 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Short Term League Talk » Struggling with the Bidding Process - ASL
tworoosters
The leadership and prestige are nice so that it doesn't become a straight dollars issue but the weighting of these things must be too much. Both New York and Detroit offered substantially more per season and offered deals that took the player through his first season of decline .
Can you just hear the GM spinning this one: "Yeah I know it's for way less money per year but there's also way less certainty tied to it so you'd be a fool not to take this two year offer". I mean was Spiers agent the cousin of the Kansas City owner ?
It appears to me that the prestige and leadership factors are being given far too much weight .
Both New York and Detroit have reasonable prestige factors, 4th and 8th, and yet their bids at 7 years each are raised "effectively" by 0% (Detroit) and 2.2% (NY) whereas KC's 2 year bid is "effectively" 33.5% higher. If contending teams can't sign someone by offering more dollars over more years then how in the world can bad teams sign elite talent ?
I also don't understand why Detroit's bids are getting negative "effective bid" numbers, the team won 86 games and finished two games out of the playoffs yet their 5 year offers to both [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=24]Bird[/url] and [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=327]Marquez[/url] were "effectively" lower than the dollars offered . I could see a negative effect for a 70 win team but not one that was in contention until the final weekend of the season.
Also the "effective bid" numbers from the 03/28 bids are all reset to $0
[Edited on 9-7-2010 by tworoosters]
Struggling with the Bidding Process - ASL
September 07, 2010 at 01:05AM View BBCode
I realize we're trying to create a "revenue" model and not just mirror real life but there is no way in the world that a [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=3663557]29 year old[/url] is going to take $11 for 2 years over offers of $13.25 and $12.5 million per year over 7 years each.The leadership and prestige are nice so that it doesn't become a straight dollars issue but the weighting of these things must be too much. Both New York and Detroit offered substantially more per season and offered deals that took the player through his first season of decline .
Can you just hear the GM spinning this one: "Yeah I know it's for way less money per year but there's also way less certainty tied to it so you'd be a fool not to take this two year offer". I mean was Spiers agent the cousin of the Kansas City owner ?
It appears to me that the prestige and leadership factors are being given far too much weight .
Both New York and Detroit have reasonable prestige factors, 4th and 8th, and yet their bids at 7 years each are raised "effectively" by 0% (Detroit) and 2.2% (NY) whereas KC's 2 year bid is "effectively" 33.5% higher. If contending teams can't sign someone by offering more dollars over more years then how in the world can bad teams sign elite talent ?
I also don't understand why Detroit's bids are getting negative "effective bid" numbers, the team won 86 games and finished two games out of the playoffs yet their 5 year offers to both [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=24]Bird[/url] and [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=327]Marquez[/url] were "effectively" lower than the dollars offered . I could see a negative effect for a 70 win team but not one that was in contention until the final weekend of the season.
Also the "effective bid" numbers from the 03/28 bids are all reset to $0
[Edited on 9-7-2010 by tworoosters]
thatrogue
Agreed
September 07, 2010 at 11:43AM View BBCode
I was quite surprised to see that [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6]Spiers[/url] accepted KC's offer over NYA's. This logic and the effective salary calculation will have to be modified before this rolls out in pay leagues, or owners will mutiny and Tyson will spend all of his time addressing complaints.
Admin
On this bug:
Tyson
September 07, 2010 at 04:57PM View BBCode
It hasn't been a problem in the AML as far as I know, but we can look to fine tune these things over time or add alternate systems to suit people's likes/dislikes.On this bug:
Also the "effective bid" numbers from the 03/28 bids are all reset to $0.I have a fix in place so that the 3/29 bids should still be there after the signings run tonight.
Tyson
tworoosters
September 07, 2010 at 06:11PM View BBCode
If the winning teams continue to have the huge, and 33% over a +.500 team is what I would call huge, prestige advantage and it's coupled with the [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=275787]new improvement option[/url] then it will be virtually impossible for teams with a losing record to compete .
Admin
Tyson
September 07, 2010 at 07:58PM View BBCode
In your example, did the player sign with the same team? Keep in mind the home town discount advantage.Tyson
barterer2002
He's A+ leadership which gives him a large bonus (which is most of what his difference is here). A+ leadership guys are ones that want to stay with their teams, think Kirby Puckett when he left 7-10 million on the table from the Red Sox.
