Arbitration Awards

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by tehwholeworld

Why are ratings factored into the arbitration numbers at all? Isn't arbitration supposed to be based on player performance and not "potential"?

Well my understanding is that the ratings we see are based, at least to a degree, on the player's performance. The actual or "true" ratings are kept hidden to simulate the idea that scouts can and will be wrong.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by BlitzburghBucco

With all due respect, how is this remotely true? Two guys with near identical ratings and stats, if one is more popular than the other, will always get a higher arbitration reward.

You can easily test this. Go and edit popularity of an arbitration eligible player. You will see that the estimated arbitration amount does not change.

I say this again, popularity is based on similar things as the arbitration demands, thus it 'seems' that popularity is factored in, but in reality it is not.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by tehwholeworld

Why are ratings factored into the arbitration numbers at all? Isn't arbitration supposed to be based on player performance and not "potential"?

Consider this: You have a guy with average ratings, and he demands $1m in arbitration. Now, you go in and edit his (current) ratings and make him the next Pujols. Should he still demand $1m? I'd say no. That's why ratings are part of the equation...

[Corsairs]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Consider this: You have a guy with average ratings, and he demands $1m in arbitration. Now, you go in and edit his (current) ratings and make him the next Pujols. Should he still demand $1m? I'd say no. That's why ratings are part of the equation...

Well, technically, that's not how it would work in real life. I hear you; it would seem to make sense that a player's potential would factor into arbitration awards. However, there are actually strict, codified rules as to what an arbiter can and cannot consider when it comes to determining which side's salary proposal to favor. Here is what the arbiter may consider:

(1) the player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership;
(2) the club’s record and its attendance;
(3) any and all of the player’s “special accomplishments,” including All-Star game appearances, awards won, and postseason performance;
(4) the salaries of comparable players in the player’s service-time class and, for players with less than five years of service, the class one year ahead of him.

The parties may not refer to team finances, previous offers made during negotiations, comments from the press or salaries in other sports or occupations.

(This information courtesy of Cot's Baseball Contracts and the article "How Baseball Arbitration Works".)

As you see, the criteria that can be considered is somewhat surprising. A player's potential is not one of the criteria, but a player's "leadership" (how exactly do you define "leadership"?) is. More interestingly, IMO, is that a team's record and attendance during the player's time on the roster affects the award. But no, despite it seeming to make sense on the surface, a player's potential does not factor into arbitration awards in real life.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

As you see, the criteria that can be considered is somewhat surprising. A player's potential is not one of the criteria, but a player's "leadership" (how exactly do you define "leadership"?) is. More interestingly, IMO, is that a team's record and attendance during the player's time on the roster affects the award. But no, despite it seeming to make sense on the surface, a player's potential does not factor into arbitration awards in real life.

I disagree. "(4) the salaries of comparable players" ... comparable based on what? In OOTP that's ability (current ratings, not talent ratings) and stats.

It is a design decision, and one I really feel makes sense.

[kq76]

If we consider that the arbitration eligible player may just not have many stats because they're behind better players in the organization then I think it makes sense to include their ratings. On my team currently I have a superstar 1B and DH, but I also have quite a good backup who on any other team would most likely be a starter in the lineup somewhere. If ratings weren't factored in then his arbitration amounts would probably be much less than they actually are.

The "someone could edit his ratings" reasoning reads like silly paranoia to me, but no, I think it does make some sense to base it off ratings as well. I just wonder if arbitration judges factor such a situation in. I think they should if they don't.

[Jontler]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

You can easily test this. Go and edit popularity of an arbitration eligible player. You will see that the estimated arbitration amount does not change.

I say this again, popularity is based on similar things as the arbitration demands, thus it 'seems' that popularity is factored in, but in reality it is not.

I found this to be true, but it raises further questions. There is still a fundamental problem with arbitration awards (and contract demands) from bad players being as high as they are. The RSL examples that Buane posted are not unique, and I've seen them in other leagues I've been in. When you let such players walk, their contract demands on the free agency market are also absurdly high.

