacks 145 101.4 -43.6 115.6 -29.4
Nationals 145 116.3 -29.7 142.5 2.5
Rockies 145 89.0 -57.0 109.1 -35.9
Reds 137 83.2 -54.8 101.9 -35.1
Athletics 134 124.5 -9.5 152.4 17.6
Brewers 131 63.9 -67.1 78.3 -52.7
Pirates 125 81.9 -43.9 100.4 -24.6
Marlins 119 50.3 -68.7 62.0 -57.0!
Royals 117 71.0 -46.0 87.2 -29.8
Rays 116 72.8 -43.2 89.6 -26.4
Twins 114 101.4 -13.6 124.0 10.0


Now those numbers have NOT been touched they are simply BM projected Revenue figures with City Data (as downloaded).To me 2 separate points:

1) Even at +50% only the Yankees get to their actual 05 Revenue level (& since ticket prices have continued to inflate & only is the league close at 90 ALTHOUGH 12 TEAMS ARE WAY OUT OF WACK BUT

2) notice SMALL markets (this is where revenue Sharing comes - it allows them in Y3/4+ to sign Arbitration guys & to long term deals eg Braun 45 mill for 8 years recently or the Tampa deals or Hanley's supposed Mega deal OR SIM WISE Gallardo/McGee etc)

3) Shouldn't Default revenue Reflect IRL revenue ?

[kenny1234]

[code]
3) Shouldn't Default revenue Reflect IRL revenue ?

Only if the expenditure side included everything that the teams spend money on. Right now the teams spend on Medical, Farm and Scouting - but not coaches, front office personnel, travel etc. Without those expenditures it doesn't make sense for Mogul revenue to match RL revenue.

[HoustonGM]

You keep saying the same thing that AI should be improved but it hasn't changed - 120 win syndrome STILL exists (& the sim blows 4 years in)
Well, to be fair, since the AI hasn't been changed in these aspects, there's no reason why the superteam problem shouldn't still be there. We wouldn't know if changing the AI would help alleviate the issue or not...because it hasn't been done.


Only if the expenditure side included everything that the teams spend money on. Right now the teams spend on Medical, Farm and Scouting - but not coaches, front office personnel, travel etc. Without those expenditures it doesn't make sense for Mogul revenue to match RL revenue.

Good point.

[SirKodiak]

Revenue sharing is not the only pooled revenue in MLB. There are national TV contracts, MLBAM, etc. All things that help even out the playing field a little.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Only if the expenditure side included everything that the teams spend money on. Right now the teams spend on Medical, Farm and Scouting - but not coaches, front office personnel, travel etc. Without those expenditures it doesn't make sense for Mogul revenue to match RL revenue.

I agree with you in principle but the problem is that there is a deviation from the mean being produced by BM.Look at the data differently & compare it to IRL


In BM
Top Revenue at 50% 279.1
Bottom Revenue 50.3
Median Revenue 113.8
Mean Revenue 118.51
Difference between #1-30 228.8
% Difference 454.87%
Total Revenue 3555.4
number of teams < 115m 13

Top Revenue at 90% 307.1
Bottom Revenue 62.0
Median Revenue 150.0
Mean Revenue 141.2
Difference between #1-30 245.1
% Difference 395.32%
Total Revenue 4235.8
number of teams < 115m 8



2005 MLB Adjusted Revenue
Top Revenue 277
Bottom Revenue 114
Median Revenue 156
Mean Revenue 158.23
Difference between #1-30 163
% Difference 142.98%
Total Revenue 4747
number of teams < 115m 1

Now it is me or doesnt those differences mean anything ? The 50% League Revenue well is totally unrealistic both in numeric terms & in differentials from IRL.

The 90% is closer (league revenue is out only 10%) & the Median Value is close.The problems begin at the Mean there is a divergence of 17 million.However this divergence from reality worsens as you go down the BM revenue list - as shown by how Many teams are < 115 million earners.

This is optimized by the difference in Revenue between #1 & #30 (but the same can be done for #1 & 20 in BM) which is an outstanding 245.1 Million! (or nearly 90 million MORE than IRL).In % terms it is even worse 395% to IRL 142%

Now before spending the AI has to assert (as Ohms rightly said) a VALUE & also what it can & cannot do & this is based on CASH but also REVENUE EXPECTATIONS (a team with 100 million Revenue Projections WILL NOT run a team with 200 Payroll).


