|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 18:29:59 GMT -5
OK, using the current file and changing all spending (Farm, medical and scouting) for each team to zero. By the end of the season all teams are rated identical. If we do this and leave it this way, it seems to me it's a level playing field is now available for all regardless of an owners imcompetance or inexperience. We would have to raise the current salaries by enough to compensate for the more than half a billion dollars that were earmarked for these programs. Are economy will be changed forever as a result, but it works. I'm also testing (all teams at A+) right now, but crucial hockey game about to start... ;D I would hate to get rid of the cap, but if we were to reset Farm spending at zero, I could always remove $13M (or whatever cap number) from the teams at the end of the season or when paying bonuses. But even that may affect the economy in the league, so maybe it's simply better not to play with that. With all teams reset at A+ (instead of the B+ I had tested earlier), I get the exact same results, everyone at A+ at the end of the year except the same 5 teams at C-. I'll will look into that.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 18:41:06 GMT -5
OK, using the current file and changing all spending (Farm, medical and scouting) for each team to zero. By the end of the season all teams are rated identical. If we do this and leave it this way, it seems to me it's a level playing field is now available for all regardless of an owners imcompetance or inexperience. We would have to raise the current salaries by enough to compensate for the more than half a billion dollars that were earmarked for these programs. Are economy will be changed forever as a result, but it works. I'm also testing (all teams at A+) right now, but crucial hockey game about to start... ;D I would hate to get rid of the cap, but if we were to reset Farm spending at zero, I could always remove $13M (or whatever cap number) from the teams at the end of the season or when paying bonuses. But even that may affect the economy in the league, so maybe it's simply better not to play with that. With all teams reset at A+ (instead of the B+ I had tested earlier), I get the exact same results, everyone at A+ at the end of the year except the same 5 teams at C-. I'll will look into that. The important thing to remember is that scouting seems to have an effect on the farm system too, kind of a tie-breaker if you will. I think if all are paying the same in both that by the end of the year all will be equal or very close to it. I would highly reccomend including medical spending in this experiment as well.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Mar 17, 2009 19:13:39 GMT -5
i went back to some old files i had of 73 season rookie crop and switch around some of the guys like a prospect like templeton that exploded in braves system and guys that became duds ie dodgers prospects, and pretty much if the "bad farm teams" drafted better they could be getting guys that progress better.
Also maybe the lower farm teams need to get guys with young starting peaks since they have less of a chance at regressing.
before i was all for setting it equal, but i think some teams have just made horrible selections.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 19:23:04 GMT -5
i went back to some old files i had of 73 season rookie crop and switch around some of the guys like a prospect like templeton that exploded in braves system and guys that became duds ie dodgers prospects, and pretty much if the "bad farm teams" drafted better they could be getting guys that progress better. Also maybe the lower farm teams need to get guys with young starting peaks since they have less of a chance at regressing. before i was all for setting it equal, but i think some teams have just made horrible selections. A good farm makes any gm look good. Don't forget these 5th and 6th round picks, or even these long shot 4th rounders. Many of them explode on teams with a good farm. They get released on team with bad farms. Drafting better, trading better, scouting better, sure anything will be better if everyone is that much better at everything. Were Mike Schmidt, Joaquin Andujar and Ozzie Virgil bad picks? Of course not. But even the best-drafting owner would have had difficulties had he been on a team with a D farm system.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 17, 2009 19:23:38 GMT -5
i went back to some old files i had of 73 season rookie crop and switch around some of the guys like a prospect like templeton that exploded in braves system and guys that became duds ie dodgers prospects, and pretty much if the "bad farm teams" drafted better they could be getting guys that progress better. Also maybe the lower farm teams need to get guys with young starting peaks since they have less of a chance at regressing. before i was all for setting it equal, but i think some teams have just made horrible selections. Bingo! That is why I am not sold that the idea will work at all, but whatever. The draft is a complicated animal. If you are just going to look at the player in the current sense, there is a good chance you are drafting a terrible future player. We can try this out, and see what happens. I am betting it does not have much of an affect.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 19:30:27 GMT -5
Guys that draft better will always be at an advantage, that is in the nature of things. They will keep that advantage somehow even if every team is tied up in Farm quality. But what we are trying to reach, here, is to stop having a system in which teams with a poor farm cannot overcome the bad farm, even with top quality drafting.