When factoring ratings into the arbitration estimates, contract demands, and player popularity, a natural question I raise is "How is this implemented?" That is, is it statically written into the game what types of ratings will boost financial demands and popularity, or is it dynamic to the league the player is in?

Either way, it certainly seems to me that ratings are playing a much bigger role in arbitration/contracts/popularity than they should. In my humble opinion, actual performance should be the overriding factor. I can see including ratings for the reasons you outlined, Markus, but they have far too much influence right now.

One of the biggest flaws I see in factoring ratings into arbitration/contracts/popularity is that you're not allowing the free market to be, um, a free market. Players are judged by the game first and the GMs going after the players second. Perhaps this is ideal for a solo or historic league, but in an online league it just results in a lot of guys either (a) making far too much in arbitration (b) being released to save money and costing their team fan interest (c) demanding far more than is reasonable in free agency and/or (d) rotting in FA/some international league because no human owner would dream of signing them to anything close to what they're demanding.

[Buane]

Well if popularity indeed is not affecting arbitration like you say, and is only just based off of the same evaluation criteria, something is still wrong.

Those arbitration examples I posted earlier are absurd and indefensible, and they're not outliers - they're only the most ridiculous examples of an epidemic that we see every offseason. Players with worse ratings and worse performances are making more than their "comparable" players with better ratings and better performances.

And if it were just a case of potential playing into the equation, I think we could all live with that. We'd shell out a few extra million for that budding superstar knowing he was on his way to stardom. But random bad players getting random bad paydays - heck that's really just annoying more than it is debilitating, because we can just release the bad players...oh wait, those bad players are also Very Popular and our fans will revolt if we let them go! And what about the average and useful player who we want to keep but to whom the game awards an inexplicable $6 million contract (and who, you guessed it, is Very Popular and our fans would be Very Upset if we had to trade/release)? That's really the issue at hand here.

[Corsairs]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I disagree. "(4) the salaries of comparable players" ... comparable based on what? In OOTP that's ability (current ratings, not talent ratings) and stats.

It is a design decision, and one I really feel makes sense.

Well, in real life arbitration terminology, "comparable players" is defined in terms of statistical output, not scouting reports. I have no problem with the design decision, though; I was just pointing out that it's not technically how it works in the real life process.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Jontler

Am I to understand it is the intent of the game to make AAAA players popular? Are players with AAAA ratings, who put up AAAA statistics, supposed to be popular? Is it reasonable to assume such players would be popular in real life?

I'm having trouble understanding how this could be working as intended.

I realize this is only one guy, but allow me to acquaint you with Eddie Kranepool. For several seasons the only reason Eddie wasn't either cut or traded for a lefthanded batgirl to work the third base line was because he was 'an original Met'. Late in his career he became actually useful, and his last four seasons he put on the most sustained performance of superb pinch hitting of which I am aware, but for two thirds of his tenure he was a classic AAAA player.

On the other side of the coin we have Willie Mays, who deteriorated badly his last three seasons, though he continued to make the All Star team every year (the best argument I know for not letting the fans select). Many 'future Hall of Famers' collapse in their last couple of seasons, but if they were playing in an OotP Baseball game I'd expect them to have very high free agent demands and probably bidding wars over them.

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

My only issue with popularity is there are too many nationally popular players and too few who are only popular locally.

In the historical game I tried (lost it in the process of updating to 10.4) there were far too few nationally popular players, and the popularity ratings seemed to be assigned arbitrarily. I was doing 1962, with which I have a little familiarity, and players I never heard of were getting high popularities, while those I thought of as the stars of the era (Aaron, Banks, Matthews) were completely unknown. In exasperation I eventually went through and promoted everyone with five years of service out of the lowest popularity level, those with ten years out of the bottom two, those with fifteen years out of the bottom three, and those with twenty years out of the bottom four on the grounds that anyone who had managed to hang around that long had to have some level of fan base.