As the finances stand (& remember I didnt alter ANY City data/nor League settings except +Revenue) then the SIM engine undervalues the bottom 1/3 by upto 50% with 8 earning LESS than what the worst team ACTUALLY earned in 2005.Where the IRL #25th team Earned 131 million,in BM at +90% THE SAME ranked team earns 81.9 thus IMO the need for redistribution as 50 million extra revenue is a "god send" which allows teams to invest in Expenses/Players & Payroll.

Anyways I've finished my explaination - the numbers SHOW that there is a major disparity in Team's Revenue potential in BM which is diametrically opposed to IRL numbers (especially below #20 spot).As IRL there is no such thing as a BM small market,all teams are 110+ markets (thanks to MLB revenue sharing & Luxury tax)

[CatKnight]

Alright. I give up. I'm out of this argument. There's a point where you bump your head against a wall repeatedly, and all you get is a headache.

The point's been made. Repeatedly. In exacting detail. Narrow the revenue difference between the big market teams and the small market ones, and competitive balance improves. The 120 win syndrome ceases, as does the 40-50 win countereffect. Teams that are complete also rans in a normal league....aren't.

FRS proved it using Sir Kodiak's number for the CBA.

H***, I've proved it in my dynasty by manipulating fan loyalty to control revenue.

Petrel proved it in HIS dynasty by closing the gap in fan loyalty to raise small team revenue, and adding a revenue sharing program to curtail the cash on the big teams.

Now, if some people don't understand that....it's apparent that I don't have the skill to explain things enough to help them. It's also apparent that there are people out there who see nothing strange about a large market team winning every single year, with outrageous win totals - a situation that would eventually destroy any 'real' league.

So be it. Frankly, it no longer interests me. I've forced (emphasis on 'forced') the game into a format where every team, given a few years plus or minus, shows up to the battle. I'm content. If that's not what you're interested in, then that's your right.

Stay out of my sandbox, and I'll make an effort to stay out of yours.

- Cat

[ohms_law]

Wow...

Sorry to have upset you guys. As I said above, repetedly, I'm not trying to disparidge the work that you've put in on this. I agree, revenue sharing (and a luxury tax) would help, and implementing a revenue sharing system does immediately help and is therefore a very useful workaround to the problem.

However, revenue is not the main problem with the game. It's a large part of the problem, and I agree that it would be relatively easy to add into BM. The problem that I have with doing that is that it doesn't adress the core issue with competativeness. By covering up the problems with the AI through revenue solutions we're asking for half of a fix, a quick and dirty solution, rather than demanding that the problem be solved for good. Why are we asking that Clay fix something that we can solve ourselves, rather than asking him to fix the part of the game that we have no control over at all? Having to adjust revenue is a PITA, but we do at least have some control over it. The other aspect is that when the AI is changed, the whole dynamic will change, which will affect revenue as well. So, fixing revenue first would actually lead to more work.

[kenny1234]

I agree with you in principle but the problem is that there is a deviation from the mean being produced by BM.Look at the data differently & compare it to IRL


I wasn't trying to say that I disagree with what you are doing. It seems quite possible that a huge part of the competitive balance issue is that the rich teams have too much money relative to the poor teams (in comparison with RL). And if revenue sharing is part of baseball then there is no reason for it to be left out of the game.

I just don't think you should make any effort to try and match real life revenue numbers because the game doesn't model all expenditures.

[ohms_law]

That too.

[HoustonGM]

Yeah, FRS and CatKnight, don't get upset over what ohms is saying. The work you did in this thread was excellent. As I showed above, I'm implementing Cat's city data into my current, AND my rosters. But, while the finances are certainly a large part of the issue, they aren't the only issue, and that's really all ohms is saying. Ohms explained the AI issue perfectly. Small-market and big-market teams operate exactly the same, when they shouldn't, and that issue ALSO needs to be dealt with.

And personally, from a programming standpoint, I think it'd be better to fix the AI, as I think we can all agree is needed, and see what that does, and how that affects the problem with competitive balance. Furthermore, with your work this thread, there's a quick, viable way for us users to control the problem for now. Since Clay is the only one who can change the AI, he should do that. If a large problem still exists, and it very well may, THEN I think the finances should be adjusted within the game.

We can do something about the finances issues. Only Clay can modify the AI. So, I think that's what we should ask for from him, for now, and go from there.

[ohms_law]

All I'm trying to do is to build a clear consensus on this issue. We should all be asking Clay to do one thing at a time, and in my opinion asking him to work on the AI is the most constructive suggestion.

[GreenDiamond2]

I think this concept improves the game outright. Revenue sharing should be implemented, because it makes the game immediately more competitive, and exists in real life.

