|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 0:10:57 GMT -5
LMAO!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Nov 12, 2015 7:12:34 GMT -5
Upon review of every teams budget over the past 10 years, I have gathered a sample size of 3,200 times an owner made a decision on their team budget. This was a fun little project to do for me to give myself some confirmation this is the right decision to make. Upon this review I have discovered the following data: * 15 times out of 3,200 (0.0046%) the Owner decided to cut a team budget by $12m or more from one season to the next * 14 times out of those 15 (93.3%) happened this off-season when the owners set budgets for 2036 * 5 teams have seen budget cuts of $11m, 13 teams seen $10m cut * 13 teams have yet to see a budget cut of over $9m from one season to the next * 2 teams have seen increases of $18m from one season to another * 11 teams seen increases in the range of $10.5-15.5m * 10 more seen increases of $10m * 9 teams have only seen increases from $2-9.5m; 4 of those 9 teams just seen their budget slashed from $14-24m. I'm pretty confident in saying something funky happened this off-season and I don't know why. Free Agents have been signed at a slightly lesser rate and extensions have been signed and evened out from the consistent increases HOWEVER, I do not think the extensions make any difference since they are done in game and within team budgets. I was considering many different options on how to handle these major shifts in budgets and I came to the decision that for this year I have a plan in place in which I will monitor and review at the start of NEXT OFF-SEASON when budgets are released again. I did not want to penalize teams who made money so that eliminated some of the options I was considering such as altering budgets based on last two year averages, etc. I did not want to have to reward teams who made budget by altering other parts of the game at this time as I was considering allowing those who made money to add more seats, upgrade fan base, market size by one, etc as a reward but I felt this was a road I did not feel comfortable with. So I think the best way to move forward with this season is to install a baseline for budget cuts and not allow a team to have their budget reduced by more than that specific number. The pool of 3,200 decisions by owners cemented that this was the right thing to do. The fact that only 15 times has a major budget cut happened and all but one was this off-season tells me it was a fluke. So with that being said, I am going to set a cap on budget reduction for this season only and pending further review this offseason to decide if we will continue or be able to dig deeper in the reason why. That number will be $15,000,000. This will pump money back into the league but not an amount that is going to make it a free for all going forward. This will allow some teams some wiggle room to sign free agents, get out of the red or work on player development. It is now up to the General Manager to work under these budgets and get out of the red before the season begins or they do risk penalty. The new budgets will be as follows: ** REMOVED DUE TO ERROR** First of all, please explain how you reduced my budget from $136M to $122M?
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Nov 12, 2015 7:14:38 GMT -5
This is getting old. Please post your decision and move on. Don't read it. Like it or not, I am going to do thorough research because I want to feel confident in my decision. This is something I take seriously so if you don't then go wait in another thread until we move forward. very simple. If I simply make a decision and throw random numbers out there you will be the FIRST person lined up questioning it and demanding answers and wanting reasoning and proof so its guys like you that make me be sure I'm prepared. Derek, you went in to this "research" with your decision already made before hand. Tim did extensive research and came up with a completely different explanation for why this happened. Please explain what benefit this has on the teams that were making profits.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 8:48:45 GMT -5
And here we go... Sean....
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Nov 12, 2015 8:49:21 GMT -5
So, i think there are a few things to consider here.
Derek's research is specific to the PBL, to the teams in this league.
It's also clear he identified a unique occurrence specific to this off-season, and the sample size is significant here to shoo away any claims of small sample syndrome.
As any good, caring Commish would do, he is taking it upon himself to correct a severe occurrence that none of us could ever have anticipated, based on previous seasons of data.
I will say this. IF i was a team that had this happen to, I'm damn happy Derek took the time to review and try to fix the anomaly. I am calling it an anomaly based on the data. Atlanta and Washington have every right to have this fixed because of the severe swing in budget-hacking their owners took in-game.
If there is anything Derek has proved to me in the 10 seasons (in-game) I have been in the PBL, it is his ability to have well-thought out plans to help find solutions to issues raised by us GM's. I think he has taken the right approach here and I support the direction he has taken. It is smart to have a wait and see until next off-season, while adjusting what he can right now.
Thanks for the efforts Derek. I for one appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 8:50:32 GMT -5
Sean, actually I may of posted the wrong numbers but if you look into what I said:
"So with that being said, I am going to set a cap on budget reduction for this season only and pending further review this offseason to decide if we will continue or be able to dig deeper in the reason why. That number will be $15,000,000."
