Reliever Trade Value

Dodgerblue · 04-05-2016, 10:45 AM

I feel like this has been somewhat of a problem in OOTP for a while. Even with the trade setting on Very Hard, you can easily just trade 4 or 5 nobody prospects and get some of the best relievers in the game. When you compare that price to the price the Astros payed for Ken Giles or how much relievers go for around trade deadline, it's very light. Is there any way to get the AI to value relievers a little higher?

Assos · 04-05-2016, 10:53 AM

Value is in the numbers. The Ken Giles trade was interesting to look at because there were some names in the deal, but the odds for some of those names, Mark Appeal, cough cough, to pan out is a crap shoot. The trading engine is far from perfect because a computer can not be as irrational as a human. Remember the machine only sees numbers that its scouting AI feeds it.

Dodgerblue · 04-05-2016, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assos

Value is in the numbers. The Ken Giles trade was interesting to look at because there were some names in the deal, but the odds for some of those names, Mark Appeal, cough cough, to pan out is a crap shoot. The trading engine is far from perfect because a computer can not be as irrational as a human. Remember the machine only sees numbers that its scouting AI feeds it.

Understood, but I'm talking about trading 4 or 5 prospects with 20 potential (and every single one of them as almost zero chance of becoming anything) and getting almost any reliever I want. And this is with trading set at Very Hard. There is no way the AI should see any value in these players.

Assos · 04-05-2016, 11:06 AM

Again, your scout may see them as not being able to develop, but the AI's scouting may have them rated higher and the star reliever as lower than you view him.

Dodgerblue · 04-05-2016, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assos

Again, your scout may see them as not being able to develop, but the AI's scouting may have them rated higher and the star reliever as lower than you view him.

Agreed but I've checked the editor and that has never been the case. And it's not like the AI asks for a specific 5 prospects. Literally any 5 prospects can bring in almost any all star reliever. Try it for yourself and see!

Assos · 04-05-2016, 11:13 AM

Are you playing with finances on? Heavily favors prospects?
Could be a dump? Could be a lot of things?

Dodgerblue · 04-05-2016, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assos

Are you playing with finances on? Heavily favors prospects?
Could be a dump? Could be a lot of things?

Finances on, Very Hard Trade setting with favor prospects. And it's not a salary dump issue, because we are talking about trading for pitchers who are even pre arb like Kela, Carson Smith, and Giles for example who are making the league minimum.

I mean I can be harder on my own house rules, but it's so easy to build by far the best bullpen in the league by giving up absolutely nothing.

David Watts · 04-05-2016, 11:21 AM

One thing you might want to keep in mind is the AI simply doesn't deal with quantity very well. I know "house rules" can be a bad word in some folks thinking, but sometimes it's the best option.

Dodgerblue · 04-05-2016, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts

One thing you might want to keep in mind is the AI simply doesn't deal with quantity very well. I know "house rules" can be a bad word in some folks thinking, but sometimes it's the best option.

I hear. It's just that it's really only a problem with relievers. So I just find it odd.

hluraven · 04-05-2016, 11:35 AM

I have noticed this. If I am looking to dump a minimum salary but useless depth hitter by using shop around (hard or very hard trade difificulty), I will always be offered nothing except for a collection of the league's best young relievers on minimum salary. In this instance, the common factor is the relievers are arbitration eligible, despite the minimum salary this year.

I am assuming that the AI evaluates them as a salary dump to get them off next year's books, even though their estimate is usually very reasonable, and the player they want in return is useless. Even if they don't want an elite young reliever on a couple of million next year, they can just not offer arbitration, so something isn't right in the offers.

Hoiles · 04-05-2016, 11:47 AM

Sometimes you can even a get a pretty good starter who's pushed into the bullpen due to rotation depth; in the real-life MLB league you can often get a Matt Harvey-type (still 3-4 stars as a SP) for peanuts if you're patient enough.

NotMuchTime · 04-05-2016, 11:58 AM

4x20=80, so it's fair, right?

Relievers are a dime a dozen for the most part. IRL, even the best closers don't get 'overall' ratings higher than 60. I wish OOTP graded the same way as MLB when it comes to 20-80 scale. The overall rating should correlate closely to the WAR. A 60 overall rating should put up a 3.0 WAR season.

That said, the AI should never accept a deal where they lose a ML player (reliever or not) for a player(s) that aren't projected to be anything more than career minor leaguers. 20/30 potential are career minor leaguers. For position players, 35 is an emergency replacement. 40 is bench, 45 is platoon/utility, 50 is average, etc.. I think a 65 is all-star. The standard is to grade the 5 tools with an overall (and potential). Far different from OOTP. There is a similar system for starting pitchers. Fangraphs, if I remember correctly, has/had a great article on this.

It seems to me, to acquire a '60' reliever (a great closer), I'd have to give up no less than one player who has potential greater than 45 or multiple players with potential greater than 35/40. That's minimum unless it's strictly a salary dump.

I don't care how many burnt out (useless) bulbs you give me, you can't have my 100 watt bulb.