It does not fundamentally effect the optimal strategy for each team in terms of market size, this should be worked on, but does level the financial playing field enough to work as a baseline.

It is also very likely a much simpler fix than reworking the AI, and is probably better to use at this juncture than to retro-actively add it in later and re-calibrate everything.

Even after the AI knows where it should be spending its money, revenue sharing is still going to be desired, at least as an option, simply because it exists and has good reasons for existing.

All this change does is close the gap somewhat. It does not change the larger issue of what is a good small/large market strategy. There is no reason I can think of why it should not be implemented first. Introducing it does not "mask" the problem, it simply sets a more realistic baseline. (narrower finance spread).

Since it is formulaic, it can be done directly, and should be much simpler than starting with introducing AI team development strategy logic.

As it stands, importing the new data and manually making the changes is a lot of work for the player. Most people won't bother with it. If it is directly added to the engine, then they wont have to. Since the rate of the revenue split is the key factor in the formula, a slider should be easy to implement (0 to 100%) revenue sharing, which simply sets the variable.

Since, the league revenue slider already exists and presumably works uniformly, it probably isn't necessary to tweak all the city files, as the amount of revenue sharing should work as an offset.

On the other hand, if the new city data is more accurate, and already put into a file that the game reads from, there is no real good reason not to add it, since it doesn't create additional work.

As far as long term city growth goes, a random walk or a system which favors accelerated growth of the smaller cities (by annual rank) is probably best, at least for future scenarios. Speculating that it is more desireable to have the game move in a convergent than divergent manner over a long period of time.

Anyhow, I think this fix should be done first, as it will impact the AI, solves the immediate problem, addresses a future demand and probably makes further calibration easier to accomplish. Having the right baseline should make it easier for the AI to know the degree of adjustment required in its expenditure strategies. It does not change which strategies are best for a team.

[ohms_law]

I disagree.

[GreenDiamond2]

Complexity of implementation? Calibration reasons? Do you feel as an interim fix, it would be discarded at a later point or complicate the individual team strategies? Do you feel that putting this in as a hotfix would ultimately delay better team management AI being put in?

Seems like team management AI would be fairly complex as it would encompass:
1. Expenditure balance
2. Free agency Routines
3. Potentially scouting and farm system.
4. Improved Roster awareness.


The other aspect is that when the AI is changed, the whole dynamic will change, which will affect revenue as well. So, fixing revenue first would actually lead to more work.
Unless the dynamic removes city revenues based on per capita/population, I do not see how this is the case. Revenue sharing simply affects the spread in income, not the ranking. Teams will still be rated high to low. To me it seems as though it makes more sense to incorporate first then as an afterthought, especially since it is a single factor that is being calibrated to rather than a large number of factors.

Not trying to be critical, at all, just trying to understand your specific objection better.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Alright. I give up. I'm out of this argument. There's a point where you bump your head against a wall repeatedly, and all you get is a headache.

The point's been made. Repeatedly. In exacting detail. Narrow the revenue difference between the big market teams and the small market ones, and competitive balance improves. The 120 win syndrome ceases, as does the 40-50 win countereffect. Teams that are complete also rans in a normal league....aren't.

FRS proved it using Sir Kodiak's number for the CBA.

H***, I've proved it in my dynasty by manipulating fan loyalty to control revenue.

Petrel proved it in HIS dynasty by closing the gap in fan loyalty to raise small team revenue, and adding a revenue sharing program to curtail the cash on the big teams.

Now, if some people don't understand that....it's apparent that I don't have the skill to explain things enough to help them. It's also apparent that there are people out there who see nothing strange about a large market team winning every single year, with outrageous win totals - a situation that would eventually destroy any 'real' league.

So be it. Frankly, it no longer interests me. I've forced (emphasis on 'forced') the game into a format where every team, given a few years plus or minus, shows up to the battle. I'm content. If that's not what you're interested in, then that's your right.

Stay out of my sandbox, and I'll make an effort to stay out of yours.

- Cat I agree & I tried - funny how users complain that BM is unrealistic on X or Y minor issues (such as no ASG or closers not being used correctly*) & this which is a BASIS of the whole sim engine allocation of resources is considered a "later to fix" issue even though it simultaneously FIXES the major problem of credible dynastic results - I give up too.:(



* the Closer issue springs to mind because it affects roughly 80/100 innings in a 1350 or so pitched in a season & even then those innings are not lost or overvalued just reallocated.If the Finances "error" was transfered/translated into the Closer model then NYY would be pitching 6 IP games Batting 12 IPs when playing Pittsburgh & the Pirates would bat 6 IPs & Pitch 12 IPs - is that realistic enough for you because that is how BAD the finance allocation engine is NOW ? (the numbers speak for themselves see post 179 on)



I wasn't trying to say that I disagree with what you are doing. It seems quite possible that a huge part of the competitive balance issue is that the rich teams have too much money relative to the poor teams (in comparison with RL). And if revenue sharing is part of baseball then there is no reason for it to be left out of the game.

