Mogul Points ???????

[Slugger222]

Atlanta Brave Hearts
Fast Sim 46

I'm very confused with how the Mogul points work. My team
A. won the division with a better record than the Arizona team, B. went deeper into the playoffs than the AZ team,
C. had a greater revenue than the Arizona team
D. Turned a profit, while the Arizona team lost $$$$

Yet the AZ team gets 1000 Mogul points, and I get 600.

What is up with that?

[drew]

This is because it is easier to build a great team with Atlanta because of their great profit turnout. So, the Braves might win the NLDS and Arizona finishes second in the league and does not make the playoffs, but they will still make more Mogul points than you.

[Slugger222]

That is why I chose Arizona to compare.

I'm talking about Arizona. Home of the Schilling / Johnson dynamic duo. A team that - in real ball - is probably better than the Braves in 2001.

My Braves performed better, went farther in the playoffs, turned a profit, drew about the same number of fans (24,000 fewer) and got only 60% of the Mogul points Arizona got.

That does not seem right.

[daedalus]

It's not a comparison of "real ball" talent. The difference - and what drew was talking about - is that Atlanta can generate more money than Arizona can and, thus, make it an "easier" team to run and win with. So, with such teams you will get less points.

If you want to see why the receive different point score, try picking up a Milwaukee or a Montreal in a league and enjoy the wonderful fun of trying to build with those budgets.

[Clay Dreslough]

The scoring system is explained at http://www-1.sportsmogul.com/bb/Help/Scoring.htm. Teams with a lot of talent (e.g. Oakland) still get a large Mogul Point bonus because of their budget limits.

Note also that I just changed some of the team scoring adjustments. Arizona used to be Tier 3, but upon further review of the financials, I moved them to Tier 2. (Atlanta was, and still is, a Tier 1 team).

Sorry to change these mid-league, but that's what the beta is for...

Clay

[ogallala]

On the whole I like the way mogul points are set up. I can see one problem though.

Two players, one with Oakland and one with Baltimore. If the Baltimore GM does a good job he could still end up third in his division due to the fact that powerhouses Boston and New york are in the same division. So he would score 400 points.

Now lets say Oakland's GM really ran the team into the ground (only 30 wins and a profit of -100). The worst he could do because he is in the AL west is finish 4th in his division. Thats 450 points.

I think it would be better if you ranked the teams that did not make the playoffs by their winning percentage. Then, using the same chart that was used for division finish, put the top 4 winning % in the 2nd place group ... the next 5 in the 3rd place group ... then 4 then 5 then 4 in each of the other groups.

[Slugger222]

That this scoring system encourages the smaller teams to bankrupt themselves for a run at the championship!!!!!!

There is no provision for profit or revenue!

A second chart should be set up which includes profit, or revenue, so that everyone has incentive to run their team at a profit.

[dougummel]

While we are at it, why don't we code in bonus points for giving all players equal playing time? We could also give a bonus for the team the has the least stikeouts, most walks, best ERA, most profit, Funniest manager's name, and best mascot name subject to a vote across all sims.

Come'on guys, there is only so much that the man can put into this before it gets rediculously detailed so that NO ONE understands it. Then he will have more work than he does now trying to keep up with all of our complaints and suggestions.

How many of us play for Mogul points anyway? Even small market teams are trying to construct a team to make a run at the World Series. If a team has a bad profit, that is only going to hurt them in the future. There is no need to code it in. They may get more points now, but they will receive less in three years.

Good Job Clay!

[dabillytater]

Is there a provision within the program for a franchise to be promoted from one tier or be demoted. For instance, shouldn't some traditionally lousy franchises get the opportunity to grow into a powerhouse which doesn't have to worry about money. The fact is fans love a winner, and they really love a dynasty.
In real life, the Cleveland Indians were a joke 10 years ago and while they had some loyal fans, they weren't selling out the stadium like they do now. Should it also not be feasible for Oakland, Minnesota, Montreal, Tampa Bay, to name a few to jump up a tier, if they maintain winning records, reach playoffs a few years in a row and continue to do things which builds fan loyalty and allows for higher ticket prices, which allows for better payroll, which allows for better players, which allows for better teams, which creates fan excitement, etc.

I mean really, I'm an Astros fan and they're considered a medium if not small market team by most, but Houston is the fourth largest city in the U.S. How small a market is this supposed to be (I know, people care more about football in Texas). At some point, I think our skills as a GM needs to transcend the reality of Year 2001 baseball. If this game is simmed out even six seasons, half of everyone's roster will be computer generated players and at that point we will have new realities anyway. Again, who would have imagined in 1989 that Cleveland, Atlanta or even the Yankees would become the perennials they have into the '90s.

[daedalus]

Excellent point, dabillytater. :)

I'd love to see this as well. :)

[kohut]

You do have a point in that Cleveland had shitty turnouts till they built Jacobs Field. Some can be said about the stadium being the ***** becaue thats what happened to the Blue Jays and to soem degree the Expos (in the CFL they sell out all their games at the University of less than 20,000 people) and I believe have or will be selling out Olympic Stadium for the Grey Cup. But some teams like the Expos and Twins will never be competitive again with the spending habits of teams. They just can not generate the revenue of other teams regardless of how good they are. Remember Cleveland has a very large surrounding base whereas Montreal has a shitty canadian dollar and Minnesota doesnt have the population.

I do believe teams like Oakland shoulndt get shitty revenune because of the market though. They should have a very respectable increase in revenuue if the team is winning.

[euphoria13]

As an Oakland manager, I can state for a fact that Oakland is doomed. in thsi game. Even if you win, fans don't come. So, you can ahve a good team for a few years, then you are forced to start from square one because you couldn't re-sign any of your guys.

[TGG]

Try playing as the Twins............

Not so good.