OOTP doesn't seem to correlate the 'numbers' to an expectation like the real scouts do. If it did, it would alleviate a lot of AI issues (contracts. scouting, trading, etc...) It would also make it a perfect game.

Doc_Brown · 04-05-2016, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodgerblue

Finances on, Very Hard Trade setting with favor prospects. And it's not a salary dump issue, because we are talking about trading for pitchers who are even pre arb like Kela, Carson Smith, and Giles for example who are making the league minimum.

I mean I can be harder on my own house rules, but it's so easy to build by far the best bullpen in the league by giving up absolutely nothing.

Try making that deal with, very hard and neutral. Maybe the favor prospects is making the AI go all giddy when it really shouldn't be.

koohead · 04-05-2016, 12:37 PM

Perhaps it's the real life GMs that are out of whack with their valuation of relievers? For every Mariano Rivera and Bruce Sutter, there are countless Jesse Orosco's and Danny Farqhuar's (ie, pitchers who have a couple solid years but no longstanding consistency). Maybe it's OOTP that has it right? I don't know. even in OOTP I find myself settling on a closer and probably keeping him around a lot longer than I should, but cycling through MRs year in and year out.

Ron. · 04-05-2016, 12:46 PM

The AI just doesn't value relievers very much. Every offseason you'll see elite relievers go into march without a contract and end up having to sign 1-year deals at a fraction of their original asking price.

I think one of the problems is that elite relievers will turn down the $15m qualifying offer even though they have no chance of getting close to that in free agency, given the AIs tendencies. So now they're not only demanding huge contracts they also cost you a draft pick, which drives down their value with the AI even further.

Painmantle · 04-05-2016, 01:21 PM

the problem is , statistically speaking Relievers are for the most part worthless in all ratings systems. Even Mike Marshall's incredible 1974 Season with 106G 15W 21Sv and 208IP only got him a 3.6 WAR which is only considered "Above-Average" on the scale. Since the game only see's numbers, it never see's relievers as "Good Players". I believe trying to fix it would likely cause more problems than it would alleviate

Assos · 04-05-2016, 01:40 PM

What is a good reliever worth is the question? The game looks at the raw numbers of the player and like Billy Beane, sees the reliever as just a piece that can be interchanged with someone of the same make up. A closer can be replaced by another reliever, the game only thinks of it those terms and a little bit with their personality, not sure how much, but I think the AI views pitchers with high WAR, meaning starters.

Dodgerblue · 04-05-2016, 02:22 PM

I agree that relievers in real life are probably overrated, but I literally just finished a season where my bullpen had an era of like 2.30 (Dodgers, had Jansen, Yimi, Britton, Kela, Carson Smith, Chapman, and Carter Capps) and I gave up almost nothing for the bullpen. In real life that bullpen would never be able to be put together

NotMuchTime · 04-05-2016, 03:45 PM

OOTP should use this as a guide... It would/might help with a lot of AI issues.

Scouting Explained: The 20-80 Scouting Scale | FanGraphs Baseball

Dodgerblue · 04-05-2016, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotMuchTime

OOTP should use this as a guide... It would/might help with a lot of AI issues.

Scouting Explained: The 20-80 Scouting Scale | FanGraphs Baseball

I understand that relievers aren't so valuable. That doesn't mean that I should be able to get all of the good ones for absolutely nothing.

04-05-2016, 10:45 AM	#1
Dodgerblue Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 48	Reliever Trade Value I feel like this has been somewhat of a problem in OOTP for a while. Even with the trade setting on Very Hard, you can easily just trade 4 or 5 nobody prospects and get some of the best relievers in the game. When you compare that price to the price the Astros payed for Ken Giles or how much relievers go for around trade deadline, it's very light. Is there any way to get the AI to value relievers a little higher?

04-05-2016, 12:37 PM	#14
koohead Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,235	Perhaps it's the real life GMs that are out of whack with their valuation of relievers? For every Mariano Rivera and Bruce Sutter, there are countless Jesse Orosco's and Danny Farqhuar's (ie, pitchers who have a couple solid years but no longstanding consistency). Maybe it's OOTP that has it right? I don't know. even in OOTP I find myself settling on a closer and probably keeping him around a lot longer than I should, but cycling through MRs year in and year out. __________________ GM - New Jersey Bears of the NPBL;

04-05-2016, 01:21 PM	#16
Painmantle Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Greenfield ,IN Posts: 3,053	the problem is , statistically speaking Relievers are for the most part worthless in all ratings systems. Even Mike Marshall's incredible 1974 Season with 106G 15W 21Sv and 208IP only got him a 3.6 WAR which is only considered "Above-Average" on the scale. Since the game only see's numbers, it never see's relievers as "Good Players". I believe trying to fix it would likely cause more problems than it would alleviate __________________ “As soon as I got out there I felt a strange relationship with the pitcher's mound. It was as if I'd been born out there. Pitching just felt like the most natural thing in the world. Striking out batters was easy.” -Babe Ruth “Ruth made a grave mistake when he gave up pitching. Working once a week, he might have lasted a long time and become a great star.”-Tris Speaker My Dynasties The Beantown Bambino

04-05-2016, 10:53 AM	#2
Assos All Star Starter Join Date: May 2004 Location: Just on the fair side of the foul pole! Posts: 1,768	Value is in the numbers. The Ken Giles trade was interesting to look at because there were some names in the deal, but the odds for some of those names, Mark Appeal, cough cough, to pan out is a crap shoot. The trading engine is far from perfect because a computer can not be as irrational as a human. Remember the machine only sees numbers that its scouting AI feeds it.