I just don't think you should make any effort to try and match real life revenue numbers because the game doesn't model all expenditures.
The GAME is based on real life revenues,the rosters are real life WITH real life players & the system does have an expenditure model which WHEN you start a MODERN game IRL Payroll accounts for ~90% of those expenses,SO THE EXPENSE model is based on 100% IRL data & accounts for 90% of total game expenses.But IRL (& in BM) Roll is counter weighted by perceived Revenue (like a set of scales,the more you are set to earn the more you will allow yourself to spend on Payroll).


THIS is where the flaw is BM creates a FALSE Perceived Revenue for ALL clubs (#20 onwards are undervalued because they don't receive the MLB revenue share nor Revenue sharing,& the top #10 IRL clubs are Overvalued because their cut is not removed) BUT the expenses are,for the majority,REAL based.

In the game it is payroll + minor league roll + scouting + Medical + Farm thus any excess is either invested into these or kept as profit - it as simple as that.

It is the simple mechanics of BM ----the problem as shown is THAT the Finance creation MODEL is wrong,I cant be more clear than that - when you have 8 teams below what the LOWEST TEAM ACTUALLY earned & the disparity is nearly 4 times between #1 & #30 when it is only 1.5 IRL & THAT it fixes the main issue of the 120 win syndrome to boot then CBA re allocation is a neccessity (IMO) to makethe sim work & not just a fix

After that how team's spends is another model....


But, while the finances are certainly a large part of the issue, they aren't the only issue, and that's really all ohms is saying. Ohms explained the AI issue perfectly. Small-market and big-market teams operate exactly the same, when they shouldn't, and that issue ALSO needs to be dealt with.


Firstly,the whole concept of "Big" & "small" is totally tainted HGM.That is because what we all consider as "small" IRL(eg Pittsburgh/Florida) are not small in BM they are "microscopic",HECK a 115 Revenue (which is what the lowest teams earned IRL) would be classified as "low middle" markets in BM & at the same "high" markets would be brought back to the pack.

In horse racing terminology it is handicapping (adding weight to the favourites & taking weight off the outsiders).

Secondly,if implemented the "small" markets dont disappear but become (in BM terms) "low mid" markets (at 115+ million revenue MINIMUM).Now if I read Ohms post in this thread correctly then the AI as it stands was created to handle this effectively.



The current AI seems to be "tuned" to the mid-market team level,



&

[FRENCHREDSOX]

lastly,



And personally, from a programming standpoint, I think it'd be better to fix the AI, as I think we can all agree is needed, and see what that does, and how that affects the problem with competitive balance. .

We can do something about the finances issues. Only Clay can modify the AI. So, I think that's what we should ask for from him, for now, and go from there.

I think you are putting "the cart before the horse" here HGM (no disrespect).In any game (heck even IRL) you get the finances right & then adjust the AI (rules).

Look at it simply right,at 90% FLA in BM EARNS 50 million ok?

Whatever fixes,that Ohms wants or Clay does,the AI would still have to play with 50 million.

Take out the 30 odd million minimum for roster players (& that is NOT including Hanley's 70 million 6 year deal but with top IRL Contract of 2.5 million) so your FLA team has 20 million to spend elsewhere - that's FAs/arbitration/expenses WHEN IRL they would have 80+ million(AGAIN see the DATA provided).

There is No model,on earth,that can make "gold out of lead" which is what is being asked for by fixing AI IN THIS CASE.

AI works if you HAVE the right Revenue.



Even if the AI is "Deep Blue" level it cannot turn FLA into a winning dynasty with only 20 million profitability (& THAT is at 0 expenses & thus they would have no farm by 2010/11+),whereas with 120 million, roll (see Page 15 for FLA's 2005 actual Adjusted revenue) then it can,it is basic mathematics & sensible economic management.Also at 50 Million RP they would have left....

Another simple example under BM Projected revenue for Milwaukee is 83 MILLION at +90%,their real life PAYROLL (from ESPN) is set at 80 MILLION & that is without the Braun Deal.So when is the last time Milwaukee earned 83 million,last year ? 2006 ? Let's check to see HOW close BM is at +90% Revenue....



