Stats Only v Ratings, A Compromise

[braunfullyaccused]

So, much like everyone here I strive for the most realistic game possible w/o any advantage over the AI (or the inverse). I found a nice compromise in my settings that I figured I'd share. I sought to actually make the 'scout player' important – while eliminating the ability to visualize 'trends' in player development.

(Apologies in advance if this seems like a 'no-brainer'.)

Also note that I play every game, so a season typically plays out over two months or so for me. YMMV.

1. AI Evaluation, 40,30,20,10. Trade Freq.: Avg., Trade Difficulty: Hard, Preference: Value Prospects. One thought here given #3 and #4 would be to go with 50,20,20,10, but my fear is that there would be some monster contracts awarded to players over 30 (cough, Pence).

2. Complete Scouting, Scouting Reports: Season Start & End, Keep All Reports, Scouting Accuracy: High (see #3) Bumped given importance placed on utilizing 'scout player' option, receiving only 2 scouting reports a year, and to accurately assume star player salaries. I was suspect of this at first, but found 'High', doesn't change things all that dramatically.

3. Player salary adjustments. I kept these as close to the league average as possible, but weighted the top two and bottom three tiers more realistically. The assumption here is that the Superstars are approximately the top 25 players (top 5%) and the stars are 26 - 100 (the next 10%).

(approx. star assumptions in parenthesis)

Superstar (5+): $20,000,000
Star (4 - 4.5): $15,000,000
Good (3.5 - 4): $9,000,000
Above Avg. (3 - 3.5): $5,250,000
Avg.(2.5 - 3): $3,750,000
Below Avg. (2 - 2.5): $2,000,000
Fair: (1.5 - 2): $1,250,000
Poor: (.5 - 1.5): $700,000

4. Average scouting budget: $4,750,000. Is slightly counter-acted by a slight bump in salaries in #3 (which books out to actual league average), and off-sets the bump to #2's accuracy. By increasing the top tier contracts by about $4,000,000/yr., this also serves to off-set the available funds the wealthy teams can dump into things like development and scouting. This also goes for the human manager – if you want to keep your superstar, you may now need to consider 'maxing out' things like scouting and development budgets during winning or playoff run (or non-rebuilding) seasons. (Something it somehow seems a lot of people are doing?)

As I alluded to earlier – my ultimate goal is to negate the (unfair?) ability to look at and act upon monthly or bi-monthly scouting reports stacked up in the scouting page for every player (still available if you 'request scouting report'), including free agents.

I totally understand that 'in real life players would constantly be scouted!', which although make make sense (to a degree) within your own organization, it certainly should not apply to the entire baseball world – which includes over 700 FA and certainly not the 150-200 players among every of the 30 organizations. Given the stat porn available to us and the way the AI handles minors and signings, having the ability to plow through all available FA or other team's organizations and looking at improvement trends in potential and ability (versus statistics – God bless you stat only guys) feels to me, well, slightly like cheating. I'm in no way saying that this is 'wrong' or IS cheating, but merely sharing with the community what I've done to play differently.

Rolling with the twice a year scouting option acts as sort of a Baseball Prospectus release, while the slight bump to scouting accuracy, tweaking of (top tier) contracts, and having the AI slightly value prospects more seeks to create a sense of parity in the game world in terms of my available actions.

That said, none of this has been simulated, so again, YMMV.

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

[X3NEIZE]

Very nice work!

Where exactly do you change the scouting frequency? I can never find that. I like your approach, I've already been on the 40,30,20,10 %'s and I'm liking it.

[Bluenoser]

Thanks for sharing.

Are you using any ratings at all?

[PSUColonel]

Very interesting...I would imagine he is using ratings on a 2-8 scale

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

Very nice work!

Where exactly do you change the scouting frequency? I can never find that. I like your approach, I've already been on the 40,30,20,10 %'s and I'm liking it.

Thanks mate.

Scouting Frequency is League Setup >Global Setup > 1st drop down top left.

