Should this be addressed?

Nick0508 · 08-14-2007, 05:31 PM

Ok, I've been doing some number crunching with the offseason free agency AI. I started two leagues, one with patch 2 and one with the latest patch. I ran each league for 10 seasons, analyzing what the elite players are demanding versus what they actually sign for. I found some problems that might need to be addressed.

One, if you take a look at the attached spreadsheet, in both tests right around seasons 4-6, you start to see players going unsigned. There is no way a 4.5/5 star player should go unsigned for the whole year. Then, in most cases, the player retires because he's been sitting in the FA pool for so long. Some of these guys were absolute studs and potential HOF'ers.

Secondly, on average, players are signing for much less than their "demand." I'm sure that this isn't a problem for everybody per se, but it is to me. I like the old days when there would be a bidding war until one side would back down. Overall, if you take a look, players are signing at about 10% less than what the demanded.

If anyone has any questions on my data, feel free to ask. I'm a fan of Excel and I was very bored today, so what better to do with my time than do some number crunching.

P.S. sorry for the length of the post, apparently you cant attach spreadsheets

battists · 08-14-2007, 07:56 PM

Nick, we're ALWAYS interested in information like this - and this is a lot of what goes on during beta testing. (You're scoring points with me.

I can't guarantee that Markus will have a chance to look at something like this for the third patch, but this sort of info is always valuable.

Tell me, did you notice a difference between Patches 2 and 3? In other words, is it working "better" in one version than the other? Or is it just generally an issue?

Thanks!

Steve

Nick0508 · 08-14-2007, 10:57 PM

I'm not really convinced one way or another if it varies by patch. Right now, if I had to guess with the data I gathered, I would say it doesn't make a difference which patch I was using. Only having tested 10 seasons per test, I can't really call that a definite conclusion. I would have to run more of these tests for more seasons than just 10. One thing I did notice, however, was the unsigned/retired players seemed to clear itself up eventually around seasons 8-9. But, again, I'm not entirely convinced that it fixes itself because I only did 10 seasons. I'm thinking of doing another data gathering session and running it longer this time. Unless I can think of something that would be more useful to us (like testing these damn TT's

)

Dogzilla · 08-15-2007, 06:51 PM

Patch 3 looks a little better, but I hate having players go unsigned and retiring. It almost looks as if teams run out of money during years 4-6 then they correct their finances.

tysok · 08-15-2007, 10:23 PM

I see some examples, and I'm not even looking for it. My 5 time gold glove C, hits around .300 with 30 HRs per year, at 32 years old wanted 21 million to sign an extension... he went to free agency and asked for 27 million. Definitely worth the money, comparably at least (he's THE best catcher all around in the league and 5 other catchers are making 19 million or better). On December 16 he signed a contract for 13 million a year for 5 years.

Not so bad that he signed for 13, if teams out there don't have the money or don't want to spend it, but to sign in December for that is silly. But that's been a problem for OOTP for a long time.

Nick0508 · 08-16-2007, 12:39 PM

I've also noticed here lately that if you move the minimum salary down, you'll see this problem less. The last league I ran, I moved the minimum down to 50k and you can notice the difference. If the default minimum is 380k and you move it down to something like 50k, you'll be saving 330k per call up. All it takes is about eight guys being called up at 380k and that puts you at about $3M. I'm not sure is lowering the minimum is the solution, but it has yielded some better results.

Elendil · 08-28-2007, 02:50 PM

I TT'ed something closely related to this, but it was marked "For Next Full Release." I'll just the whole suggestion here:

I opened a new TT for a way to deal with a problem that some game users have reported. Text of the TT (3862) follows.

***

I've noticed that the FA pool usually contains some good players on Opening Day. I've noticed that these players have usually had pending offers within the past few months and rejected them. They reduce drastically what they are willing to accept once Opening Day arrives. So far so good. However, I notice that teams that have previously made these players offers do not try again when Opening Day arrives. I suspect that once they have made an offer to a player that has been rejected, they never try again with the same (or even lower) offer. In my view, they should come back with their earlier offer on Opening Day if they still have a need at that position & still have enough money to spend. Chances are that it would then be accepted, solving the sticky problem of good players that sometimes sit out substantial parts of the season - or even entire seasons.