2000 2001 2002 2003
Paid Attendance (m) 1.6 2.8 2 1.7

Operating Revenue
Local baseball rev. 39.6 83.3 68.6 59.4
MLB rev. 20.2 21.6 25 29.4
Revenue Sharing 6.4 1.5 9.1 24.7
Other 1.5 3.6 1.7 2.4
TOTAL 67.7 110 104.4 115.9






2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 estimate
Paid Attendance (m) 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2

Operating Revenue
Local baseball rev. 65.6 72.3 79.5 87.2 95.5
MLB rev. 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4
Revenue Sharing 19.7 23.5 25.0 26.6 28.4
Other 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
TOTAL 120.7 131.2 139.9 149.2 159.3


Well look at that,never (althought the closest is 2000) but since they HAVE out earned the 2008 BM Revenue projection by a minimum 20 MILLION $ every single year,& by a "Whopping" 40 Million since 2004 (4 seasons ago) .


Looking at the 2008 estimate they out earn BM by 159.3 - 83 = 76.3 million so instead of being "bust" they are actually a profit maker & incredibly that Braun deal (plus Suppan last year) doesn't look so bad.Lastly,they can sign ALL their Arb guys in 08/09/10 & STILL INVEST IN expenses & 2008 Milwaukee team's Payroll (in your,mine & even Default rosters use 2008 Payroll as their basis) is 80 million.

So Why is AI out of whack ?

BECAUSE of finances that was shown 30 odd posts ago,NOT THE OTHER WAY round.


As soon as Cat introduced the corrected Revenue data the sim is "stable" - no 120 winners,no 40 game tankers,teams resign their players etc etc.(the above example using the Brewers is the perfect case - heck we USE real DATA (salaries) to obtain the BM payroll which accounts for 80% (when you start the game) of EXPENSES but this data is counter-weighted by ILLUSIONARY Revenue earning 83 million instead of the 159 predicted by MLB.


How CAN we miss this ? & THIS is just 2 cases of BM being out of whack & note from the posts I made above the BM finance engine CREATES accurately the ACTUAL total league Revenue (+/- 10%) but is inaccurate to 90% of lower echelon teams Revenue creation.


That is why Big's win -------their real life data is actually close to what BM credits their earning potential & if anything BM over credits it because of the lack of RS sharing!

Once you get a stable sim then you can tweak the AI.
Here is the reminder if you forgot of his post:


Okay, using the formula FRS published above I punched in each team's "predicted revenue" according to HGM's rosters (since he did some work on the cities) as well as payroll. I then adjusted each city's per capita income until their revenue matched what they would get after the luxury and payroll tax was applied, and zeroed out each city's population growth so that variable would remain stable over time.

Here we go. HGM's rosters, cities changes as per above, other settings as per my other recent experiments.



YR HIGH LOW 100 DIV N/S - ALE ALC ALW ALw - NLE NLC NLW NLw - ALP NLP
08 NYM 99 FLA 46 - 1@ 4.00 1.84 - BOS MIN TEX TBR - NYM CIN LAD PHI - TBR NYM*
09 TBR 101 CIN 55 - 4 4.50 1.79 - TBR MIN LAA BOS - NYM MIL LAD COL - TBR* COL
10 LAD 103 BAL 60 - 4 11.50 1.56 - TBR CLE OAK NYY - NYM CHC LAD ARI - OAK* ARI
CIN 60
11 CLE 97 DET 60 - 1 4.67 1.58 - NYY CLE OAK MIN - ATL MIL COL FLA - NYY* COL
12 ATL 101 KCR 62 - 1 4.67 1.56 - BOS CLE OAK LAA - ATL CIN ARI LAD - OAK* ARI
WAS 62
13 PIT 103 HOU 63 - 1 4.83 1.43 - TOR CLE LAA OAK - NYM PIT ARI ATL - LAA ATL*
14 CIN 102 BOS 65 - 2 8.50 1.61 - TBR CLE OAK LAA - ATL CIN COL NYM - OAK COL*
NYY 65
15 COL 104 NYY 63 - 1 5.17 1.52 - BAL MIN LAA CLE - NYM MIL COL ARI - CLE COL*
16 NYM 100 CHW 60 - 3 7.83 1.77 - TBR MIN OAK LAA - NYM MIL COL ATL - TBR COL*
HOU 60
17 ATL 117 SDP 58 - 5@ 9.33 2.29 - TBR CLE LAA TOR - ATL MIL COL NYM - LAA COL*

@ - One team had a .700 or .300 winning percentage
* - World Series winner


The league doesn't even THINK about blowing up until Y9. Years 4-8 are excellent.



