Great Player Effect2 - Page 4

Bishop · 07-06-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

My feeling is this: The feature is cool, BUT it was much too dramatic a change and too many players were labeled as popular AND it's probably more work to get right than it's worth...

I liked the idea in concept, but I agree, the effect was much too strong. I'm not certain it was implemented very well at times either. A player with a 0 local popularity and like a 5 national. I could see the other way around, but that?

I mean, sure there's Chipper Jones being booed here in Houston, but if they were to -sign- him...

People didn't stop coming to the games when we lost Randy Johnson after renting him for half a season, which would have happened the way OOTP 6.5 worked.

Questdog · 07-06-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishop

I liked the idea in concept, but I agree, the effect was much too strong. I'm not certain it was implemented very well at times either. A player with a 0 local popularity and like a 5 national. I could see the other way around, but that?

I mean, sure there's Chipper Jones being booed here in Houston, but if they were to -sign- him...

People didn't stop coming to the games when we lost Randy Johnson after renting him for half a season, which would have happened the way OOTP 6.5 worked.

good example...

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

good example...

Bad example.

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 01:24 AM

As a Twins fan I can honestly say it has more to do with Winning and losing than the players we have. Most of our players since Kirby have not been nationally popular, Hunter being the most for the long time and not because of his bat but because of glove. Since Santana's rise to greatness the attendance has risen a little bit, but on the other hand since Santana became a starter the Twins have also won more than lost. The fact is there is no concrete proof that this effects attendance or not, and since that's the case it shouldn't be represented. Almost everything that effects anything in ootp has been proven to exist except the "clutch" factor, which as you can see is not in this game. As a matter of fact in the mid nineties when the Twins were struggling we signed Paul Moliter and it did nothing to attendance.

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

As a Twins fan I can honestly say it has more to do with Winning and losing than the players we have. Most of our players since Kirby have not been nationally popular, Hunter being the most for the long time and not because of his bat but because of glove. Since Santana's rise to greatness the attendance has risen a little bit, but on the other hand since Santana became a starter the Twins have also won more than lost. The fact is there is no concrete proof that this effects attendance or not, and since that's the case it shouldn't be represented. Almost everything that effects anything in ootp has been proven to exist except the "clutch" factor, which as you can see is not in this game. As a matter of fact in the mid nineties when the Twins were struggling we signed Paul Moliter and it did nothing to attendance.

So you're going to sit there and tell me if a team like the Royals were to be able to trade for or sign a player like Barry Bonds or Derrick Jeter, that you think their attendance wouldn't go up win or lose? Come on.

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 01:45 AM

Initially yeah, sure. For a week or two but after that the Royals would suck as they always do :-p and attendance would return to normal.

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

Initially yeah, sure. For a week or two but after that the Royals would suck as they always do :-p and attendance would return to normal.

I rest my case. It would be longer than a week or two btw.

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 01:50 AM

A Twins fan saying the Royals suck?

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 01:52 AM

Not if the team couldn't pull together a winning record. No team will draw fans if they consistantly lose. It just won't happen, the Yankees have many great players, however if they had the Win - loss record of the Royals Yankee stadium would start to empty. Granted New York is a big market So for them attendance may not dip as much but in a smaller market, like the twins and royals are in, it would not really matter. No one wants to pay to see a team lose.

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMember

A Twins fan saying the Royals suck?

Hey... you may have won the last series against us but I still believe we're ahead in the standings by what? 16 games. The only things that could save the royals at this point is resurecting Babe ruth and having Zombie ruth just belt homers for ya.

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

Hey... you may have won the last series against us but I still believe we're ahead in the standings by what? 16 games. The only things that could save the royals at this point is resurecting Babe ruth and having Zombie ruth just belt homers for ya.

Or we could sign a few guys like Barry Bonds or Derrick Jeter and get our attendance up so we could sign better players down the road. Oh, but that would prove my point to this thread, and we all know we can't have that.

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 02:02 AM

Another option would be for the Royals to stop getting rid of all their good players when they become too expensive. But.. that one wouldn't prove your point the way you want.

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

Another option would be for the Royals to stop getting rid of all their good players when they become too expensive. But.. that one wouldn't prove your point the way you want.

Actually, that has nothing to do with my point at all.

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 02:06 AM

Becasue let's say for the sake of arguement that the Royals catch Steinbrenner while he's drunk and grab Jeter in a trade. Even if attendance increased by the time you payed Jeter for the year you'll have made little to no profit because he wouldn't come cheap. So finacially it's not viable. You actually would get lucky if you broke even.

