OOTP 11 Update!

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So where's the difference between a 2 and a 6, say, all other things being equal? If you have a guy with three above-average pitches - say, a fastball, change and curve rated at 6/10 each - a 2 rating in stamina and the same stuff/movement/control ratings as a guy with the same pitch/stuff/movement/control ratings as a '6' guy, if both are considered capable of going 6+, what's the realistic difference there?

A 3/10 can throw about 95 pitches before tiring, a 6/10 can throw about 120. a 2/10 only about 70, hence he is not considered being a possible regular starting pitcher. That's the difference The cutoff point is at 90 pitches, which equals a 25/100 rating.

[SackAttack]

So a '2' would be an emergency starter candidate, while a '3' would be considered capable of being a regular starter (albeit probably a 5th starter)?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The whole 'how much do I ask?' code starts somewhere, I'm sure, but the end result is dangling off the edge of a cliff. It's a train wreck. What Johnny93g pointed out has been par for the course in every OOTP 10 online league I've been in.

Strage that I'm not aware of this, this is definitely not tracked in our bug database. Well, I'll run some tests tomorrow

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So a '2' would be an emergency starter candidate, while a '3' would be considered capable of being a regular starter (albeit probably a 5th starter)?

Yes, that's a pretty good explanation. Although, the AI does use 3-stamina guys as higher ranked starters as well if their stuff is very good.

Edit: Keep in mind though, that 'borderline starter' in OOTP is not defined by low stamina, but rather low stuff in combination with 3+/10 endurance. Borderline/emergency starters (as indicated in the player profile) do perform worse than when used in relief because their stuff is not good enough to dominate hitters a second time through the lineup...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Strage that I'm not aware of this, this is definitely not tracked in our bug database. Well, I'll run some tests tomorrow

I suspect part of it might be that it's guys who are older, as Johnny93g mentioned. My guess is a lot of OOTP players ditch the older guys, except at the AAA level, in favor of the annual influx of young talent (with the thought that a 22 year old might be more likely to suddenly BALCO up than a 28 year old).

Some people do actually try to retain their minor leaguers, even if they're not particularly talented, to serve as warm bodies to try and prevent injuries from happening.

But the former class is larger, probably even on the beta team, and so nobody thought to offer a contract to that 'meh' 28 y/o in AA.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Strage that I'm not aware of this, this is definitely not tracked in our bug database. Well, I'll run some tests tomorrow

We see it too. There are like 5/4/5/5/5 type guys that rot in FA because they are asking for like 9M x 5 in FA, only to sign for the 600k they are worth once the season rolls. We have average to below average players set to under 1M. Same thing for arby. Some mediocre scrubs that are very popular getting 5M+ and more. It gets silly after a bit.

[SackAttack]

My larger issue is the wild swings you occasionally see in popularity over the course of a season. I've seen guys go from "Extremely Popular" to "Popular" and back, and I wanna tell you, that monkeys with their contract requests.

[miked]

Originally Posted by miked

We see it too. There are like 5/4/5/5/5 type guys that rot in FA because they are asking for like 9M x 5 in FA, only to sign for the 600k they are worth once the season rolls. We have average to below average players set to under 1M. Same thing for arby. Some mediocre scrubs that are very popular getting 5M+ and more. It gets silly after a bit.

Here's an example:

Player Report for #13 Jeremy Stevens awarded 9M.

This guy is very popular, his ratings are fairly mediocre and he's a 4* player basically because of his other attributes (speed, stealing, etc). He batted .287/11/76 with a fairly mediocre OBP (ok OPS). Obviously there's no way to take away the fact that the AI ranks this guy 4* because of speed and defense because his ratings are mediocre.

This next guy is an elite SP rated 9/6/7 (with 8/6/7 talents) with a whole host of pitches (mostly 7s and 8s). He went 15-10 and struck out 207 in 215 IP with a 3.70 ERA. His popularity is not so good. He was awarded 6.75M. http://www.united-baseball.org/news/...ayer_5041.html

Shit, this guy Player Report for #71 César Carter won the triple crown and still couldn't sniff what the slightly above average IF got in arby. He's making 8.2M...with 9/8/6 ratings, a shit ton of pitches, and the triple crown. My 3* 5/7/8/7/6 OF is making 9M in arby, but the guy who won the triple crown is getting 8.2M??

