Computer trading block is a joke! - Page 3

Khaos · 03-20-2002, 10:42 AM

It wasn't an argument, just an observation. If Bagwell was a fictional player, you might not be in the same frame of mind. I'm not saying it may not need work, but that perception is not basis for fact. Chill.

fluharty · 03-20-2002, 11:16 AM

Dokken,
Just present his ratings/talents along with his name and people will be less likely to respond like that. If he's rated 8 8 8 I would certainly agree, a human player would snatch a player like that up, if he/she could find a spot onthe roster and could affort the contract.

I think its not specific to the trading block, tho. I think the way the AI rates a player's desirability may need some tweaking. I have seen a lot of cases where 29-32 yo guys rated 7 2 7 (and higher) are abandoned in the FA pool while 37 yo players rated 4 7 4 (roughly) are signed long term. The AI may need a more realistic (read closer to human) evaluation of these players. Once this is fixed a lot of things may clear themselves up.

OOTP Rocks · 03-20-2002, 11:26 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Dokken:
I dont even bother with the Trading Block. Its a waste of time. Ive put up players like Jeff Bagwell (in the first season I played..so he was like 33) and not have a SINGLE offer for him.

Now I know what you are saying....hes old and its not what teams are looking for right now.

Well thats a load of BS....because in REAL LIFE (since we are throwing this term around so much) SOMEONE would snatch up Jeff Bagwell in a heart beat....or at least TRY to get him. Not ONE offer came in.

After I tried it a few more times with different star players...I gave up on the Block and I just search by Talent now.

Hopefully...it will be fixed one day.<hr></blockquote>

Dokken, what's Bagwell's salary right now for you?

Not that this is in anyway an excuse for a possible flawed trading block, but it could be that the computer just doesn't think that Bagwell is worth the cash he's making. Thus he might not be of any value to them at all. First, check to see if you can manually trade Bagwell for anything. If most teams say "We do not want Bagwell, he contract eats dollars!!!" or something along those lines, then it probably is the case.

Dokken · 03-20-2002, 11:26 AM

Khaos really made a good point,at least to me it did...

The AI doesnt know who the hell Jeff Bagwell is....or what he has done in the past. That makes perfect sense and thats cool with me...I just wont use the Trading Block until something is done about it.

But the argument I keep hearing everyone say is that "Deal with it..its real life"

Thats BS. Its NOT real life....not even close. Because in REAL LIFE someone would snatch up Bagwell in a hear beat. Like I said...I understand why it doesnt on OOTP4...but the suggestion that its because its like "real life",to me anyways,is really lame.

GR8Madmax · 03-20-2002, 11:34 AM

I agree that the trading block needs to be tweaked. I'm sure this will be looked into for future patches..(hopefully).

Henry · 03-20-2002, 11:54 AM

Maybe what's needed is a "historic performance value" field that is accumulated over time for each player. For example, player A is given points at the end of each season based on performance. That value is added to each year. When the AI looks at a trade, this figure is also considered. As an example, if an average player gets 10 points a year... and the player up for grabs has 120 points after a 6 year career, this would tend to make him a lot more valuable than the average player and even out the idea that the "AI doesn't know Jeff Bagwell from your mother" syndrome.
Thoughts ?

Dokken · 03-20-2002, 11:55 AM

I like that idea.

Henry · 03-20-2002, 05:39 PM

Anyone see a problem with this approach ? It would be more or less simple to implement.

FredDurst · 03-20-2002, 06:55 PM

Sure it would be simple.I think it would atleast.The thing is that when it would be in the game, people would complain b/c the computer probally wouldnt trade the superstars at all and that mean they would never move from their teams.I wouldnt mind,thats how it should be,but people would comlain "ohhh this isnt like real life"
Then again i may be wrong!

GR8Madmax · 03-20-2002, 06:55 PM

It's a great idea but can it be implemented and how hard will it be to do it?

Rangersfan · 03-20-2002, 07:02 PM

That is an excellent idea Henry.

