Update on the patch/update - Page 2

Alan T · 04-07-2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by autarkis33
If you were a ML GM, would you pay $15 mil to a guy that should hit .300/45/120, but regularly hits .250/20/80?

Ask Mo Vaughn

Gastric ReFlux · 04-07-2003, 11:57 AM

They pay Mo a lot because of the feeding costs.

clarnzz · 04-07-2003, 11:58 AM

I know you can make a real life case for it in some cases....

But to me this brings serious issues to online leagues with salary caps. If everyone on the Rockies is going to want 5+ million per season just because they are playing in Coors seems like the pitchers ballpark ERA has just began....

koohead · 04-07-2003, 12:00 PM

My two cents on the stat based contract:

I think it is much more realistic than ratings based salaries. I'd rather see the AI pay for performance as opposed to potential. If someone was hurt for an entire year and was a FA, his value would naturally go down in the FA market.
I am weary of the 1 year wonder or "off year" syndrome. Maybe some kind of 3 year avg, or something like what Alan T suggested (combo of stats and ratings) would be more accurate.

Still, looking forward to these changes...

x94blair3 · 04-07-2003, 12:02 PM

I agree..stats = payday. I realize if the guy is over the hill..or liable to break down and his #'s are beginning to fall they shouldn't get a giant payday. And sometimes you pay based on potential (excellent examples of both have been given).

Having said that, I don't think there is any reason to "panic". Markus isn't EA "fixing" too many HR's by getting rid of them all together. I'm sure what he'll try and do is find more a balance in the middle similar to MLB, not go to the extreme the other way. It's funny when everyone freaks out before the patch is even in hand.

-Nick

BillyBuck · 04-07-2003, 12:06 PM

Alan - you beat me to it. I was just going to say what you said.

(in reference to contract demands, not the Mo Vaughn thing - everyone is posting too damn fast today! Stop the madness!!)

Additionally, contract demands & offers are based off of both stats AND future potential.

I don't believe Markus is programming the AI to base things solely off of stats. He didn't seem to indicate that, anyway....so everything should be a-okay.

Treches · 04-07-2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by koohead
My two cents on the stat based contract:

I think it is much more realistic than ratings based salaries. I'd rather see the AI pay for performance as opposed to potential.

Agree. I consider this one a huge improvement.

lfj · 04-07-2003, 12:28 PM

I'm glad to see that items are being tweaked...my big concern is if I will have to start my historical league over from the beginning by creating a new league?

I currently have my backup folders ready to go from the beginning - stadiums, finances, manager names, minor league affiliates, etc., and would hate to have to go back and re-edit all those. I have 1903 ready to start, just waiting for this update.

Hopefully the financial coefficient will be a quick implementation for a league that hasn't started play yet, but HAS been created.

Anyone know if this will be the case?

Thanks!

lfj

Steve Kuffrey · 04-07-2003, 12:34 PM

No, Markus is the only one with the patch currently.

clarnzz · 04-07-2003, 12:51 PM

I dont think stats having a bearing in it is a bad thing it all. I look forward to that.

The only thing that had me "concerned" was this wording :

-- Contract demands based more on stats than on ratings

The word more is my concern and just what kind of effects this may have teams who play in certain types of ballparks. And just how much of an advantage this could give the Tigers on being able to sign star hitters to cheap contracts. And just how much advantage it would give the Rockies to sign cheap pitchers.

I would fear some sort of revolving door going through these teams where they pick up players with extension time drawing near and being recycled out of town at a premium once they sign the cheap long term extension.

Steve Kuffrey · 04-07-2003, 12:53 PM

I don't know for sure but I think what he was saying was that they will now be based on both since before they were almost exclusively based on ratings......only time and testing will tell however.

ghulten · 04-07-2003, 01:21 PM

As for the concerns about park effects inflating salaries, i.e. in Coors Field: Doesn't it work both ways? Sure, Todd Helton's contract demands would be higher based on his (inflated) stats, but wouldn't a SP like Jennings have lower contract demands due to (inflated) ERA, HRs allowed, etc.? Wouldn't the effects be reversed for pitchers park players, like SF Giants other than Barry Bonds? I would see this balancing out over the long run, with the number of players helped and hurt by this sort-of cancelling each other.

Anybody else with thoughts on this?

And for the record, I'm excited about the more stat-based salaries.

clarnzz · 04-07-2003, 01:30 PM

Possibly, but my concerns are more with could someone take advantage of it through the route of trading Helton to say the Mariners the season before his contract comes up for Freddy Garcia and Joel Pineiro to sign them for cheap after a Coors season for two.

And then the Rockies trade Jason Jennings to the the Tigers after he signs his cheap extension for Carlos Pena after he signs his cheap Comerica extension.

statfreak · 04-07-2003, 01:42 PM

I am very much looking forward to having salaries influenced by actual stats than ratings. As has been brought up earlier in this thread, real life GM's don't have the luxury of reviewing a player's ratings before signing them.

