|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Oct 21, 2015 9:12:47 GMT -5
Bare with me, I have done a lot of research and data projects for the PBL, this may be my biggest job yet. I'm working feverishly through it but I think its worth the time.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Oct 21, 2015 9:45:30 GMT -5
Crazy off the wall idea. Every time gets to keep 10-15 players in their organization. The rest get placed into a pool and we do a redistribution draft! Only semi joking off course.
Seriously though... Budgets and Draft. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Oct 21, 2015 9:47:11 GMT -5
And 5 star players should not be available at pick #15... But there should be 3.5-4 star players available at that point.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Oct 21, 2015 10:57:17 GMT -5
And 5 star players should not be available at pick #15... But there should be 3.5-4 star players available at that point. Yes. ..THIS.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Oct 21, 2015 11:12:18 GMT -5
And 5 star players should not be available at pick #15... But there should be 3.5-4 star players available at that point. Yes. ..THIS. -1
|
|
|
Post by Chip_PhilliesGM on Oct 21, 2015 11:19:24 GMT -5
From my own anecdote, I think that profit and loss plays a big role in how the owner adjusts , but the budget now. I had a fairly successful season that improved in record and was over .500 and met most of my goals in 2034, but I had a loss, and I was really annoyed when my budget still got cut to 95M. So, I made sure that this season, no matter what I post a profit. I got a 10M increase to my budget this offseason, and I think my posting a profit had more to do with it than my making the playoffs. I will say, that I think the owner goals are kind of dumb. Like one of my goals is to eventually have a top 6 farm system, which I did at the start of the season, but I promoted two of my best prospects and am now 10th, so at the end of the year, my owner will think I haven't met it.
I think I am against a cash infusion, but am not realty dead set either way and will go with anything in the end. I do now how tough it is with a small payroll, I had the 24th highest payroll this past season, and that is with me cutting my development budget in half. That's ultimately my preference anyway and part of the challenge. I prefer taking a tiny budgeted team and trying to build them up rather then having a massive payroll.
Edit: Oh and I might not have exported last sim, mainly because I am already winning bids or waiting to hear back from players. I am also holding some money back, because there are frequently some good deals to be had later on and I have a few holes to fill with about 18-20M to fill them with. I didn't even get to bid on Pinnock, mainly because I liked Zach Porter a lot more (Pinnock hasn't had a 4.0+ WAR since 2032, but he's still a steal at the price he got). Of course, the Porter bidding got way too expensive, and Will Taylor was always too expensive, so I couldn't get in on that.
Edit 2:Wanted to add, that you do a great job, Derek, and I can't imagine how you have kept up with everything. I had to quit the league 2 years ago when I hit a rough patch, and my wife and I separated.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Oct 21, 2015 12:33:56 GMT -5
What are you disagreeing with?
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Oct 21, 2015 13:18:32 GMT -5
Just a side note. Exporting when doing nothing is a good way of showing the commish you are still and active. No reason not to hit that upload button.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Oct 21, 2015 13:25:29 GMT -5
What are you disagreeing with? Sorry, I should have held off on posting until I had time to explain myself. Basically I don't like the idea of having too much talent in the league. I like having to dig through the dregs to find roll players and I like evaluating talent when looking at roster moves. An abundance of talent dilutes the field. 15 four star players per draft seems like way too much. At 15 I would be hoping for 2 to 3 star potential. But my main issue is in the long run I don't think it really helps the league. It ends up devaluing the role players but doesn't do anything to distribute the talent. In fact it may negatively affect league parody. Here is my case if talent was a numeric value. Say there was 6400 talent in the league. That would be a 200 per team average but top teams may have 300(150% of average) and bottom teams 100(50% of average) for a 200 spread. If you infuse an additional 1600 to 8000 the talent does not only raise the bottom teams, it raises both. Now you have a 250 per team average. If the percentages stay the same, top teams now have 375 and bottom teams 125. The difference has grown from 100 to 150. You have unintentionally increased the divide between the top and bottom. Of course these numbers are completely unscientific and have no basis in research but I do think we are playing with fire if we go down the road of editing players.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Oct 21, 2015 14:35:04 GMT -5