Khaos · 03-21-2002, 10:20 AM

I think along with that suggestion you add a organization tendency option. It would have something like a Trade stance and a Fiscal stance. Where you would choose or the game randonly chooses how trade happy a team is or how some teams are frugal and others are pay to win at all costs while others may go for it at the end of the season and may clean house the next year. You can put this next to the managerial tendencies on the team setup page, or on the Front Office page.

fluharty · 03-21-2002, 10:33 AM

Henry,
I like it, but would then a 12 year that gets 5 a year would have the same value as a 6 year guy with 10 a year. The computer may need to divide your # by years of service and use that.

bbo4 · 03-21-2002, 10:36 AM

The Ritual is a great album D

Scott Vibert · 03-21-2002, 11:17 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Henry:
Maybe what's needed is a "historic performance value" field that is accumulated over time for each player. For example, player A is given points at the end of each season based on performance. That value is added to each year. When the AI looks at a trade, this figure is also considered. As an example, if an average player gets 10 points a year... and the player up for grabs has 120 points after a 6 year career, this would tend to make him a lot more valuable than the average player and even out the idea that the "AI doesn't know Jeff Bagwell from your mother" syndrome.
Thoughts ?<hr></blockquote>

The biggest problem I see with that suggestion is that players who are on the downward spiral (and not necessarily aging gracefully) will end up being overvalued using this approach. They may have had decent careers but the last few years aren't necessarily pretty (Ripken) and I'd be concerned that by averaging their performance over their entire career you will over value players. If this was limited to only the last two years, it might work better. (Additionally it will help to overvalue some players who have recently had insane seasons (which actually tends to happen), but only for the few years near that "breakout season" (like how Brady Anderson was such a hot commodity after his fluke 50 HR year)

I feel this should be the secondary measure, the game should always rely on its ratings first then use this or a similar measure to compare two similar players to determine which one deserves more value.

DennisS · 03-21-2002, 11:31 AM

Henry,

Umm....normally I would agree with just about anything you say, but not here.

Let's use an example player, John A. Smity, say age 30, has had 6 good seasons, maybe a couple of all-stars, and decent stats.

Why should he have additional trade value, based upon PAST performances?

Why should I have to pay for his PAST performance, when what I am interested in is what can he do for me now, and in the future?

The only way to use additional value is for the marquee status, i.e. additional fans in the stands. But the game does not use players to boost attendance figures.

It is tough enough to rate players, and to put together a decent package, without the extra baggage of estimating ADDITIONAL value of players past.

Another comment. Two players, one a rookie aged 23, another aged 33. Identical ratings. Which one would you trade for?

The 33 year old would have a higher trade value, due to his accrued statistics.

If anything, the computer should place additional value on the younger players...there is more production ahead for them.

In my current fictional league, I have a 21 year old MR with the lowest rating of 7 (era). He is on my major league roster, and will be for the next 18 years. He is by far the most valuable pitcher I have...even though I have another pitcher with era of "10" (First player ever taken in the league opening draft...7 years ago)

I don't have a problem with the way the trading is set up now....if there is a player you want badly, expect to give up good players in return.

The computer is at a tremendous disadvantage as it is...let's not compound it with changes to make trading easier for the humans.

Cheers

Henry · 03-21-2002, 11:50 AM

I like ScottVib's modification of the idea - let me take it a step further..

Player A 23 years old, past three seasons have netted him 5, 9, and 12 performance points for a total 26.

Player B 33 years old, past three seasons have netted him 10, 8, 8 performance points for a total of 26.

Player A ... 5 to 9 also nets a +4 and 9 to 12 nets a +3 for a total "momentum value" of +7

Player B ... 10 to 8 nets a -2 and 8 to 8 nets a 0 for a total "momentun value" of -2

Results;
Player A has 26 performance points and a +7 momentum value,
Player B has 26 performance points and a -2 momentum value.

Thoughts ?

KWhit · 03-21-2002, 12:10 PM

It seems that the initial purpose of this discussion was to allow OOTP to more or less recreate the valuation of Star players.

