Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Several Issues: Schedules, Injuries and money

I've noticed some "grumblings" about the injury settings in the league over the past few weeks, and the events of the past sim brought it forward (and not just because I lost a starter for the next season) to the fore.  If we want to lower the injury setting (or eliminate it altogether) for next season, let's discuss it and possibly set up a formal vote.

There have also been a number of suggestions regarding changing the schedule and/or the structure of the league.  I provided a schedule for 2016 for the current structure.  Nate has been kind enough to provide me with a schedule for a three-division (with one wildcard) structure.  I'm open to either of those ideas or some alternate form.  Let's discuss this so that we can get something in place for 2016.

Lastly, there have been some issues regarding financing and media contracts.  I have a framework for an idea, but I'd really like to get your feedback on it. 

I think we can all agree that success should be rewarded, so that successful teams have more money available.  On the other hand, you don't want to let the successful teams get too far ahead as then it becomes impossible for the worse teams to compete.  

So, how about having media contracts based on the previous year's standings.  Have a minimum and a maximum amount for the media contracts, and have the exact amount determined by the number of wins your team accumulates.  For example:

Suppose we expect the worst team to win no fewer than 45 games and the best team to win no more than 115.  That gives us a range of 70 wins.  

Now, suppose we determine that the smallest media contract should be $40m and the largest should be $60m.  The exact amount your team receives would be determined by the number of wins you receive.  If your team wins 80 games (halfway between 45 and 115), then you would get $50m.

Please keep in mind, I'm not married to those particular numbers -- they're for illustration only.  In addition, there are several ways we can do this -- we can place an equal value on all wins (from 45 to 115), or we can make some wins more valuable than others (differing marginal win values).  Or, if you don't like this idea at all, feel free to propose an alternate plan.

So, please let me know what you think on these issues.

Zev

18 comments:

  1. Well, my position on at least one issue will come as a surprise to no one, but here goes.

    1. Injuries. The current setting completely and utterly sucks. I am very, very, very strongly in favor of moving the setting from "average" (I think that's where it is now) to "low" (the level used by many of us in the OEL). I would definitely prefer "low" to "very low" as we need to have some level of injuries. The current setting though is really, really stupid. I'm not one to be melodramatic, but this issue may be a deal-breaker for me continuing to participate in the league unless someone presents me with a convincing argument for why maintaining the current setting is a good idea. I could go on about this for pages, but I'll spare everyone the agony.

    2. Schedule. My personal preference would be to add interleague play, rather than move to a three-division league. I'm not even sure whether the playoff settings would work right in a three-division league. That would obviously need to be tested. I don't feel strongly about the schedule issue though, so I'm happy to vote with the crowd on this issue.

    3. Finances. I'll need to think more about Zev's proposal, as well as alternates, before I chime in in detail on this. I will say that whatever plan is adopted, we need to make sure that teams who have made plans based on the existing structure, as amended at the end of last season, don't get screwed by any new changes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. P.S. Thanks for bringing these issues up for discussion, Zev.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. On injuries, I certainly have a dog in this fight now! I'm OK with anything provided it's the same for all. But I acknowledge that A) life would be simpler with a lower setting and, B) several players are passionate about it. Therefore, I think a lowering of the setting is called for.

    2. Interleague play is definitely called for. I like the schedule I provided because it'll make the wildcard more exciting and involving. Right now we essentially don't have a wildcard but a 'best two of six' postseason qualifier. I *like* the fact that ALL the non-leader teams compete for limited resources (a wildcard spot). I agree that the schedule I dug up (I got it off the OOTP site) should be tested. But I have confidence it would work out well.

    3. Financials. I've been doing some work with Excel (because I have nothing more important to do!) and here's some data:

    Total amount of all media contracts: $606,000,000
    Highest media contract: $70,000,000
    Lowest media contract: $35,000,000 (2 teams)
    Average media contract: $50,500,000
    Median media contract: $47,500,000
    Standard Deviation: $12,788,489.14

    Now I don't really have a dog in this fight. My first instinct is to either leave it be or go with the NFL's revenue sharing arrangement where all teams get the same amount. But if we want something more complicated the I propose that we use the distribution I laid out above as a guideline. If the median is $47MM and the STDDEV is $13MM those would be good places to start from.

    Perhaps something like the playoff teams get a standard deviation above the median, the celler dwellers get a standard deviation below the median, and everyond else gets the median?

    Just a thought. I'm not dogmatic about it at all. I just like working from data.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nate,

    Playoff teams also get playoff revenue that other teams do not receive.

    Zev

    ReplyDelete
  5. OK, I'm just postulating there. Maybe that's how one rewards success...with the playoff revenue. We could then leave the media contracts to be equal across teams.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My thinking was to give non-contending teams something to play for. If a person has a team on track to win 70 games, this might give him some incentive to try to make it to 75 or 80, rather than give up.