I'm not advocating that the formula here is right, I will tell you that I've always thought that leadership bonus should actually be higher but I don't usually deal with A+ leadership guys either.
September 07, 2010 at 08:42PM View BBCode
It looks to me like Spiers is a somewhat unique case.He's A+ leadership which gives him a large bonus (which is most of what his difference is here). A+ leadership guys are ones that want to stay with their teams, think Kirby Puckett when he left 7-10 million on the table from the Red Sox.
I'm not advocating that the formula here is right, I will tell you that I've always thought that leadership bonus should actually be higher but I don't usually deal with A+ leadership guys either.
tworoosters
Yes he did but the discount was/is insanely high.
No [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6]player[/url] is going to take $22 million over 2 years as opposed to $93 or $87 million over seven years especially when the two long term offers came from playoff contenders and would have taken him through his first year of declines.
The [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=276044]same thing[/url] happened in the TSL after 1950 with [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=58955]Fisher[/url] but at least his deal was 6 years and the bidding teams were at the bottom of the prestige ratings.
Also how is the "home town" discount applied, Fisher played only 2 months with the Hamiltonians.
Going forward is a player plays 5 1/2 years with team A and 1/2 a year with Team B is he going to give Team B a "hometown discount" ?
September 07, 2010 at 08:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
In your example, did the player sign with the same team? Keep in mind the home town discount advantage.
Tyson
Yes he did but the discount was/is insanely high.
No [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6]player[/url] is going to take $22 million over 2 years as opposed to $93 or $87 million over seven years especially when the two long term offers came from playoff contenders and would have taken him through his first year of declines.
The [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=276044]same thing[/url] happened in the TSL after 1950 with [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=58955]Fisher[/url] but at least his deal was 6 years and the bidding teams were at the bottom of the prestige ratings.
Also how is the "home town" discount applied, Fisher played only 2 months with the Hamiltonians.
Going forward is a player plays 5 1/2 years with team A and 1/2 a year with Team B is he going to give Team B a "hometown discount" ?
tworoosters
I agree that there should be some bonus for hometeam and that leadership should enter in but when Puckett re-signed with Minnesota he had already played nine years in Minnesota and the contract lengths were identical (5 years $38 million from Boston as opposed to 5 years $30.3 million from Minnesota) .
Spiers is taking not only significantly less per year but also two years as opposed to seven .
As the current formula is set up, as rogue states, the howls of protest will be long and loud among the paying customers .
September 07, 2010 at 08:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
It looks to me like Spiers is a somewhat unique case.
He's A+ leadership which gives him a large bonus (which is most of what his difference is here). A+ leadership guys are ones that want to stay with their teams, think Kirby Puckett when he left 7-10 million on the table from the Red Sox.
I agree that there should be some bonus for hometeam and that leadership should enter in but when Puckett re-signed with Minnesota he had already played nine years in Minnesota and the contract lengths were identical (5 years $38 million from Boston as opposed to 5 years $30.3 million from Minnesota) .
Spiers is taking not only significantly less per year but also two years as opposed to seven .
As the current formula is set up, as rogue states, the howls of protest will be long and loud among the paying customers .
barterer2002
Here is the thread where the AML had its signing formulas in
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=213709
Although it looks off there too, according to the formula posted Det's bid should have yielded
12.5*2.75*1.053= 36.20. That's clearly not what we're getting so either I'm figuring something incorrectly or the formula has changed and not been updated. (note there is a leadership bonus now however that wouldn't apply to Det's bid)
September 07, 2010 at 08:56PM View BBCode
Although as I look at it, something looks off to me.Here is the thread where the AML had its signing formulas in
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=213709
Although it looks off there too, according to the formula posted Det's bid should have yielded
12.5*2.75*1.053= 36.20. That's clearly not what we're getting so either I'm figuring something incorrectly or the formula has changed and not been updated. (note there is a leadership bonus now however that wouldn't apply to Det's bid)
tworoosters
Bird was offered $9.5 million per year for 5 years and the "effective bid" number is listed at $8 million and Marquez was offered $2.2 million per year for 5 years and had that deflated to an effective bid of $1.85 million.
