Player Expenses Calculation

cuervo72 · 05-21-2014, 01:39 PM

Simple question: what factors into these, and when are the players "paid"?

I ask because in our first season in OOTP15, FOBL finances aren't quite adding up. And I'm not sure if that is my doing (the script that calculates them) or OOTP's.

One of the things we rely on is that expenses can be figured at a per-game rate, and that they can be extrapolated. In math terms:

$expenses = $cur_expenses + ((162 - $games)/162 * $payroll)

"$cur_expenses" is taken from the OOTP HTML. At the end of the year (when $games = 162), $expenses should simply be what is in the OOTP html.

I'm not sure figures are quite right though. Take our league financial report:

League Financial Report for Front Office Baseball League

Now, we've played 25 games as I write this (it will be 31 later in the day). Ayr for instance has a 3M payroll. For 25 games, they should have spent $462,963. They have only spent $398,525 (about 21.52 games worth). A team like Columbus looks fine - $33,210,004 payroll, which rating by 25/162 comes to $5,125,000. That checks out. Salt Lake City - $59,310,000 payroll, should have paid out $9,152,778 after 25 games. Their expenses have only been $8,977,229.

Santa Cruz should have paid $2,101,852 so far. They are actually ABOVE that at $2,102,564.

What gives here? This doesn't seem like anything Markus would change, but the numbers seem off. Are major league contracts for players in the minors not accruing (or were they not before the minor league seasons kicked off)? Is there a league setting somewhere that has been missed? How are these numbers looking for everyone else's universes/leagues?

saturn2187 · 05-21-2014, 04:39 PM

i haven't looked closely at your numbers but one of the first things that comes to mind for me is days off.

If the season is 162 games long, but actually 185 days long with days off factored in, it may be paying guys per day including days off.

Just a shot in the dark.

Edit: Scratch that theory. That would not work. Ayr has used 13.28% of their projected payroll; while Columbus has used 15.4%. So if my previous theory of players being paid daily whether they had a game or not was correct, both would be at the same percentage.

Back to the drawing board.

cuervo72 · 05-21-2014, 04:46 PM

I did wonder that initially, as well as if the game might be paying weekly vs per game, but I think if that was the case all of the teams should be showing the same % of payroll as having been paid.* With some teams spot-on and others not, that doesn't seem to be the case.

* The FOBL schedule is such that by the end of each sim, all teams will have played the same number of games. At this early point in the season, there haven't been any major changes in payroll so it's easy to see where the numbers should be. Things get considerably messier starting with this sim though, as players are starting to move.

saturn2187 · 05-21-2014, 04:51 PM

I have another idea which may be the correct one.
It looks like guys who are on the 40 man roster, but actually assigned to the minors are only actually PAID 1/6th of what their contracted budget amount is.

So your teams payroll could say $3m but if some of the guys were in the minors, they wouldn't actually earn that complete major league minimum - and the team would have that extra money to spend.

Here is the thread that seems to say that:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ster-guys.html

This appears to apply only to young players in their first few seasons in the minors on option. Major league free agents signed to major league contracts earn their full contract regardless of what level they are assigned to.

cuervo72 · 05-21-2014, 04:54 PM

Hmm. We play with the 40-man roster option off, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that guys on ML contracts might only be getting paid a fraction of what they should (and kinda touched on that in the OP). If that's the case...ugh, for my purposes.

saturn2187 · 05-21-2014, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Hmm. We play with the 40-man roster option off, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that guys on ML contracts might only be getting paid a fraction of what they should (and kinda touched on that in the OP). If that's the case...ugh, for my purposes.

Why is this such a big deal? Can't you just go with the numbers the game generates? Why do you need to know precisely when guys are paid?

injury log · 05-21-2014, 06:12 PM

Yeah, min-wage guys in the minors are paid only a fraction of their full salary. Guaranteed contracts are paid in full. And the game pays out per game, not per day or per week, so if one team has played 40 games and another 35, the first team will have paid out a higher % of its total payroll. And of course if teams change their roster composition (through trades or waiver claims or midseason FA signings, say) I think that could account for the discrepancy you're seeing as well?

cuervo72 · 05-21-2014, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saturn2187

Why is this such a big deal? Can't you just go with the numbers the game generates? Why do you need to know precisely when guys are paid?