For sure, if everyone was tied in Farm, bad picks would still exist. I made some over the years and still do. But even if I like to think I draft relatively well, there is nothing I could have done if I had been working on a team with a bad farm.
|
|
|
Post by marmol on Mar 17, 2009 19:38:54 GMT -5
I have only been in the league for a little while so I am sure my opinion might be disregarded... The White Sox farm system is pretty consistent. I can run sumlations and have good predictability, That being said, if there was no way to truly run simulations out more than a month or two, the game would surely lose its appeal. Especially if after a few seasons there seems to be no progress. I do however agree with the Twins in the area of terrible draft picks. I have no basis judging others selections besides the work that I do before a draft. If people do the work they can make good selections. If its predictable. That brings us back to predictability...... Always back to predictability. I do not think all teams should be equal. However, if you pay top dollar, you should get that ranking. Maybe also there could be a one season waiting period between changes. IF a player moves to the top in farm spending before this year, they will go to A for next season. Maybe make it that once its been 5 years at top spending, you go to A+ or something like that. Not just instant gratification.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 19:48:01 GMT -5
Maybe also there could be a one season waiting period between changes. IF a player moves to the top in farm spending before this year, they will go to A for next season. Maybe make it that once its been 5 years at top spending, you go to A+ or something like that. Not just instant gratification. It's not that simple. I'm telling you, we do it one way or the other, not halfway. Terry cannot simply make a team a certain grade based on what they invest without effecting other teams ratings. I really don't care which way myself. If we stay the way things are now, those teams who never catch up in ratings need to catch up in scouting.
|
|
|
Post by Philthydelphia on Mar 17, 2009 20:02:20 GMT -5
I have always put enough in scouting to be at #1 - I'm still at a "C" farm system. It's been a number of seasons now. I do think Scouting can make a difference, but evidently not enough.
|
|
|
Post by drew on Mar 17, 2009 20:15:06 GMT -5
i went back to some old files i had of 73 season rookie crop and switch around some of the guys like a prospect like templeton that exploded in braves system and guys that became duds ie dodgers prospects, and pretty much if the "bad farm teams" drafted better they could be getting guys that progress better. So I guess what you're saying is that these players: SP Joaquin Andujar (65/91 when drafted 60/76 five years later in my system), 1B Ron Johnson(52/84 when drafted 55/76 4 years later), SP John Candelaria(65/85 when drafted,79/81 5 years later) SP Bob Sykes(51/87 at age 19, 66/76 5 years later) SP Pete Falcone(52/94 when drafted, 68/81 5 years later) SP Mark Smith (48/86 when drafted, 54/76 4 years later) ALL would have tanked in any other system because they weren't good picks? I haven't simmed these guys in "A" and "B" minor league systems from the time they were drafted. But I highly doubt that NONE of them would be ML prospects at this point. There are just too many of them. Also I have compared guys like Templeton and Mazilli who have been in AAA and saw how they would have done for another year or two in my AAA compared to Atlanta's and Cincy's where they came from. It is a good 3-4 points difference in development in one season. Could the Dodgers have drafted better? sure. Should our shitty ML system be solely attributed to poor drafting? no way.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 20:26:04 GMT -5
I have only been in the league for a little while so I am sure my opinion might be disregarded... The White Sox farm system is pretty consistent. I do not think all teams should be equal. However, if you pay top dollar, you should get that ranking. Maybe also there could be a one season waiting period between changes. IF a player moves to the top in farm spending before this year, they will go to A for next season. Maybe make it that once its been 5 years at top spending, you go to A+ or something like that. Not just instant gratification. No opinion is disregarded, everyone is welcome to discuss, so don't hold yourself from doing it. The White Sox farm system is pretty consistent exactly for this reason: we came to the agreement that 3 teams (White Sox, Tigers, Giants) were going to have their grades reset at B after each of them went through a series of consecutive careless owners who would do absolutely nothing or next to nothing with them. Once all 3 teams were reset, the White Sox (that was done when you joined) and Tigers soon benifited from this, seeing their Farm improve (or at least remain at B), but in the Giants case (who were not spending top cash in Farm), it didn't last and their farm fell back to where it was before. As for the effect of spending top dollars and improving the farm, the game just doesn't work logically. Several teams have been spending top dollars in recent years and have yet to show an improvement. Some, such as the Brewers, have improved and then regressed and I have seen the same happen to other teams in files I have advanced through 77-79. The game is so illogical on this that, a few seasons ago, the Twins, who were not tied for first in Farm spending, saw their farm improve in all of my tests as well as in the real season, all the way to A+ while being something like 20th in Farm Spending at the time. I agree with Mosko that there definitely seems to be a bug concerning Farm spending and its effect on teams in the 2k8. The game is already random about so many things, there's no reason why this aspect of the game would be safe from this.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 17, 2009 20:50:22 GMT -5
I just set all NL teams at these settings....Farm $13 mil, scouting $500K and medical $10 mil.
