(the new) player development budget

[SteveV]

Originally Posted by Carplos

In addition to VETERAN PRESENCE, let's also add CLUTCH, GRIT and SCRAPPINESS.

Thers no such thing as 'Clutch'

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by Pineapple

How much improvement can someone gain from working hard? How do you quantify that?

There's a difference between quantifying and proving. You can prove that a good work ethic will make you better at your chosen skill, be it baseball or writing. If you take two players with the exact same potential but one practices every day and one practices once a week the player who practices every day is going to get better, quicker, than the player who only practices once a week. It's not like the idea of "clutch players" which can't realistically be proven. I don't think something needs to be able to be quantified, but at the very least it needs to be able to be proven to exist.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by Pineapple

I rather see former high schoolers possibly add an inch or two or put on some weight as they mature. This would make the draft more fun. Maybe that high school SS may eventually become too big and have to be moved to 3B.

This is already primitively modeled in the "random talent change" feature. Also Cal Ripken Jr. would like to talk to you about "being too big to be a SS".

Originally Posted by Pineapple

From an online league point of view, I really dislike using money as a way to try to out-strategize my fellow human opponents. Even though money - or rather the disparity of it - is a very real and significant part of real-life baseball, I don't find money sinks in online leagues too rewarding. All I do is try to spend my excess money in scouting or hiring the best coaches. I find it more rewarding focusing on other aspects such as drafting the right players, properly developing them, or making quality trades. These aspects don't involve money. It involves thinking. So, I'm always more interested to see if the game finds ways to improve these aspects such as improving the player developmental model, injury model, aging model, personality affects, etc. It is these type of features that make me think rather than just check if I have the money or not.

Well it's a good thing a (I'm going to guess fairly large) portion of the community has no interest in online play. Otherwise the "From an online perspective" argument would hold some water. Not every feature is intended for every style of gameplay though.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Pineapple

For example, I rather see the addition of veteran mentors added to the game. This might give me a reason to add a declining veteran to my organization in hopes of him mentoring the young kids.

Originally Posted by Carplos

In addition to VETERAN PRESENCE, let's also add CLUTCH, GRIT and SCRAPPINESS.

I suppose one could argue that grit and scrappiness are already included in the player's personality and work ethic.

Clutch at one time was in the game IIRC and was removed due to user request as an unprovable trait, which I believe most users agree with.

Are you comparing "veteran mentors" with clutch? You don't think adding a Greg Maddux or a Barry Larkin to your team helps the young players? It doesn't even have to be young players that are helped. Players learn from each other all of the time. Look at Kerry Wood last year picking up the cutter from Mariano Rivera. I don't think its any different than having an extra pitching, bench, or hitting coach that can mentor one or two particular players and bring the benefits that any OOTP coach currently gives to a player.

Front Office Football and Football Manager both have this feature and handle it well. IMHO it is an idea with some merit. It's something I certainly wouldn't compare to clutch.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by mm7607

I don't want to play 'the business' I want to play 'the game'. The way the game is progressing now eventually its going to so full of financial crap the game itself is going to be lost in the shuffle.

Exactly. If I wanted a freaking business simulation I'd buy one.

[waltwa]

Let me see if i understand this new feature

There are 2 teams. Team A spends the league average of 25 mil on player development. The other team B spends 100 mil on player development. Team A has very few players develop into stars while Team B has all kinds of players develop into stars.

If that is the system it is not baseball. If the key to success is outspending everyone else in player developemnt then everyone would be directing all of their $ into that area. That is certainly not the case in real baseball. A team sets up a player development system that touches all the bases and my guess is that all of them spend enough to have an efficient organized system.

Are we to believe that the SF giants draft Lincecum and then decide not to develop him properly?

There comes a point when a game can add so many features that it becomes tedious. Some people want to deal with food prices in this game but then why limit it to that. what about who to pair up in hotel rooms when traveling. How much should we spend onthe team jet. Oh by the way some players are dissastisfied with the after game smorgy. Let's interview a new caterer.


I really like the way the minors are set up in this game and i spend time moving players around. But i don't and would never play in a league that has coaches and scouts.

