|
Post by kendalld00(GM for hire) on Sept 4, 2018 15:51:57 GMT -5
The ticket price subject is touchy....
Here is the best way to help the smaller market teams. Set the minimum Season Ticket to $35M..
That would help 10 teams.. Tigers +500k Royals +2.16M Warhounds +2.59M White Sox +4.16M Marlins +9.41M Phillies +14.55M Astros +15.69M Expos +16.22M Cardinals +16.77M Blue Jay +20.56M Brewers +23.76M
These teams are also in the bottom the Total Revenue. Compare the A's vs. Brewers.. A's have almost $200M more than the Brewers.. The above amounts will at least get all the teams at the bottom up to $90+M in Total Team Revenue. This is something that I suggested 5 seasons ago to help smaller market teams. Just wanted to throw it out their again.. This would be an easier fix for the Commish I think also.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 4, 2018 17:30:00 GMT -5
I feel as though this is evolving into three questions:
1) Ought the league change policy to help the less competitive teams / hurt the more competitive teams?
2) If so, on what axis? Budget, market size, what?
3) And from there, how would we do it?
|
|
|
Post by RandyP on Sept 4, 2018 17:57:22 GMT -5
Honestly i had forgotten how varied the stadium capacities were. Suggestion revoked. Cubs also didn't think about stadium capacities, so Cubs agree with Wilson, I take back what I said yesterday, it's just crazy that you get your team to the top that fans will pay high dollar prices, but you know, that is how it is....lol....also remember we are fixing to be in 2048 season, I will be dead by then in real life by 15 years...lol...Cubs will stay out of this debate.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Sept 4, 2018 18:12:22 GMT -5
The ticket price subject is touchy.... Here is the best way to help the smaller market teams. Set the minimum Season Ticket to $35M.. That would help 10 teams.. Tigers +500k Royals +2.16M Warhounds +2.59M White Sox +4.16M Marlins +9.41M Phillies +14.55M Astros +15.69M Expos +16.22M Cardinals +16.77M Blue Jay +20.56M Brewers +23.76M These teams are also in the bottom the Total Revenue. Compare the A's vs. Brewers.. A's have almost $200M more than the Brewers.. The above amounts will at least get all the teams at the bottom up to $90+M in Total Team Revenue. This is something that I suggested 5 seasons ago to help smaller market teams. Just wanted to throw it out their again.. This would be an easier fix for the Commish I think also. No. The White Sox don't need to change the rules to be competitive. We won 93 games. Should win more next year. Oakland was a small market team. Now the complaint is what exactly? It's pretty straight forward, put a good product on the field. And you will attract fans. Which will in turn produce revenue.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 4, 2018 18:34:50 GMT -5
Some interesting stats. I don't have access to market size in the game, but I do have access to the media budget numbers, which I think are a pretty good substitute. (Oakland's revenue is sky-high, but they're a medium market team and have only average media budget). The r^2* between Market Size (as measured by media budget) and between team budget minus media revenue (ie, the amount of money the owner values the team's performance at that is unrelated to market size) is .143. That means that, in this league, 14.3% of your budget is a reward for being large market, over and above the media budget, and 85.7% of your budget is caused by other things (presumably team performance). The r^2* between Market Size and wins is 0.069. This means that 6.9% of a team's record can be explained by its market size, but the remaining 93.1% is caused by other things. And this kind of fits the data. Two of the top four markets had losing seasons this year. And while the bottom four markets didn't do well, teams #s 29 through #20 won (in order): 76, 79, 82, 60, 93, 90, 98, 93 and 90 wins. In fact, half of the playoff teams this year were #16 or lower in Media Revenue. This is a long way of saying the same thing that gets said every year: having a big market helps and having a small market hurts, but in the long run, the best GM is much much better than the biggest market. Or let me put it like this. If you were the owner of a team and you wanted maximum success and you had two choices: have the Yankees' market advantages and a random GM, or have the Expos disadvantages and have Shane as your GM, which would you choose? I know which one I'd take. * These correlations are for the PBL in the present state, just to be clear.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Sept 4, 2018 18:44:10 GMT -5
The "market" size will be the slowest thing to change. IF you are referencing that as "small market".