Keeping the city population stable helps.

So...yes, FRS. This works. .

Anyways like Catknight said "the data is their",use it or not,but remember that as it stands FLA is set to make 50 million revenue (at +90%) dont be surprised that in 2010 in any of your sims Olsen/Willingham/Ramirez are playing for the Yankees or Bosox.:)

I'm DONE on this ;)

[HoustonGM]

AI works if you HAVE the right Revenue.
No it doesn't. It still has major flaws.

I'll repeat myself again. I agree that this needs to be fixed, but it is NOT the only thing that needs fixing when it comes to the competitive balance issue. The AI does, as well.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

No it doesn't. It still has major flaws.

I'll repeat myself again. I agree that this needs to be fixed, but it is NOT the only thing that needs fixing when it comes to the competitive balance issue. The AI does, as well.

You are right,I am wrong -use real data for Payroll & play with hypothetical data which has multiple teams below 80 million in revenue- I ve said my piece. :(

Get AI fixed & show me how "uber AI" at 50 Million Revenue Potential with a 30 million payroll the Marlins can stay competitive*.....;)


* or Brewers with 83 mill revenue & 80 million roll




2008 MLB Team Payrolls
Rk Team Payroll (US$)
1 Yankees $208,684,129
2 Mets $137,391,376
3 Tigers $137,265,196
4 Red Sox $132,985,035
5 Cubs $126,345,833
6 White Sox $122,429,332
7 Angels $119,216,333
8 Dodgers $118,588,536
9 Mariners $114,666,482
10 Braves $102,365,683
11 Cardinals $99,624,449
12 Phillies $95,879,880
13 Astros $88,525,414
14 Blue Jays $88,233,900
15 Brewers $80,913,499
16 Indians $76,770,066
17 Giants $76,202,000
18 Reds $73,142,695
19 Rockies $70,900,500
20 Rangers $67,712,326
21 Orioles $67,196,246
22 Diamondbacks $66,202,712
23 Padres $65,240,064
24 Athletics $59,724,626
25 Royals $58,245,500
26 Twins $57,322,766
27 Nationals $54,111,000
28 Pirates $50,889,783
29 Devil Rays $44,644,597
30 Marlins $24,211,500




(I will do like Catknight has done & leave the debate at this juncture)

[kenny1234]

Let me repeat myself. The expenses in the game are only a portion of the actual expenses faced by a MLB team. It doesn't make sense for Florida to have $80million in revenue that could be spent on salaries - because that isn't really an option in real life. They also have to pay coaches, travel, an administrative staff etc. I take the revenue shown in the game to be something approximating real life revenue minus these costs.

With that said - there are two reasons the game gets out of balance after 3-4 years. First, as FRS and Cat have said the difference in revenue between the big and small teams might be greater in the game than real life. Second, the money might be right but the small-market teams don't spend optimally - thus putting themselves at a big disadvantage in comparison to the big-markets.

To see this I took a look at the payroll numbers after 10 years - when the leagues have completely blown up. The deviation in the payrolls increases after 10 years - indicating that there might be something to the finances story. But the league blows up in the second example as well (using FRS rosters) even though the payroll differences don't actually change that much. From this I would guess that both factors are relevant - and should both be fixed. If the revenue fix is easier then it could be done first - and I think it would solve at least part of the problem. But I still think that the AI fix is needed to solve the problem properly.

HGM2008 HGM2018 FRS2008 FRS2018
St.Dev. 38 54 38 44


AL
Balt 66 80 78 119
Bos 134 170 140 140
Chi 123 130 131 84
Cle 91 68 91 103
Det 158 208 162 182
KC 68 59 70 67
LA 121 126 129 157
Min 72 60 77 115
NY 211 216 211 235
Oak 49 77 53 87
Sea 118 89 112 123
TB 55 64 56 50
Tex 83 75 90 99
Tor 120 123 113 124

NL
Ari 72 124 77 143
Atl 104 123 106 170
Chi 131 172 137 131
Cin 92 84 98 66
Col 87 87 89 111
Florida 20 42 25 45
Houston 94 73 104 139
LA 111 203 130 183
Mil 86 73 92 49
NY 150 234 156 161
Phi 107 112 111 123
Pit 54 54 57 133
SD 85 90 88 97
SF 86 142 90 79
Stl 110 126 115 111
Was 60 48 61 114

[HoustonGM]

You are right,I am wrong
What are you talking about? When did I ever say you were wrong? Read my post again, please.