Add all the features you want but give the GM's the opportunity to turn features off so that we are not forced to be bogged down with having to do all kinds of tedious jobs to play the game- unless you like to be bogged down.

You have to be careful when adding features. there was a year 2006 or so when this baseball game became a soccer game and that was the year when i stopped playing and started looking at other baseball games. Fortunately that direction was reversed.

[megamanmatt]

Wow. Based off the logic I'm hearing there really is no need for contracts, free agency, minor leagues of any kind, All-Star games, play offs, or stadiums. All of these are ways in which one group or another could generate more money. Heck no real need to have evolve leagues either since money is no issue there is no reason for a team to move or a league to expand.

[AirmenSmith]

Originally Posted by waltwa

Let me see if i understand this new feature

There are 2 teams. Team A spends the league average of 25 mil on player development. The other team B spends 100 mil on player development. Team A has very few players develop into stars while Team B has all kinds of players develop into stars.

This actually would be based on your scouting team and scouting budget. Player developmental budget, by my understanding, does not affect how many prospects you have in your organization. Who ever has the best scout and/or spends the most on scouting budget, thats what will get you the most prospects.

The way this seems like it will work, is if you spend a lot on player developmental budget then your players "COULD" develop faster and better.

IMO this is in the MLB right now. As provided in earlier post, this type of money would go to a lot of different places in the minors. Each team gets money as well as other places such as rehab centers, instructional leagues, ect.

If team A spends 25 million on its player developmental budget and team B spends 100 million on it, then team B could have a better chance of its prospects developing and going to the majors.

Your correct in saying no team, regardless of budget, would not develop their prospects correctly but if a team spends more on its training equipment and facilities then that very well could help there prospects improve faster.

This feature is an option as Markus has said that if you type in 0 for the league developmental budget then it is disabled. While its not a check box it still does the same thing.

Also I agree 2006 was a big, big leap but comparing it to a soccer game is just wrong lol. It was better then that at least . The game we have today would not be where it is without the 2006 makeover. IMO.

[waltwa]

Let me draft 5 players in the 1st round each year and i will spend the least on player development of any team in the majors and i will have the best system.

The point is that if a team spends 100 mil on player development and begins to win championships every year all teams will go in that direction. If you can't afford to go in that direction you can say goodbye to the team.

You set up a multi-million dollar enterprise and then you decide to cut corners on player development. It just would not make sense. If it can be turned off i will do so. but the reason i would do that is that i don't believe that any team in real baseball would cut corners on player development. Of course some teams spend more than others but does that translate to a better system of developing players.

In the game it sounds like if you use this feature and spend much more $ than any other team you will develop better players and what I am saying is that this just would never happen in real life. There is a point of spending where if you spend far less than any other team you probably would not have a good organization but no team will allow that to happen so what you have in real baseball are 30 teams that all have systems that will develop players at more or less the same pace.

Who in the world would sign out of the draft with a team that has a reputation for not spending $ to develop players. the edge in baseball is who has the $ to sign DEVELOPED players. Let's not give an additional edge to the haves that actually does not exist in real baseball.

I like to see new features in the game but there have been some that don't make sense and this one sounds that way.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by waltwa

Who in the world would sign out of the draft with a team that has a reputation for not spending $ to develop players. the edge in baseball is who has the $ to sign DEVELOPED players. Let's not give an additional edge to the haves that actually does not exist in real baseball.

Well then perhaps you can explain the 1987 and 1991 World Series for the Twins. Or the previous 10 years where they've played better than at least two other teams in their division who have a lot more money to spend on "developed" talent than they do?

[Le Grande Orange]

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

What the player development expense should represent first and foremost (as the Rangers' financials show) is the cost of running the minor league affiliates. Those cost MLB clubs money, roughly $20 million on average, or in the area of 10%-12% of expenses.

It can also be used to help develop players' abilities (which makes sense in that the more a club spends the better instructors and facilities it has). But it should mostly be about the minor league affiliates.

Making the affiliates have a cost adds some interesting options for users who are managing the finances of their OOTP clubs. While currently most MLB teams have about the same number of affiliates, which consequently means the costs are roughly about the same for each MLB team, that wasn't the case in earlier years. In the earlier years there were often extreme differences in the size of the minor league systems of MLB teams. In 1950, for example, the Dodges had 24 affiliates while the Braves had only 11.