Your stadium capacity can now be altered by Ron's incentive program. That will help IF you can capitalize on it. OAK has one of the smaller stadiums, so that argument is weak, given how they have generated dollars.
Pretty sure you cannot simply "set" the season ticket amount as it's a game mechanic based on several things.
Looking back over the PBL history, it's hard to find a team that has NEVWR had success of some kind (even the Expos long before me). It all ebbs and flows.
I would also submit that any amount of help will not help every GM or team.
Bad teams simply have to figure it all out and win. GM's have to learn and win.
I don't know John, but I really do applaud his move tfron one of the very best franchises (currently) to one of the lesser teams (not worst, but in pretty bad shape).
I will seriously be comparing his rise to my (work in progress) own in the present environment.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Sept 4, 2018 21:49:24 GMT -5
I've kind of remained silent on this because I was one of the few people who voted "No" initially on removing the cap. I knew that certain teams would do a better job than others with ticket prices, which would become a complaint by the teams that didn't get the budget bumps they were hoping for when they voted for the cap to be removed.
Now that the cap has been removed, I feel like it would do more harm than good to put the cap back on. John's research has shown that the GM has a much bigger influence on the budget rather than just pure market size. I've always believed this to be true, but once again his research has proven valuable.
I would argue that teams like Cincinnati and Oakland actually have a chance to compete against the LA's, Chicago's, and New York's in a cap free world. That chance goes down in a cap world. It doesn't mean you can't compete, but those cities media revenue each year are more than a lot of teams budgets.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Sept 7, 2018 8:54:24 GMT -5
First there will be a new rule implemented. On December 1 in game each season I will move any players on the 60 day DL to the 40 man roster. This is how MLB operates. There is no disabled list in the off season in MLB. The ability to do this in OOTP allows for a hack to have more than 40 players protected from the rule V draft. To me this is a no brainer and is just closing a loophole. A poll could be created for voting if anyone thinks that is appropriate. Thank you!!! No poll necessary, this ABSOLUTELY 100% should be done. MLB actually forces teams to do this prior to free agency but doing it after Free Agents have filed is a very fair solution. Second we are going to have to modify the timing of the draft slotted picks. I think we had a great introduction to completing the full draft in Stats+ last season. However, I took a week vacation during the draft and we did not sim while I was away. Even with that extra time we barely had enough to complete the draft. Also I would really like to build in some extra time between when the draft pool is announced and when pick 1 is due so that everyone has ample time to do their analysis. I am proposing reducing times for rounds 15-25 from 15 minutes to 1 minute. Those rounds can be pretty easily managed by lists for teams that are interested and that would buy us almost a week real time. I think we could also reduce rounds 5-15 from 15 minutes to 5. So, my proposed schedule is: Round 1 / 1 hour Rounds 2-3 / 30 minutes Rounds 4-5 / 15 minutes Rounds 6-14 / 5 minutes Rounds 15-25 / 1 minute Again, not planning on opening a poll at this point. We have to make a change here. But happy to hear feedback on my proposed schedule. I found this draft to be rather frustrating and slightly confusing... I'd like to offer an alternative schedule that I use in both of my leagues that use Rolling Slots... Round 1 = 6 Hours Round 2 = 4 Hours Round 3-5 = 2 Hours Round 6+ = 1 Hour As soon as a team is auto'd they are auto'd the rest of the way. Timer is off from 11 PM Eastern - 10 AM Eastern. We have done 8-10 Drafts in S+ so far, and neither of the drafts have taken more than a week to complete in real time with the provided schedule. Having only a 1 minute timer, that isn't enough time for someone who if they wanted to select live wouldnt be able to sign in to make a selection in that time frame. I agree with wanting to make everyone have a list but if a list runs without with the persons knowledge s+ isn't necessarily the best at auto'ing players especially with "impossible" players who I got stuck with in the 3rd round after I didn't get a notification.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Sept 7, 2018 9:07:31 GMT -5