My idea would be difficult to implement (a lot of AI coding) but it would end up being more accurate. There should be a "Fan Value" rating assigned to certain players. This would be based upon past performance (bonuses for All-star games, and any MVP award or Cy young, or breaking any major record). This then could be incorporated into the fan interest level.

This way, a team may want to trade for an aging star as a way to increase team interest. This would give these star players added value in a way that more closely mirrors real life.

Yes it would take a lot of coding to get the AI to figure out the relative value of these guys (not to mention all the coding and design to decide how the "Fan Value" rating would work, but
it is more accurate, in my opinion.

Edit: I forgot to mention (although it may be obvious): This would have the effect of penalizing a team for trading a Ripkin in fan support as well. However, if your team was able to make a trade for that Star player, you'd get an instant boost in attendance and fan support.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: KWhit ]

GR8Madmax · 03-21-2002, 12:13 PM

I think your "momentum value" needs to be tweaked a little. A 33 year old player is still considered to be in his prime and should command a lot of money. Unless momentum value is just a very small part of the equation, I don't think the difference of 9 points(from your example) is fair to the veteran player.

Just my humble opinion..

Anrhydeddu · 03-22-2002, 06:01 AM

[quote]Originally posted by OOTP1:
The "counter offer" is something we are adding in the update.<hr></blockquote>

Just getting around to read this and found this to be superb news! As with any text-based sims, there are three features that I love more than anything else: trading, free agenting and drafting. The rest are just chores to get through to get back to these three features. Having gone through the first season and the beginning of the second in my first ever OOTP season, I find these three features pretty good, actually. Since I started with the 1970 Reds, I tried to get Joe Morgan from Houston but got the usual 'cannot trade him' message, no matter what I offered. That makes sense because he is their only good infielder, esp. one that has superstar written all over him. However, in other cases when I got this message, another player added by me would get them to change their minds. More feedback would be welcomed like what Jim did with FOF.

03-20-2002, 10:42 AM	#41
Khaos Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canfield, OH Posts: 473	It wasn't an argument, just an observation. If Bagwell was a fictional player, you might not be in the same frame of mind. I'm not saying it may not need work, but that perception is not basis for fact. Chill. __________________ squish

03-20-2002, 11:26 AM	#43
OOTP Rocks Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 119	[quote]Originally posted by Dokken: <strong>I dont even bother with the Trading Block. Its a waste of time. Ive put up players like Jeff Bagwell (in the first season I played..so he was like 33) and not have a SINGLE offer for him. Now I know what you are saying....hes old and its not what teams are looking for right now. Well thats a load of BS....because in REAL LIFE (since we are throwing this term around so much) SOMEONE would snatch up Jeff Bagwell in a heart beat....or at least TRY to get him. Not ONE offer came in. After I tried it a few more times with different star players...I gave up on the Block and I just search by Talent now. Hopefully...it will be fixed one day.</strong><hr></blockquote> Dokken, what's Bagwell's salary right now for you? Not that this is in anyway an excuse for a possible flawed trading block, but it could be that the computer just doesn't think that Bagwell is worth the cash he's making. Thus he might not be of any value to them at all. First, check to see if you can manually trade Bagwell for anything. If most teams say "We do not want Bagwell, he contract eats dollars!!!" or something along those lines, then it probably is the case.

03-20-2002, 06:55 PM	#49
FredDurst Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 21	Sure it would be simple.I think it would atleast.The thing is that when it would be in the game, people would complain b/c the computer probally wouldnt trade the superstars at all and that mean they would never move from their teams.I wouldnt mind,thats how it should be,but people would comlain "ohhh this isnt like real life" Then again i may be wrong! __________________ Fred Durst Plays OOTP

03-21-2002, 10:20 AM	#52
Khaos Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canfield, OH Posts: 473	I think along with that suggestion you add a organization tendency option. It would have something like a Trade stance and a Fiscal stance. Where you would choose or the game randonly chooses how trade happy a team is or how some teams are frugal and others are pay to win at all costs while others may go for it at the end of the season and may clean house the next year. You can put this next to the managerial tendencies on the team setup page, or on the Front Office page. __________________ squish

03-21-2002, 10:36 AM	#54
bbo4 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: South of Boston, Ma Posts: 214	The Ritual is a great album D __________________ "In 1962 I was named Minor League Player of the Year. It was my second season in the Bigs."