You did not get hit with a budget reduction, if you looked in game to confirm before posting on the boards (but I knew you would be quick to go on the attack) your budget remains $136 million.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 9:06:19 GMT -5
These kind of statements annoy the shit out of me. I went into this "research" as you say with a completely open mind as I had the opinions of many in my head. Some of the opinions I value most in this league were against this idea of adjusting budgets so if anything I would of went forward with no changes.
Also, the many different options I considered would of have exactly ZERO impact on the Boston Red Sox and their budget which I said for a while now I felt was too low in its market and the success we have had but I am willing to live with that. The best part of this for me was seeing my team would not be affected by any outcome so there could be claim of bias in my decision.
Tim did research based off of his solo, test league. My research came from the current league we are running and the only one I care about. I will say this, Tim's research further cemented my decision that we made the right choice. In his research that you value over mine, he came to a theory that a loss in profit plus change in wins by 20 sets you up for a major budget reduction. We tested that sample using the PBL numbers (3,200 times to be exact) and proven until this year that happened one time and the decrease in budget was $12 million NOT $40-50 million that we seen franchises get hit with this year. You are quick to dismiss the numbers in 'my research' but those are facts and strong proof something happened here.
The bottom line is teams who have been making money did not see any benefit from this. Neither did teams who broke even. Also neither did teams who had budget cuts of less than $15 million. Hell, the Pirates got screwed most in this if I had to pick one team. They got hit with a $12m budget cut for no reason or unless we want to use David's guess that its the game secretly trying to balance out their ability to win. However, its just a guess, no research behind it and a guess that can be refuted by the question "Why are the Yankees continuing to be so far ahead of everyone in budget then and winning more titles? Shouldn't they see dramatic decreases too?"
There was a mixup in the numbers posted for budgets. I made a formula and it went in across the board when it was supposed to impact teams of $15m or more only, I'll revise the actual budget numbers now.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Nov 12, 2015 9:11:44 GMT -5
Sean, actually I may of posted the wrong numbers but if you look into what I said: "So with that being said, I am going to set a cap on budget reduction for this season only and pending further review this offseason to decide if we will continue or be able to dig deeper in the reason why. That number will be $15,000,000." You did not get hit with a budget reduction, if you looked in game to confirm before posting on the boards (but I knew you would be quick to go on the attack) your budget remains $136 million. How is asking how my budget was reduced (you posted the numbers) an attack?
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Nov 12, 2015 9:20:02 GMT -5
These kind of statements annoy the shit out of me. I went into this "research" as you say with a completely open mind as I had the opinions of many in my head. Some of the opinions I value most in this league were against this idea of adjusting budgets so if anything I would of went forward with no changes. Also, the many different options I considered would of have exactly ZERO impact on the Boston Red Sox and their budget which I said for a while now I felt was too low in its market and the success we have had but I am willing to live with that. The best part of this for me was seeing my team would not be affected by any outcome so there could be claim of bias in my decision. Tim did research based off of his solo, test league. My research came from the current league we are running and the only one I care about. I will say this, Tim's research further cemented my decision that we made the right choice. In his research that you value over mine, he came to a theory that a loss in profit plus change in wins by 20 sets you up for a major budget reduction. We tested that sample using the PBL numbers (3,200 times to be exact) and proven until this year that happened one time and the decrease in budget was $12 million NOT $40-50 million that we seen franchises get hit with this year. You are quick to dismiss the numbers in 'my research' but those are facts and strong proof something happened here. The bottom line is teams who have been making money did not see any benefit from this. Neither did teams who broke even. Also neither did teams who had budget cuts of less than $15 million. Hell, the Pirates got screwed most in this if I had to pick one team. They got hit with a $12m budget cut for no reason or unless we want to use David's guess that its the game secretly trying to balance out their ability to win. However, its just a guess, no research behind it and a guess that can be refuted by the question "Why are the Yankees continuing to be so far ahead of everyone in budget then and winning more titles? Shouldn't they see dramatic decreases too?" There was a mixup in the numbers posted for budgets. I made a formula and it went in across the board when it was supposed to impact teams of $15m or more only, I'll revise the actual budget numbers now. Derek, the flaw in your "research" is that you're basing it off of a completely different game engine. Tim's research is based on the current game. So yes, I believe Tim's research is more accurate to the game environment we currently play with. Just because I have a different opinion than you doesn't mean I am attacking you. Asking why one of the most profitable teams during your research period received a reduced budget is not attacking you. Why is that unreasonable to ask? All you had to say was "Sorry man, I had a typo and your budget remained the same." Instead, you went off.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 9:35:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 9:42:06 GMT -5
I'll be 100% honest, any of the 30 other GMs who posed the same question I would of said typo, but you have a way of asking with intent to annoy and then immediately back pedal when the response is an "attack" back.