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

Becasue let's say for the sake of arguement that the Royals catch Steinbrenner while he's drunk and grab Jeter in a trade. Even if attendance increased by the time you payed Jeter for the year you'll have made little to no profit because he wouldn't come cheap. So finacially it's not viable. You actually would get lucky if you broke even.

Even if that's true, so what? That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Pull it together guy. Read.

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 02:12 AM

Then I'll make it short and simple, because i've never had a longer conversation about nothing, if you can prove, without a doubt that any player, at any time, has single handedly increased the attendance for any one team, then you're right. All you have to do is find proof.

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

Then I'll make it short and simple, because i've never had a longer conversation about nothing, if you can prove, without a doubt that any player, at any time, has single handedly increased the attendance for any one team, then you're right. All you have to do is find proof.

I don't have to find proof, it's just plain common sense that a great player, maybe a future hall of famer being signed to a team would draw more fans. Hell, a few posts up you even conceded this yourself.

Jeeze man.

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 02:21 AM

For a week sure. You're talking long term. If this were such a common event then proof would be quite easy to find.

BigMember · 07-07-2006, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

For a week sure. You're talking long term. If this were such a common event then proof would be quite easy to find.

Where in the hell did you find anywhere in this thread where I said anything about "long term" for one, and two, why should I prove it to you when you just conceded it again?

megamanmatt · 07-07-2006, 02:34 AM

1933 the Yankees have ruth and Gehrig but still manage to have and attendance record 200,000 people less than 1932

07-07-2006, 01:50 AM	#68
BigMember Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Independence MO Posts: 168	A Twins fan saying the Royals suck? __________________ "Is that my shoe over there? No, that one! Give it to me!"

07-07-2006, 01:24 AM	#64
megamanmatt Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lakeville, Minnesota Posts: 2,416	As a Twins fan I can honestly say it has more to do with Winning and losing than the players we have. Most of our players since Kirby have not been nationally popular, Hunter being the most for the long time and not because of his bat but because of glove. Since Santana's rise to greatness the attendance has risen a little bit, but on the other hand since Santana became a starter the Twins have also won more than lost. The fact is there is no concrete proof that this effects attendance or not, and since that's the case it shouldn't be represented. Almost everything that effects anything in ootp has been proven to exist except the "clutch" factor, which as you can see is not in this game. As a matter of fact in the mid nineties when the Twins were struggling we signed Paul Moliter and it did nothing to attendance.

07-07-2006, 01:45 AM	#66
megamanmatt Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lakeville, Minnesota Posts: 2,416	Initially yeah, sure. For a week or two but after that the Royals would suck as they always do :-p and attendance would return to normal.

07-07-2006, 01:52 AM	#69
megamanmatt Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lakeville, Minnesota Posts: 2,416	Not if the team couldn't pull together a winning record. No team will draw fans if they consistantly lose. It just won't happen, the Yankees have many great players, however if they had the Win - loss record of the Royals Yankee stadium would start to empty. Granted New York is a big market So for them attendance may not dip as much but in a smaller market, like the twins and royals are in, it would not really matter. No one wants to pay to see a team lose.

07-07-2006, 02:02 AM	#72
megamanmatt Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lakeville, Minnesota Posts: 2,416	Another option would be for the Royals to stop getting rid of all their good players when they become too expensive. But.. that one wouldn't prove your point the way you want.

07-07-2006, 02:06 AM	#74
megamanmatt Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lakeville, Minnesota Posts: 2,416	Becasue let's say for the sake of arguement that the Royals catch Steinbrenner while he's drunk and grab Jeter in a trade. Even if attendance increased by the time you payed Jeter for the year you'll have made little to no profit because he wouldn't come cheap. So finacially it's not viable. You actually would get lucky if you broke even.

07-07-2006, 02:12 AM	#76
megamanmatt Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lakeville, Minnesota Posts: 2,416	Then I'll make it short and simple, because i've never had a longer conversation about nothing, if you can prove, without a doubt that any player, at any time, has single handedly increased the attendance for any one team, then you're right. All you have to do is find proof.

07-07-2006, 02:21 AM	#78
megamanmatt Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lakeville, Minnesota Posts: 2,416	For a week sure. You're talking long term. If this were such a common event then proof would be quite easy to find.

07-07-2006, 02:34 AM	#80
megamanmatt Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lakeville, Minnesota Posts: 2,416	1933 the Yankees have ruth and Gehrig but still manage to have and attendance record 200,000 people less than 1932