First there will be a new rule implemented. On December 1 in game each season I will move any players on the 60 day DL to the 40 man roster. This is how MLB operates. There is no disabled list in the off season in MLB. The ability to do this in OOTP allows for a hack to have more than 40 players protected from the rule V draft. To me this is a no brainer and is just closing a loophole. A poll could be created for voting if anyone thinks that is appropriate. Thank you!!! No poll necessary, this ABSOLUTELY 100% should be done. MLB actually forces teams to do this prior to free agency but doing it after Free Agents have filed is a very fair solution. Second we are going to have to modify the timing of the draft slotted picks. I think we had a great introduction to completing the full draft in Stats+ last season. However, I took a week vacation during the draft and we did not sim while I was away. Even with that extra time we barely had enough to complete the draft. Also I would really like to build in some extra time between when the draft pool is announced and when pick 1 is due so that everyone has ample time to do their analysis. I am proposing reducing times for rounds 15-25 from 15 minutes to 1 minute. Those rounds can be pretty easily managed by lists for teams that are interested and that would buy us almost a week real time. I think we could also reduce rounds 5-15 from 15 minutes to 5. So, my proposed schedule is: Round 1 / 1 hour Rounds 2-3 / 30 minutes Rounds 4-5 / 15 minutes Rounds 6-14 / 5 minutes Rounds 15-25 / 1 minute Again, not planning on opening a poll at this point. We have to make a change here. But happy to hear feedback on my proposed schedule. I found this draft to be rather frustrating and slightly confusing... I'd like to offer an alternative schedule that I use in both of my leagues that use Rolling Slots... Round 1 = 6 Hours Round 2 = 4 Hours Round 3-5 = 2 Hours Round 6+ = 1 Hour As soon as a team is auto'd they are auto'd the rest of the way. Timer is off from 11 PM Eastern - 10 AM Eastern. We have done 8-10 Drafts in S+ so far, and neither of the drafts have taken more than a week to complete in real time with the provided schedule. Having only a 1 minute timer, that isn't enough time for someone who if they wanted to select live wouldnt be able to sign in to make a selection in that time frame. I agree with wanting to make everyone have a list but if a list runs without with the persons knowledge s+ isn't necessarily the best at auto'ing players especially with "impossible" players who I got stuck with in the 3rd round after I didn't get a notification. Good point on the impossible players, I had a similar issue occur with one of my picks that carried over from the previous year. Didn't see they were impossible to sign in stats+.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 7, 2018 9:40:29 GMT -5
First there will be a new rule implemented. On December 1 in game each season I will move any players on the 60 day DL to the 40 man roster. This is how MLB operates. There is no disabled list in the off season in MLB. The ability to do this in OOTP allows for a hack to have more than 40 players protected from the rule V draft. To me this is a no brainer and is just closing a loophole. A poll could be created for voting if anyone thinks that is appropriate. Thank you!!! No poll necessary, this ABSOLUTELY 100% should be done. MLB actually forces teams to do this prior to free agency but doing it after Free Agents have filed is a very fair solution. Second we are going to have to modify the timing of the draft slotted picks. I think we had a great introduction to completing the full draft in Stats+ last season. However, I took a week vacation during the draft and we did not sim while I was away. Even with that extra time we barely had enough to complete the draft. Also I would really like to build in some extra time between when the draft pool is announced and when pick 1 is due so that everyone has ample time to do their analysis. I am proposing reducing times for rounds 15-25 from 15 minutes to 1 minute. Those rounds can be pretty easily managed by lists for teams that are interested and that would buy us almost a week real time. I think we could also reduce rounds 5-15 from 15 minutes to 5. So, my proposed schedule is: Round 1 / 1 hour Rounds 2-3 / 30 minutes Rounds 4-5 / 15 minutes Rounds 6-14 / 5 minutes Rounds 15-25 / 1 minute Again, not planning on opening a poll at this point. We have to make a change here. But happy to hear feedback on my proposed schedule. I found this draft to be rather frustrating and slightly confusing... I'd like to offer an alternative schedule that I use in both of my leagues that use Rolling Slots... Round 1 = 6 Hours Round 2 = 4 Hours Round 3-5 = 2 Hours Round 6+ = 1 Hour As soon as a team is auto'd they are auto'd the rest of the way. Timer is off from 11 PM Eastern - 10 AM Eastern. We have done 8-10 Drafts in S+ so far, and neither of the drafts have taken more than a week to complete in real time with the provided schedule. Having only a 1 minute timer, that isn't enough time for someone who if they wanted to select live wouldnt be able to sign in to make a selection in that time frame. I agree with wanting to make everyone have a list but if a list runs without with the persons knowledge s+ isn't necessarily the best at auto'ing players especially with "impossible" players who I got stuck with in the 3rd round after I didn't get a notification. Obviously this could not be done with the fixed time slots the way we do now. There were 38 picks in the first round. 38 picks x 6 hours is 228 hours. 228 hours divided by 13 hours is 17.5 days. So we're looking at 2.5 weeks for the first round. Have I misunderstood?