[stevew]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the arbitration. The 1st year offers seem to be more like what they should get in the 3rd year.

Bryan Morris is super 2. He posted a VORP of -3.9. And his arbitration "suggested" is something like 4.3m. It should be less than half of that. I mean, a real world team considers non tendering him cause he might get 1.5M-ish.

[stevew]

I would suggest, much like there are the editable values for salary demands, that demands for arbitration be user controlled. By each year, as well.

First time eligible, etc.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My larger issue is the wild swings you occasionally see in popularity over the course of a season. I've seen guys go from "Extremely Popular" to "Popular" and back, and I wanna tell you, that monkeys with their contract requests.

No, believe me, popularity is not used in the algorythms which determine the demand.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

No, believe me, popularity is not used in the algorythms which determine the demand.

No? So a player who puts up basically the same numbers all season, but goes from Popular and demands of $10m per to Extremely Popular and demands of $18m per, that's complete coincidence?

You'll pardon me if I remain skeptical.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

No? So a player who puts up basically the same numbers all season, but goes from Popular and demands of $10m per to Extremely Popular and demands of $18m per, that's complete coincidence?

You'll pardon me if I remain skeptical.

Yes, that is 'coincidence'. However, (national) popularity is partly based on ratings + performance as well, so it is not really shocking that both popularity and demands move in the same direction, which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I suspect part of it might be that it's guys who are older, as Johnny93g mentioned. My guess is a lot of OOTP players ditch the older guys, except at the AAA level, in favor of the annual influx of young talent (with the thought that a 22 year old might be more likely to suddenly BALCO up than a 28 year old).

OK, I found a few instances where old players in the minor leagues demanded major league contract extensions if they felt they should play in the major leagues talent-wise. These guys in OOTP 11 no longer ask for major league contract extensions unless they a) currently have a major league contract, b) played in the majors that year or c) it is still early in the season.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Yes, that is 'coincidence'. However, (national) popularity is partly based on ratings + performance as well, so it is not really shocking that both popularity and demands move in the same direction, which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

Bull.

Or, rather, popularity and demands would move in the same direction because both are performance driven, but:

1) If the performance is remaining static, popularity should not be changing that drastically in the span of two months unless he is having an epic season (not the case here).

2) popularity changes *are* not only incredibly drastic, but elastic within the same season, as well. I've seen players sign who were Very Popular/Very Popular when they put pen to paper and "Fair/Fair" within a month or two.

I've seen guys who came up through the system get to the show as "Very Popular/Very Popular," get demoted for performance, and by the end of the season, be "Unknown/Unknown."

Maybe they aren't specifically linked - and I'm still calling shenanigans on that, because my experience doesn't bear it out - but even if they're not, popularity does not swing that rapidly on a national scale, and shouldn't be swinging that rapidly on a local scale unless the player is having a major season either for good or ill (especially since OOTP doesn't really model off-field stuff like dating Madonna).

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

OK, I found a few instances where old players in the minor leagues demanded major league contract extensions if they felt they should play in the major leagues talent-wise. These guys in OOTP 11 no longer ask for major league contract extensions unless they a) currently have a major league contract, b) played in the majors that year or c) it is still early in the season.

I don't have a problem with them asking for major league contract extensions. A guy in AAA who thinks he's good enough to play in the pros probably SHOULD be asking for a major league deal under certain circumstances.

The problem is that it goes beyond guys like that. You see it happen with guys in AA/A who will never, realistically, see a major league roster, even as filler, but because they're 27 and have a 5/4/5/5/5 profile, they want to get paid.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by miked

Here's an example:

Player Report for #13 Jeremy Stevens awarded 9M.

This guy is very popular, his ratings are fairly mediocre and he's a 4* player basically because of his other attributes (speed, stealing, etc). He batted .287/11/76 with a fairly mediocre OBP (ok OPS). Obviously there's no way to take away the fact that the AI ranks this guy 4* because of speed and defense because his ratings are mediocre.

