Study: Market Size Bias - Page 2

itsmb8 · 10-03-2020, 07:10 PM

To me this study seems flawed, because theres so many changing variables. Like the possibility of the Rays or Yankees players being rated higher than the other, leading to different win totals. Plus, their schedules are slightly different. They have different managers. They have different park factors. Etc etc.

I think the best way to test this would be to simulate 100-200 seasons with very small market team as is, and then change their market size the the polar opposite and sim another 100-200 seasons. That way the only variable that is changing is market size.

Bears5122 · 10-03-2020, 07:53 PM

One issue is that GMs of teams tend to be of equal caliber. This makes market size even more important in this game than in real life. If you have Brian Cashman as GM of the Yankees and Rays, he's going to succeed much more with the Yankees.

A way the game could dampen market size is to differentiate GMs more. Currently there are "tendencies" that differentiate, but that doesn't impact their ability too much. Perhaps abilities such as how well they negotiate contracts (getting better deals), how well they draft, how much they get in a trade, and so on. This would allow a team with a smaller market with a good GM be better than a huge market with a bad GM. Just like in real life.

Then again you'd be perhaps dumbing down the AI in aspects which is not good.

CBeisbol · 10-03-2020, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmb8

I think the best way to test this would be to simulate 100-200 seasons with very small market team as is, and then change their market size the the polar opposite and sim another 100-200 seasons.

Hmm
That might be better
And easier

Go ahead and do it

itsmb8 · 10-05-2020, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bears5122

One issue is that GMs of teams tend to be of equal caliber. This makes market size even more important in this game than in real life. If you have Brian Cashman as GM of the Yankees and Rays, he's going to succeed much more with the Yankees.

A way the game could dampen market size is to differentiate GMs more. Currently there are "tendencies" that differentiate, but that doesn't impact their ability too much. Perhaps abilities such as how well they negotiate contracts (getting better deals), how well they draft, how much they get in a trade, and so on. This would allow a team with a smaller market with a good GM be better than a huge market with a bad GM. Just like in real life.

Then again you'd be perhaps dumbing down the AI in aspects which is not good.

Personally, I dont think there really ARE good and bad GMs. It really does all come down to tendencies. What kinda players they like, how difficult they are to trade with, how willing they are to spend on free agents, etc. etc.

Usually when small markets do well, they do well by hitting on draft picks and trading well. They usually dont overspend in free agency because one bad deal can wreck them for years. In OOTP, GMs dont really have that sort of logic IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Hmm
That might be better
And easier

Go ahead and do it

Ill report back here if/when I get around to it, forsure.

darkcloud4579 · 10-28-2020, 06:54 PM

Part of why I neutralize these factors in my online leagues is I don't like their potential impacts.

10-28-2020, 06:54 PM	#25
darkcloud4579 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 8,659	Part of why I neutralize these factors in my online leagues is I don't like their potential impacts. __________________ ------ My Mods Managerial Strategy Pack Competitive Balance Tax Calculator Major League Women's Baseball (OOTP24) quickstart Indian Premier League \| 300+ years of baseball quickstart \| Expatriate League quickstart \| Off-Field Injuries Update \| Women's Name File for OOTP \| ---- Dynasty classics: Centurion comes to OOTP5 \| DC Moneyball Dynasty (2004)

10-03-2020, 07:10 PM	#21
itsmb8 All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 1,339	To me this study seems flawed, because theres so many changing variables. Like the possibility of the Rays or Yankees players being rated higher than the other, leading to different win totals. Plus, their schedules are slightly different. They have different managers. They have different park factors. Etc etc. I think the best way to test this would be to simulate 100-200 seasons with very small market team as is, and then change their market size the the polar opposite and sim another 100-200 seasons. That way the only variable that is changing is market size.

10-03-2020, 07:53 PM	#22
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 847	One issue is that GMs of teams tend to be of equal caliber. This makes market size even more important in this game than in real life. If you have Brian Cashman as GM of the Yankees and Rays, he's going to succeed much more with the Yankees. A way the game could dampen market size is to differentiate GMs more. Currently there are "tendencies" that differentiate, but that doesn't impact their ability too much. Perhaps abilities such as how well they negotiate contracts (getting better deals), how well they draft, how much they get in a trade, and so on. This would allow a team with a smaller market with a good GM be better than a huge market with a bad GM. Just like in real life. Then again you'd be perhaps dumbing down the AI in aspects which is not good.