Baseball Mogul 2006 Preview Thread (Yes, Virginia, there ARE lefties and righties!)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

Free agents signing is too easy

it seems liek you can grab all the good free agents in the offseason before the amatuer draft.

seems like you can sign higher than the cash you have on hand too. and player will accept it and sign with you.

or just give them what they ask for and you get the player.

i just sign Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols as free agent.

i wish you can submitt a bid like in ootp.

You must be playing with a big-market team, or aren't paying attention to your budget. I don't think people fully are grasping the impact of finances in this game. It is HUGE. In the current test league I'm running, the Yankees haven't missed the playoffs in over 20 years, the Mets have missed once in the last 15, and the Angels haven't had a losing record in 30 years. On the other end of the spectrum, the Brewers have lost 100+ games in 21 of the last 22 seasons, and the Devil Rays have passed the century mark in losses for 24 straight seasons. Point being, this game is different from OOTP in that the constraint isn't the market, but your own financial situation--which probably mirrors real-life baseball a little better, anyway. You don't really see many FA bidding wars these days.

[MizzouRah]

I've played around some more and I'm wondering how the release can be that close? I think some of the issues (mentioned by others as well) will damped my playability of the game long term.

I'm definitly waiting on the demo and feedback before even thinking about getting this game.

Don't get me wrong, I love the expansion idea and some of the other new features, but I'm concerned about the game as a whole.

Todd

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I've played around some more and I'm wondering how the release can be that close? I think some of the issues (mentioned by others as well) will damped my playability of the game long term.

Two weeks (and probably a dozen or more new builds) is a *long* time at this point in a beta. I personally think Clay made a big mistake by letting people beta test without instructions, because of the very attitude expressed in this post. As I said, today's new build had a bunch of fixes and tweaks, and I'd expect that the speed of new builds will be ramped up now.

If you only knew how far along some of these games come in just a few days before release...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If the developer is posting such a poll when he's relatively close to releasing the game, the obvious guess is that he's trying to prioritize where he spends most of his time between now and the release. My guess is that if it can be shown that an overwhelming majority of customers/potential customers care most about 2005 and beyond, then more emphasis will be put on fictional players, player development, fictional draft classes, realistic statistical output, etc. for that time frame.

Understood.

Hopefully more would vote to get a truer sense of his customers. But then again, how would I vote? How can I choose one historical era over another?

[jbmagic]

one request i see missing or not finding it in the game.

is if you sim a day, week, month or to playoffs, etc have an option to stop sim on trade offers by the cpu.

because as of now, you wont get any trade offers and sim wont stop if you sim ahead.

only option to stop sim is for injuries if you want.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Two weeks (and probably a dozen or more new builds) is a *long* time at this point in a beta. I personally think Clay made a big mistake by letting people beta test without instructions, because of the very attitude expressed in this post. As I said, today's new build had a bunch of fixes and tweaks, and I'd expect that the speed of new builds will be ramped up now.

If you only knew how far along some of these games come in just a few days before release...

That's good news then because I don't have any idea about beta testing or how far a game comes in the final 2 weeks. The game has just been *average* so far for me.

Todd

[Bee]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Did you realize that Clay wants to go gold in less than a week?

Anyone who has done a significant amount of beta testing understands the changes that can happen over a couple weeks (or even a single week). I have no idea if the game will end up being good or not, but people coming here shocked that there are actually still major bugs in the beta is the reason why most companies have non-disclosure agreements and closed beta testing. Over the years I've probably beta tested close to a hundred games and very few didn't have major bugs going in to the final days of the beta.

I think a lot of people are looking at this as a preview copy or something, that's not the purpose of the beta. Beta testing is really hard work for both the developer and the testers. While Ben is giving us all a preview of the game, I'm sure he's also spending a lot of time and effort in finding problems and helping Clay figure out what's causing the problems. That's what a beta tester is supposed to do (at least that's what the companies I beta tested for expected). It's also why I have turned down a lot of offers to beta test in the last few years, because it's way too much work.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Two weeks (and probably a dozen or more new builds) is a *long* time at this point in a beta. I personally think Clay made a big mistake by letting people beta test without instructions, because of the very attitude expressed in this post. As I said, today's new build had a bunch of fixes and tweaks, and I'd expect that the speed of new builds will be ramped up now.

If you only knew how far along some of these games come in just a few days before release...