04-05-2016, 11:06 AM	#4
Assos All Star Starter Join Date: May 2004 Location: Just on the fair side of the foul pole! Posts: 1,768	Again, your scout may see them as not being able to develop, but the AI's scouting may have them rated higher and the star reliever as lower than you view him.

04-05-2016, 11:13 AM	#6
Assos All Star Starter Join Date: May 2004 Location: Just on the fair side of the foul pole! Posts: 1,768	Are you playing with finances on? Heavily favors prospects? Could be a dump? Could be a lot of things?

04-05-2016, 11:21 AM	#8
David Watts Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Looking for a place called Leehofooks Posts: 10,219 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	One thing you might want to keep in mind is the AI simply doesn't deal with quantity very well. I know "house rules" can be a bad word in some folks thinking, but sometimes it's the best option.

04-05-2016, 11:35 AM	#10
hluraven Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: London, England Posts: 361	I have noticed this. If I am looking to dump a minimum salary but useless depth hitter by using shop around (hard or very hard trade difificulty), I will always be offered nothing except for a collection of the league's best young relievers on minimum salary. In this instance, the common factor is the relievers are arbitration eligible, despite the minimum salary this year. I am assuming that the AI evaluates them as a salary dump to get them off next year's books, even though their estimate is usually very reasonable, and the player they want in return is useless. Even if they don't want an elite young reliever on a couple of million next year, they can just not offer arbitration, so something isn't right in the offers.

04-05-2016, 11:47 AM	#11
Hoiles All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 574	Sometimes you can even a get a pretty good starter who's pushed into the bullpen due to rotation depth; in the real-life MLB league you can often get a Matt Harvey-type (still 3-4 stars as a SP) for peanuts if you're patient enough.

04-05-2016, 11:58 AM	#12
NotMuchTime Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 150	4x20=80, so it's fair, right? Relievers are a dime a dozen for the most part. IRL, even the best closers don't get 'overall' ratings higher than 60. I wish OOTP graded the same way as MLB when it comes to 20-80 scale. The overall rating should correlate closely to the WAR. A 60 overall rating should put up a 3.0 WAR season. That said, the AI should never accept a deal where they lose a ML player (reliever or not) for a player(s) that aren't projected to be anything more than career minor leaguers. 20/30 potential are career minor leaguers. For position players, 35 is an emergency replacement. 40 is bench, 45 is platoon/utility, 50 is average, etc.. I think a 65 is all-star. The standard is to grade the 5 tools with an overall (and potential). Far different from OOTP. There is a similar system for starting pitchers. Fangraphs, if I remember correctly, has/had a great article on this. It seems to me, to acquire a '60' reliever (a great closer), I'd have to give up no less than one player who has potential greater than 45 or multiple players with potential greater than 35/40. That's minimum unless it's strictly a salary dump. I don't care how many burnt out (useless) bulbs you give me, you can't have my 100 watt bulb. OOTP doesn't seem to correlate the 'numbers' to an expectation like the real scouts do. If it did, it would alleviate a lot of AI issues (contracts. scouting, trading, etc...) It would also make it a perfect game.

04-05-2016, 12:46 PM	#15
Ron. Minors (Double A) Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 148	The AI just doesn't value relievers very much. Every offseason you'll see elite relievers go into march without a contract and end up having to sign 1-year deals at a fraction of their original asking price. I think one of the problems is that elite relievers will turn down the $15m qualifying offer even though they have no chance of getting close to that in free agency, given the AIs tendencies. So now they're not only demanding huge contracts they also cost you a draft pick, which drives down their value with the AI even further.

04-05-2016, 01:40 PM	#17
Assos All Star Starter Join Date: May 2004 Location: Just on the fair side of the foul pole! Posts: 1,768	What is a good reliever worth is the question? The game looks at the raw numbers of the player and like Billy Beane, sees the reliever as just a piece that can be interchanged with someone of the same make up. A closer can be replaced by another reliever, the game only thinks of it those terms and a little bit with their personality, not sure how much, but I think the AI views pitchers with high WAR, meaning starters.

04-05-2016, 02:22 PM	#18
Dodgerblue Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 48	I agree that relievers in real life are probably overrated, but I literally just finished a season where my bullpen had an era of like 2.30 (Dodgers, had Jansen, Yimi, Britton, Kela, Carson Smith, Chapman, and Carter Capps) and I gave up almost nothing for the bullpen. In real life that bullpen would never be able to be put together

04-05-2016, 03:45 PM	#19
NotMuchTime Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 150	OOTP should use this as a guide... It would/might help with a lot of AI issues. Scouting Explained: The 20-80 Scouting Scale \| FanGraphs Baseball