3 years into the test all NL teams are A+ except Pit, Philly, LA and San Fran, none who ever get better than a C.
But if all teams are set to $0 and an "attempt" is made to equalize, all teams migrate to A+ by the end of the first season.
I don't think that this a cure all, because I think Scott is right, but at least it would put everyone on the same field in regards to their farm system and new owners won't inherit crap farm ratings.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Mar 17, 2009 22:15:37 GMT -5
^^^^ very interesting...
to lad i did only the 73 season...your first round pick that year was traded (pretty sure it was not your selection, i did not mean to say you draft bad or that i used your team in my back sim, just LAD came to mind as not a good farm system)
Anyhow, you know your system sucks so why pick guys that are so long away...thats just more time for them to mess up. Like in real life, small market (low $ on scouts) should draft all college guys and not try to guess with long term prospects.
"SP Joaquin Andujar (65/91 when drafted 60/76 five years later in my system), 1B Ron Johnson(52/84 when drafted 55/76 4 years later), SP John Candelaria(65/85 when drafted,79/81 5 years later) SP Bob Sykes(51/87 at age 19, 66/76 5 years later) SP Pete Falcone(52/94 when drafted, 68/81 5 years later) SP Mark Smith (48/86 when drafted, 54/76 4 years later)"
only two of those guys were in the sixties already, i would have drafted guys closer like a 70/88 instead of a 65/91 and with a peak that started really young...just my opinion .
a 52/94 rarely is truly a 94 peak, he just looks like homer bailey
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Mar 17, 2009 23:19:57 GMT -5
OK, using the current file and changing all spending (Farm, medical and scouting) for each team to zero. By the end of the season all teams are rated identical.
If we do this and leave it this way, it seems to me it's a level playing field is now available for all regardless of an owners imcompetance or inexperience. We would have to raise the current salaries by enough to compensate for the more than half a billion dollars that were earmarked for these programs. Are economy will be changed forever as a result, but it works. This seems like a solution worth exploring, but you are right, we would need to address the economic impact. Perhaps we could edit down the income level in the cities, which would reduce revenues by forcing us to lower ticket and concession prices and also it would reduce broadcast revenues. I think that editing out cash on a yearly basis (so you would have a "fake payment" is not a good idea because it could get messy especially with a new owner who may overestimate his actual budget and then find himself in a deficit situation at the end of a season). Here is some info from the sports mogul forums Scouting is completely separate from Farm and medical. In terms of scouting, the +/- margin is for all players, on your team and others, regardless or the level that their playing at.
Farm spending adjusts (slightly) the rate at which players improve prior to their reaching Peak Start.
Medical spending adjusts the liklihood of both the frequency and severity of injuries occuring.
Both Farm and Medical work in a manner similar to Scouting, but it's easier to see the effects of Scouting.
I've seen some other info on the spend $0 option and there seems to be some agreemet that it has an evening out affect on league settings. And let's remember this, one element that this league was founded on was equalized cities (to level the playing field), if we can find a way to equalize the in-game team ratings, then no team is at a disadvantage. I have not been in the league long, but having moved to an expansion franchise, the ability draft and develop is my only chance at building a competitive franchise. This is a very important topic.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 23:27:39 GMT -5
Picks who started their peak younger don't come out better than the rest of the picks on teams with a bad farm.
On LAD: C Jody Davis was 67/78 on draft day, peak climbed to 85 at some point and he entered peak at 20; wound up at 75/76.
