Threshold for "Doesn't handle losing well"

sonic80 · 04-18-2016, 08:12 PM

Hi guys, I am having a new problem this season where a couple of my players are complaining about not handling losing well, even though we're currently fluctuating between 2-5 games over .500. Obviously we're not killing it out there, and we're currently 19.5 games behind the pirates (who are over 40 games over .500 at the 100 game mark).

Early on in the season we were as many as 8-10 games under .500, and had morale issues stemming from disruptive players (that have since been dealt with), over time those issues went away and some changed to the doesn't handle losing well issues. At the time I understood that, but by 60ish games into the season we were steadily hanging around slightly above .500, but the issues haven't gone away.

So I guess I'm wondering what is the criteria for players to complain about not handling losing well? Is it entirely based on your record? or is it based on some combination of record and position in the league?

fcabanski · 04-18-2016, 11:28 PM

Maybe it has to do with standing in the division rather than just record.

Matt Arnold · 04-19-2016, 10:58 AM

The "doesn't handle losing well" is sort of the default condition. Most likely the player accumulated the large negative earlier in the season, and at this point, he might be the sort of guy who "needs" a longer winning streak to break his morale, and .500 or so simply won't cut it.

sonic80 · 04-19-2016, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The "doesn't handle losing well" is sort of the default condition. Most likely the player accumulated the large negative earlier in the season, and at this point, he might be the sort of guy who "needs" a longer winning streak to break his morale, and .500 or so simply won't cut it.

That makes sense. We did start the season off dreadfully due to the distraction players. By the end of the season we ended up 10 games over .500, and only one player was still complaining, and by the start of the next season, everyone was good.

saturn2187 · 01-10-2017, 12:08 AM

I have a handful of players on my club complaining about this. We just completed our season with a 93-69 record, best in the NL East. We have been in first place the entire season... The players have been on my Active Roster the entire season. Thoughts?

NoOne · 01-10-2017, 02:11 PM

check relationships tab of your coaches, maybe? may be slowing down positive effects or possibly cancelling them out?

some other factor is at play. if you saw others improve morale over the season and those few did not, it could be that person just changes more slowly due to a bad personality, amongst many other possibilities. the particulars should point in a specific direction.

Matt Arnold · 01-10-2017, 03:37 PM

As I said, this one is sort of a default condition, so it could be that they were low due to having a clubhouse cancer around before, but you got rid of them, so they sort of don't know what to complain about anymore. If you're after the season, they can't really hurt you, so probably best to just not worry about them until next year.

04-18-2016, 08:12 PM	#1
sonic80 Bat Boy Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 12	Threshold for "Doesn't handle losing well" Hi guys, I am having a new problem this season where a couple of my players are complaining about not handling losing well, even though we're currently fluctuating between 2-5 games over .500. Obviously we're not killing it out there, and we're currently 19.5 games behind the pirates (who are over 40 games over .500 at the 100 game mark). Early on in the season we were as many as 8-10 games under .500, and had morale issues stemming from disruptive players (that have since been dealt with), over time those issues went away and some changed to the doesn't handle losing well issues. At the time I understood that, but by 60ish games into the season we were steadily hanging around slightly above .500, but the issues haven't gone away. So I guess I'm wondering what is the criteria for players to complain about not handling losing well? Is it entirely based on your record? or is it based on some combination of record and position in the league?

04-18-2016, 11:28 PM	#2
fcabanski Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 167	Maybe it has to do with standing in the division rather than just record.

04-19-2016, 10:58 AM	#3
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 14,127	The "doesn't handle losing well" is sort of the default condition. Most likely the player accumulated the large negative earlier in the season, and at this point, he might be the sort of guy who "needs" a longer winning streak to break his morale, and .500 or so simply won't cut it.

01-10-2017, 12:08 AM	#5
saturn2187 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 515	I have a handful of players on my club complaining about this. We just completed our season with a 93-69 record, best in the NL East. We have been in first place the entire season... The players have been on my Active Roster the entire season. Thoughts?

01-10-2017, 02:11 PM	#6
NoOne Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,167	check relationships tab of your coaches, maybe? may be slowing down positive effects or possibly cancelling them out? some other factor is at play. if you saw others improve morale over the season and those few did not, it could be that person just changes more slowly due to a bad personality, amongst many other possibilities. the particulars should point in a specific direction.

01-10-2017, 03:37 PM	#7
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 14,127	As I said, this one is sort of a default condition, so it could be that they were low due to having a clubhouse cancer around before, but you got rid of them, so they sort of don't know what to complain about anymore. If you're after the season, they can't really hurt you, so probably best to just not worry about them until next year.