Damn it, if I had read this before I posted my previous post it would have saved me a lot of typing.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Bee

Anyone who has done a significant amount of beta testing understands the changes that can happen over a couple weeks (or even a single week). I have no idea if the game will end up being good or not, but people coming here shocked that there are actually still major bugs in the beta is the reason why most companies have non-disclosure agreements and closed beta testing. Over the years I've probably beta tested close to a hundred games and very few didn't have major bugs going in to the final days of the beta.

I think a lot of people are looking at this as a preview copy or something, that's not the purpose of the beta. Beta testing is really hard work for both the developer and the testers. While Ben is giving us all a preview of the game, I'm sure he's also spending a lot of time and effort in finding problems and helping Clay figure out what's causing the problems. That's what a beta tester is supposed to do (at least that's what the companies I beta tested for expected). It's also why I have turned down a lot of offers to beta test in the last few years, because it's way too much work.

Would have saved me a lot of work as well.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You must be playing with a big-market team, or aren't paying attention to your budget. I don't think people fully are grasping the impact of finances in this game. It is HUGE. In the current test league I'm running, the Yankees haven't missed the playoffs in over 20 years, the Mets have missed once in the last 15, and the Angels haven't had a losing record in 30 years. On the other end of the spectrum, the Brewers have lost 100+ games in 21 of the last 22 seasons, and the Devil Rays have passed the century mark in losses for 24 straight seasons. Point being, this game is different from OOTP in that the constraint isn't the market, but your own financial situation--which probably mirrors real-life baseball a little better, anyway. You don't really see many FA bidding wars these days.

That seems a bit extreme, IMO. I know we want an accurate representation of MLB, but this isn't what most people like about the MLB! I want the bad teams to be good occasionally - is there no AI Billy Beane feature?! I don't want to play a game where the only time a small market team wins is when I am running the team.

I see enough of the Yankees in real life as it is - part of the fun of playing a career sim oriented game is to see things happen in the future that may not happen in real life. If the Yankees are going to have 59 titles by the year 2030, what's the point? I'd prefer to see something like what we see in TCY, where the football powerhouses of today gradually fall off and 20 years down the road, FSU is looking up at Duke in the standings (just in the game, please!).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That seems a bit extreme, IMO. I know we want an accurate representation of MLB, but this isn't what most people like about the MLB! I want the bad teams to be good occasionally - is there no AI Billy Beane feature?! I don't want to play a game where the only time a small market team wins is when I am running the team.

I see enough of the Yankees in real life as it is - part of the fun of playing a career sim oriented game is to see things happen in the future that may not happen in real life. If the Yankees are going to have 59 titles by the year 2030, what's the point? I'd prefer to see something like what we see in TCY, where the football powerhouses of today gradually fall off and 20 years down the road, FSU is looking up at Duke in the standings (just in the game, please!).

Probably a personal prefernce, because that's the one thing I *hate* about TCY (although I love the game overall). I want the traditional powers to remain virtually static through the game, so that I can measure myself against them. In my Alabama career, UGA and LSU have dropped off significantly, and it just isn't right. Those should be *BIG* games, every single year. Similarly, if I'm running a Mogul team, I'm not interested in facing Seattle, Kansas City, Oakland, or anyone like that in the World Series. I love having to measure myself against the Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees every year. The other thing it does is create a "natural" difficulty level or challenge. You want to sign virtually FA you need and not worry about finances? Play with the Yankees. You want to have to play Small Ball? Play with the Brewers. You want something in between? Frisco, St. Louis, and Washington are all good mid-range options.

[Ksyrup]

But at some point in real life, the great teams of today will, in fact, fall back to the pack, don't you think? Maybe what I don't like is not the fact that the game mirrors reality, but that it doesn't reflect what will eventually happen in the future. At some point, one or more of the big market teams is going to stumble. What you're telling me is that they never stumble in the game. I'm not sure that is realistic.

Or, maybe what it is saying about the game is that the best players are always the best players, and there is a problem with a lack of busts in the game. If the Yankees can afford to buy every free agent, that mirrors reality, but maybe the game isn't producing enough Chuck Knoblauchs and Javier Vazquezs to make them susceptible to the same issues all teams have about the teams they field - uncertainty in performance.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But at some point in real life, the great teams of today will, in fact, fall back to the pack, don't you think? Maybe what I don't like is not the fact that the game mirrors reality, but that it doesn't reflect what will eventually happen in the future. At some point, one or more of the big market teams is going to stumble. What you're telling me is that they never stumble in the game. I'm not sure that is realistic.