With a per affiliate cost in player development, those wishing to mimic the minor systems of earlier years will have to face choices: if their club is strapped for cash, maybe it has to give up affiliates and reduce its minor league system, with likely means fewer new players coming up through the ranks and less playing experience for them. In contrast, a wealthy club might choose to expand its minors organization by taking in more affiliates, which means more young players to choose from.

Those sorts of decisions, fuelled by finances but which have an impact on the organization's potential future on-the-field performance, are what makes things interesting for those looking for something a little deeper than just building a roster without having to think about revenues and expenses.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by waltwa

The point is that if a team spends 100 mil on player development and begins to win championships every year all teams will go in that direction.

Any such expenditures are constrained to a range of possible values by the revenues coming in and the other expenses a club has to pay.

Look at it this way: there is nothing actually stopping the Tampa Bay Rays, or any other MLB club, from signing $200 million worth of player salaries for the 2012 season. So why don't they do it? Because they know they'll never take in anywhere near enough revenue in 2012 to cover $200 million in player salaries plus all the other expenses it has to pay. And the owners aren't prepared to bathe in that level of red ink. So the player salary bill is held to a more rational level, one matched to the revenue the club thinks it can make in 2012.

All expenses end up being constrained in this manner. It's just that wealthier clubs have a bit more freedom in their financial decision making than do less wealthy clubs.

[waltwa]

In reference to the signing of DEVELOPED talent.

Yes I can explain the Twins playing better baseball than a couple of other teams in their division who spent more on developed talent.

Let me explain it by citing the SF giants. Barry Zito and Aaron Rowand!!!! About 30 mil spent on almost zero production. Having $ to spend on developed talent doesn't mean you will always make good decisions. Not having $ to spend on developed talent means you will never have to make decisions.

The developing talent option is an ok thing for the game as long as it can be turned off. But i still maintain that it plays no role in real baseball. The important factor is drafting the right players to develop. Every major league team has a good solid developmental system. There is no measureable difference in how a player develops with the Yankees or the Pirates.
The difference is that the Pirates usually have the edge in the drafting process because they draft higher and in addition the Yankees probably are giving away picks due to FA Comp. NY figures why worry when it has the $ to sign the much surer developed player. But in OOTP i think the Yanks will spend more $ to develop players since they have the $ to spend.

This sounds like an addition to the game that simply does not exist in modern day baseball.

By the way in citing the Dodgers of 1950 having over 20 minors teams. I went to a high school in SF that had a great baseball program. The head coach was a dodger scout. Every year we had 3-6 players sign with the dodgers and they played a season and then went home. It cost the dodgers hardly any $ but i guess once in a while it paid off altho not in the case of any players from my school.

[megamanmatt]

Don't care anymore. People who like to complain will complain about anything. I'm just going to accept it and move on.

[Carplos]

Are you comparing "veteran mentors" with clutch?

Yes, in the sense that I don't think it's actually measurable. Human beings react differently when they're in more stressful situations. Some people probably do handle being a closer better than others, but there's very little statistical correlation over long periods of time. Probably because skill and talent balances it out.

You don't think adding a Greg Maddux or a Barry Larkin to your team helps the young players? It doesn't even have to be young players that are helped. Players learn from each other all of the time. Look at Kerry Wood last year picking up the cutter from Mariano Rivera. I don't think its any different than having an extra pitching, bench, or hitting coach that can mentor one or two particular players and bring the benefits that any OOTP coach currently gives to a player.

I'm not saying it doesn't help and I agree with you here--except it doesn't HAVE to be a veteran player. You don't think any Giant hitters could learn something from Buster Posey about hitting? I know Panda swings at everything, but maybe he could give some tips of plate coverage.

My point is there's no way to put a single rating on it. Now, if you want to suggest maybe players can pick up traits from other players (pitchers picking up pitches, for example) then I'm all for it.

Mike Sweeney is a guy who hung around at least five years longer than he should've because he was a nice guy with "veteran presence," but I see no evidence that he actually helped any individual player in the long run.

