Delayed loss in fan interest

[CBL-Commish]

End of the 2012 season one of my better pitchers, Bing-zhong Zhou, is up for free agency. He wants way more than my Tiny market can bear, so I don't even attempt to resign him. For a variety of reasons he doesn't sign with anyone for a long time. Finally on June 23rd, 2013 he's inked to a deal by the Braves, in another league.

I get this message:
"The reactions by the fans to the loss of B. Zhou are terrible!
The overall fan interest decreases by a lot!"

So... we're in first place, having a heck of a season, sitting at 49-28. A pitcher we didn't even attempt to resign eight months ago finally signs and my fan interest craters? Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense.

[Winnipeg59]

Excellent point.
There should almost be several facets to something like this.

a) You take a hit if you do not choose to re-sign him and he goes to FA at the point of that decision.
b) You could recoup some of that if you actually do re-sign him later of course (which is doubtful).
c) You would take a greater hit if he signs within you league and/or division (which might be tough for the game to actually calculate, but would be cool).

And the second two above should scale if he waits through half a season to decide as you originally stated, regardless of the above.

Just another one of those behind-the-scenes things...

[Fyrestorm3]

I noticed this too, but at the very least I can understand why it's set up this way.

I think the solution (if they choose to fix it) should be to have the fan interest drop in full when the player hits Free Agency, and then don't bother with the extra coding that would make it drop more when he signs with another team - since the fan interest is directly tied to his popularity, if you eventually re-sign him, the fan interest will go right back up.

[CobaltJays]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

I think the solution (if they choose to fix it) should be to have the fan interest drop in full when the player hits Free Agency, and then don't bother with the extra coding that would make it drop more when he signs with another team - since the fan interest is directly tied to his popularity, if you eventually re-sign him, the fan interest will go right back up.

As I recall, it used to be that fan interest would drop as you describe. I don't know when this was changed.

I don't have much of a problem with how it works right now. The issue, it seems, is that good free agents often wind up sitting out for months or an entire season, sometimes even after lowering their demands to minor league contracts. This happens frequently in my league, a small fictional league that started with 8 teams and subsequently expanded to 12. The number of unsigned free agents isn't very realistic. If this issue were fixed, the odd fan support behaviour the original poster describes wouldn't occur.

[Gator]

I agree that a hit to fan interest months after releasing a popular player makes little sense. The game needs a trigger for the event other than the FA singing with another club.

And at the risk of going a bit off topic, I do think there should be a significant bonus to fan interest/loyalty based on a player hitting career milestones (3000 hits etc.), especially if the player has been with a single franchise for an entire career. This would also make it a little easier to resign that aging super-star to a contract you know is above market value.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by Gator

And at the risk of going a bit off topic, I do think there should be a significant bonus to fan interest/loyalty based on a player hitting career milestones (3000 hits etc.), especially if the player has been with a single franchise for an entire career. This would also make it a little easier to resign that aging super-star to a contract you know is above market value.

But does that model how things happen in real life? Is there actually a sustained bump in attendance based on someone approaching 3000 hits (for example)? I would think any such effect would be very short lived, like maybe a 20% bump in attendance in the immediate few games prior to where he has a chance to get to the record.

For example, Cal Ripken got his 3000th hit in April 15th, 2000. The game in question (in Minnesota) drew 18k. The O's were still in the Camden Yards honeymoon period where they drew well, but the home games prior to Cal getting to 3000 followed almost exactly the same attendance pattern as in 1999 - sellout opening day, then high 30k numbers for the season opening six-game homestand. And no sellout the games after the road trip where he got to 3000.

Paul Molitor's 3000th hit was attendend by 16,843 Royals fans. Eddie Murray got 27k in Minnesota for his. George Brett got 17k Anaheim fans, and the preceding four home games in KC a few days prior all saw under 20k.

I have serious doubts that you'd recoup millions of dollars in contract costs based on little more than an attendance and TV ratings blip.

[The Wolf]

The OP's experience seems a bit ridiculous. This should be fixed.

[Gator]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

But does that model how things happen in real life? Is there actually a sustained bump in attendance based on someone approaching 3000 hits (for example)? I would think any such effect would be very short lived, like maybe a 20% bump in attendance in the immediate few games prior to where he has a chance to get to the record.

For example, Cal Ripken got his 3000th hit in April 15th, 2000. The game in question (in Minnesota) drew 18k. The O's were still in the Camden Yards honeymoon period where they drew well, but the home games prior to Cal getting to 3000 followed almost exactly the same attendance pattern as in 1999 - sellout opening day, then high 30k numbers for the season opening six-game homestand. And no sellout the games after the road trip where he got to 3000.

Paul Molitor's 3000th hit was attendend by 16,843 Royals fans. Eddie Murray got 27k in Minnesota for his. George Brett got 17k Anaheim fans, and the preceding four home games in KC a few days prior all saw under 20k.

I have serious doubts that you'd recoup millions of dollars in contract costs based on little more than an attendance and TV ratings blip.

I did not mean to suggest that a team should recoup millions from a single event or even for that matter in a single year. But I do think there is some value to having HOF players who play exclusively for a single franchise. Players like Jeter and Ripken create value for a franchise, they become ambassadors for a franchise for years even after they retire. Is it significant value? I'm not sure, but there is some value beyond the existing popularity system that I'm not certain OOTP completely captures.