Or, maybe what it is saying about the game is that the best players are always the best players, and there is a problem with a lack of busts in the game. If the Yankees can afford to buy every free agent, that mirrors reality, but maybe the game isn't producing enough Chuck Knoblauchs and Javier Vazquezs to make them susceptible to the same issues all teams have about the teams they field - uncertainty in performance.

The problem, if there is one, is the huge payroll disparity. The 2034 Yankees have a $220M payroll, while the Royals are at $29.5M, and the D-Rays are at $21.1M. No amount of busting is going to make up for that difference. The game's 5th-highest paid player in 2034 went from .306-43-118 in '33 to .270-26-79 in '34 after signing with the Dodgers. Another guy signed an $8.2M contract with the Yankees in 2030, only to drop from .288-31-103 to .263-19-71. The Yankees also signed a pitcher who the Devil Rays dveeloped. This kid was an All-Star in Tampa Bay, with a 3.81 ERA in 2029 (only went 11-11..horrible team), and led the AL in strikeouts three times in Tampa Bay. The Yankees signed him to an $8M contract as a free agent, and his ERA jumped to 4.50 in 2030 (but they still won the World Series). I'd say there's enough performance variance. The problem is that the Yankee payroll is so large that they have enough strong players that they can probably absorb five or six guys having subpar years. To put it in perspective, a $10M player can be obtained at all 9 everyday slots, all five SP slots, and the closer slot for a total of $150M. Add in two $5M bats off the bench, and two $5M relief pitchers, and you're still only at $170M.

[Ksyrup]

So what you're saying is that it too closely resembles what is likely to happen in baseball over the next half-century.

[Ksyrup]

How about with middle market teams, at least - are you seeing some movement, in terms of a correlation between playing well, an increase in fan support, and increased payrolls? Or, is everyone just stuck where they start the game for all of eternity? Even if you accept the NYs and LAs of the league, there's room in there for the Seattles and Atlantas to rise and fall. I just want a little variety - I don't want the standings for 2005 to largely resemble the standings for 2035, with the only variable being my brain's positive affect on whatever team I happen to be running.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So what you're saying is that it too closely resembles what is likely to happen in baseball over the next half-century.

Well, I didn't say it, but I WAS thinking it.

I'm going to pass along some comments to Clay about this issue. I wonder if there's a way to maintain the big-market advantage while still letting small market teams get payrolls up around $50M or so.

Oh, by the way, the next-nearest 2034 payroll to the Yanks? The Mets, but "only" at $119.4M. It breaks down like this:

>$100M: Yankees, Mets, Angels
$90-99.9M: San Fran
$80-89.99M: Cubs, Astros, Dodgers, Phillies, Bosox, Mariners, Rangers
$70-$79.99M: Orioles, Chisox, Blue Jays, D-backs, Braves, Rockies

It is worth noting that all but one of the $70M-$79.99M teams have made it into the postseason. The exception? Atlanta, but they're in the same division with the Mets and Phillies, so that's no huge surprise. They do have a good number of winning seasons--including two 90+ victory years.

[Swaggs]

What about stadiums in BBM? Can you move out from the old one and build a new one, or rennovate the existing one?

One of the under-rated things in the FOF series (since I have been playing in FOF2) is the whole "mini-game" of developing your stadium situation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

How about with middle market teams, at least - are you seeing some movement, in terms of a correlation between playing well, an increase in fan support, and increased payrolls? Or, is everyone just stuck where they start the game for all of eternity? Even if you accept the NYs and LAs of the league, there's room in there for the Seattles and Atlantas to rise and fall. I just want a little variety - I don't want the standings for 2005 to largely resemble the standings for 2035, with the only variable being my brain's positive affect on whatever team I happen to be running.

OK. I talked about Atlanta in the post above, but here's a look at Seattle over 30 seasons (2005-2034):

Fewest Wins: 73
Most Wins: 106
Lowest Revenue: $85.8M
Highest Revenue: $106.8M
Playoff Appearances: at least 14 (The way the team history is written, if a team is the Wild Card and loses in the first round, it only shows "2nd Place" as their finish. However, they had three seasons of 90+ wins and 2nd place finishes. I'm guessing they made the playoffs at least one or two of those seasons.)
World Championships: 1

They finished fourth twice, 3rd 6 times, and 1st or 2nd the other 22 seasons.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

What about stadiums in BBM? Can you move out from the old one and build a new one, or rennovate the existing one?