[Carplos]

The developing talent option is an ok thing for the game as long as it can be turned off. But i still maintain that it plays no role in real baseball. The important factor is drafting the right players to develop. Every major league team has a good solid developmental system. There is no measureable difference in how a player develops with the Yankees or the Pirates.
The difference is that the Pirates usually have the edge in the drafting process because they draft higher and in addition the Yankees probably are giving away picks due to FA Comp. NY figures why worry when it has the $ to sign the much surer developed player. But in OOTP i think the Yanks will spend more $ to develop players since they have the $ to spend.

Which is frickin' hilarious when you consider that the Yankees have the better overall system, although the Pirates signings of Heredia and Tailleson probably put their top 3 guys at the top, but after them...

[Biggio509]

It really seems like the development budget in 12 is really more instructional leagues, minor league spring training, and roving instructors. Whereas I agree with LGO on the concept, it seems like Markus uses it to counter too much money. It sounds as though the effect is small. However, from a purely game balance view I welcome this budgets sometimes increase too fast meaning teams can afford more draft bonuses than they should be able. The market aspect of free agents helps to even things out in that area.

Although, the cost of the minors leagues could and maybe should be modeled. All minor league players have contracts and some are the not minimum for their level, I think it kind of comes out in the wash. In today's baseball the only difference in affiliates comes with the lowest minors. Some have a combination of 3 Short A and below teams and some have 2. So putting the cost of minors and the differences is pretty minimal for the modern game considering the difference is really if teams have a GCL/AZ team which should be minimal. However from a historical viewpoint, I can see how what LGO is saying is would be grand. Historically, the Branch Rickey method was only open to teams who had the funds to buy out and run those minor league clubs.

In the modern game minor league costs to the parent club are actually the salaries of the minor league players. So yes the number of minors affects this but it seems more like having minor league contracts actually cost you something is more in order than player development being linked to the number of clubs. Right now the game balances this out. The club does not receive its portion of ticket sales nor does it pay the salaries of minor players.

Revenue is problematic as well. Minor league teams are their own brand and there is a pretty big disparity in minor league club revenues. HowStuffWorks "How Minor League Baseball Teams Work" "Despite the positive trends of the past decade or so, not all minor league clubs enjoy the degree of success of Buffalo, Indianapolis, Louisville and Durham clubs; around 25 percent of the clubs still draw fewer than 1,000 fans per game. Only time will tell if minor league baseball's roller-coaster ride of the past century will continue. " To note Buffalo has something like a 10,000 capicity and sells around 460,000 tickets are year. Over 140 games that averages over 3,000 a game.

The same sight breaks down a high level cost split. "Major business expenses include rental of the ballpark (owned and maintained by the city), player-related expenses, payroll for around 100 employees (office, promotional, field, parking staff) on any given game day, National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues dues, and ticket taxes. The Devil Rays negotiate and pay player salaries, and the Durham Bulls participate with them in paying for bats, balls, equipment and uniforms. Since umpires must remain neutral, the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues trains, assigns and pays umpires."


A very small tidbit on revenue split between parent and affiliate.
Minors extend agreement through 2020 | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball

"The only change of any real substance in the new PBA is that the NAPBL has committed to a slight increase in the tax on ticket revenue that Minor League teams pay to Major League Baseball. O'Conner emphasized that the increase will be incremental, "escalating in a fair and equitable way, not so precipitous as to be painful." "

So in essence minor league clubs add revenue and cost to the parent. The main cost the parent pays are players and it looks like coaches. Beyond that there is not much minor league cost. The cost is tied to the amount of players which is tied to the number of clubs. So the player development budget has really little to do with this. A better model would just be minor league contracts that cost something and teams receive minor league revenue. Again, I think the current model is ok here because minor league revenues and cost are omitted. It is inaccurate in that in most cases the share of ticket sales will not cover the cost of player salaries but I am not sure if the difference is significant for most teams. Sure the GCL and AZL have no tickets sales but how much are you paying these guys beyond bonuses? Probably not much.