[PSUColonel]

Did you adjust the avg. player development budget at all?

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Very interesting...I would imagine he is using ratings on a 2-8 scale

I'm actually rolling w/ 1-20 w/ potential as Stars. Going to 2-8 would def. help my intended goal even more (by obscuring the ratings slightly more) but I've been playing 1-20 for so many years that I think I'd be tripping all over myself.

But def. something I want to try.

[PSUColonel]

I am going to chime in here, and after searching the forum on the topic of "salary settings", I do not think it is a good idea for you to inflate them. You are going to find what some players ask for to be astronomical. From what I have read, with the default settings, the end result is salaries landing in the very realistic range.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Did you adjust the avg. player development budget at all?

No. I was going to kick down as well, but to be honest, I don't how the AI uses 'average' in regards to percentage or ratio of GM budgets. (any input?) I've never simulated before. Without really understanding how this number is determined annually by the AI, I was reluctant to tweak. It would be interesting to see how a 30 year simulation effects a lower DEV #. I wonder if the average mean of ratings would be less with a lower DEV budget – thus reducing the overall average and team salaries due to how contracts are tied to scouting ratings.

I wish that along with the 'Patience' and 'Fiscal Personality' ratings for the GM's there was also a 'Philosophy' type rating, e.g. 'Build via Free Agency', 'Build via Minors', etc, thus applying some (visible) algorithm or cap to scouting and development budgets. It would also be nice to have some sort of visible GM rating for prospect or veteran value. (e.g Colletti versus Epstein)

I envision both of these values, as well as the Fiscal Personality (which seems to only evolve based on deaths?) changing year over year based on budgets. Maybe tied to 'Win Now' or 'Rebuild' years. Right now a lot of these items are rather opaque in how they effect the budgets on an organization to organization basis. I've noticed some issues with how surprising teams with low budgets (or tight-ass owners) who are in playoff contention refuse to take on a big trading deadline contract. Or a team right on the verge w/ a 'Economizer' owner refusing to jump a budget or cash infusion. (Which is wild given how ownership withdraws excess cash over the 'Cash Maximum') Obviously there are exceptions that do occur, but I think they are mostly exceptions and not the rule.

I also wish there was an option to cap the $ budget and not only have an average $ value option for the Dev and Scouting Budgets. Then again, I really have no context how this would evolve over time.

[snepp]

Originally Posted by braunfullyaccused

I'm actually rolling w/ 1-20 w/ potential as Stars. Going to 2-8 would def. help my intended goal even more (by obscuring the ratings slightly more) but I've been playing 1-20 for so many years that I think I'd be tripping all over myself.

But def. something I want to try.

I switched from 1-20 to 2-8 a couple versions ago (after using 1-20 forever), and once past the initial adjustment shock I couldn't be happier.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I am going to chime in here, and after searching the forum on the topic of "salary settings", I do not think it is a good idea for you to inflate them. You are going to find what some players ask for to be astronomical. From what I have read, with the default settings, the end result is salaries landing in the very realistic range.

I don't disagree. However, I've constantly seen players get about 65-75% of what they 'ask' for (based on organization). Mind you I am using the MLB All-In One package, and at default I haven't seen a single contract issued for over $20,000,000/yr. (I played 2.5 years before restarting post new patch). When Granderson is being signed for under $10,000,000/yr. for 3 years and Cueto is getting a 5 year $72,000,000 something is broke. I mean heck, look at that Pence contract from a few days ago... This will certainly mean a guy like Choo will make between $15-$20 mil a year. That would NEVER happen at default settings.

From what I've seen, the top tier FA pitchers pretty much ALWAYS can be had for 5 years and between 70-80 million. Sure enough, I just looked at Garza's contract and it was a 5 year $73,000,000. He's projected to fall in between 16 and 20 million over about 6 years – or about exactly what my bump would accomplish.

When you start w/ this file, there are 25 contracts of more the $20,000,000. By the end of year 3 there are under 20.