One of the under-rated things in the FOF series (since I have been playing in FOF2) is the whole "mini-game" of developing your stadium situation.

I haven't fooled with it in the current version, but it is still there. In previous versions, it was pretty straightforward: you had to save up enough money to build or upgrade as you wanted: no payment plans like in FOF.

[Ben E Lou]

Probably if you're looking for variety and a good challenge, playing in the NL Central is the way to go. St. Louis, Houston and Chicago all have five or more division titles,a nd Cincy managed to win one in 2021.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

The one title Cincy won was with an 82-80 record, and a $31.2M payroll. StL, Chicago, and Houston all had payrolls doubling that of the Reds that year.

[Buccaneer]

Why should the game (TCY, BM, FBCB, etc.) remain static over the decades? You would know who the good teams are by their results. The AI does not know team names so it sounds like you would want the game to have a built-in RPG to have "UCLA" or "NYY" to be good every year, regardless of the AI model. Both of those teams had a stretch of very down years during my lifetime, and they will in the future as well. But that's really a minor thing.


Interestingly, on the POLL, it is so far split three ways:

8 for historical (pre-2000)
5 for current players
7 for future fictional

[Buccaneer]

By the way, I don't mean to slam the notion of staticness because an engine has to prove itself stable over the long-haul than trying to build in variances upon the norm. Baseball (as well as college football, etc.) has shown throughout its history to be ever-changing and that's the part I like about the sports. Seeing teams dramatically rise and fall is excited to me and my measure of success is not against the "big-boys" (whoever they may be) insomuch as competing against myself in always improving.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by Jeff Olsen

BBM normally has ratings based either on current performance or up to 25 years in the future. The "look ahead" was removed from the beta because people were getting confused about its purpose.

Excellent!!

[Bee]

I wonder if it would be difficult to implement some type of slider for financials. I think from one of the previous screens that SkyDog posted there's an option to "equalize" finances. If this were changed to a slider where 0=equalized finances and 100=existing method, you could then allow the user to scale the difference by applying a % to the financial status of each team. For example, if set at 100 (normal) the top team has a spending limit of say $150 Million and the bottom team has a spending limit of say $25 Million...then you set the financial slider to 50, it could scale the difference that would normally be $125 Million to $62.5 Million. So the top team would have a limit of say $87.5 Million and bottom team could stay at $25 Million. Then adjust each team accordingly. Just a thought...

[Jeff Olsen]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Point being, this game is different from OOTP in that the constraint isn't the market, but your own financial situation--which probably mirrors real-life baseball a little better, anyway.

Indeed. Finances has long been OOTP's weak point.

[Jeff Olsen]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I haven't fooled with it in the current version, but it is still there. In previous versions, it was pretty straightforward: you had to save up enough money to build or upgrade as you wanted: no payment plans like in FOF.

There are two reasons to build new stadiums in BBM. If your team is too profitable and thus has cash reserves larger than everyone else in the league, your attendence will take a significant hit. Attendence will also decline for other reasons, I think the age of your stadium is part of this. Building/renovating a stadium solves both problems. As seen when Camden Yards was opened in '92, fans love new stadiums; it's the same with BBM.

[jbmagic]

Ksyrup

there an option when creating a new league to choose Equalize Cities


A team's success in Baseball Mogul depends largely on the resources of it's home city.

Checking 'Equalize Cities' causes all cities to be given the same population and financial stats. This will put all teams on a level playing field as far as monetary resources.


also if you want , you can goto league editior and make all team start with the same cash too.

[Ksyrup]

I don't want equal resources, but I don't want fixed inequality, either. Something in between is preferable.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't want equal resources, but I don't want fixed inequality, either. Something in between is preferable.

after you create league, you can goto league editor and change the cash amount you want for each team too, if you dont want to do equalize cities.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't want equal resources, but I don't want fixed inequality, either. Something in between is preferable.

Some type of variable financial growth factor influenced (but not controlled) by team success?

[MizzouRah]

Good, maybe taking a team like the Royals just might be one heck of a challenge.