03-20-2002, 11:16 AM	#42
fluharty All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Morgantown, WV Posts: 1,023	Dokken, Just present his ratings/talents along with his name and people will be less likely to respond like that. If he's rated 8 8 8 I would certainly agree, a human player would snatch a player like that up, if he/she could find a spot onthe roster and could affort the contract. I think its not specific to the trading block, tho. I think the way the AI rates a player's desirability may need some tweaking. I have seen a lot of cases where 29-32 yo guys rated 7 2 7 (and higher) are abandoned in the FA pool while 37 yo players rated 4 7 4 (roughly) are signed long term. The AI may need a more realistic (read closer to human) evaluation of these players. Once this is fixed a lot of things may clear themselves up.

03-20-2002, 11:26 AM	#44
Dokken Registered User Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 110	Khaos really made a good point,at least to me it did... The AI doesnt know who the hell Jeff Bagwell is....or what he has done in the past. That makes perfect sense and thats cool with me...I just wont use the Trading Block until something is done about it. But the argument I keep hearing everyone say is that "Deal with it..its real life" Thats BS. Its NOT real life....not even close. Because in REAL LIFE someone would snatch up Bagwell in a hear beat. Like I said...I understand why it doesnt on OOTP4...but the suggestion that its because its like "real life",to me anyways,is really lame.

03-20-2002, 11:34 AM	#45
GR8Madmax Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 94	I agree that the trading block needs to be tweaked. I'm sure this will be looked into for future patches..(hopefully).

03-20-2002, 11:54 AM	#46
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Maybe what's needed is a "historic performance value" field that is accumulated over time for each player. For example, player A is given points at the end of each season based on performance. That value is added to each year. When the AI looks at a trade, this figure is also considered. As an example, if an average player gets 10 points a year... and the player up for grabs has 120 points after a 6 year career, this would tend to make him a lot more valuable than the average player and even out the idea that the "AI doesn't know Jeff Bagwell from your mother" syndrome. Thoughts ?

03-20-2002, 11:55 AM	#47
Dokken Registered User Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 110	I like that idea.

03-20-2002, 05:39 PM	#48
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Anyone see a problem with this approach ? It would be more or less simple to implement.

03-21-2002, 10:33 AM	#53
fluharty All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Morgantown, WV Posts: 1,023	Henry, I like it, but would then a 12 year that gets 5 a year would have the same value as a 6 year guy with 10 a year. The computer may need to divide your # by years of service and use that.

03-21-2002, 11:17 AM	#55
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,266	[quote]Originally posted by Henry: <strong>Maybe what's needed is a "historic performance value" field that is accumulated over time for each player. For example, player A is given points at the end of each season based on performance. That value is added to each year. When the AI looks at a trade, this figure is also considered. As an example, if an average player gets 10 points a year... and the player up for grabs has 120 points after a 6 year career, this would tend to make him a lot more valuable than the average player and even out the idea that the "AI doesn't know Jeff Bagwell from your mother" syndrome. Thoughts ?</strong><hr></blockquote> The biggest problem I see with that suggestion is that players who are on the downward spiral (and not necessarily aging gracefully) will end up being overvalued using this approach. They may have had decent careers but the last few years aren't necessarily pretty (Ripken) and I'd be concerned that by averaging their performance over their entire career you will over value players. If this was limited to only the last two years, it might work better. (Additionally it will help to overvalue some players who have recently had insane seasons (which actually tends to happen), but only for the few years near that "breakout season" (like how Brady Anderson was such a hot commodity after his fluke 50 HR year) I feel this should be the secondary measure, the game should always rely on its ratings first then use this or a similar measure to compare two similar players to determine which one deserves more value.