In fact, the 7 yr. Cano contract (before I implemented these settings for resart) had an average salary of just over $15,000,000/yr (graduated to $20,000,000 in year 7). That's HALF of what he's asking for IRL. We're talking about the top 5% asking for that money. The top tier players need to break the $20,000,000.

That said, I don't think I've ever seen a 5 star player in the FA pool after one month of the regular season. I have noticed that the longer a player sits in FA during the off-season, the less they want.

Also remember that the player salaries are not proportionate to team budgets, i.e., signing a superstar causes the team to spend less money elsewhere, it doesn't increase the team's overall budget. This is why I modified the lower tier contracts to realistic levels as well. One thing I haven't seen in any OOTP version was team payrolls fall under $40,000,000. By lowering the bottom tier salaries, my hope is that rebuilding teams will NOT overpay for a star (as I've seen happen with the mid-tier contracts of say 6-10 million) and instead fill out a roster with a mix of low cost veterans and young prospects.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by snepp

I switched from 1-20 to 2-8 a couple versions ago (after using 1-20 forever), and once past the initial adjustment shock I couldn't be happier.

I'm going to give it crack.

[estyles]

Originally Posted by braunfullyaccused

Poor: (.5 - 1.5): $700,000

I should probably check on this, but... that's higher than default right? (edit: on looking, it appears that the lowest tier is about the same as default, and second lowest tier is only slightly higher than default... so it looks like my issue is with the default setup and not with your setup... bah!)

In my view, a .5 to 1 star player is a career minor leaguer, and even a 1.5 star player is only a stopgap on my ML roster if I have an injury or a young player who can play multiple positions as a backup, where I'm hoping to develop him for the future. A 1.5 star player is not a veteran that I actually offer a contract extension to, so it seems like $700,000 for that player is excessive. He should feel lucky to have a major league minimum salary. Setting a .5 to 1.5 star player at almost 2x the minimum seems to just ensure that I will never ever keep a veteran with those ratings, and if the AI keeps them, it will eat up their payroll. You can find dozens of young players with ratings near there, if you really need them, and you can recycle them as they become arbitration-eligible.

$1.2M for a 1.5 to 2 star player is a bit high as well, but I've seen players like that demand those contracts as I laugh in their faces. Well, I laugh at the monitor as I stop negotiating with them and let them hit FA, but I like to think that I sent them a rude email or text or insulted their agent or something like that.

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by snepp

I switched from 1-20 to 2-8 a couple versions ago (after using 1-20 forever), and once past the initial adjustment shock I couldn't be happier.

I also switched to 2-8 from 1-10, and I like it. Not to mention it is more realistic since it is the scale most real life scouts actually use.

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by braunfullyaccused

I don't disagree. However, I've constantly seen players get about 65-75% of what they 'ask' for (based on organization). Mind you I am using the MLB All-In One package, and at default I haven't seen a single contract issued for over $20,000,000/yr. (I played 2.5 years before restarting post new patch). When Granderson is being signed for under $10,000,000/yr. for 3 years and Cueto is getting a 5 year $72,000,000 something is broke. I mean heck, look at that Pence contract from a few days ago... This will certainly mean a guy like Choo will make between $15-$20 mil a year. That would NEVER happen at default settings.

From what I've seen, the top tier FA pitchers pretty much ALWAYS can be had for 5 years and between 70-80 million. Sure enough, I just looked at Garza's contract and it was a 5 year $73,000,000. He's projected to fall in between 16 and 20 million over about 6 years – or about exactly what my bump would accomplish.

When you start w/ this file, there are 25 contracts of more the $20,000,000. By the end of year 3 there are under 20.

In fact, the 7 yr. Cano contract (before I implemented these settings for resart) had an average salary of just over $15,000,000/yr (graduated to $20,000,000 in year 7). That's HALF of what he's asking for IRL. We're talking about the top 5% asking for that money. The top tier players need to break the $20,000,000.

That said, I don't think I've ever seen a 5 star player in the FA pool after one month of the regular season. I have noticed that the longer a player sits in FA during the off-season, the less they want.