But I still think that the AI fix is needed to solve the problem properly.
Exactly. Finances are part of the issue. They aren't the entire issue.

[Arctic Blast]

I'm going to try coming at this from a different angle. I'm not going to get in to facts and figures, or what is and isn't an expense, or any of the nuts and bolts finances, for one simple reason. Many times on these boards, people make claims about how "The game hates this player" or "It's biased against this team.", and the response is always "This is a game, it's not meant to be a complete simulation of how things will be." (which is the response that should be made). So, I'm going to come at it from that point.

The point of ANY game, whether it's a first person shooter, a sports sim, or a poker game, is very simple...fun. That's it. You can have the most accurately modeled sim engine of all time, but if it isn't packaged in to a game that makes for a fun experience, you aren't going to be in business for very long. You can have the most graphically intense FPS ever, but throw in clunky controls that make the game frustrating, rather than fun, and the copies will collect dust on store shelves.

And, the simple fact is, for a sports sim, BM, after a couple seasons, ceases to be fun. It consistently turns in to the big markets dominating the league to a ridiculous extent. The only way to avoid that is to control every single team, and, let's face it, for 99% of people, THAT does not come anywhere near approaching fun. I'm not saying that the only issue with the way the game works is the revenue engine, but that is a MAJOR aspect of it. Certainly, the AI needs a MAJOR upgrade, especially when it comes to the, frankly, retarded trades that take place. Now, I would imagine that, to an extent, a lot of those trades are taking the revenue problems in to account, and those are part of the reason the small markets are moving big name players (it, of course, doesn't address the fact they accept a bunch of average MLB players and awful prospects in return). If this makes the game more FUN on a long term basis, do it. It really is that simple. That doesn't mean you STOP with that, but it's a nice first step. And in the meantime, frankly, I think it's time for the AI to be, not the major project when it comes to dev time, the ONLY project. The game doesn't seem to have any crash-causing bugs, or sim wrecking errors in code, that need a hotfix. I, and I'd imagine I'm far from alone here, do not give a **** about adding anything else to a game that needs an AI upgrade. So, let's focus on fixing that.

Anyway, that's it. I apologize if that came off as a bit heated, that really wasn't the intention, but I sometimes end up going that way when I get on a roll.

[jcbarr]

The argument that revenue sharing shouldn't be in the game because the actual expenditures aren't totally correct doesn't hold water in my book. If you want the expenditures to accurately mimic real life then you would also have to control every aspect of them, which isn't possible at this point. BM takes in to account the major expenses that teams have to pay out during the year. This is enough for me, I don't want to have to control every dime that my team makes, likewise, I don't want to have to control the revenue sharing myself at the end of every year either.

The point of the matter is the fact that teams do not make the amount of money that they do in real life. It doesn't matter what they spend on or what they make money on. The point that is being made here is that the profit that Marlins will actually turn here is in no way even near what kind of profit that they will make in BM. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

If the Orioles make 100 million this year IRL and then you sim out this season in BM and they make 12 million, that just isn't going to cut it. Keeping with this example, they make 100 million in 2008. Don't you think the profit for 2008 is going to have an impact on how they spend in 2009? Owners in general aren't going to spend on what they "think" they are going to make next year, they like to spend what they already have.

Yes, the AI needs a major overhaul to help the CPU teams, but the amount of revenue that they have is a big player in this part of the game. If the Pirates don't have any money to spend then who cares how they "would" have spent it.

It's the divide by zero rule here. If you don't have any money to spend then you can't even make any decisions on how to spend it.

First you give the team the money they should be able to spend. Then you watch how they spend it. At that point then you can make an accurate determination of how they should be changed to accommodate for that.

Also I think that the AI should be modeled of the revenue model. When you balance out the league you still don't want the Pirates and Twins to be in small market mode. You want them to be able to use the money that they have.

[kenny1234]

The argument that revenue sharing shouldn't be in the game because the actual expenditures aren't totally correct doesn't hold water in my book.

I think this is in response to my comments. Let me clarify - I wasn't trying to say that revenue sharing shouldn't be in the game. All I was saying is that getting BM revenue to match real life revenue would be wrong because there are a number of expenses that are not in the game. If IRL Florida has $80million in revenue and spends $25million on salaries then they have $55million left over. That is split between farm, medical and scouting (in the game), front office personnel, travel etc (not in the game) and the owner's profit (not in the game). Even ignoring the fact that many baseball owners have a profit motive - the teams also spend a significant amount of money on things not in the game. If Florida spends $10million on things outside the game then they should show as having $70million revenue in Mogul - not $80m.