September 07, 2010 at 09:23PM View BBCode
Based on that formula there is also no reason for the negative "effective bids" from Detroit on their 5 year offers to both [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=24]Bird[/url] and [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=327]Marquez[/url].Bird was offered $9.5 million per year for 5 years and the "effective bid" number is listed at $8 million and Marquez was offered $2.2 million per year for 5 years and had that deflated to an effective bid of $1.85 million.
barterer2002
September 07, 2010 at 09:36PM View BBCode
Tyson, can you post the formula that's currently in use (and Ham, maybe you can comment on changes made to the one I quoted from)
Admin
Leadership Adjustment - you only get this if the player is returning to the same team. Here is the function for that:
if(leadership <= 51) { return 1.0; }
if(leadership <= 59) { return 1.08; }
if(leadership <= 67) { return 1.12; }
if(leadership <= 75) { return 1.16; }
if(leadership <= 83) { return 1.20; }
if(leadership <= 91) { return 1.25; }
if(leadership > 91) { return 1.29; }
Prestige Adjustment - this is the number on the Team Salary page. I'm not going to recap that here since you should be able to get the number from that page.
Here's the function for Length Adjustment, hopefully you can make this out as I'm just posting the code:
int osage = year - yob;
if(contractyears == 1) { return 1; }
if(contractyears == 2) {
if(osage <= 32) { return 0.95; }
else { return 1.075; }
}
if(contractyears == 3) {
if(osage <= 31) { return 0.9; }
if(osage == 32) { return 1.025; }
return 1.15;
}
if(contractyears == 4) {
if(osage <= 30) { return 0.85; }
if(osage == 31) { return 0.975; }
if(osage == 32) { return 1.1; }
return 1.225;
}
if(contractyears == 5) {
if(osage <= 29) { return 0.8; }
if(osage == 30) { return 0.925; }
if(osage == 31) { return 1.05; }
return 1.175;
}
if(contractyears == 6) {
if(osage <= 29) { return 0.875; }
if(osage == 30) { return 1.0; }
return 1.125;
}
if(contractyears == 7) {
if(osage <= 29) { return 0.95; }
return 1.075;
}
if(contractyears == 8) { return 1.025; }
Tyson
September 07, 2010 at 10:39PM View BBCode
AdjustedBid = BidAmount * Length Adjustment * Leadership Adjustment * Prestige AdjustmentLeadership Adjustment - you only get this if the player is returning to the same team. Here is the function for that:
if(leadership <= 51) { return 1.0; }
if(leadership <= 59) { return 1.08; }
if(leadership <= 67) { return 1.12; }
if(leadership <= 75) { return 1.16; }
if(leadership <= 83) { return 1.20; }
if(leadership <= 91) { return 1.25; }
if(leadership > 91) { return 1.29; }
Prestige Adjustment - this is the number on the Team Salary page. I'm not going to recap that here since you should be able to get the number from that page.
Here's the function for Length Adjustment, hopefully you can make this out as I'm just posting the code:
int osage = year - yob;
if(contractyears == 1) { return 1; }
if(contractyears == 2) {
if(osage <= 32) { return 0.95; }
else { return 1.075; }
}
if(contractyears == 3) {
if(osage <= 31) { return 0.9; }
if(osage == 32) { return 1.025; }
return 1.15;
}
if(contractyears == 4) {
if(osage <= 30) { return 0.85; }
if(osage == 31) { return 0.975; }
if(osage == 32) { return 1.1; }
return 1.225;
}
if(contractyears == 5) {
if(osage <= 29) { return 0.8; }
if(osage == 30) { return 0.925; }
if(osage == 31) { return 1.05; }
return 1.175;
}
if(contractyears == 6) {
if(osage <= 29) { return 0.875; }
if(osage == 30) { return 1.0; }
return 1.125;
}
if(contractyears == 7) {
if(osage <= 29) { return 0.95; }
return 1.075;
}
if(contractyears == 8) { return 1.025; }
Tyson
barterer2002
1 year-that's a straight 1 multiplier easy
2 year- less desirable for youngersters but more desirable for 32 year olds who won't have to even get into decline. They'll play OS 32 and OS 33 and still get that bonus. I think the OS number is off there. Buying 2 years into decline should garner more than not buying any of decline and there should be a bonus to buying 2 years rather than 1 and there isn't at the moment. From where I sit, it should be
(contractyears == 2) {
if(osage <= 33) { return 0.95; }
if osage =34 {return 1.025
else { return 1.075; }
basing on the idea that a 33 year old will play 2 years on his contract (OS33 and OS34) before his decline
I think that this adjustment needs to be made all the way down as it appears that its off a year throughout.