***

08-14-2007, 05:31 PM	#1
Nick0508 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Davenport, IA Posts: 37	Should this be addressed? Ok, I've been doing some number crunching with the offseason free agency AI. I started two leagues, one with patch 2 and one with the latest patch. I ran each league for 10 seasons, analyzing what the elite players are demanding versus what they actually sign for. I found some problems that might need to be addressed. One, if you take a look at the attached spreadsheet, in both tests right around seasons 4-6, you start to see players going unsigned. There is no way a 4.5/5 star player should go unsigned for the whole year. Then, in most cases, the player retires because he's been sitting in the FA pool for so long. Some of these guys were absolute studs and potential HOF'ers. Secondly, on average, players are signing for much less than their "demand." I'm sure that this isn't a problem for everybody per se, but it is to me. I like the old days when there would be a bidding war until one side would back down. Overall, if you take a look, players are signing at about 10% less than what the demanded. If anyone has any questions on my data, feel free to ask. I'm a fan of Excel and I was very bored today, so what better to do with my time than do some number crunching. P.S. sorry for the length of the post, apparently you cant attach spreadsheets Attached Images

08-14-2007, 10:57 PM	#3
Nick0508 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Davenport, IA Posts: 37	I'm not really convinced one way or another if it varies by patch. Right now, if I had to guess with the data I gathered, I would say it doesn't make a difference which patch I was using. Only having tested 10 seasons per test, I can't really call that a definite conclusion. I would have to run more of these tests for more seasons than just 10. One thing I did notice, however, was the unsigned/retired players seemed to clear itself up eventually around seasons 8-9. But, again, I'm not entirely convinced that it fixes itself because I only did 10 seasons. I'm thinking of doing another data gathering session and running it longer this time. Unless I can think of something that would be more useful to us (like testing these damn TT's ) Last edited by Nick0508; 08-14-2007 at 11:00 PM.

08-15-2007, 10:23 PM	#5
tysok Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,925	I see some examples, and I'm not even looking for it. My 5 time gold glove C, hits around .300 with 30 HRs per year, at 32 years old wanted 21 million to sign an extension... he went to free agency and asked for 27 million. Definitely worth the money, comparably at least (he's THE best catcher all around in the league and 5 other catchers are making 19 million or better). On December 16 he signed a contract for 13 million a year for 5 years. Not so bad that he signed for 13, if teams out there don't have the money or don't want to spend it, but to sign in December for that is silly. But that's been a problem for OOTP for a long time. __________________ I don't know about you, but as for me, the question has already been answered: Should we be here? Yes! Jack Buck, September 17, 2001 It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. I firmly believe that any man's finest hour... is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious. (Vince Lombardi) I don't measure a man's success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom. (George S. Patton)

08-28-2007, 02:50 PM	#7
Elendil Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the dynasty forum Posts: 2,318	I TT'ed something closely related to this, but it was marked "For Next Full Release." I'll just the whole suggestion here: I opened a new TT for a way to deal with a problem that some game users have reported. Text of the TT (3862) follows. * I've noticed that the FA pool usually contains some good players on Opening Day. I've noticed that these players have usually had pending offers within the past few months and rejected them. They reduce drastically what they are willing to accept once Opening Day arrives. So far so good. However, I notice that teams that have previously made these players offers do not try again when Opening Day arrives. I suspect that once they have made an offer to a player that has been rejected, they never try again with the same (or even lower) offer. In my view, they should come back with their earlier offer on Opening Day if they still have a need at that position & still have enough money to spend. Chances are that it would then be accepted, solving the sticky problem of good players that sometimes sit out substantial parts of the season - or even entire seasons. * __________________ Heaven is kicking back with a double Talisker and a churchwarden stuffed with latakia.

08-14-2007, 07:56 PM	#2
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506	Nick, we're ALWAYS interested in information like this - and this is a lot of what goes on during beta testing. (You're scoring points with me. I can't guarantee that Markus will have a chance to look at something like this for the third patch, but this sort of info is always valuable. Tell me, did you notice a difference between Patches 2 and 3? In other words, is it working "better" in one version than the other? Or is it just generally an issue? Thanks! Steve

08-15-2007, 06:51 PM	#4
Dogzilla Major Leagues Join Date: May 2004 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 421	Patch 3 looks a little better, but I hate having players go unsigned and retiring. It almost looks as if teams run out of money during years 4-6 then they correct their finances.

08-16-2007, 12:39 PM	#6
Nick0508 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Davenport, IA Posts: 37	I've also noticed here lately that if you move the minimum salary down, you'll see this problem less. The last league I ran, I moved the minimum down to 50k and you can notice the difference. If the default minimum is 380k and you move it down to something like 50k, you'll be saving 330k per call up. All it takes is about eight guys being called up at 380k and that puts you at about $3M. I'm not sure is lowering the minimum is the solution, but it has yielded some better results.