This next guy is an elite SP rated 9/6/7 (with 8/6/7 talents) with a whole host of pitches (mostly 7s and 8s). He went 15-10 and struck out 207 in 215 IP with a 3.70 ERA. His popularity is not so good. He was awarded 6.75M. Player Report for #10 Roberto Martínez

Shit, this guy Player Report for #71 César Carter won the triple crown and still couldn't sniff what the slightly above average IF got in arby. He's making 8.2M...with 9/8/6 ratings, a shit ton of pitches, and the triple crown. My 3* 5/7/8/7/6 OF is making 9M in arby, but the guy who won the triple crown is getting 8.2M??

If you did a little deeper, then this all makes sense. Stevens has 2 years more MLB service than Martinez, and since both are 4-star players and have produced a VORP around 40 last year it is no wonder that Stevens gets more money. Pitchers generally earn a bit less than comparable position players, which is true in real life as well.

Which brings us to Carter. I agree that this guy could have been awarded more, but maybe he asked for too much during hearings and the arbitrator settled for the team offer.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

....

National popularity is based on a) overall ratings (read: star rating), b) past performance, c) personality, d) past achievements (3000 hits for example, or major awards won). c) + d) do not change drastically, but within 2 months a) can change a bit, as can b). So a drop from Extremely popular to popular does not seem like a problem at all, because maybe the player was on the lower side of extremely popular to begin with.

Local popularity has the same base as national popularity, but things like loyalty, work ethic, years with the current team (which of course changes when a player changes teams) and current season performance (which can change within 2 months quite a bit) play a bigger role.

I personally like how the popularity system works

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

National popularity is based on a) overall ratings (read: star rating), b) past performance, c) personality, d) past achievements (3000 hits for example, or major awards won). c) + d) do not change drastically, but within 2 months a) can change a bit, as can b). So a drop from Extremely popular to popular does not seem like a problem at all, because maybe the player was on the lower side of extremely popular to begin with.

Local popularity has the same base as national popularity, but things like loyalty, work ethic, years with the current team (which of course changes when a player changes teams) and current season performance (which can change within 2 months quite a bit) play a bigger role.

I personally like how the popularity system works

And that's why your game is broken. Past performance doesn't change. Not unless you're retconning the history books. Star ratings might change, but I guarantee you that Mike Piazza's popularity might *increase* as he starts hitting the shit out of the ball in 1993, but it isn't going to *decrease* drastically if he struggles in 1996. And it certainly isn't going to yo-yo from "have my babies" to "Sign this baseball card" to "have my babies" in the span of one season.

It is not going to drop if Joe Mauer shows up and starts hitting like a madman. Tying a player's popularity to his star rating is bogus, because a) popularity is sometimes irrational, and b) when a player is immensely popular, particularly within a specific locale, the emergence of star players at the position in another city doesn't decrease that popularity just because the other player might be better, throwing off the balance of the talent pool.

Or are you going to suggest that Pedro Martinez became less popular with the Red Sox because John Lackey and Felix Rodriguez came into the league?

A player's national popularity might be in greater flux, but that's going to depend on the *team's* national market, for one, and on outside events - like Manny's suspension, or a massive contract that Joe Six-Pack finds disgusting, say - that OOTP simply doesn't care about.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And that's why your game is broken.

Umm. It is broken because a tiny part of it does not work the way you think it should work? OK. I think we should just agree to disagree.

Edit: Anyway, I just changed the code a bit, the national + local popularity is now only recalculated once per year, right after the season ended, with national popularity only changing one step at a time. Local popularity also gets recalculated if the player changes teams. That way, you will see less popularity changes.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Umm. It is broken because a tiny part of it does not work the way you think it should work? OK. I think we should just agree to disagree.

A tiny part? Would you like me to air all of my grievances with the way OOTP does things, right down to citing things that I think are derived from fundamental cultural lack of understanding of the sport?

Or instead of taking me at the literal meaning of that sentence, would you prefer to accept that when I call the game broken, I am using that as a microcosmic example of more widespread issues?

We can "agree to disagree" all you want, and it's no skin offa mine.

But the bottom line is, there are a number of things that are fundamentally broken. You've said yourself in this thread that you've lost development time to illness this year (for which I am sorry; being sick sucks, and missing work because of it sucks worse), and that you plan a shorter development cycle this year than in years past.