Also remember that the player salaries are not proportionate to team budgets, i.e., signing a superstar causes the team to spend less money elsewhere, it doesn't increase the team's overall budget. This is why I modified the lower tier contracts to realistic levels as well. One thing I haven't seen in any OOTP version was team payrolls fall under $40,000,000. By lowering the bottom tier salaries, my hope is that rebuilding teams will NOT overpay for a star (as I've seen happen with the mid-tier contracts of say 6-10 million) and instead fill out a roster with a mix of low cost veterans and young prospects.

I have to agree with this logic... I re-sign Cano after a Batting Champion 140RBI/35HR season for 7 year/108M, which is clearly something he would never accept

[The Wolf]

No offense whatsoever intended, but what the OP is doing has nothing at all to do with Stats Only. But it's your game, play it your way.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

No offense whatsoever intended, but what the OP is doing has nothing at all to do with Stats Only. But it's your game, play it your way.

Correct. It's exactly what the thread title says. A compromise which steals some of the intents of 'stats only' and applies them to full scouting.

i.e., these are a few steps I've taken to remove several of the game factors (specifically relating to scouting, 'human advantage' & contracts) which cause many players to change their style of play to 'stats only'.

[PSUColonel]

Disregard

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by estyles

I should probably check on this, but... that's higher than default right? (edit: on looking, it appears that the lowest tier is about the same as default, and second lowest tier is only slightly higher than default... so it looks like my issue is with the default setup and not with your setup... bah!)

In my view, a .5 to 1 star player is a career minor leaguer, and even a 1.5 star player is only a stopgap on my ML roster if I have an injury or a young player who can play multiple positions as a backup, where I'm hoping to develop him for the future. A 1.5 star player is not a veteran that I actually offer a contract extension to, so it seems like $700,000 for that player is excessive. He should feel lucky to have a major league minimum salary. Setting a .5 to 1.5 star player at almost 2x the minimum seems to just ensure that I will never ever keep a veteran with those ratings, and if the AI keeps them, it will eat up their payroll. You can find dozens of young players with ratings near there, if you really need them, and you can recycle them as they become arbitration-eligible.

$1.2M for a 1.5 to 2 star player is a bit high as well, but I've seen players like that demand those contracts as I laugh in their faces. Well, I laugh at the monitor as I stop negotiating with them and let them hit FA, but I like to think that I sent them a rude email or text or insulted their agent or something like that.

Great input. I essentially went through the list of actual MLB salaries and dumped them into a spreadsheet. I then broke them into weighted tiers. It get's a little messy as it applies to OOTP, because the three 'middle' tiers are sort of a crap shoot and hard to target, but the fact remains: the top tier players should be receiving considerably more money.

The largest caveat in any of this is not knowing (or being able to control) how the AI offers contracts based on age versus talent. I completely agree with your points about veterans. I almost feel an UNDER 32 and OVER 32 typical salary chart / option would be ideal, thus eliminating the awkward fear of new 7 year deals to gents over 33 or 34. (I'm using these ages arbitrarily, but most huge contracts don't happen after 32). Unless we know what the AI is thinking when it looks at a rating metric relative to age and 'potential', all we can really do is hope nothing weird happens.

--

I could also def. see dropping the $700,000 to $600,000 or $650,000. According to fangraphs, the next quartile (the average of 212 players) tier of contracts (after league min's) is $639,000.

How Fair is MLB?s Salary Scale? | FanGraphs Baseball

The 639K number can't be directly correlated to the 'talent level' tiers OOTP assigns contract $ values to, as they mean two completely separate things. There it's an average of 212 contracts, here it would reflect the average contract for a tier of talent.

That said, it does sort of serve to eliminate 424 players from the salary calculation, allowing us to take the top two 212 person salary tiers (50% of the MLB payroll) and find where the average should fall compared to RL.

[PSUColonel]

Has anyone tried this with good/better results than the default?