Todd

[dawgfan]

Something for Clay to think about for a future version (it's way too late in the process to be thinking about adding a new feature for BBM2006) would be to create various AI "personalities" for the computer-run teams.

While the Yankees have indeed been the most dominant team in baseball over the last decade, and their spending relative to the league has also increased in that time, the other factor is smart management by Bob Watson and then Brian Cashman. The Mets have had high payrolls as well but much more mixed success - same with the Dodgers. In both cases, you can look at the GM situation to see why they didn't always do so well with a high payroll.

It would be interesting to see various AI GM types programmed and distributed throughout the computer-controlled teams - maybe some that value free agents more, some that value scouting more, some that look more for certain kinds of players, etc. Even better would be if the computer-controlled teams were willing to fire their fictional GM's so that teams weren't static in that position, providing the potential for some additional variance in their performance. The Yankees have a couple seasons where they don't make the playoffs? Fire the fictional GM! Maybe the new guy is worse, and the franchise starts to tail off for a decade.

One of the things that I think that would make TCY better would be to have the AI coaches of computer-controlled teams age and retire, so that there was more realistic coach movement within the game and the best coaches wouldn't remain with the best teams forever. Same thing with BBM - introduce an additional variable beyond just finances into the success equation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Bee

While Ben is giving us all a preview of the game, I'm sure he's also spending a lot of time and effort in finding problems and helping Clay figure out what's causing the problems.

As of 6 days ago, I had 14 posts in nearly four years of membership at SportsMogul. I now have 72. At a quick glance, it looks like I have 51 posts in the beta forums.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Bee

Some type of variable financial growth factor influenced (but not controlled) by team success?

That's what I would hope/assume happens, but it sounds like the Yankees will always be at the top and the Devil Rays will always be at the bottom, and that shouldn't necessarily be the case. If the Devil Rays get lucky with a few prospects, make a few shrewd free agent pick ups, and get to 80 wins for a couple of years, that should influence their fans to come to the ballpark, which in turn should give the team more money to spend.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want the small market teams to automatically be controlled by a Carl Pohlad-type. Just because they aren't winning it all every year doesn't mean they have to be stuck with a $30M payroll for 50 years in a row.

Like I mentioned above, maybe the game is too realistic in this regard.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want the small market teams to automatically be controlled by a Carl Pohlad-type. Just because they aren't winning it all every year doesn't mean they have to be stuck with a $30M payroll for 50 years in a row.

Exactly.

In reality, team payrolls are not so static. When the A's were dominating the AL in the late '80's/early '90's, their payroll was among the highest in the league. The Twins have not always had one of the lowest payrolls in the AL. The Mariners used to be owned by skinflints trying to make a buck by moving the team and had mediocre or worse payrolls, until the magic of '95 happened and a new stadium was built which helped shoot revenues (and payroll) skyward. The Angels are spending a lot more money under Artie Moreno than they did under Disney.

I would be disappointed if revenues and payroll didn't fluctuate in BBM as they do in reality. Yes, certain markets will always have an advantage due to their size, economic status and TV/radio markets, but there are a lot of other markets that could swing from low revenue to high revenue based on on-field success and/or new stadiums, and others that see their revenue drop due to aging stadiums and declining on-field performance.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Exactly.

In reality, team payrolls are not so static. When the A's were dominating the AL in the late '80's/early '90's, their payroll was among the highest in the league. The Twins have not always had one of the lowest payrolls in the AL. The Mariners used to be owned by skinflints trying to make a buck by moving the team and had mediocre or worse payrolls, until the magic of '95 happened and a new stadium was built which helped shoot revenues (and payroll) skyward. The Angels are spending a lot more money under Artie Moreno than they did under Disney.

I would be disappointed if revenues and payroll didn't fluctuate in BBM as they do in reality. Yes, certain markets will always have an advantage due to their size, economic status and TV/radio markets, but there are a lot of other markets that could swing from low revenue to high revenue based on on-field success and/or new stadiums, and others that see their revenue drop due to aging stadiums and declining on-field performance.

You're correct, to a point. The problem, however, is this: the economics of the game have changed pretty radically, even since the mid-90's. As I mentioned earlier, the days of the bidding war are virtually over. Teams trade players away but pay huge portions of their salaries. Top-tier players only bother talking to 2 or 3 teams during free agency. These are very recent developments (like 2000 and beyond), and I don't really see them changing until there are radical changes in the game's rules.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

While I certainly understand the context of this post, I think this evidence doesn't really persuade me that this isn't a needed addition. Rather, it mostly persuades me that the fans of this game, who would vote in such a poll, just value very different things in their games than I do.