03-21-2002, 11:31 AM	#56
DennisS Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 107	Henry, Umm....normally I would agree with just about anything you say, but not here. Let's use an example player, John A. Smity, say age 30, has had 6 good seasons, maybe a couple of all-stars, and decent stats. Why should he have additional trade value, based upon PAST performances? Why should I have to pay for his PAST performance, when what I am interested in is what can he do for me now, and in the future? The only way to use additional value is for the marquee status, i.e. additional fans in the stands. But the game does not use players to boost attendance figures. It is tough enough to rate players, and to put together a decent package, without the extra baggage of estimating ADDITIONAL value of players past. Another comment. Two players, one a rookie aged 23, another aged 33. Identical ratings. Which one would you trade for? The 33 year old would have a higher trade value, due to his accrued statistics. If anything, the computer should place additional value on the younger players...there is more production ahead for them. In my current fictional league, I have a 21 year old MR with the lowest rating of 7 (era). He is on my major league roster, and will be for the next 18 years. He is by far the most valuable pitcher I have...even though I have another pitcher with era of "10" (First player ever taken in the league opening draft...7 years ago) I don't have a problem with the way the trading is set up now....if there is a player you want badly, expect to give up good players in return. The computer is at a tremendous disadvantage as it is...let's not compound it with changes to make trading easier for the humans. Cheers

03-21-2002, 11:50 AM	#57
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	I like ScottVib's modification of the idea - let me take it a step further.. Player A 23 years old, past three seasons have netted him 5, 9, and 12 performance points for a total 26. Player B 33 years old, past three seasons have netted him 10, 8, 8 performance points for a total of 26. Player A ... 5 to 9 also nets a +4 and 9 to 12 nets a +3 for a total "momentum value" of +7 Player B ... 10 to 8 nets a -2 and 8 to 8 nets a 0 for a total "momentun value" of -2 Results; Player A has 26 performance points and a +7 momentum value, Player B has 26 performance points and a -2 momentum value. Thoughts ?

03-21-2002, 12:10 PM	#58
KWhit Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 413	It seems that the initial purpose of this discussion was to allow OOTP to more or less recreate the valuation of Star players. My idea would be difficult to implement (a lot of AI coding) but it would end up being more accurate. There should be a "Fan Value" rating assigned to certain players. This would be based upon past performance (bonuses for All-star games, and any MVP award or Cy young, or breaking any major record). This then could be incorporated into the fan interest level. This way, a team may want to trade for an aging star as a way to increase team interest. This would give these star players added value in a way that more closely mirrors real life. Yes it would take a lot of coding to get the AI to figure out the relative value of these guys (not to mention all the coding and design to decide how the "Fan Value" rating would work, but it is more accurate, in my opinion. Edit: I forgot to mention (although it may be obvious): This would have the effect of penalizing a team for trading a Ripkin in fan support as well. However, if your team was able to make a trade for that Star player, you'd get an instant boost in attendance and fan support. [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: KWhit ]</p> __________________

03-21-2002, 12:13 PM	#59
GR8Madmax Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 94	I think your "momentum value" needs to be tweaked a little. A 33 year old player is still considered to be in his prime and should command a lot of money. Unless momentum value is just a very small part of the equation, I don't think the difference of 9 points(from your example) is fair to the veteran player. Just my humble opinion..

03-22-2002, 06:01 AM	#60
Anrhydeddu Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 52	[quote]Originally posted by OOTP1: <strong>The "counter offer" is something we are adding in the update.</strong><hr></blockquote> Just getting around to read this and found this to be superb news! As with any text-based sims, there are three features that I love more than anything else: trading, free agenting and drafting. The rest are just chores to get through to get back to these three features. Having gone through the first season and the beginning of the second in my first ever OOTP season, I find these three features pretty good, actually. Since I started with the 1970 Reds, I tried to get Joe Morgan from Houston but got the usual 'cannot trade him' message, no matter what I offered. That makes sense because he is their only good infielder, esp. one that has superstar written all over him. However, in other cases when I got this message, another player added by me would get them to change their minds. More feedback would be welcomed like what Jim did with FOF.