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Sept 7, 2018 9:43:13 GMT -5
Thank you!!! No poll necessary, this ABSOLUTELY 100% should be done. MLB actually forces teams to do this prior to free agency but doing it after Free Agents have filed is a very fair solution. I found this draft to be rather frustrating and slightly confusing... I'd like to offer an alternative schedule that I use in both of my leagues that use Rolling Slots... Round 1 = 6 Hours Round 2 = 4 Hours Round 3-5 = 2 Hours Round 6+ = 1 Hour As soon as a team is auto'd they are auto'd the rest of the way. Timer is off from 11 PM Eastern - 10 AM Eastern. We have done 8-10 Drafts in S+ so far, and neither of the drafts have taken more than a week to complete in real time with the provided schedule. Having only a 1 minute timer, that isn't enough time for someone who if they wanted to select live wouldnt be able to sign in to make a selection in that time frame. I agree with wanting to make everyone have a list but if a list runs without with the persons knowledge s+ isn't necessarily the best at auto'ing players especially with "impossible" players who I got stuck with in the 3rd round after I didn't get a notification. Obviously this could not be done with the fixed time slots the way we do now. There were 38 picks in the first round. 38 picks x 6 hours is 228 hours. 228 hours divided by 13 hours is 17.5 days. So we're looking at 2.5 weeks for the first round. Have I misunderstood? It's not fixed... It's rolling time slots. I pick 1 hour into my 6 hour window then the next guys up and his 6 hour clock starts now. I swear the times changed, I had a day til my next pick in this years draft and all of a sudden I was auto'd that day with no notification or warning. Inserted a picture of my draft. It fell around July 4th so it was a little slower than normal. 1st pick was made 7/1 @ 10 PM. Last pick was made 7/10 @ 11 PM. So 10 days from start to finish 30 Rounds, with a couple guys picking into Round 30.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Sept 7, 2018 9:49:57 GMT -5
Thank you!!! No poll necessary, this ABSOLUTELY 100% should be done. MLB actually forces teams to do this prior to free agency but doing it after Free Agents have filed is a very fair solution. I found this draft to be rather frustrating and slightly confusing... I'd like to offer an alternative schedule that I use in both of my leagues that use Rolling Slots... Round 1 = 6 Hours Round 2 = 4 Hours Round 3-5 = 2 Hours Round 6+ = 1 Hour As soon as a team is auto'd they are auto'd the rest of the way. Timer is off from 11 PM Eastern - 10 AM Eastern. We have done 8-10 Drafts in S+ so far, and neither of the drafts have taken more than a week to complete in real time with the provided schedule. Having only a 1 minute timer, that isn't enough time for someone who if they wanted to select live wouldnt be able to sign in to make a selection in that time frame. I agree with wanting to make everyone have a list but if a list runs without with the persons knowledge s+ isn't necessarily the best at auto'ing players especially with "impossible" players who I got stuck with in the 3rd round after I didn't get a notification. Good point on the impossible players, I had a similar issue occur with one of my picks that carried over from the previous year. Didn't see they were impossible to sign in stats+. Thats the one problem with S+. I've had this convo with Dave (the developer) and he's requested from the OOTP team that they include Signability and Demand in the SQL files which is what is used to upload data to the S+ Site. Currently they are not anywhere in the SQL files. Maybe for OOTP 20 but i'm not sure if thats going to happen. The only way to find that data is through OOTP. I actually export the draft pool from OOTP with player demands and use an excel/gsheet to make my selections based on that along with all of the ratings.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Sept 7, 2018 14:16:36 GMT -5
I do not think slotted time picks are more confusing. I think they are different. I did my best to explain them before the draft started. I think you may have missed that Forum content Anthony which might have led to your confusion and frustration?