I remain absolutely staggered that there is a baseball sim game that has seen so much improvement, so much thought, and so much expansion -- that for whatever reason refuses to recognize the very elemental fact that left/right splits in baseball are simply fundamental.

While I generally try to be sensitive to arguments in favor of "simpler" games in favor of more complex ones (to suit the desires of gamers who would prefer such) it's just very hard to reconcile the layered contract negotiations in this game (which seems like a very well-conceived element of the game, but by any reckoning pretty complex) with this idea that recognizing left/right lineups and pitching assigments is "too complicated" for this game. You just can't honestly put those two arguments side by side in my book.


If the poll you posted is a fair representation of what the BM fanbase wants... then I'm not in a position to judge. Implement the things that they want most, I suppose. I wish Clay and company well with it.

But for me, this game has a litmus test, and always will. Until the game recognizes this fundamental aspect of the game of baseball -- it simply demonstrates that it's not taking things seriously enough to be on my buy list.

I think Quiksand is my soulmate.

[jbmagic]

Skydog

am i missing something here?

can they create there league, and goto league editor and change the cash amount you want for each team too.

or choose Equalize Cities option too

this way the top market teams are not always on top winning.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

Skydog

am i missing something here?

can they create there league, and goto league editor and change the cash amount you want for each team too.

or choose Equalize Cities option too

this way the top market teams are not always on top winning.

Are you seriously offering this as a solution? That's about as short-sighted as saying, "Doodz, u can win the Front Office Bowl any time u like. All u have 2 do is just cap out all ur l337 players and sign any l337 free agent u want that year, and your going to win the Front Office Bowl or at least come real close. Oh! I don't care about the next season. My attention span is too short to play more than one season anywayz. OMG!!!! LOL!!!!!!"


In light of Jeff Olsen's comment regarding attendance, and considering that the cash will eventually dry up (unless you give the small-market teams so much money that finances become competely irrelevant), this is a temporary solution.

[spleen1015]

I agree with Ksyrup. I just simmed 1901-2004, in 80 minutes, and the bad teams have always been bad and the good teams always good. The Yankees have been in the World Series 18 straight years. Oakland has won the AL West 12 years in a row.

I'm convinced that won won't win unless you're one of the big money teams unless your in a division with all middle tier teams. Don't expect to win the AL East playing against NY.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I think Quiksand is my soulmate.

Did you read the rest of the thread? It turns out lefty vs. righty DOES matter in this game, but that the resultant splits are irrelevant, and therefore not reported.

[spleen1015]

Dola, my career leader in BA is Coonie Blank at .464. Not being able to go back and look at his player card I can't really see his stats, but this guy 0-2 in his ML career.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I agree with Ksyrup. I just simmed 1901-2004, in 80 minutes, and the bad teams have always been bad and the good teams always good. The Yankees have been in the World Series 18 straight years. Oakland has won the AL West 12 years in a row.

I'm convinced that won won't win unless you're one of the big money teams unless your in a division with all middle tier teams. Don't expect to win the AL East playing against NY.

In terms of having a built-in difficulty mode, this is a positive. Want an easy game, play in the central divisions, want it tough, play in the east. But in terms of creating a league with realistic history, it's not so good.

Of course, without an almanac, the idea of keeping track of league history in this game is a pipe dream. I think THIS is what may ultimately turn me off the game more than the realism issues. I have to be able to sim decades at a time, then go back and de-construct the league through stats and various historical reports, or the game is of very little entertainment value to me.

As it is, I can't even see a list of year-by-year award/championship winners, let alone full player stats. And even the all-time leaders boards are overcome with .400 hitters who have a total of 500 major league ABs and relievers with low ERA who pitched 200 innings, so I can't get an accurate idea of who the really outstanding players were. Basically, after simming 100 years, you're left with team history reports and the HoF to try to cobble together your league's history.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I'm convinced that won won't win unless you're one of the big money teams unless your in a division with all middle tier teams. Don't expect to win the AL East playing against NY.