The real problem as shown by FRS and Cat is that NYY revenue (after revenue sharing) is higher in the game than IRL - which is a problem that I agree should be fixed.

[jcbarr]

I don't think the point of revenue is what is in question here, I think the point is that the profit turned by the team is what needs to be accurate. How much money comes in and goes out is irrelevant as long as the profit is pretty close to what it is IRL.

[OldFatGuy]

I'm not saying that the only issue with the way the game works is the revenue engine, but that is a MAJOR aspect of it. Certainly, the AI needs a MAJOR upgrade, especially when it comes to the, frankly, retarded trades that take place. .... frankly, I think it's time for the AI to be, not the major project when it comes to dev time, the ONLY project. The game doesn't seem to have any crash-causing bugs, or sim wrecking errors in code, that need a hotfix. I, and I'd imagine I'm far from alone here, do not give a **** about adding anything else to a game that needs an AI upgrade. So, let's focus on fixing that.

Anyway, that's it. I apologize if that came off as a bit heated, that really wasn't the intention, but I sometimes end up going that way when I get on a roll.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I just posted a similar request for better AI on another board for another game. Chess AI improved to the point, after a lot of hard work, that it could beat the world chess champion. Baseball AI, in terms of in game management and roster/organizational management, seems to have not improved much at all since the very first computer games came out. Idiotic trades, non-sensical releasing of good players and signing of losers, having a player bunt with a man on first in the ninth trailing by four, I mean I see it ALL the time. Whenever someone comes up with the best in-game and roster management AI ever, I'll gladly plunk down more than the industry standard $20-$40 for that game. Do it in a heartbeat.

[Arctic Blast]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I just posted a similar request for better AI on another board for another game. Chess AI improved to the point, after a lot of hard work, that it could beat the world chess champion. Baseball AI, in terms of in game management and roster/organizational management, seems to have not improved much at all since the very first computer games came out. Idiotic trades, non-sensical releasing of good players and signing of losers, having a player bunt with a man on first in the ninth trailing by four, I mean I see it ALL the time. Whenever someone comes up with the best in-game and roster management AI ever, I'll gladly plunk down more than the industry standard $20-$40 for that game. Do it in a heartbeat.

Agree completely with your sentiment, OFG. I think we've sort of reached a point where I'm starting to hold off a bit and wait for software publishers to EARN my money. It just seems that, in the world of sports games, far too many of them are complete and utter disasters (note to all : I am NOT referring to BM when I say this). I realize, of course, that programming AI is the single hardest aspect of game creation, and I'm not expecting some overnight success here. I guess the reason I like what I've seen in this thread of CatKnight and FRS' proft fix is that it fits the bill for right now of improving the way the game works WHILE the AI gets sorted out (which, hopefully, is happening).

[HoustonGM]

Yeah, whats the problem with making a hotfix using revenue to tide us over while the AI is getting beefed?
Nothing. I don't think any "quick fixes" should be implemented in the actual coding of the game, that's all.

[HoustonGM]

I'd rather it be better than what we have....by implementing a full-scale solution rather than a quick-fix.

[Arctic Blast]

I agree with that. I think the files CK and FRS have come up with SHOULD be very easily available, including a How-To file, for anyone who wants them. However, I really don't think hardcoding it in to the game is a great idea, SO LONG as these things ARE, in fact, being worked on IN the game code in a more permanent way (deal8ing with the AI, AND with the revenue/profit, issues).

[ohms_law]

I agree with that. I think the files CK and FRS have come up with SHOULD be very easily available, including a How-To file, for anyone who wants them. However, I really don't think hardcoding it in to the game is a great idea, SO LONG as these things ARE, in fact, being worked on IN the game code in a more permanent way (deal8ing with the AI, AND with the revenue/profit, issues).

Really, this has been my only point all along. Maybe I just haven't said it in an understandable enough manner, is all. I wouldn't be surprised.

[dolfanar]

I agree with that. I think the files CK and FRS have come up with SHOULD be very easily available, including a How-To file, for anyone who wants them. However, I really don't think hardcoding it in to the game is a great idea, SO LONG as these things ARE, in fact, being worked on IN the game code in a more permanent way (deal8ing with the AI, AND with the revenue/profit, issues).

THese issues have existed for a LONG time, and have shown no signs of being addressed any time in the near future. If these alterations make the game more playable NOW, then that is a good enough reason to implement them NOW, IMONSHO.