On PIT: 3B Larry Parrish was 62/89 on draft day, peaking at 22; crashed in the Pirates farm, losing around 15 points in a single season; he was a first round pick (13th overall). In a test file here, I have him at 75/89 in 1974 in the Expos farm, then rated A. In another file, yet again in the Expos farm, he entered peak rated 86, farm again at A.
On CHC: SS Roy Smalley drafted #4 overall by the Cubs in 1970 who then had a bad farm; 63/89 on draft day, entering peak at 21. He crashed horribly in the Cubs farm, peaking at 77.
On NYY: LF Greg Luzinsky, 81/87 in 1971, peaking at 26 on the worst farm in the league; to say he crashed would be a major understatement, as he got dropped and dropped all the way to 71/72.
On KC: 1B Rafael Santo Domingo, 54/80 on draft day, peaked at 21 at 69/70.
How much closer from peak should these guys be?
I could find a lot more of these examples, I just went with the names that I was remembering the most.
The only thing all of these players have in common is that they were on teams with a bad farm. Well, in addition that they all crashed, of course. They just can't develop. The drama isn't Andujar being at 65/91 on draft day; it's Andujar being at 54/79 a few years later.
In the meantime, players rated like 59/78 and picked in the 4th round and later by teams with an excellent farm often turned into players peaking way above 80, sometimes as high as 89 or higher.
Drafting sure has its importance, and drafting well even more, but the negative impact of a bad farm cannot be overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Mar 17, 2009 23:41:35 GMT -5
^^^^ very interesting... to lad i did only the 73 season...your first round pick that year was traded (pretty sure it was not your selection, i did not mean to say you draft bad or that i used your team in my back sim, just LAD came to mind as not a good farm system) Anyhow, you know your system sucks so why pick guys that are so long away...thats just more time for them to mess up. Like in real life, small market (low $ on scouts) should draft all college guys and not try to guess with long term prospects. "SP Joaquin Andujar (65/91 when drafted 60/76 five years later in my system), 1B Ron Johnson(52/84 when drafted 55/76 4 years later), SP John Candelaria(65/85 when drafted,79/81 5 years later) SP Bob Sykes(51/87 at age 19, 66/76 5 years later) SP Pete Falcone(52/94 when drafted, 68/81 5 years later) SP Mark Smith (48/86 when drafted, 54/76 4 years later)" only two of those guys were in the sixties already, i would have drafted guys closer like a 70/88 instead of a 65/91 and with a peak that started really young...just my opinion . a 52/94 rarely is truly a 94 peak, he just looks like homer bailey Actually, players that peak sooner than rather than later don't work like that. Many times, those players don't develop quickly enough to reach their peak number and by the time they're 20 it's all over.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Mar 17, 2009 23:46:22 GMT -5
im still with changing stuff if it helps the league....im just kinda playing devils advocate
i never actually tested the early peak thing w/ the bad farm systems, i just thought it made logically sense that less time for the system to mess up the kid.
For the money issue if the farm spending was set to zero for all teams, then maybe we would say if you want an A in farm then you have to spend 13 million in scouting, then the money wouldnt enter the economy, and farming would theoretically not be affected (according to SDP)
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 23:46:24 GMT -5
Here is some info from the sports mogul forums Scouting is completely separate from Farm and medical. In terms of scouting, the +/- margin is for all players, on your team and others, regardless or the level that their playing at.
Farm spending adjusts (slightly) the rate at which players improve prior to their reaching Peak Start.
Medical spending adjusts the liklihood of both the frequency and severity of injuries occuring.
Both Farm and Medical work in a manner similar to Scouting, but it's easier to see the effects of Scouting.