    Zev

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd argue there that a five game swing is statistically insignificant. It is possible, through nothing but luck, to win or lose your anticipated outcome by ten games. Therefore, I'd be suspicious of attempting to reward someone for trying to win more games when, in the end, we're dealing with such a small swing that it will get eaten by the noise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's fine. I'm not opposed to the idea that all teams stay equal too... just throwing out an idea and seeing what people say. :)

    Zev

    ReplyDelete
  9. Finances. I'll need to think more about Zev's proposal, as well as alternates, before I chime in in detail on this. I will say that whatever plan is adopted, we need to make sure that teams who have made plans based on the existing structure, as amended at the end of last season, don't get screwed by any new changes.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zev, can you tell me what are the problem or problems that you (or others) perceive with the current financial setup? Are the successful teams perceived as having too big a financial advantage? Is there too little mobility up and down the financial ladder?

    Before I opine on the proper solution, I want to know what the problem is.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So I have just been busy, with work and poker (my second job) and have not had a chance to comment.
    1. Injuries - I have historically been against the change in injuries. I do think that there is something wrong with it, My main concern is not that there are a good deal of injuries, but how severe they are. I think there should be a good deal of 1-2 week injuries and less season/career ending injuries. I think it is great that in OOTPX there have been users that have reprogrammed the injury function to do this on their own and they have shared this on the boards. When we go to OOTP XI, I think it will be better.

    So I think that if keeping the injury level where it is would cost us owners like Mack, I think we should lower it. If we start losing long standing owners, we will not be able to replace them, and it would not be the same. I really don't think it is going to change anything, but it will make people happy, so let's do it. I am against getting rid of injuries.

    2. Schedule, I like the 3 division idea. The best team faces the wild card, and the 2 other division leaders face each other for the Cecil Cup. Yeah you lose a division vs. division thing, but I think the contest of which division can win more will be fun and the wild card will defiantly be more interesting.

    3. Finances, for once, I agree with Mack. I am not sure what is really wrong with the finances. I have been able to rebuild my team with the current structure, and it is not impossible. I think we need to figure out if there is a problem before we rush to make solutions that uncover bigger problems.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And, to continue with the signs of the apocalypse, I agree with Jeremy on the injury settings, at least in part. If there were a way to keep the same injury frequency but tone down the severity of the injuries, I would happily accept that as a compromise.

    But, during the course of the 2015 campaign, I saw three starting outfielders, my starting second baseman, and six of my top 11 prospects be lost for the season (or lose their entire career, in the case of Guerrero). That is simply absurd. If the injuries were of the 3 days to 2 weeks variety, or even if most of them were of that severity, I'd be fine.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. I agree with lowering the injury setting to either "low" or "very low." I do disagree, however, with the notion that its only the severity of injuries that is the problem (though that certainly is the main problem). As I understand it, any injury, no matter how minor, can lead to a player's ratings plummeting in Version 9(I've seen this happen multiple times). Just some food for thought on that one.

    2. I like the idea of a 3-team plus wild card; that said, I also think interleague play would make things more interesting and fun.

    3. Financials: I have no particular opinion on this one, not having seen enough years of the league to have any really well-informed opinion.

    Thanks Zev, for bringing these issues up for discussion. I think resolution of the injury issue, at the very least, will make the game more enjoyable.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In brief:

    1. I don't feel strongly about the injuries one way or another. David Kerry getting hurt kind of submarined my entire master plan for this season (well, that, and accidentally configuring the game to give Frank Osborne like sixty starts in the first three weeks), but part of that is my fault for relying so heavily on Osborne. I mean, Mack had that litany of injuries and yet there is Seattle, still in first place, so obviously it *is* possible to build a team that can survive the Apocalypse. That said, this clearly matters way more to the folks who would prefer a change, and thus I'd officially cast my vote to change injury settings to low.

    2. I think a three-division, one wild-card format would be a really great idea, and am hugely in favor of it. Please, let's do this.

    3. I have no particular objection to the finances as they are right now. Some teams have more money than others, which reflects real baseball and thus is kind of fun as far as I'm concerned. I vote no change.

    ReplyDelete
  15. relying so heavily on Kerry, I meant to say in paragraph one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1. Injuries -- I really don't have a strong opinion, but I like the idea of lower-severity injuries, if possible. Otherwise, set injuries to Low.

    2. I'm fairly opposed to interleague play, and the three-division concept seems loony to me. However, it looks as if I'm outnumbered on this one, so I'll just get ready to beat Mack to a pulp again, just like old times. I don't think anyone would mind that. :)

    3. I'll abstain from any discussion about finances, unless required. I think I'm part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I just set up a test league and ran a 3 division, four teams per league with a wild card and it worked fine.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My thoughts are similar to those expressed by most.

    1. Injuries: Another vote for changing the setting from "average" to "low".

    2. Schedule. I like the idea of interleague play better than moving to a three-division league, but I don't feel strongly about it. Either option is preferable to the current setup. I'm totally fine with whatever the majority decides.

    3. Finances. I don't really understand the issue well enough to provide substantive feedback. I agree with Zev's comments in principle, but am not sure whether there is actually a problem at the moment from a league-wide perspective. Last year, I thought the plan was to increase the budgets and media contracts of lower revenue teams. For whatever reason, my budget was increased but my media contract was not. This puts me in the strange position of potentially having no increase to my budget (or possibly a decrease) next year despite the fact that I won a lot more games and increased my revenues almost $20 million over last year. If this happens, it will be because my increased revenues were swallowed up by the "stimulus" of last year. I have no idea what will happen to my media contract next year. This may be a problem for my team, but I'm not sure other teams will be affected.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.