Originally Posted by Jontler

Either way, it certainly seems to me that ratings are playing a much bigger role in arbitration/contracts/popularity than they should. In my humble opinion, actual performance should be the overriding factor. I can see including ratings for the reasons you outlined, Markus, but they have far too much influence right now.

One of the biggest flaws I see in factoring ratings into arbitration/contracts/popularity is that you're not allowing the free market to be, um, a free market. Players are judged by the game first and the GMs going after the players second. Perhaps this is ideal for a solo or historic league, but in an online league it just results in a lot of guys either (a) making far too much in arbitration (b) being released to save money and costing their team fan interest (c) demanding far more than is reasonable in free agency and/or (d) rotting in FA/some international league because no human owner would dream of signing them to anything close to what they're demanding.

Your second paragraph is interesting, and I must admit I hadn't considered that angle, being strictly a solo gamer. I do disagree with part of your first paragraph.

I agree that ratings should not impact national popularity, and probably shouldn't impact local popularity after the rookie season. I do think they should be the drivers in arbitration and free agent negotiations. It has nothing to do with reality; it's an issue of fairness. I see repeated posts where people claim the AI is stupid and easy to outwit (though you couldn't prove it by me), and using ratings rather than (or as a heavy modifier to) stats acts as a game-balancer. If the game doesn't do it, then you'll have a bunch of guys who hit/pitched way above their stats getting overpaid, while a bunch of guys who underperformed are underpaid. I'm certainly going to take advantage of that by trading my $3 million overpaid player for the AI's $3 million underpaid player. In a heartbeat. And twice on Sunday.

Originally Posted by Buane

Those arbitration examples I posted earlier are absurd and indefensible, and they're not outliers - they're only the most ridiculous examples of an epidemic that we see every offseason.

And if it were just a case of potential playing into the equation, I think we could all live with that. We'd shell out a few extra million for that budding superstar knowing he was on his way to stardom.

If they're the most ridiculous examples, then they're outliers. I think that's a pretty good definition of an outlier.

And I agree that potentials shouldn't affect negotiations, except for the draft bonus negotiations being added in Version 11. Ratings should be important, for the reason mentioned above.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by Curtis

If they're the most ridiculous examples, then they're outliers. I think that's a pretty good definition of an outlier.

Outlier suggests there are only a few examples out of many many cases. I was trying to make it clear that there are many, many examples and that I was only listing the most extreme ones. No, not every player is overpaid by 2000%, but there are plenty of examples of overpaid players.

Originally Posted by Curtis

I realize this is only one guy, but allow me to acquaint you with Eddie Kranepool. For several seasons the only reason Eddie wasn't either cut or traded for a lefthanded batgirl to work the third base line was because he was 'an original Met'. Late in his career he became actually useful, and his last four seasons he put on the most sustained performance of superb pinch hitting of which I am aware, but for two thirds of his tenure he was a classic AAAA player.

On the other side of the coin we have Willie Mays, who deteriorated badly his last three seasons, though he continued to make the All Star team every year (the best argument I know for not letting the fans select). Many 'future Hall of Famers' collapse in their last couple of seasons, but if they were playing in an OotP Baseball game I'd expect them to have very high free agent demands and probably bidding wars over them.

This goes back to what I posted earlier about it not being smart for OOTP to emulate broken or nonsensical systems. Should an aging hall-of-famer be extremely popular? Sure, you can argue that case. Should the game automatically set his "demand" at some absurd number? No.

If an extremely popular player was asking for, say, a 600k contract due to the fact that he's 41 and put up a .675 OPS last year, there would still be room for teams that were interested in him for his popularity to incite a bidding war amongst themselves. But having the game automatically set his value just because he's popular undercuts that aspect of what should be a free market system.

[megamanmatt]

I've never seen popularity affect contracts. Heck I just switched 10 guys with average rating and stats from "Unknown" to "Extremely Popular" and not one increased the money asked for. So I think you may need to rethink the problem.