What are you disagreeing with? Sorry, I should have held off on posting until I had time to explain myself. Basically I don't like the idea of having too much talent in the league. I like having to dig through the dregs to find roll players and I like evaluating talent when looking at roster moves. An abundance of talent dilutes the field. 15 four star players per draft seems like way too much. At 15 I would be hoping for 2 to 3 star potential. But my main issue is in the long run I don't think it really helps the league. It ends up devaluing the role players but doesn't do anything to distribute the talent. In fact it may negatively affect league parody. Here is my case if talent was a numeric value. Say there was 6400 talent in the league. That would be a 200 per team average but top teams may have 300(150% of average) and bottom teams 100(50% of average) for a 200 spread. If you infuse an additional 1600 to 8000 the talent does not only raise the bottom teams, it raises both. Now you have a 250 per team average. If the percentages stay the same, top teams now have 375 and bottom teams 125. The difference has grown from 100 to 150. You have unintentionally increased the divide between the top and bottom. Of course these numbers are completely unscientific and have no basis in research but I do think we are playing with fire if we go down the road of editing players. Id disagree with using the draft to find "role players".... The idea of the draft is to find talent that eventually becomes that player. A 1st round pick should NEVER be drafted with the idea of being a role player at the age of 18 or 21..... 2nd round and beyond id agree with that statement. We need an influx of talent. No positional prospects is an issue... One off the wall idea is to turn on scouting. We just did this in SBL and completed our 1st draft. That was one of the most exciting drafts ive been a part of. While we use feeders and our draft pool is very deep... Lots of discussion of players that one team really liked and others didnt and definitely added a lot of mystery and excitement to the draft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 21:03:24 GMT -5
Ok I might have pushed it with 15 but 1 is too few. Last draft there was 1 full 5 star player. Then about four 4 1/2 star players. Now last draft was a lot better than previous ones. So of this trend continues it might fix it self. I just remember drafting 17th a few years back and the only players left were 1 star talent.
Scouting was brought up, it made me think. What about lowering player development and scouting baselines. This would lower the amount it would cost to max it out and put some more money into the league without really throwing money at it. It also might allow lower budget teams the ability to spend on it while still being able to compete. Right now max player development cost 30 mil. If you have a 50 - 70 mil budget it is nearly impossible to max it out. Drop the baseline down to 5 mil and then max would be 15. Then drop scouting down to the same or lower.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Oct 21, 2015 21:52:12 GMT -5
Stars are extremely overrated in terms of measuring players.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Oct 21, 2015 21:52:59 GMT -5
Also.... Im not sure what baselines have to do with anything. Teams arent forced to put money into scouting or development..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 22:04:51 GMT -5
Yeah I know, but I don't think we will ever see some draft a 1 star player #1 in the draft over a 5 star player. So stars have some relevance. The stars just tell you there potential not how they will perform. But with drafted players you really don't know how they are going to perform since it's all college stats and the are pretty much meaningless.
But if we want to say stars are not a good way to judge so are ratings. There are plenty of 7 contact hitters that don't bat over .260 and the opposite 5 contact hitters that hit well over. 300. It's all some what luck but I would bet that a 5 star rated player tends to perform better in most cases that a lower star player in the draft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 22:22:39 GMT -5
Also.... Im not sure what baselines have to do with anything. Teams arent forced to put money into scouting or development.. I can tell you since I put more money into scouting I have found better international prospects. Sp Jesus Rosales found 2034 - 4 1/2 star potential with good ratings all around Ss mito shimizu - found 2034- 4 star potential, 8 contact, 7 gap, 10 avoid k, maxed out speed Sp Hirokazu Okada - found 2033 - 3 1/2 star Also teams that can max out budgets seem to have more success developing. The baseline sets how effective it is compared to it. So if the baseline is 10m the max you can put in is 3 times that or 30m. Droping it lowers the max amount tremendously. In the end it will either free up money or allow teams that are rebuilding the chance to develop more talent. This could also help with profit and loss which could in turn help some of the budget problems.
|
|