September 07, 2010 at 10:57PM View BBCode
so lets look at the length bonus.1 year-that's a straight 1 multiplier easy
2 year- less desirable for youngersters but more desirable for 32 year olds who won't have to even get into decline. They'll play OS 32 and OS 33 and still get that bonus. I think the OS number is off there. Buying 2 years into decline should garner more than not buying any of decline and there should be a bonus to buying 2 years rather than 1 and there isn't at the moment. From where I sit, it should be
(contractyears == 2) {
if(osage <= 33) { return 0.95; }
if osage =34 {return 1.025
else { return 1.075; }
basing on the idea that a 33 year old will play 2 years on his contract (OS33 and OS34) before his decline
I think that this adjustment needs to be made all the way down as it appears that its off a year throughout.
tworoosters
The definition of home town should be altered so that a player with X or more years in an organization will give a discount, not one like Fisher who gave his discount to a team he had played 55 games for.
The length of contract rationale is bizarre to me as well as it sets up scenarios where players will take less money for less years which is counter to the way the real market works. Generally if a player is offered $5 miilion for 5 years he's unlikely to reject that to take $4 million for 3 years yet that is the upshot of this model.
It's like assuming that Adrian Beltre, offered a reported $21 million over 3 years this off season would reject it for $5.5 million for one year instead of the 1 year $10 million deal he took to "prove his worth". In fact what a player may take less total dollars over a shorter period in order to prove himself but not less dollars per year and less years .
This does not add a randomness to the bidding, it simply allows for a "gaming of the game" which is unrealistic .
September 07, 2010 at 10:59PM View BBCode
I'm sorry but those leadership bonuses are too extreme in my opinion, essentially it's a 29% hometown discount, with "home town" being the team he last played for, for an A+ player .The definition of home town should be altered so that a player with X or more years in an organization will give a discount, not one like Fisher who gave his discount to a team he had played 55 games for.
The length of contract rationale is bizarre to me as well as it sets up scenarios where players will take less money for less years which is counter to the way the real market works. Generally if a player is offered $5 miilion for 5 years he's unlikely to reject that to take $4 million for 3 years yet that is the upshot of this model.
It's like assuming that Adrian Beltre, offered a reported $21 million over 3 years this off season would reject it for $5.5 million for one year instead of the 1 year $10 million deal he took to "prove his worth". In fact what a player may take less total dollars over a shorter period in order to prove himself but not less dollars per year and less years .
This does not add a randomness to the bidding, it simply allows for a "gaming of the game" which is unrealistic .
Admin
tworoosters - perhaps. I'm not really focused on changing these sorts of things at this point. Just emulating what the AML is doing. Maybe we'll take a look at this at some point, I just don't have this on my radar yet so I can't comment.
Tyson
September 07, 2010 at 11:38PM View BBCode
In this formula, osage is equal to the current year minus DOB. The variable name might be misleading.tworoosters - perhaps. I'm not really focused on changing these sorts of things at this point. Just emulating what the AML is doing. Maybe we'll take a look at this at some point, I just don't have this on my radar yet so I can't comment.
Tyson
Hamilton2
Tyson, I think that the prestige is calculating incorrectly. In both the ASL and TSL after 1950, I had a 1.099 prestige rating, the highest in the league. However, I lost the WS in both leagues. I should have had a lower rating than the WS winner, I think.