I'm curious to try just that. I would think that it would be a fun challenge to take Baltimore, Boston, or Toronto--all of whom carry $70M+ payrolls--and compete with the Yankees. I would imagine a human could get either of those teams to handle a payroll of at least $100M--if not more. Currently, Baltimore has a $70.9M payroll, despite only a C+ in fan loyalty, and only one finish higher than 3rd in the last decade. I would think that with savvy FA signings and financial management, this team could compete. Definitely Boston ($87.8M AI payroll) should be able to compete. Just throwing a budget together....

Starting 8: $6.5M each $51M
DH: $4M
First Four SP's & Closer: $6M each-- $30M
Fifth Starter: $3M

That's a total of $88M for a team composed of a solid player or star at every position. Fill in one or two youngsters or cheap veterans, and you'd be able to carry a superstar player or two as well, and/or a very solid bench and bullpen, for a little over $100M.

[spleen1015]

SkyDog, in your long sims, are you seeing teams win 100+ games 10-30 years in a row?

Maybe I need to run a long sim using fictional players to see how things work out.

The Yankees have won 100+ every year since 1968 in my league, averaging 120 wins each year during that span. In the last 13 of those years, they are averaging 127 wins.

[spleen1015]

One thing that just came to mind as well, when I started the league in 1901, I picked the Baltimore Orioles as the human team, which eventually became the Yankees. I am on Coach difficulty.

I wonder if having it less than Average difficulty led the Yankees to be so good. The CPU controls all of the moves, but I wonder if there are some 'cheats' given to the human team.

[Ksyrup]

I originally chose the Tigers and then simmed for 80 years, and the only championship they won was 1902. They were quite bad for nearly the entire 80 years. But the Yankees were always the best (as much as I can recall). Even some other teams, I thought the number of wins per season were a little excessive. 120-130 wins was not a yearly occurrence, but fairly typical.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

As it is, I can't even see a list of year-by-year award/championship winners, let alone full player stats. And even the all-time leaders boards are overcome with .400 hitters who have a total of 500 major league ABs and relievers with low ERA who pitched 200 innings, so I can't get an accurate idea of who the really outstanding players were. Basically, after simming 100 years, you're left with team history reports and the HoF to try to cobble together your league's history.

Not quite true as-is, and my fault for not mentioning this yet. The default settings have the game automatically outputting a number of text files each season (each filename is a link if you want to look at it...)

finances.txt: ticket sales, revenue, payroll, profit and cash on hand for each team.
xxxx All Stars.txt: list of all starters and reserves in the All-Star game for a given season
awards.txt: Cy Young, ROY, MVP, and Gold Glove for every season
draft-xxxx.txt: List of players drafted for a given season. (This one is now redundant, as it can be done from during the game, with a link to the player card for active and HOF players. You can look back to a draft 40 years ago and see what players from that draft are in the HOF at a glance.)
retired.txt: a list of every player that retired in a given season, along with his relevant stats. For example:

John Vander Wal (RF)	 (1991-2008) .261 AVG 100 HR 38 SB
Orlando Merced (RF)		(1991-2008) .277 AVG 103 HR 57 SB
Al Martin (LF)			 (1992-2008) .276 AVG 132 HR 173 SB
Moises Alou (LF)		 (1990-2008) .298 AVG 282 HR 95 SB
Steve Avery (P)			(1990-2008) 109-93 4.18 ERA
Todd Jones (P)			 (1992-2008) 50-47 4.05 ERA 189 SV
Troy Percival (P)		 (1994-2008) 35-44 3.31 ERA 351 SV
Al Leiter (P)			 (1986-2008) 176-146 3.87 ERA
Edgar Gonzalez (P)		 (2002-2008) 33-27 4.39 ERA

standings.txt--standings and playoff results from every season.
trades.txt--every trade in the league's history.

I'm going to be pushing Clay for an almanac function in a patch, and I think we should all do so. He doesn't read or post here on a regular basis {crosses fingers} yet, so I would suggest registering and posting that suggestion at the SportsMogul forum--which brings me to another thought:

The fact of the matter is this: our community is a LOT bigger than SportsMogul's. If even 20 or 30 of us who are serious about wanting a good baseball sim started posting over there, I'm pretty sure we'd have a *VERY* loud voice.


spleen:

Yes, but only the Yankees. They've won 110+ games for 20 straight seasons. The next-best dynasty run was by the Phillies: 8 straight 100-win seasons, but then they've had a few losing seasons thrown in there, too.

[Ben E Lou]

Uh-oh. This has GOT to be a bug....