Considering my jaundiced view of OOTP X's current condition, that doesn't give me a lot of hope that things will be better with the new game. I'll be honest, if I had to make the decision today, I would not be buying OOTP 11.

But, look - here's a deal I'm willing to make with you. Let's take this discussion private. I've got a laundry list of issues, if that hasn't already been made abundantly clear. I will share those criticisms with you, but I need two things in return.

1) A thick skin. We can't have an open and forthright discussion if my level of bluntness puts you on the defensive. And I can't be completely honest if I'm worried about stepping on your toes.

2) A clear response. If you agreed, and made changes, what changes and why? If you disagreed with my assessment, why? Give me the opportunity, if we are still in disagreement thereafter, to persuade you.

If you can bring me around to your way of thinking, or we otherwise make progress on the things I think are fundamentally broken, I'll back up my mouth with my wallet and make a day-one purchase.

Are you game?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Are you game?

Yes. markus(at)ootpdevelopments.com

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Yes. markus(at)ootpdevelopments.com

Okay.

I doubt very much if I can get a substantive list to you before Monday, because it's 4:30am here, I work at 9, the Super Bowl is in the evening, and so forth.

But you'll have my first email in your inbox sometime Monday afternoon or evening!

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Okay.

I doubt very much if I can get a substantive list to you before Monday, because it's 4:30am here, I work at 9, the Super Bowl is in the evening, and so forth.

But you'll have my first email in your inbox sometime Monday afternoon or evening!

Looking forward to it, and thanks for your time!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Looking forward to it, and thanks for your time!

Likewise, thanks for yours.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

If you did a little deeper, then this all makes sense. Stevens has 2 years more MLB service than Martinez, and since both are 4-star players and have produced a VORP around 40 last year it is no wonder that Stevens gets more money. Pitchers generally earn a bit less than comparable position players, which is true in real life as well.

Which brings us to Carter. I agree that this guy could have been awarded more, but maybe he asked for too much during hearings and the arbitrator settled for the team offer.

Well, I appreciate the response, but I guess we'll just have to disagree. If you tell me there is no way popularity is involved, I'll buy it. But should a 5/9/4/6/5 IF be 4* because he is fast and plays good defense?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by miked

Well, I appreciate the response, but I guess we'll just have to disagree. If you tell me there is no way popularity is involved, I'll buy it. But should a 5/9/4/6/5 IF be 4* because he is fast and plays good defense?

Yes, looks like for a SS he is good at his position overall. The star rating is always relative to other players at the same position in the league, so even a 2/2/2/2/2 SS could have 4 stars, if the average SS is even worse than that.

EDIT: There is an option in the league setup to base the stars rating on all players, not just the players of the same position.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And that's why your game is broken. Past performance doesn't change. Not unless you're retconning the history books. Star ratings might change, but I guarantee you that Mike Piazza's popularity might *increase* as he starts hitting the shit out of the ball in 1993, but it isn't going to *decrease* drastically if he struggles in 1996. And it certainly isn't going to yo-yo from "have my babies" to "Sign this baseball card" to "have my babies" in the span of one season.

It is not going to drop if Joe Mauer shows up and starts hitting like a madman. Tying a player's popularity to his star rating is bogus, because a) popularity is sometimes irrational, and b) when a player is immensely popular, particularly within a specific locale, the emergence of star players at the position in another city doesn't decrease that popularity just because the other player might be better, throwing off the balance of the talent pool.

Or are you going to suggest that Pedro Martinez became less popular with the Red Sox because John Lackey and Felix Rodriguez came into the league?

A player's national popularity might be in greater flux, but that's going to depend on the *team's* national market, for one, and on outside events - like Manny's suspension, or a massive contract that Joe Six-Pack finds disgusting, say - that OOTP simply doesn't care about.