Before we go any further into this debate, maybe we could wait and see how much impact this actually has on salaries.

Speculation and concerns are all fine and well, but let's see how it works before debating it.

clarnzz, I suppose I can see your concerns, but don't agree with them. I guess I am assuming instead of getting paid the $10 million, a player will "ony" get $8 or $9 million based on his poor stats. I doubt any player would be radically impacted by this refinement. It's not like a $10 million player is now only going to get $3 million due to his bad stats. I am sure he would still get in the neighborhood of $10 million ($7 - $13 million).

BillyBuck · 04-07-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

but my concerns are more with could someone take advantage of it through the route of trading Helton to say the Mariners the season before his contract comes up for Freddy Garcia and Joel Pineiro to sign them for cheap after a Coors season for two.

I personally do not generally trade for a player who seems overpaid. Like sttfrk said, we're not talking about a huge difference in salary....if a player who has FAIR talent ratings across the board is crackin 40 bombs a year...well, let's just say you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out....

clarnzz · 04-07-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

It's not like a $10 million player is now only going to get $3 million due to his bad stats. I am sure he would still get in the neighborhood of $10 million ($7 - $13 million).

A 6 million dollar per season differance in salary in a cap league can be huge, and thats just one player.

Quote:

I personally do not generally trade for a player who seems overpaid.

Which is exactly why these teams could take advantage of this. Players with cheap contracts are more favorable than players with bad ones. And if they didnt take advantage of it, it would lessen either their hitters or pitchers trade value (depending on the ballpark) for this same reason.

Gastric ReFlux · 04-07-2003, 02:08 PM

Well there are lots of things players could take advantage of. Things like player salaries getting out of whack because they play in parks that inflate their numbers are something that have always played a role in baseball.

Just because someone could take advantage of it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in there. Especially if it will actually model reality closer.

And of course, in an online league, the owners could choose to make all parks roughly equal if they feel this is somehow unbalancing.

NYJuggalo45 · 04-07-2003, 02:11 PM

Amazes me how guys can be complaining BEFORE the patch comes out...citing concerns on "speculations" rather than actually having it in hand and testing it out.

BillyBuck · 04-07-2003, 02:13 PM

The hell you say, NYJuggalo!

clarnzz · 04-07-2003, 02:15 PM

It amazes me that when someone voices concerns people don't think concerns should be voiced.

If I said "I want my money back"... "WTF This sucks"... I could see that response, Im not sure what statements such as yours do to improve anything....

I was just merely having a discussion and putting some concerns out there. I dont have any personal problems with the people who don't share my concerns.

Last time I checked this forum was for discussions, if you have a problem with someone not lining up and sharing the same views as everyone else. Im sorry.

04-07-2003, 12:00 PM	#24
koohead Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,233	My two cents on the stat based contract: I think it is much more realistic than ratings based salaries. I'd rather see the AI pay for performance as opposed to potential. If someone was hurt for an entire year and was a FA, his value would naturally go down in the FA market. I am weary of the 1 year wonder or "off year" syndrome. Maybe some kind of 3 year avg, or something like what Alan T suggested (combo of stats and ratings) would be more accurate. Still, looking forward to these changes... __________________ GM - New Jersey Bears of the NPBL;

04-07-2003, 12:02 PM	#25
x94blair3 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 99	I agree..stats = payday. I realize if the guy is over the hill..or liable to break down and his #'s are beginning to fall they shouldn't get a giant payday. And sometimes you pay based on potential (excellent examples of both have been given). Having said that, I don't think there is any reason to "panic". Markus isn't EA "fixing" too many HR's by getting rid of them all together. I'm sure what he'll try and do is find more a balance in the middle similar to MLB, not go to the extreme the other way. It's funny when everyone freaks out before the patch is even in hand. -Nick __________________ Pudge, R. White, Guillen, Vina, J. Johnson, Urbina....maybe Illitch remembered he owns a baseball team. Either that or he expects a looooonnnnggg NHL holdout.

04-07-2003, 12:06 PM	#26
BillyBuck Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: KC, MO Posts: 436	Alan - you beat me to it. I was just going to say what you said. (in reference to contract demands, not the Mo Vaughn thing - everyone is posting too damn fast today! Stop the madness!!) Additionally, contract demands & offers are based off of both stats AND future potential. I don't believe Markus is programming the AI to base things solely off of stats. He didn't seem to indicate that, anyway....so everything should be a-okay. __________________ Kansas City Crows - FEBL Champions 2006 and 2007 Oslo Mountain Dawgs - WBL Champions 2004 and 2005 Last edited by BillyBuck; 04-07-2003 at 12:18 PM.

04-07-2003, 12:34 PM	#29
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	No, Markus is the only one with the patch currently. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-07-2003, 12:53 PM	#31
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	I don't know for sure but I think what he was saying was that they will now be based on both since before they were almost exclusively based on ratings......only time and testing will tell however. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-07-2003, 11:57 AM	#22
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	They pay Mo a lot because of the feeding costs.