Draft slots predefine when your picks will EXPIRE.
Picks can be made as soon as the pick before yours is made. So, for instance if the 5 teams before you fire off 5 consecutive picks and the time slots are 1 hour apart, you may have a 6 hour window between when your pick is available and when it is due. If, however, the team before you makes their pick at the last minute, you will only have a one hour window between when your pick is available and when it is due. The key here is that in BOTH scenarios your pick was going to be at a specific time. i.e. Sunday night at 7:00. That specific time is published at the beginning of the draft.
I am more than willing to listen to opposing points of view but I fail to understand how time slots are not preferred. I for one would much prefer to know ahead of time when I needed to be prepared instead of checking in to see how this round happens to be playing out.
I am curious to hear how many people are looking for the flexibility to do live picks after round 15. My impression was by that point in the draft most people were doing list picks or auto picks.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Sept 7, 2018 14:20:37 GMT -5
There were only a few teams that held up the draft. The Pirates, the Diamondbacks and the Braves had considerably the most time spent on picks. This isn't opinion it was charted and timed on S+ in the reports section of the draft.
I thought the draft went swimmingly and was very pleased even though I was sceptical going in.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 7, 2018 15:04:17 GMT -5
I do not think slotted time picks are more confusing. I think they are different. I did my best to explain them before the draft started. I think you may have missed that Forum content Anthony which might have led to your confusion and frustration? Draft slots predefine when your picks will EXPIRE. Picks can be made as soon as the pick before yours is made. So, for instance if the 5 teams before you fire off 5 consecutive picks and the time slots are 1 hour apart, you may have a 6 hour window between when your pick is available and when it is due. If, however, the team before you makes their pick at the last minute, you will only have a one hour window between when your pick is available and when it is due. The key here is that in BOTH scenarios your pick was going to be at a specific time. i.e. Sunday night at 7:00. That specific time is published at the beginning of the draft. I am more than willing to listen to opposing points of view but I fail to understand how time slots are not preferred. I for one would much prefer to know ahead of time when I needed to be prepared instead of checking in to see how this round happens to be playing out. I am curious to hear how many people are looking for the flexibility to do live picks after round 15. My impression was by that point in the draft most people were doing list picks or auto picks. In Round 10 we had 14 people who were still making their own picks (or off of a list). In Round 15 we had 11 people making picks off of lists. In Round 20 we had 4 (thanks for making me not feel alone Padres, Indians and Dodgers!). By round 7 I was doing list picks, not live picks. That said, I (and I know a few other teams were doing the same) were building lists, letting the draft run until our list got low, and then going into the player selector and repopulating our list with the best players remaining and repeating. So while live picks were likely toast by that point, there were definitely GM's who were using the time between picks to keep rebuilding draft lists. I frankly loved everything about the last draft, though I'd be fine with the truncated timetable proposed for the later rounds.
|
|