I've seen some other info on the spend $0 option and there seems to be some agreemet that it has an evening out affect on league settings. And let's remember this, one element that this league was founded on was equalized cities (to level the playing field), if we can find a way to equalize the in-game team ratings, then no team is at a disadvantage. I have not been in the league long, but having moved to an expansion franchise, the ability draft and develop is my only chance at building a competitive franchise. This is a very important topic. Interesting info, indeed. I also agree that since we're already an equalized league, it shouldn't be a problem for us to go at equalized ratings. I still have a few concerns left, which will be determined by what I see in the tests. Will spending zero in Medical cause an explosion in injuries? Or will everyone be spared on the fact that all will be at A+ in Medical? For the cash issue, I will try testing it by moving the Farm expenses elsewhere, say in Scouting. So if we cut on each team roughly $25M (Farm + Medical) in expenses, I'm curious to see how the game reacts if Farm and Medical are set at zero and Scouting is set at $25M. If it turns out good, we just as might consider this as an option.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Mar 17, 2009 23:48:02 GMT -5
i went back to some old files i had of 73 season rookie crop and switch around some of the guys like a prospect like templeton that exploded in braves system and guys that became duds ie dodgers prospects, and pretty much if the "bad farm teams" drafted better they could be getting guys that progress better. Also maybe the lower farm teams need to get guys with young starting peaks since they have less of a chance at regressing. before i was all for setting it equal, but i think some teams have just made horrible selections. That's why we should set it equally. Drafting is difficult and takes a lot of work, owners who actually do that work shouldn't have to deal with a system that doesn't work in a logical manner. What is even the point of having spending on scouting? We do all of the scouting ourselves!
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Mar 17, 2009 23:51:47 GMT -5
Craig Reynolds when drafted was peaking at over 90 he is now a career farmer at a peak of 61
Rick Lisi when drafted was peaking at over 80 and is sitting at 70 and getting lower
Someone inform on scouting. I thought the Commish mode would give you the same info as if you spent on scouting. What would be the advantage of paying for scouting.
Not that I want to open this can of worms but........ From what ive seen and heard from other owners this Farm problem only shows up on the 2008 version. Not the older ones and not the newer ones. Not that I wanna change again and not that I wanted to change to begin with but............
The Braves said something about letting the teams with more money spend more on farm than other teams. I think that will continue with the problems we have now. If some teams have more cash than others then maybe there should be a cash cap.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 23:51:52 GMT -5
What is even the point of having spending on scouting? We do all of the scouting ourselves! I remember reading somewhere that Scouting can affect the way the AI coaches. Bad scouting will give the AI coach a bad judgement, leading to doubtful decisions during games, including deciding who comes in to pitch in relief or as a replacement. Seeing how the AI sometimes act, it wouldn't be surprising if this was true.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 17, 2009 23:54:21 GMT -5
The Braves said something about letting the teams with more money spend more on farm than other teams. I think that will continue with the problems we have now. If some teams have more cash than others then maybe there should be a cash cap. We already have a cash cap: 80M in cash and 70 points (each point worth 1M) for a 150M cap. But I agree that allowing richer teams to spend more on the farm will only make the problem worse.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Mar 18, 2009 0:18:11 GMT -5
a couple of things to remember - we can adjust cash levels by dropping the league revenue setting from +40% to +20%. This should about equal out with the 27 million we are no longer spending in expenses.
We also need ro remember that we can adjust medical staff effect to -100%, this combinded with already low league setting for injury severety and length should eliminate the possibility of a rash of injuries.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Mar 18, 2009 5:36:40 GMT -5
In the tests I've run, the only way to equalize everyone is to bring all 3 expenses to zero for all teams. If you don't, certain teams ie. Pit, Phi, LA and SF never get higher than a C. Around September all teams will be A+ in all categories if all are brought to $0. This combined with Paul of the Blue Jays thoughts on reducing revenue (further testing neccesary needed to pinpoint proper reduction amount) will give everyone an equal footing in the ratings of farm systems without effecting the economy.
A system of changing the rating of any individual team based on what they are spending on the Farm at any specific time will not work. If you simply change Pit based on what their expense is set at, other teams go up or down at the same time. It simply does not work.
I've come to the conclusion, if we do nothing about this, there are teams that will never have a better farm system regardless of how much they spend on it, how much they study, how well they draft. My team is one of those that is consistently anywhere from a B+ to an A+, but I believe that it could breath new life into some teams that have little hope. Just imagine a world where the Yankees farm is not a place for draft picks to die................
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Mar 18, 2009 8:07:29 GMT -5
the only issue with resetting team grades is that it also resets fan loyalty to 75 for everyone (should not be a huge issue as the top tier teams would quickly see thier fan loyalty return to pre-reset levels based on successful seasons - I'm going to try a sim test on the system and post screen shots if I can)
|
|