Well, normally we don't - but I was wondering what the mechanism was in order to determine why numbers weren't lining up. The point is, we do rely on the game's numbers for expenses come year-end and need them to be correct. If a team maintains a payroll of 30M all year but at year end shows player expenses of 29M...that's a bit of an issue.

For a simple case where a team maintains a constant payroll, we could easily correct that number; for teams that have their payrolls go up and down during the course of the season, tracking expenditures because the game isn't doing it correctly would be a tremendous pain in the behind.

cuervo72 · 05-21-2014, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by injury log

And of course if teams change their roster composition (through trades or waiver claims or midseason FA signings, say) I think that could account for the discrepancy you're seeing as well?

Roster changes will lead to payroll deviating from projected expenses, but 25 games in most teams haven't made moves.

Santa Cruz12,604,33213,620,0000.931.012013,620,71220,296,8636,676,15119,280,483
All Transactions

There's really no reason why those numbers shouldn't line up.

Norwich3,571,79633,220,0000.891.282133,194,23231,309,134(1,885,098)1,686,698
All Transactions

Same with these.

edit: geez, no html tables in the wysiwyg?

cuervo72 · 05-21-2014, 07:00 PM

Ok...looking more in-depth at Norwich, they have two players who are making our minimum (100k) in AAA.

What these players should have made after 25 games: 200,000 x 25/162 = 30,864

If those players are only making 1/6th of that in reality, then they've left 5/6 of that on the table. That's 25,720.

The difference between what their expenses should be minus what they have been is 5,126,543 - 5,100,775 = 25,768. Those two numbers aren't exact, but they're pretty close.

So I guess my question is...is there a way to turn this 1/6th thing off?

Huckleberry · 04-09-2015, 03:46 PM

So I'm bumping this one from way back when because it's related to my question.

Does OOTP calculate player expenses on a per game rate based on the scheduled number of games per team? Essentially I want to make sure that if a regular season tiebreaker game is scheduled that it doesn't add anything to player expenses.

05-21-2014, 01:39 PM	#1
cuervo72 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 140	Player Expenses Calculation Simple question: what factors into these, and when are the players "paid"? I ask because in our first season in OOTP15, FOBL finances aren't quite adding up. And I'm not sure if that is my doing (the script that calculates them) or OOTP's. One of the things we rely on is that expenses can be figured at a per-game rate, and that they can be extrapolated. In math terms: $expenses = $cur_expenses + ((162 - $games)/162 * $payroll) "$cur_expenses" is taken from the OOTP HTML. At the end of the year (when $games = 162), $expenses should simply be what is in the OOTP html. I'm not sure figures are quite right though. Take our league financial report: League Financial Report for Front Office Baseball League Now, we've played 25 games as I write this (it will be 31 later in the day). Ayr for instance has a 3M payroll. For 25 games, they should have spent $462,963. They have only spent $398,525 (about 21.52 games worth). A team like Columbus looks fine - $33,210,004 payroll, which rating by 25/162 comes to $5,125,000. That checks out. Salt Lake City - $59,310,000 payroll, should have paid out $9,152,778 after 25 games. Their expenses have only been $8,977,229. Santa Cruz should have paid $2,101,852 so far. They are actually ABOVE that at $2,102,564. What gives here? This doesn't seem like anything Markus would change, but the numbers seem off. Are major league contracts for players in the minors not accruing (or were they not before the minor league seasons kicked off)? Is there a league setting somewhere that has been missed? How are these numbers looking for everyone else's universes/leagues? __________________ FOBL - Owner, Las Vegas Lightning FOFL - Owner, Bar Harbor Whitecaps IHOF - Owner, Frederick Red Menace, Former NAC President Last edited by cuervo72; 05-21-2014 at 01:40 PM.