[BlitzburghBucco]

1B Joe Schmo just posted a 1.011 OPS/.420 wOBA/76.3 VORP/171 OPS+/+1.8 ZR season in 728 PA. This is his first year of arbitration. (using modern MLB finance rules)
RF Tom Dickanharry posted a .818 OPS/.353 wOBA/31.6 VORP/120 OPS+/+5.4 ZR season in 635 PA. He's coming off a $5.45 1-year deal that avoided arbitration.

1B Joe Schmo is a 9/8/8/8/5 rated hitter who is 27 years old
RF Tom Dickanharry is a 6/6/7/5/4 rated hiter who is 32 years old

1B Joe Schmo made $8 million in arbitration
RF Tom Dickanharry made $11.5 million in arbitration

1B Joe Schmo - http://www.bbscleagues.us/scmlb/news...yer_19312.html
RF Tom Dickanharry - http://www.bbscleagues.us/scmlb/news...yer_18198.html

How the hell can this be working as intended?

[The Great Demo]

Originally Posted by BlitzburghBucco

1B Joe Schmo just posted a 1.011 OPS/.420 wOBA/76.3 VORP/171 OPS+/+1.8 ZR season in 728 PA. This is his first year of arbitration. (using modern MLB finance rules)
RF Tom Dickanharry posted a .818 OPS/.353 wOBA/31.6 VORP/120 OPS+/+5.4 ZR season in 635 PA. He's coming off a $5.45 1-year deal that avoided arbitration.

1B Joe Schmo is a 9/8/8/8/5 rated hitter who is 27 years old
RF Tom Dickanharry is a 6/6/7/5/4 rated hiter who is 32 years old

1B Joe Schmo made $8 million in arbitration
RF Tom Dickanharry made $11.5 million in arbitration

1B Joe Schmo - Player Report for #19 Joey Votto
RF Tom Dickanharry - Player Report for #47 Ryan Ludwick

How the hell can this be working as intended?

its a feature

[BlitzburghBucco]

Originally Posted by The Great Demo

its a feature

[The Great Demo]

on a more serious note, where both of these awards the results of the arbitration system where both team and player make offers for arbitration, is this using the old ootp8 arbitration system where the game automatically generates new salaries based on similar players in the same league?

if it was option a) can you please share if the players or the teams won their arbitration hears, and what both the players and the teams arbitration bids were as this would shine more light on the happenings.

it is not far-fetched to assume that joe schmo asked for a ridiculously high amount, and thus the arbitrator sided w/ the team, or that dickandharry's team offered a ridiculously low amount (this can happen in leagues w/ really stingy owners are present)

eta: on a closer look, it appears joe schmo's greed rating is normal. is it not safe to assume that perhaps he chose to give his team a hometown discount of some sort?

ludwick also has 2 years experience on votto. i do believe arbitration estimates in real life are something like 20% of worth awarded to player in first year of eligibility, 35% the second year, and something closer to 100% in his final year of arbitration. my percentages may be off but i do know that teams and players follow something similar in real life. i read it on the internet, so it must be so.

[snepp]

Originally Posted by BlitzburghBucco

How the hell can this be working as intended?

Better ask the MLB, because ridiculous **** like that happens every single year.

The arb system in real life is atrocious at best, which OOTP does a decent job of mirroring (for better or worse).

[BlitzburghBucco]

Jon Heyman? Is that you?

[BlitzburghBucco]

Originally Posted by snepp

Better ask the MLB, because ridiculous **** like that happens every single year.

The arb system in real life is atrocious at best, which OOTP does a decent job of mirroring (for better or worse).

If you can cite an example as extreme as the one I've posted, I'd be glad to hear it.

[snepp]

Originally Posted by The Great Demo

ludwick also has 2 years experience on votto. i do believe arbitration estimates in real life are something like 20% of worth awarded to player in first year of eligibility, 35% the second year, and something closer to 100% in his final year of arbitration. my percentages may be off but i do know that teams and players follow something similar in real life. i read it on the internet, so it must be so.

The percentages typically referenced by guys like Tom Tango when looking at salary-to-WAR for arb-eligible players are 40/60/80, for what it's worth.