September 08, 2010 at 04:24AM View BBCode
Rooster, we had extensive discussions about this at the outset of the AML. Part of the difficulty is that players in simD decline at a predictable age. In real life, players are almost always likely to take the longer term deal of similar annual compensation, because they are concerned about the length of their career. For a simD player, he is more likely to make more money by testing the waters of free agency as frequently as possible. This is why it seems strange for some players to want a shorter term deal to a longer term deal. Additionally, there are no signing bonuses or front-loaded contracts, and with a firm decline age it is best for a player to get as much as possible for those decline years, hence the small bonus for taking a player through the end of his OS 36 season (two declines, an 8 year deal for an OS 28 player), and the penalty or no-bonus for taking a player to OS 34 or 35 and dumping him. I'm not arguing with you about what happens in real life. You are correct about that, but this is the rationale for what we have.Tyson, I think that the prestige is calculating incorrectly. In both the ASL and TSL after 1950, I had a 1.099 prestige rating, the highest in the league. However, I lost the WS in both leagues. I should have had a lower rating than the WS winner, I think.
Hamilton2
We were initially going to use this formula for the contract adjustment:
We found that this resulted in a huge bonus for long-term deals (in the case of Spiers, for instance, the 7 year offers would have received a multiplier of 3.1 vs. 1.6 for the 2 year deal) and; consequently, very little player movement (most free agents would sign long-term, 8 seasons, at OS 28, and then 1 or 2 more contracts before retiring).
In [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=216076]this thread[/url] we discussed at length the decision to move to the currently used [url=https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AuhkRXDJBsYNdEVHMU9LdVFMOVMzbC1zZHRYVWdVTHc&hl=en&output=html]contract length adjustments table[/url].
The table is further explained and summarized here:
Hopefully that clears things up.
Explaining the contract length adjustment
September 08, 2010 at 04:49AM View BBCode
Here is a [url=https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AuhkRXDJBsYNdEVHMU9LdVFMOVMzbC1zZHRYVWdVTHc&hl=en&output=html]spreadsheet[/url] which demonstrates how the contract adjustment works.We were initially going to use this formula for the contract adjustment:
Length of Contract Adjustment = 1 + {[(34 - Player's OS Age)*.05]*Length of Contract}
We found that this resulted in a huge bonus for long-term deals (in the case of Spiers, for instance, the 7 year offers would have received a multiplier of 3.1 vs. 1.6 for the 2 year deal) and; consequently, very little player movement (most free agents would sign long-term, 8 seasons, at OS 28, and then 1 or 2 more contracts before retiring).
In [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=216076]this thread[/url] we discussed at length the decision to move to the currently used [url=https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AuhkRXDJBsYNdEVHMU9LdVFMOVMzbC1zZHRYVWdVTHc&hl=en&output=html]contract length adjustments table[/url].
The table is further explained and summarized here:
Every 1 year contract will have a salary adjustment of 1. This adjustment is a multiplier that impacts the final adjusted compensation. Player's who sign accept the highest final adjusted compensation.
For each year beyond 1 offered in a contract, the length adjustment will drop .05. So, a 2 year deal is .95, 3 year deals are .9, etc. This happens up to and including the season during which a player is OS 33.
For each season offered beyond OS 33, the length adjustment will increase .075.
So, for an OS 29 player, the numbers are thus:
(OS 30) 1 year - 1 length adjustment factor
(OS 31) 2 years - .95
(OS 32) 3 years - .9
(OS 33) 4 years - .85
(OS 34) 5 years - .925
(OS 35) 6 years - 1
(OS 36) 7 years - 1.075
These numbers will change based on the starting OS year, but the principle stays the same.
Also remember that no contract can extend more than 2 seasons into decline (that is, past OS 36 for players under 34, or longer than 2 seasons for players 34 or older).
Hopefully that clears things up.
tworoosters
October 06, 2010 at 03:26AM View BBCode
You know I'm looking at this again and I just don't see the logic of a one year deal having more value than a 2-3 year deal for a 28-30 year old player .
Admin
Tyson
October 06, 2010 at 03:03PM View BBCode
Tyson, I think that the prestige is calculating incorrectly. In both the ASL and TSL after 1950, I had a 1.099 prestige rating, the highest in the league. However, I lost the WS in both leagues. I should have had a lower rating than the WS winner, I think.You had 17 more wins in 1950, so it is possible that you'd be higher than him in prestige. I'm fairly certain this is being calculated properly.
Tyson
Pages: 1