Sorry, I disagree for all but the biggest stars. Once Bernie Williams stopped being Bernie Williams, his popularity dropped. Same for a guy like Eric Davis, or I might even argue Randy Johnson. Did anyone tune in or go to a ballpark just to see the Big Unit pitch in the last few years? I bet more turned out just to see him pitch back in the early 00's days. Now, I can see your point with a guy like a Jeter, or a Ripken, or Gwynn. But not with most of your guys who aren't hall of famers. And to say the game is "broken" because of this? Maybe I'm in the minority, but OOTP is a game that I get more enjoyment out of, for less money than your average game.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Sorry, I disagree for all but the biggest stars. Once Bernie Williams stopped being Bernie Williams, his popularity dropped. Same for a guy like Eric Davis, or I might even argue Randy Johnson. Did anyone tune in or go to a ballpark just to see the Big Unit pitch in the last few years? I bet more turned out just to see him pitch back in the early 00's days. Now, I can see your point with a guy like a Jeter, or a Ripken, or Gwynn. But not with most of your guys who aren't hall of famers. And to say the game is "broken" because of this? Maybe I'm in the minority, but OOTP is a game that I get more enjoyment out of, for less money than your average game.

But see, the point you're arguing is when Bernie stops being Bernie.

Not when Bernie goes into a half-season slump.

You see what I'm saying? If Bernie struggles in the first half, he's not going to become an "Unknown" by midseason.

If Bernie puts up an extended run of 2-3 seasons where he's just not getting it done...then you're absolutely right. But in OOTP, it doesn't *take* 2-3 seasons. I've seen guys lose popularity both locally and nationally for no reason other than signing a contract. The changes have been too extreme and nonsensical.

Do you see where I'm coming from on that? We're not talking about a good player (or even a great player) who hits his declining years. That's a tiger of an entirely different stripe from what I'm grousing about.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

With Randy Johnson approaching 300 wins in the last coupla? I'm fairly certain people DID go to the park to see him pitch, if only to be able to tell their kids they saw a 300-game winner live.

A guy like Eric Davis is a great example of when the system should operate in the manner which I've described that it *has* operated.

But if you're talking about the Royals, does Zack Greinke stop being popular if he gets roughed up for the first 2-3 months of the 2010 season? That's a tough bill of goods to sell me on. Even the Giants, who are a good team, but pretty clearly have Tim Lincecum and Pablo Sandoval as the faces of the franchise. The former *could* be a Hall candidate someday, while the latter is, at this point, a very good player. But neither one of those guys is going to fall into disfavor if they have a couple of cold months, because they've established themselves with that fanbase.

Andruw Jones, on the other hand, didn't take long at all to rub Dodger fans the wrong way. There's a guy who might well BE the player he was with Atlanta, but because he never established goodwill with the fans in the first place, never took the step from flavor of the day to "popular," was a prime candidate for a violent anti-Jones mood swing.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I personally like how the popularity system works

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Edit: Anyway, I just changed the code a bit, the national + local popularity is now only recalculated once per year, right after the season ended, with national popularity only changing one step at a time. Local popularity also gets recalculated if the player changes teams. That way, you will see less popularity changes.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But see, the point you're arguing is when Bernie stops being Bernie.

Not when Bernie goes into a half-season slump.

You see what I'm saying? If Bernie struggles in the first half, he's not going to become an "Unknown" by midseason.

If Bernie puts up an extended run of 2-3 seasons where he's just not getting it done...then you're absolutely right. But in OOTP, it doesn't *take* 2-3 seasons. I've seen guys lose popularity both locally and nationally for no reason other than signing a contract. The changes have been too extreme and nonsensical.

Do you see where I'm coming from on that? We're not talking about a good player (or even a great player) who hits his declining years. That's a tiger of an entirely different stripe from what I'm grousing about.

Yeah, I see your point, but I still get more gameplay out of it than any other game I've bought. I'm a baseball first guy, and for me, it's been a great purchase.

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But see, the point you're arguing is when Bernie stops being Bernie.

Not when Bernie goes into a half-season slump.

You see what I'm saying? If Bernie struggles in the first half, he's not going to become an "Unknown" by midseason.

If Bernie puts up an extended run of 2-3 seasons where he's just not getting it done...then you're absolutely right. But in OOTP, it doesn't *take* 2-3 seasons. I've seen guys lose popularity both locally and nationally for no reason other than signing a contract. The changes have been too extreme and nonsensical.

Do you see where I'm coming from on that? We're not talking about a good player (or even a great player) who hits his declining years. That's a tiger of an entirely different stripe from what I'm grousing about.