If we want cost of the minors we should have revenue. It could make a interesting future model if minor league contracts actually expire and teams negotiate new contracts. You might have to fight for a team like Durham while say the SWB Yankees might a little less attractive. You find some minor league teams like Reno that sold for $7 million and some not so great A clubs that sold for over a million while others struggle to get 1,000 fans in for a game. In some cases, the quality of minor leaguers is a factor in some cases it is good branding by the minor league club. So the revenue might get complicated.

Bringing this back to player development, this budget would really be for roving instructors and instructional leagues. Other than player salaries the day to day cost of minor league teams seems to be borne by the minor. The development cost are directly related to players and administration. We are not talking about stadium cost or cost of uniforms or anything with day to day operations here just the players and support staff for players maybe some travel expenses for promotions and demotions.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Biggio509

In the modern game minor league costs to the parent club are actually the salaries of the minor league players.

As an FYI to this, the numbers for the Texas Rangers, according to its (leaked) financial documents. Note that the major league parent club, in addition to the player, manager, and coach salaries, also pays a portion of the travel costs of the minor league club as well as some of its other expenses.

TEXAS RANGERS MINOR LEAGUE EXPENSES

                                       2008       2007 

Class AAA      Manager & coaches     191,343    204,396
(PCL)          Players             2,248,899    565,964
               All other expenses    533,903    328,585
               ----------------------------------------
               TOTAL               2,974,145  1,098,945


Class AA       Manager & coaches     187,519    185,055
(TL)           Players               422,675    432,514
               All other expenses    312,564    285,322
               ----------------------------------------
               TOTAL                 922,758    902,891


Class A-High   Manager & coaches     165,279    150,600
(CAL)          Players               201,372    206,875
               All other expenses    260,367    249,043
               ----------------------------------------
               TOTAL                 627,018    606,517


Class A-Low    Manager & coaches     165,458    153,688
(MWL)          Players               206,133    188,529
               All other expenses    297,299    214,902
               ----------------------------------------
               TOTAL                 668,890    557,120


Class A-Short  Manager & coaches     153,667    150,698
(NWL)          Players               107,362     98,175
               All other expenses    258,783    211,719
               ----------------------------------------
               TOTAL                 519,812    460,592


Rookie         Manager & coaches     173,379    115,165
(AZL)          Players               222,207    233,563
               All other expenses    519,525    488,084
               TOTAL                 915,111    836,812


Instructional  Manager & players      20,675     16,025
               All other expenses    269,282    223,682
               ----------------------------------------
               TOTAL                 289,957    239,707


Fall           Staff                  12,250     23,133
(AFL)          Players                34,783     57,823
               All other expenses     13,620     18,545
               ----------------------------------------
               TOTAL                  60,654     99,502

The reason for the large difference in Triple-A player salaries in 2008 versus 2007 was due to a major league player being outrighted to the AAA club and accepting the assignment (meaning he kept getting paid that large salary).

By taking the total player salary bill and dividing by the number of players on the active roster, we get an approximation for the average salary. With the roster limits being 24, 24, 25, 25, 30, and 35 for AAA, AA, A-High, A-Low, A-Short, and Rookie, respectively, the average salary looks like this:

Triple-A: $93,704 (2008); $23,582 (2007)
Double-A: $17,611; $18,021
High-A: $8,055; $8,275
Low-A: $8,245; $7,541
Short-A: $3,579; $3,272
Rookie: $6,349; $6,673

The amount of the average player salary for the Rookie league affiliate looks high compared to the average salary in the minor league levels immediately above it. Since the Rangers' documents make no explicit reference to the signing bonuses paid to drafted amateur players,it's possible such signing bonuses have to some degree been counted as part of the salaries for the Rookie league players. Can't say for sure though.

One this is certain: one doesn't play minor league baseball for the money. Because there's little to be made. (Which is why signing bonuses matter so much: it's the only real money most drafted players will ever see for quite a few years.)

[Carplos]

Keep in mind that roster sizes in the rookie leagues are bigger, especially once you get down to the complex leagues where active players versus players at the complex probably changes daily.

It could also include extended spring training time where sometimes you have more experienced players staying working their way back from injuries/time off. Though since they list instructional league separately they made not include this.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by Carplos

It could also include extended spring training time where sometimes you have more experienced players staying working their way back from injuries/time off. Though since they list instructional league separately they made not include this.

Yeah this was my thought too.