04-07-2003, 11:58 AM	#23
clarnzz All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Following everyone off a cliff. Posts: 1,522	I know you can make a real life case for it in some cases.... But to me this brings serious issues to online leagues with salary caps. If everyone on the Rockies is going to want 5+ million per season just because they are playing in Coors seems like the pitchers ballpark ERA has just began....

04-07-2003, 12:28 PM	#28
lfj Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 69	I'm glad to see that items are being tweaked...my big concern is if I will have to start my historical league over from the beginning by creating a new league? I currently have my backup folders ready to go from the beginning - stadiums, finances, manager names, minor league affiliates, etc., and would hate to have to go back and re-edit all those. I have 1903 ready to start, just waiting for this update. Hopefully the financial coefficient will be a quick implementation for a league that hasn't started play yet, but HAS been created. Anyone know if this will be the case? Thanks! lfj

04-07-2003, 12:51 PM	#30
clarnzz All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Following everyone off a cliff. Posts: 1,522	I dont think stats having a bearing in it is a bad thing it all. I look forward to that. The only thing that had me "concerned" was this wording : -- Contract demands based more on stats than on ratings The word more is my concern and just what kind of effects this may have teams who play in certain types of ballparks. And just how much of an advantage this could give the Tigers on being able to sign star hitters to cheap contracts. And just how much advantage it would give the Rockies to sign cheap pitchers. I would fear some sort of revolving door going through these teams where they pick up players with extension time drawing near and being recycled out of town at a premium once they sign the cheap long term extension.

04-07-2003, 01:21 PM	#32
ghulten Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 135	As for the concerns about park effects inflating salaries, i.e. in Coors Field: Doesn't it work both ways? Sure, Todd Helton's contract demands would be higher based on his (inflated) stats, but wouldn't a SP like Jennings have lower contract demands due to (inflated) ERA, HRs allowed, etc.? Wouldn't the effects be reversed for pitchers park players, like SF Giants other than Barry Bonds? I would see this balancing out over the long run, with the number of players helped and hurt by this sort-of cancelling each other. Anybody else with thoughts on this? And for the record, I'm excited about the more stat-based salaries.

04-07-2003, 01:30 PM	#33
clarnzz All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Following everyone off a cliff. Posts: 1,522	Possibly, but my concerns are more with could someone take advantage of it through the route of trading Helton to say the Mariners the season before his contract comes up for Freddy Garcia and Joel Pineiro to sign them for cheap after a Coors season for two. And then the Rockies trade Jason Jennings to the the Tigers after he signs his cheap extension for Carlos Pena after he signs his cheap Comerica extension.

04-07-2003, 01:42 PM	#34
statfreak Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 2,434	I am very much looking forward to having salaries influenced by actual stats than ratings. As has been brought up earlier in this thread, real life GM's don't have the luxury of reviewing a player's ratings before signing them. Before we go any further into this debate, maybe we could wait and see how much impact this actually has on salaries. Speculation and concerns are all fine and well, but let's see how it works before debating it. clarnzz, I suppose I can see your concerns, but don't agree with them. I guess I am assuming instead of getting paid the $10 million, a player will "ony" get $8 or $9 million based on his poor stats. I doubt any player would be radically impacted by this refinement. It's not like a $10 million player is now only going to get $3 million due to his bad stats. I am sure he would still get in the neighborhood of $10 million ($7 - $13 million). __________________ Roll out the barrel!

04-07-2003, 02:08 PM	#37
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Well there are lots of things players could take advantage of. Things like player salaries getting out of whack because they play in parks that inflate their numbers are something that have always played a role in baseball. Just because someone could take advantage of it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in there. Especially if it will actually model reality closer. And of course, in an online league, the owners could choose to make all parks roughly equal if they feel this is somehow unbalancing.

04-07-2003, 02:11 PM	#38
NYJuggalo45 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 2,045	Amazes me how guys can be complaining BEFORE the patch comes out...citing concerns on "speculations" rather than actually having it in hand and testing it out. __________________ This space for rent

04-07-2003, 02:13 PM	#39
BillyBuck Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: KC, MO Posts: 436	The hell you say, NYJuggalo! __________________ Kansas City Crows - FEBL Champions 2006 and 2007 Oslo Mountain Dawgs - WBL Champions 2004 and 2005

04-07-2003, 02:15 PM	#40
clarnzz All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Following everyone off a cliff. Posts: 1,522	It amazes me that when someone voices concerns people don't think concerns should be voiced. If I said "I want my money back"... "WTF This sucks"... I could see that response, Im not sure what statements such as yours do to improve anything.... I was just merely having a discussion and putting some concerns out there. I dont have any personal problems with the people who don't share my concerns. Last time I checked this forum was for discussions, if you have a problem with someone not lining up and sharing the same views as everyone else. Im sorry.