Vernon Wells fits your example perfectly. 2-3 seasons of crap, and he's now hated

[DanGarion]

I think we can all agree, this right here, the interaction we are having with Markus, is what makes independent gaming and this community so awesome. thanks for taking the time to respond to our issues Markus.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I think we can all agree, this right here, the interaction we are having with Markus, is what makes independent gaming and this community so awesome. thanks for taking the time to respond to our issues Markus.

Thanks

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

Vernon Wells fits your example perfectly. 2-3 seasons of crap, and he's now hated

Yes. Exactly.

2-3 *seasons*.

Not 2-3 *months*.

[Sun Tzu]

I'd kill for a transcript of this email back and forth.

additionally...thanks Markus

[DaddyTorgo]

or at least a summary when it's all over...be curious to see what sort of things are being addressed and what sort of improvements come from it

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

right down to citing things that I think are derived from fundamental cultural lack of understanding of the sport?

If you feel like sharing this one always makes me curious. Many mention that with Markus being German he misses out on some native understanding of the game that those of us from the US have. Never have heard anyone explain what they mean though. I've been watching baseball since 1968 and for the life of me I don't know what this is about. OOTP is as American to me as Strat or Lance Haffner baseball. What am I missing?

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Sweed

If you feel like sharing this one always makes me curious. Many mention that with Markus being German he misses out on some native understanding of the game that those of us from the US have. Never have heard anyone explain what they mean though. I've been watching baseball since 1968 and for the life of me I don't know what this is about. OOTP is as American to me as Strat or Lance Haffner baseball. What am I missing?

Most Americans I know don't understand baseball, and roughly 90% of those that attend SF Giant's games at Pacbell/AT&T/Whateverparkitisnow don't understand baseball as well.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Did anyone tune in or go to a ballpark just to see the Big Unit pitch in the last few years? I bet more turned out just to see him pitch back in the early 00's days.

Actually, yes. And you have this completely backwards.

The early 00's teams were good, so the team drew quite well. Johnson pitching made some, but marginal, impact on attendance.

The past few years, when there were few familiar faces, his impact on attendance has been larger than when he was dominant early in the decade. Arizona, in the middle of a complete youth movement, went and got him back from the Yankees solely to sell tickets.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Actually, yes. And you have this completely backwards.

The early 00's teams were good, so the team drew quite well. Johnson pitching made some, but marginal, impact on attendance.

The past few years, when there were few familiar faces, his impact on attendance has been larger than when he was dominant early in the decade. Arizona, in the middle of a complete youth movement, went and got him back from the Yankees solely to sell tickets.

How many tickets did he sell in Arizona, or on the road compared to when he pitched early in his career when he was good in AZ and Seattle? Not as many.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

How many tickets did he sell in Arizona, or on the road compared to when he pitched early in his career when he was good in AZ and Seattle? Not as many.

Just had a quick peek at his recent game logs...I'm an A's fan so I noticed his start at the end of this past June drew 35,000...the starting pitcher the night before drew 32,000...his name, Tim Lincecum. Before you ask, Johnson's game was on a Wednesday.

Randy Johnson still sells tickets.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Just had a quick peek at his recent game logs...I'm an A's fan so I noticed his start at the end of this past June drew 35,000...the starting pitcher the night before drew 32,000...his name, Tim Lincecum. Before you ask, Johnson's game was on a Wednesday.

Randy Johnson still sells tickets.

Are you sure, it might have been free 9mm night or something.

[johnnyshaka]

Fair enough...it could have been free ammo night but MLB doesn't list those sort of things. Heck, maybe it was free Viagra night!!!

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Just had a quick peek at his recent game logs...I'm an A's fan so I noticed his start at the end of this past June drew 35,000...the starting pitcher the night before drew 32,000...his name, Tim Lincecum. Before you ask, Johnson's game was on a Wednesday.

Randy Johnson still sells tickets.

Was it free stilts night, or bring your 6' 10 friend, get in free night?

[Johnny93g]

I think those that said Arbitration needs work are correct.

Young players, in their first year of arbitration are making a crazy amount of money.