I don't care about this game engine or that one. I care about the PBL. If Tim started his league with OOTP16 and and we started on different versions then that means Tim's research does nothing to help the PBL. We are working with what we have in the PBL we can't change where we started but we can fix foolish decisions that will make it impossible to have teams run properly.
Teams would be so limited with the fear of a $40m budget hit they would not be willing to make trades, take chances etc.
Alanta would of taken a 33.7% budget cut in two years, Colorado 41.6% and Washington 46.5%.
Those are not realistic numbers and I'm very confident we made the right decision. Will it lead to us having to pay attention in the future? Absolutely and I'm not afraid of that. I'd be more afraid of losing 3-4-5 Good GMs from these boards every season or two.
|
|
|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Nov 12, 2015 10:27:54 GMT -5
I find it odd that the largest budget cut was 15 million and it happened to 13 teams.
Sent from my SM-N900V using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 10:39:32 GMT -5
I find it odd that the largest budget cut was 15 million and it happened to 13 teams. Sent from my SM-N900V using proboards Why is that odd? We set a MAX Budget Reduction and that number was $15,000,000. Prior to this off-season there was never a budget reduction from an owner of more than $12,000,000. There were 13 teams that their owner slashed budgets by over $15m. The average budget slash among those teams were $27.5 million. Under the previous budgets set by the game those 13 teams lost $358,000,000 in budget room this year from last. Under the new budget rule those teams lost $195,000,000 in room which I think is far more reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Nov 12, 2015 10:46:54 GMT -5
I'll be 100% honest, any of the 30 other GMs who posed the same question I would of said typo, but you have a way of asking with intent to annoy and then immediately back pedal when the response is an "attack" back. I don't care about this game engine or that one. I care about the PBL. If Tim started his league with OOTP16 and and we started on different versions then that means Tim's research does nothing to help the PBL. We are working with what we have in the PBL we can't change where we started but we can fix foolish decisions that will make it impossible to have teams run properly. Teams would be so limited with the fear of a $40m budget hit they would not be willing to make trades, take chances etc. Alanta would of taken a 33.7% budget cut in two years, Colorado 41.6% and Washington 46.5%. Those are not realistic numbers and I'm very confident we made the right decision. Will it lead to us having to pay attention in the future? Absolutely and I'm not afraid of that. I'd be more afraid of losing 3-4-5 Good GMs from these boards every season or two. Anyone would've asked the same question I did if their budget had been increased $16 mil by the game but then was reduced by the Commissioner. I have no issue with you helping the teams try to function that took a large hit. Did they deserve as large of a hit as they took? Probably not all at one time. I believe that the hits they took weren't random but because of actions they took or didn't take. For example, Anthony decided that he needed to do a complete reboot but his owner disagreed. As the team results on the field continued to get worse, so did the bottomline. I get that Anthony is stuck by the hit he took, but what is causing the major hit? Is it fair to Anthony that he can't run his team the way he wants? One could argue that he saw that his current team wasn't going to get to the level he wanted, so he tried to get younger and sacrifice the now for the future. The real Braves are doing this and most of the fan base seems to be okay with it. Others have suggested turning off owner goals, which I think deserves more discussion. I understand the reasoning for examining this each year and I can live with it. I just didn't appreciate your response when I was just asking why my budget was reduced. If you want to be mad about my comment about confirmation bias impacting your research, then so be it. We can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 11:25:58 GMT -5
Again you had every right to question your budget change, 100%.
Your approach as has been the norm was in poor taste in my opinion and to ridicule "my research" was ignorant and uncalled for because you didn't like something. I spent HOURS (4 the other night alone) putting numbers together and putting it so I and others can wrap their heads around it.
There was no bias impacting the research. I love how you think I make a decision then put tons of work into something because I want to put MORE WORK on myself now and going forward. The easiest thing for me to do is say, oh well suck it up. The decisions I make are in the best interest of the league and with research is where my answers come from to draw the conclusions that I do.
I will continue to think its ignorant and disrespectful to think otherwise. Don't confuse this with me being upset if you are against the change, I am not. I had a long response for David's example for disagreeing but I found the back and forth on that would of served as no purpose. II respect everyone's opinions on all matters but to disrespect the effort put in is where I get angry.
|
|