05-21-2014, 04:39 PM	#2
saturn2187 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 515	i haven't looked closely at your numbers but one of the first things that comes to mind for me is days off. If the season is 162 games long, but actually 185 days long with days off factored in, it may be paying guys per day including days off. Just a shot in the dark. Edit: Scratch that theory. That would not work. Ayr has used 13.28% of their projected payroll; while Columbus has used 15.4%. So if my previous theory of players being paid daily whether they had a game or not was correct, both would be at the same percentage. Back to the drawing board. Last edited by saturn2187; 05-21-2014 at 04:45 PM. Reason: Epiphany

05-21-2014, 04:46 PM	#3
cuervo72 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 140	I did wonder that initially, as well as if the game might be paying weekly vs per game, but I think if that was the case all of the teams should be showing the same % of payroll as having been paid.* With some teams spot-on and others not, that doesn't seem to be the case. * The FOBL schedule is such that by the end of each sim, all teams will have played the same number of games. At this early point in the season, there haven't been any major changes in payroll so it's easy to see where the numbers should be. Things get considerably messier starting with this sim though, as players are starting to move. __________________ FOBL - Owner, Las Vegas Lightning FOFL - Owner, Bar Harbor Whitecaps IHOF - Owner, Frederick Red Menace, Former NAC President

05-21-2014, 04:51 PM	#4
saturn2187 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 515	I have another idea which may be the correct one. It looks like guys who are on the 40 man roster, but actually assigned to the minors are only actually PAID 1/6th of what their contracted budget amount is. So your teams payroll could say $3m but if some of the guys were in the minors, they wouldn't actually earn that complete major league minimum - and the team would have that extra money to spend. Here is the thread that seems to say that: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ster-guys.html This appears to apply only to young players in their first few seasons in the minors on option. Major league free agents signed to major league contracts earn their full contract regardless of what level they are assigned to. Last edited by saturn2187; 05-21-2014 at 04:53 PM.

05-21-2014, 04:54 PM	#5
cuervo72 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 140	Hmm. We play with the 40-man roster option off, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that guys on ML contracts might only be getting paid a fraction of what they should (and kinda touched on that in the OP). If that's the case...ugh, for my purposes. __________________ FOBL - Owner, Las Vegas Lightning FOFL - Owner, Bar Harbor Whitecaps IHOF - Owner, Frederick Red Menace, Former NAC President

05-21-2014, 06:12 PM	#7
injury log Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 9,162	Yeah, min-wage guys in the minors are paid only a fraction of their full salary. Guaranteed contracts are paid in full. And the game pays out per game, not per day or per week, so if one team has played 40 games and another 35, the first team will have paid out a higher % of its total payroll. And of course if teams change their roster composition (through trades or waiver claims or midseason FA signings, say) I think that could account for the discrepancy you're seeing as well?

05-21-2014, 07:00 PM	#10
cuervo72 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 140	Ok...looking more in-depth at Norwich, they have two players who are making our minimum (100k) in AAA. What these players should have made after 25 games: 200,000 x 25/162 = 30,864 If those players are only making 1/6th of that in reality, then they've left 5/6 of that on the table. That's 25,720. The difference between what their expenses should be minus what they have been is 5,126,543 - 5,100,775 = 25,768. Those two numbers aren't exact, but they're pretty close. *So I guess my question is...is there a way to turn this 1/6th thing off?* __________________ FOBL - Owner, Las Vegas Lightning FOFL - Owner, Bar Harbor Whitecaps IHOF - Owner, Frederick Red Menace, Former NAC President Last edited by cuervo72; 05-21-2014 at 07:05 PM.

04-09-2015, 03:46 PM	#11
Huckleberry All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 572	So I'm bumping this one from way back when because it's related to my question. Does OOTP calculate player expenses on a per game rate based on the scheduled number of games per team? Essentially I want to make sure that if a regular season tiebreaker game is scheduled that it doesn't add anything to player expenses.