In my RWBL team, Travis Snider had a good year, his 2nd full season and 1st as a starter. He's 26, hit 26 homers, 79 rbi's, hit around .270. Arbitration awarded him 6 million for the upcoming season. I offered 3.5. I lost, but that's crazy, he's a 1.5 star player!!

Colby Rasmus, a 4.5 star player came off a horrible season, where he hit 250, with 11 hr's and 50ish rbi's, i won that case, and he made 7.5 mil!!!

Both cases, opposite stats, opposite ratings, crazy salary awards. I just don't know why either player's "salary number" was so high. Is it the performance, is it the ratings, I'm missing something

I would like to see the option of walking away from arbitration results if the team disagree's with them. I think a nice feature would also be for a team to gain loyalty from players when they avoid arbitration, as the process in real life is not endearing to anyone. I know the Blue Jays haven't gone to arbitration in something like 10 years. Make it advantageous to avoid it.

[stevew]

The Type A compensation is laughable.

I've thrown 141 innings in 2 years, with an era over 5.5
Carlos Zambrano


I've pitched 93 innings in 2 years, and am 1-8(wins would be I think 1/5th of the factor for MR type a/b classification)
Braden Looper

I'm a MR, and I have 12 wins over the last two seasons, but my ERA is still >5.2

Angel Guzman

My advice is to track down the dude on MLBTradeRumors who reverse engineered the MLB formulas for compensation. And see if he can help you. Cause while none of those 3 guys will get signed for compensation, it really makes the game look awful.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

I would like to see the option of walking away from arbitration results if the team disagree's with them. I think a nice feature would also be for a team to gain loyalty from players when they avoid arbitration, as the process in real life is not endearing to anyone. I know the Blue Jays haven't gone to arbitration in something like 10 years. Make it advantageous to avoid it.

If the player is asking too much simply don't offer arbitration and you are done with it. But if you enter into arbitration and hope to low-ball a player, then you get what you deserve.

Joey Devine in the RWBL was one wacky arbitration case I remember during my time there. Missed the entire '09 season and up until that point had pitched something like 60 innings and is asking for around $5 million or so, IIRC. Huh?

[miked]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

I think those that said Arbitration needs work are correct.

Young players, in their first year of arbitration are making a crazy amount of money.

In my RWBL team, Travis Snider had a good year, his 2nd full season and 1st as a starter. He's 26, hit 26 homers, 79 rbi's, hit around .270. Arbitration awarded him 6 million for the upcoming season. I offered 3.5. I lost, but that's crazy, he's a 1.5 star player!!

Colby Rasmus, a 4.5 star player came off a horrible season, where he hit 250, with 11 hr's and 50ish rbi's, i won that case, and he made 7.5 mil!!!

Both cases, opposite stats, opposite ratings, crazy salary awards. I just don't know why either player's "salary number" was so high. Is it the performance, is it the ratings, I'm missing something

I would like to see the option of walking away from arbitration results if the team disagree's with them. I think a nice feature would also be for a team to gain loyalty from players when they avoid arbitration, as the process in real life is not endearing to anyone. I know the Blue Jays haven't gone to arbitration in something like 10 years. Make it advantageous to avoid it.

Well, part of that may also be the AI settings. If it's set to heavily weigh ratings, then sure, stats shouldn't matter as much. In my league I think we go 65% or higher on ratings, because guys who have a half good season ask for the moon if it's too high on weighing stats. And I'm not sure you can walk away from arbitration in real life.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by stevew

The Type A compensation is laughable.

I've thrown 141 innings in 2 years, with an era over 5.5
Carlos Zambrano


I've pitched 93 innings in 2 years, and am 1-8(wins would be I think 1/5th of the factor for MR type a/b classification)
Braden Looper

I'm a MR, and I have 12 wins over the last two seasons, but my ERA is still >5.2

Angel Guzman

My advice is to track down the dude on MLBTradeRumors who reverse engineered the MLB formulas for compensation. And see if he can help you. Cause while none of those 3 guys will get signed for compensation, it really makes the game look awful.

Of course, two of those 3 are Cubs (my team). You also could have added Ryan Dempster. He was listed as Type A, but I didn't offer him arbitration because I didn't want to get stuck paying him crazy money on the off chance he accepted (he made $14 mil last year).